PDA

View Full Version : Fumbles why do people like them?



Pages : [1] 2

Akisa
2009-11-27, 08:02 PM
I entered a room that was recruiting people for game and I asked if there was fumble rules. Much to my dismay the dm included fumble rules so I decided to decline. Then I was criticized for it being a stupid reason not join so I preceded to defend my position.

I explained that it will make characters look like idiots and ruins character image, and it gets worst as characters level up. I also pointed out that people will remember the fumbles oppose to critical even if they happen in the same encounter. Yet their only argument is that it happens infrequent and "realistic".

Vitruviansquid
2009-11-27, 08:06 PM
As far as DnD goes, almost anything to break up the monotony is good in my books.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-27, 08:08 PM
Well, on the one hand it really isn't that realistic depending on what sense it is being used. The whole 'dropping weapon' thing especially.

But I'd also say it's a pretty trivial reason to refuse a game over. Fair enough if you're suffering from an over-abundance of games, but otherwise, surely a game with one duff house-rule is better than no game?

Cedrass
2009-11-27, 08:09 PM
I don't really like it, but I can't say I hate it either. It's just an auto-miss, no big deal.

I'm starting to hate it tho, since my DM decided we'd roll d10 to determine what happens exactly, with 1 being a terible result. Our ranger got his magic scabbard exploding in his back the other day... Not cool...

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-27, 08:09 PM
I enjoy critical failures in addition to critical success.

If a character can succeed when they have no chance, they should be able to fail when it should be impossible for them to fail.

Granted, a crit fail under me needs to be confirmed as normal, and simply provokes an AoO.

Akisa
2009-11-27, 08:12 PM
Well, on the one hand it really isn't that realistic depending on what sense it is being used. The whole 'dropping weapon' thing especially.

But I'd also say it's a pretty trivial reason to refuse a game over. Fair enough if you're suffering from an over-abundance of games, but otherwise, surely a game with one duff house-rule is better than no game?

I prefer games with character develop and fumbles are just counter productive, in the pass I had retire character because fumbles tarnish their image more so when people keep bring up that fumble incident.

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 08:13 PM
I don't like fumble rules because it penalizes characters that make a lot of attacks (already penalized with attack penalties, poor classes, feat dependency, MAD, and difficulty with extra sources of damage) or use skills. Rogues get shafted by fumble rules, given that to perform your class role, you have to make 2 to 3 checks. A level 10,000 character with a 5% chance of auto-failure when confronted with a wet-sack is pretty stupid.

Milskidasith
2009-11-27, 08:14 PM
See, a reasonable critical failure like Fiddler's is fine. It's the big ones that annoy me, like "If you roll a 1, confirm a miss. If it's a miss, roll a 1d6: 1: you stab yourself for an auto critical [no lightning maces, hopefully!], 2: you throw your weapon 1d4 squares in a random direction 3: you just miss 4: you kill yourself and the enemy 5: your weapon is transported to another plane 6: your weapon explodes, dealing level*10d6 unmitigatable damage to all within level*10 squares."

Tengu_temp
2009-11-27, 08:15 PM
I dislike fumbles too. Auto-missing on a 1 is bad enough, you don't have to humiliate the player further by making his character look like an inept loser who can't swing a sword without dropping it. Not to mention that it's completely unrealistic.



But I'd also say it's a pretty trivial reason to refuse a game over. Fair enough if you're suffering from an over-abundance of games, but otherwise, surely a game with one duff house-rule is better than no game?

I can see why leaving was a good idea here. If a DM incorporates fumbles "for realism", he will most likely add other houserules "for realism" as well, despite none of them being very realistic, and the game might quickly turn bad. No game is better than a bad game.
In fact, I'd be wary of any DM that talks about how he adds stuff that make the game more realistic, even though the game he's leading is not supposed to be realistic in the first place.

jmbrown
2009-11-27, 08:21 PM
What fumble charts are you guys using because dropping your sword is the least of your worries.

Try impaling your friend or cutting your own leg off. Critical hits/called shots/fumbles have their place in realistic, gritty games but they're always disadvantageous to the player, not the enemy. You usually face a monster once. You've got to play with your crippled fighter who shattered his hip on his bil-de-bec-de-corbin-voulge-guisarme-guisarme-voulge.

Milskidasith
2009-11-27, 08:22 PM
What fumble charts are you guys using because dropping your sword is the least of your worries.

Try impaling your friend or cutting your own leg off. Critical hits/called shots/fumbles have their place in realistic, gritty games but they're always disadvantageous to the player, not the enemy. You usually face a monster once. You've got to play with your crippled fighter who shattered his hip on his bil-de-bec-de-corbin-voulge-guisarme-guisarme-voulge.

What's interesting is that a fighter 20 killing training dummies has, at minimum, a four times better chance of killing himself with his weapon as a commoner 1 who's trying to use a spiked chain to fight an invisible pixie two feet from his face.

Saph
2009-11-27, 08:23 PM
Fumbles are nothing more than the opposites of critical hits. Instead of hitting exceptionally well, you miss exceptionally badly. When I do it I run it exactly the same way; first you have to get a 1, then you have to miss a second time.

I'm with Tiki and your friends on this one, it's a pretty nutty reason to refuse to join a game. Playing with a RPG group - any RPG group - requires compromise. If the biggest sacrifice you ever have to make is having to play with a 1-in-40 odds of fumbling, you can count yourself extremely lucky.

Swordguy
2009-11-27, 08:27 PM
Ever fought with weapons for real? Ever watch people fight (say, in an SCA or ARMA bout)? Dropping weapons is actually pretty common, as is tripping over bodies or stones on the ground ("get up Prince of Troy - I'll not let a stone steal my glory"), smacking yourself in the head with your quillons (crossguard), and many other such things that people would never willingly let their characters do that ultimately impede your chances of victory.

With that said, it's not 5% common, that's for sure. Fumbles on a 1 are an unfortunate consequence of the given granularity of the d20 system. Fumble systems like Shadowrun's "Rule of One" are far superior (if you roll >50% ones on multiple dice, there's a fumble), because the odds of rolling greater than 50% ones drop significantly the more dice you roll (the better you are, the less chance to fumble) AND give the GM a guideline on how bad the fumble should be (up to and including having the character die if rolling LOTS of dice and rolling ALL ones). So I can see the argument against fumbles in d20, it's not really fair to the players to hit them with a fumble on 5% of rolls.

I'd simply make it as when you roll a one, there's a chance of a fumble, with the GM getting to decide the algorithm he prefers (I rather like d20+level, meet or beet the TN you were rolling against or a fumble occurs; the tougher the thing was, the more likely the fumble, and the more experienced you are, the less chance of a fumble).

But to remove fumbles from the game completely smacks somewhat of "gimme-ism"; people don't like bad things to happen to their characters, and so argue to get rid of penalties, fumbles, and so forth - things that aren't "fun". What they fail to realize is that it's the unplanned failures and the brilliant improvisational recovery/response on the part of the players that tend to make the most interesting and enjoyable stories. Thus, I argue to keep fumbles in the game, if less common than the d20 might indicate.

Teron
2009-11-27, 08:29 PM
I enjoy critical failures in addition to critical success.

If a character can succeed when they have no chance, they should be able to fail when it should be impossible for them to fail.

Granted, a crit fail under me needs to be confirmed as normal, and simply provokes an AoO.
That's why you miss on a 1. Any negative consequence beyond that is ridiculous, as in your case it means a fighter fumbles badly enough to expose himself to enemy attacks more often as his BAB increases. On top of that, the number of melee attacks a character makes per round tends to be inversely proportional to his power, roughly speaking (casters > martial adepts > traditional fighters > dual-wielders), so you're further unbalancing the game.

TheThan
2009-11-27, 08:30 PM
We had an enlarged shape change variant druid in ferocious slayer form (that’s sized huge), fumble which resulted in him tripping and falling on top of the monster he was fighting, killing it.

We also had a warrior type that fumbled his sword, throwing it into the ground several feet away, stabbing a burrowing umbral hulk (already heavily injured by the above druid), in the head and killing it.

so yeah, fumbles can be awesome depending on the DM.

Dienekes
2009-11-27, 08:30 PM
I love 'em.

Maybe cause I'm the designated GM, but when I was a player I didn't dislike them either.

And your reason seems terrible as well. If after killing a room full of goblins, destroying the evil vampire king, and fist-fighting a dragon a really bad miss makes you look bad enough to ruin an entire character concept, well... damn man.

Maybe it's just because I hang out with folks who do act as you say though. It's semi-realistic (not the fightwise mind you) that your close friends will bring up that one time you tried to stab a golem and your sword broke in half. That's what they do. You character isn't effected like this, and even the most badass looses his footing once in awhile, or else they're called mary sues.

erikun
2009-11-27, 08:33 PM
I despise fumbles, for the same reason I despise forcing jump checks for hopping out of wagons and despise auto-surprise attacks from hidden enemies which cannot be spotted. Not only do they make your character looks stupid (I can do that just fine on my own, when I want) but they take the decision away from the player.

When I'm playing a character, I want consequences to be dependant on some kind of decision I made. If I get eaten by a Balor, it should be because I was stupid enough to go fight a Balor. If I fall off a cliff, it should be because I decided to try to scale the cliff. I don't want to be walking across a bridge and suddenly have it fall apart, dropping me off a cliff and into the mouth of an invisible undetectable Balor.

Give me decisions, and give me consequences for making the stupid ones. If I'm not making any decisions and watching evens that I had no consequence over, I might as well not be participating with the game. :smallmad:

Artanis
2009-11-27, 08:37 PM
But to remove fumbles from the game completely smacks somewhat of "gimme-ism"; people don't like bad things to happen to their characters, and so argue to get rid of penalties, fumbles, and so forth - things that aren't "fun". What they fail to realize is that it's the unplanned failures and the brilliant improvisational recovery/response on the part of the players that tend to make the most interesting and enjoyable stories. Thus, I argue to keep fumbles in the game, if less common than the d20 might indicate.

That sort of thing makes the most interesting and enjoyable stories for some people. For others, that sort of thing can make stories less interesting and enjoyable :smallwink:

arguskos
2009-11-27, 08:38 PM
I'd simply make it as when you roll a one, there's a chance of a fumble, with the GM getting to decide the algorithm he prefers (I rather like d20+level, meet or beet the TN you were rolling against or a fumble occurs; the tougher the thing was, the more likely the fumble, and the more experienced you are, the less chance of a fumble).
Hey, I like this here idea. Seems pretty good. However, what's TN stand for, if I could ask?

sonofzeal
2009-11-27, 08:38 PM
Fumbles are alright as long as you have to roll to confirm them, like for a crit. They make the game a little more entertaining, but shouldn't be ubiquitous. I have a DM who plays with a crit-fumble on every single nat1 roll, and it's a bit excessive, but in a light hearted game there's nothing wrong with people failing. Paranoia taught me that.

Swordguy
2009-11-27, 08:41 PM
I despise fumbles, for the same reason I despise forcing jump checks for hopping out of wagons and despise auto-surprise attacks from hidden enemies which cannot be spotted. Not only do they make your character looks stupid (I can do that just fine on my own, when I want) but they take the decision away from the player.

Your point is valid - but what happens when someone makes the opposite argument?

"I'm a mature enough gamer not to make my character do awesome things all the time...thus I shouldn't have to roll to hit. Attack rolls take the decision away from the player, since the dice will say whether I get a critical hit or not. I want to be the one to decide whether I get a crit or not."

Would you be OK with someone just saying that they hit and crit? I mean, if you remove fumbles because you are a mature enough player to make your own PC drop his sword or trip over a rock, and certainly you'd be fine with being able to declare that you simply lopped the dragon's head off on Round 1 with your Vorpal Sword, right? 'Cause, it's the exact same argument.

If someone is fine with not wanting to be subject to fumbles, then they should also be fine with removing critical hits, yeah? I mean, it's the same thing, just lucky for your opponents rather than you.



That sort of thing makes the most interesting and enjoyable stories for some people. For others, that sort of thing can make stories less interesting and enjoyable :smallwink:

Oh, well, that's easy enough. Those people who don't play like I do are wrong. :smalltongue:

(It's DRY WIT, people! This is the internet, that's how discussion is conducted, right?)

Oh, and to whomever asked, TN stands for Target Number - the number you need to meet or beat to succeed. If you were hitting an AC 37, your TN was 37. If you needed to hit a climb check of 5, your TN is 5.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-27, 08:41 PM
A meleer at level 16 has 5 attacks, minimum. That means that one round out of every 4, he fumbles. If each of those is a chance of hurting himself or worse, breaking his weapon(72,000 GP down the drain), that's a massive change to the balance. Fumbles happen multiple times a day under that. It probably isn't worth losing a game over, but it's definitely an issue.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-27, 08:52 PM
The problem really isn't about fumbles, because fumbles in and of themselves are realistic (see: Swordguy's first post). The problem is with unrealistically common fumbles and or unrealistically harsh fumbles. A level 20 TWF fighter should be able to attack a training dummy for a minute without stabbing himself four times. An especially irksome fumble penalty is the sunder. If you purposefully attack an enemy's sword, it won't break even if his luck is abysmal. On the other hand, if you accidentally swing your sword the wrong way, it hits something ambiguous and instantly shatters, no save or resistance.

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 08:53 PM
'Cause, it's the exact same argument.

No, it's not the exact same argument. You use a similar form, but a different set of premises.

arguskos
2009-11-27, 08:57 PM
Oh, and to whomever asked, TN stands for Target Number - the number you need to meet or beat to succeed. If you were hitting an AC 37, your TN was 37. If you needed to hit a climb check of 5, your TN is 5.
Hi there, name's argus, I exist. :smallbiggrin: No, seriously, thanks. I've never encountered that particular abbreviation before. It is a nice idea. Thanks for humoring me. :smallwink:

Swordguy
2009-11-27, 08:59 PM
No, it's not the exact same argument. You use a similar form, but a different set of premises.

The difference is that one set of random dice rolls has a result that is extra-beneficial for the roller, and one set that is extra-harmful for the roller.

I'm not arguing that fumbles shouldn't be reduced in severity and/or frequency (the weapon breaking thing is particuraly annoying), but you have one if you need to have the other. If one feels the chances of a fumble are too great, you should reconsider rolling, or stack things in such a way as to minimize the odds of a fumble (maybe only taking 3 attacks instead of 4, for example - it's not like the last attack has a good chance of hitting anything anyway).

Under the "no fumbles for PCs idea" - are monsters still prone to fumbles?



Hi there, name's argus, I exist. :smallbiggrin: No, seriously, thanks. I've never encountered that particular abbreviation before. It is a nice idea. Thanks for humoring me. :smallwink:

Sorry 'bout that - I was already responding to a lot of people and could only copy-paste in so many quotes. No offense intended!

erikun
2009-11-27, 09:01 PM
"I'm a mature enough gamer not to make my character do awesome things all the time...thus I shouldn't have to roll to hit. Attack rolls take the decision away from the player, since the dice will say whether I get a critical hit or not. I want to be the one to decide whether I get a crit or not."
Careful with that line of thought - most of the freeform RPs I've participated in were better than most of the D&D RPGs I've participated in. (Of course, this may just be because I have a good forum group who likes freeform.)

Also, a critical is not usually equal to a fumble. Most criticals deal double damage, or one extra attack. Most fumbles I've seen put your character or their weapon on the ground, which ends your full attack, prevents a full attack next round, takes up a move action to retrieve, and provokes an AoO. Something like Dark Fiddler mentioned (confirm miss, provoke AoO) makes more sense as a "critical fumble" but is not something that I've seen implemented.

--

As a side note, we've all heard stories about critical fumbles. Probably several people here know the one about the paladin rolling triple 1's, ultimately decapitating themselves and the closest enemy... which happened to be the +10 level orc chieftan he was dueling with.

Amusing? Yes, but not as awesome as Tucker's Kobolds, of the Gazebo, or the various tales of someone using spells, abilities, or fancy footwork to fight off a dragon, hordes of hobgoblins, and the such. Tales of 1:8000 chances are amusing, but not as amusing (to me) as tales of someone using total defense/defensive fighting to keep a group of orcs away from a wounded ally, or intentionally disintegrating a Staff of Power to blow up the BBEG, or using a bunch of Astral Constructs to play hide-and-seek against an much higher level dragon. I feel that player decisions >>> random chance, every time.

arguskos
2009-11-27, 09:02 PM
Sorry 'bout that - I was already responding to a lot of people and could only copy-paste in so many quotes. No offense intended!
Meh, no biggie man. I may bruise mildly easily, but no real harm was done. :smallcool:

Thurbane
2009-11-27, 09:08 PM
I had this debate with a DM in a game I joined recently last night. Initially he was going to rule that a natural 1 was automatically a dropped weapon. He then said a natural 1 was a 50% chance to drop a weapon. I explained to him that this penalizes characters with more attacks/round. So the current rule is like a reverse critical - if you roll a natural 1, you roll against against the AC you were trying to hit. If you hit you keep your weapon, otherwise you drop it.

...personally, I'm firmly in the camp that critical fumbles detract from the game, rather than add to it. It can make exciting or climatic battles play out like Keystone Cops.

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 09:10 PM
The difference is that one set of random dice rolls has a result that is extra-beneficial for the roller, and one set that is extra-harmful for the roller.

I'm not arguing that fumbles shouldn't be reduced in severity and/or frequency (the weapon breaking thing is particuraly annoying), but you have one if you need to have the other.

For your game, maybe. Do you also use NPC ability score arrays and take only levels in NPC classes?

I can construct silly arguments, too


If one feels the chances of a fumble are too great, you should reconsider rolling, or stack things in such a way as to minimize the odds of a fumble (maybe only taking 3 attacks instead of 4, for example - it's not like the last attack has a good chance of hitting anything anyway).

But then you've got an arbitrary rule set that penalizes melee characters that do anything besides "I run at it and hit it very hard." TWF is already nerfed enough, archery isn't spectacular, and non-magic attack methods are, in general, sub-optimal. And if the fumbles extend to skill checks, then the skillmonkey that searches for a trap, attempts to disarm the trap, and then open the door, is going to fail spectacularly on a very large number of doors for 20 levels, unless it dips Exemplar for the requisite "don't fail automatically and horribly" ability.

Furthermore, the best that happens on a critical hit is you kill something that, in mechanical terms, was going to die anyway. I would much rather give up the ability to automatically do damage to something if I could also give up the risk of stabbing myself to death or smashing my expensive and rare weapon, or accidentally tripping myself, or whatever. In my experience, criticals pale in comparison to the crap the DM thinks a fumble should inflict on a player.

If you do decide to make criticals more valuable, do the monsters get the same benefits? That makes being in melee against multi-attacking opponents far more dangerous for, you guessed it, the melee.

The short of it is- fumbles are bad game design. There are plenty of ways to make a player's life hard with encounters other than penalizing them for being unlucky or wanting to play a TWFing rogue.


Under the "no fumbles for PCs idea" - are monsters still prone to fumbles?

I'd assume not.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-27, 09:14 PM
I'd assume not.

Some people play so oddly.

I'd never subject my players to something the NPCs wouldn't be subject to. Anyone in my campaign can crit fail and provoke the AoO. One battle was even won because the awakened bear they were fighting fumbled, and provoked three separate AoOs.

Also, crit fumbles work nicely in my campaign because the one caster we have uses mostly offensive spells and the melee characters outclass the caster quite a bit.

Solaris
2009-11-27, 09:18 PM
I enjoy critical failures in addition to critical success.

If a character can succeed when they have no chance, they should be able to fail when it should be impossible for them to fail.

Granted, a crit fail under me needs to be confirmed as normal, and simply provokes an AoO.

I do the same thing, minus the roll to confirm. Roll a 1, you miss and everyone gets an AoO. I'd come up with it on the spur of the moment, and it worked pretty decently.
Well, did the same thing. Now I'm gonna put a roll to confirm in - is good idea.


I despise fumbles, for the same reason I despise forcing jump checks for hopping out of wagons and despise auto-surprise attacks from hidden enemies which cannot be spotted. Not only do they make your character looks stupid (I can do that just fine on my own, when I want) but they take the decision away from the player.

When I'm playing a character, I want consequences to be dependant on some kind of decision I made. If I get eaten by a Balor, it should be because I was stupid enough to go fight a Balor. If I fall off a cliff, it should be because I decided to try to scale the cliff. I don't want to be walking across a bridge and suddenly have it fall apart, dropping me off a cliff and into the mouth of an invisible undetectable Balor.

Give me decisions, and give me consequences for making the stupid ones. If I'm not making any decisions and watching evens that I had no consequence over, I might as well not be participating with the game. :smallmad:

Lemme try a different tact than Swordguy, because your logic sticks in my craw. It's your decision as a player to attack an enemy with a weapon. A critical fumble is just as much a consequence of that as a critical hit. Now, if your using some wacky chart that involves self-decapitation and other such nonsense, I can see where the problem is - but it's still not removing player choice. In that case, I'd recommend pointing your DM in the direction of the AoO-provoking critical fumble. Drop your weapon, smack yourself with the pommel, and all the other realistic fumbles can be covered by that without resorting to auto-kills of every hapless bystander within a 30-foot radius.

Anyone else think that giving casters some kind of critical fumble (after giving them a check-based casting) would be a good idea?

Akisa
2009-11-27, 09:20 PM
Tbh I still don't like fumbles even if they occur to just npc and not pcs. It cheapens the fight as well, imagine having BBEG a necromancer cleric who has buffed himself and his horde and goes toe toe with the pcs. He then drops his mace and the next round he breaks it. It makes the cleric look a bit foolish and cheapens the victory.

Swordguy
2009-11-27, 09:24 PM
For your game, maybe. Do you also use NPC ability score arrays and take only levels in NPC classes?

NPCs use the same character creation rules in my games as PCs. If it's approprate for them to take levels of X, they have levels of X. That DOES NOT mean every NPC ever is a wizard or fighter or PC class.

It is my fundamental belief (borne out my my experience playing in and running games) that players appreciate the story and their characters more when they have had to become awesome, rather than being awesome by dint of being a PC. No, I don't run 4e. Or 3.x anymore.


The short of it is- fumbles are bad game design. There are plenty of ways to make a player's life hard with encounters other than penalizing them for being unlucky or wanting to play a TWFing rogue.

And so, I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Bad things SHOULD, on occasion, happen to PCs via sheer bad luck. Because PCs (obviously) are not going to do this to themselves, we are left with a random dice roll to decide when a PC screws up. If you feel that they're too frequent, you have an argument (one I agree with, btw), but I cannot agree to the assertion that fumbles are inherently bad game design. Perhaps if all players were awesome and were willing to voluntarily trip their PCs or drop their sword on occasion, then fumble mechanics would be unnecessary. However, they aren't and they won't...therefore they are.

Also, the bit about penalizing the PC more than the NPC bugs me: the PC with 4 attacks/round has the exact same odds in a fight as the NPC with 4 attacks/round of having a fumble - while the PC has greater odds of fumbling over the course a career, the NPC has lesser odds because he/she/it is dead. If my players were to complaing about its, I'd offer them the ability to switch places with the NPC at any time. Greater odds to have a run of bad luck is simply a result of living longer.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-27, 09:28 PM
Also, the bit about penalizing the PC more than the NPC bugs me: the PC with 4 attacks/round has the exact same odds in a fight as the NPC with 4 attacks/round of having a fumble - while the PC has greater odds of fumbling over the course a career, the NPC has lesser odds because he/she/it is dead. If my players were to complaing about its, I'd offer them the ability to switch places with the NPC at any time. Greater odds to have a run of bad luck is simply a result of living longer.Randomness favors the underdog. If you have the advantage, the less randomness, the more likely you'll win, culminating in no randomness, guaranteed victory. Combine that with the fact that long term penalties(like lost limbs that I've seen on some charts) hurt players more than the NPC that'll be dead in 12 seconds, it's clear that the introduction of fumbles basically screws the characters that need it least.

Milskidasith
2009-11-27, 09:31 PM
NPCs use the same character creation rules in my games as PCs. If it's approprate for them to take levels of X, they have levels of X. That DOES NOT mean every NPC ever is a wizard or fighter or PC class.

It is my fundamental belief (borne out my my experience playing in and running games) that players appreciate the story and their characters more when they have had to become awesome, rather than being awesome by dint of being a PC. No, I don't run 4e. Or 3.x anymore.



And so, I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Bad things SHOULD, on occasion, happen to PCs via sheer bad luck. Because PCs (obviously) are not going to do this to themselves, we are left with a random dice roll to decide when a PC screws up. If you feel that they're too frequent, you have an argument (one I agree with, btw), but I cannot agree to the assertion that fumbles are inherently bad game design. Perhaps if all players were awesome and were willing to voluntarily trip their PCs or drop their sword on occasion, then fumble mechanics would be unnecessary. However, they aren't and they won't...therefore they are.

Also, the bit about penalizing the PC more than the NPC bugs me: the PC with 4 attacks/round has the exact same odds in a fight as the NPC with 4 attacks/round of having a fumble - while the PC has greater odds of fumbling over the course a career, the NPC has lesser odds because he/she/it is dead. If my players were to complaing about its, I'd offer them the ability to switch places with the NPC at any time. Greater odds to have a run of bad luck is simply a result of living longer.

Fumbles are bad game design because they do not do something even, and they are frequently far more "powerful" than critical hits. A zombie fumbling and lopping off it's own head is hilarious, but honestly, the zombie was dead anyway. The fact that PCs can do it doesn't make it even; a PC life is more important than an NPC life, because NPCs are already slated for death. If your fumbles have arbitrary things that involve your PCs murdering themselves and losing their weapons forever, NPC fumbles should have massive benefits for the PCs, going far beyond killing themselves (killing themselves because their weapon becomes intelligent, slashes the NPCs throat, and becomes a +5 bane against my enemies weapon, perhaps).

Basically, fumbles are a moderate benefit to PCs when NPCs fail, and an instagib when players fail. That isn't fair. If your fumbles are just AoOs or something, it's fair. If they are... well, anything I've ever seen as a fumble system, they aren't. Basically: NPCs have 30 second lifespans at best (if they have longer lives, they either are really tough or your PCs are weak or intentionally not killing them.) PCs have longer lifespans. Fumbles instantly end that life, or effectively end it. It takes hundreds of rounds off a PCs life, and three or four (at best) off an NPCs. I'd get rid of crits just to get rid of fumbles, honestly (crits also favor NPCs).

horseboy
2009-11-27, 09:34 PM
"It was a boring conversation anyway. Luke We've got company coming!"
"I think I've got it." *KSSSHHH* (Heavy Blast doors close over regular doors)
Otherwise Han would just have been a Marty Sue.

Fumbles can be quite fun, personally I LOVE tripping over the unseen, imaginary dead turtle. It makes me smile every time it comes up.

Yeah, I'd considered it a silly reason to turn down a game. Right up there with the DM drinks Pepsi instead of Coke.

ericgrau
2009-11-27, 09:37 PM
When you roll a natural 1 you get to miss on an attack. That's quite enough. Having crazy bad stuff happen to you on every 20th attack is where it gets stupid. Fumbles rules range from tolerable - you lose your remaining attacks - to utterly inane - you crit your ally, his head gets chopped off, haha clumsy fighter. What? It only happens every 20 attacks.:smallsigh:

I could see how the O.P. could have been turned off by lousy fumble rules and wouldn't want to join another game even though their rules might just be mildly stupid and tolerable. Or even amusing, but I've rarely seen that be true for anyone except maybe the DM.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-27, 09:44 PM
When you roll a natural 1 you get to miss on an attack. That's quite enough.

Well then, hitting on a natural 20 is quite enough. :smalltongue:

I dunno, I've never actually heard of these crazy insane crit-fumble tables that do everything from making you drop your weapon to having Pun-Pun destroy the universe itself. Anyone using those is an idiot and should be bathed in acid.

The simple AoO provoking I suggest should be enough. It provides a direct opposite to critical hits (which can happen much more often, if you increase your crit range. At least your critical fail rate doesn't increase).

Maybe I'm just weird with crits. I also have a house rule that a natural 20 on a crit confirm counts as a Coup de Grace, and my players, when I asked, accepted this rule, even though I told them that it could happen against them. They like it, so I use it. Other people don't, ok then.

...I seem to be contradicting myself, so I'll stop talking before I do so more.

Akisa
2009-11-27, 09:49 PM
"It was a boring conversation anyway. Luke We've got company coming!"
"I think I've got it." *KSSSHHH* (Heavy Blast doors close over regular doors)
Otherwise Han would just have been a Marty Sue.

Fumbles can be quite fun, personally I LOVE tripping over the unseen, imaginary dead turtle. It makes me smile every time it comes up.

Yeah, I'd considered it a silly reason to turn down a game. Right up there with the DM drinks Pepsi instead of Coke.

Those are not fumbles...

The first one was Han attempting a pretty high bluff dc and didn't roll high enough. If that happen in game I would assign +10 especially if they were heighten alert and heard weapons fire. If Han succeeded the officer would've sent people in Hazmat suits.

Second situation Han was doing something outside of his specialty. He relied on R2D2 to do his task for him so he decided to hack into a highly secure area without using a computer/datapad instead by splicing live wire together. The computer detected the intrusion and decided to up the security. Now if this wasn't first attempt we seen and/or he used a datapad then yes I could considered it a fumble.

Kantolin
2009-11-27, 09:57 PM
I suppose I'm mostly echoing a lot of the anti-fumble group here.

I'm alright with bad things happening to PCs as a general statement, but penalties-on-fumbles beyond just 'you miss' tend to just spike frustration.

Among other things, it really does hurt people who happen to swing more often. This means that, over the course of several battles, the person who's most likely to stab his foot is the trained fighter, and not the say rogue who should be messing up more often at the fighter's explicit schtick. It also encourages already very powerful tactics (Stacking up charging), while it hurts generally less potent tactics (two weapon fighting). It then constantly gets worse more often as you increase in levels and gets more attacks, instead of occuring less often.

And then, the more severe it is, the worse and worse it gets for the PCs. If goblin #3 or even the red wizard boss of the initial campaign both fumble and die, then woohoo. If shortly after that, a PC or even two PCs fumble and die when facing another set of enemies, that's far less than 'even'. At best, it makes death a trivial occurance. The less severe a fumble is, the less problematic it gets.

I suppose it encourages spellcasters to avoid rays, which may or may not be an intent. It also, depending on the penalty, discourages spellcasters from buffing the martialists, which can be far more problematic (Haste increases the odds that you'll stab yourself?).

So meh. I prefer bad things occuring to my players or to me via plot, not via fumble.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-27, 09:57 PM
I use the same system for fumbles as my 4E DM does, we roll to see if there is any effect though his is a lot less nice than mine. I need to roll a fifteen at least to have some fumble effect, as there's only so many times a blaster can blow up in your face.

Though it is a bit annoying how all the hp I have lost has come from the natural ones of the other players, and then there's when I skewered the wizard when I was trying to get Combat Advantage and help him out. :smallannoyed:

ericgrau
2009-11-27, 09:59 PM
Well then, hitting on a natural 20 is quite enough. :smalltongue:

I dunno, I've never actually heard of these crazy insane crit-fumble tables that do everything from making you drop your weapon to having Pun-Pun destroy the universe itself. Anyone using those is an idiot and should be bathed in acid.

The simple AoO provoking I suggest should be enough. It provides a direct opposite to critical hits (which can happen much more often, if you increase your crit range. At least your critical fail rate doesn't increase).

Maybe I'm just weird with crits. I also have a house rule that a natural 20 on a crit confirm counts as a Coup de Grace, and my players, when I asked, accepted this rule, even though I told them that it could happen against them. They like it, so I use it. Other people don't, ok then.

...I seem to be contradicting myself, so I'll stop talking before I do so more.

I was just quoting the standard rule for rolling 1's :smalltongue:. Which applies only to attack rolls btw, not most other checks. I could easily tolerate an AoO on a nat 1 attack roll. That's about the mildest fumble rule I've ever seen. Dunno about the CdG rule, but it should take 5-10 fights before it pops up.

horseboy
2009-11-27, 10:00 PM
Also, the bit about penalizing the PC more than the NPC bugs me: the PC with 4 attacks/round has the exact same odds in a fight as the NPC with 4 attacks/round of having a fumble - while the PC has greater odds of fumbling over the course a career, the NPC has lesser odds because he/she/it is dead. If my players were to complaing about its, I'd offer them the ability to switch places with the NPC at any time. Greater odds to have a run of bad luck is simply a result of living longer.

Or you could just point out that the total NPC fumbles will equal or exceed the total PC fumbles. Exceed because there are usually more NPC's than PC's, therefore in total more likely to fumble.

I don't think fumbles are so much bad game design as they highlight all the bad game design inherent in 3.x.
Those are not fumbles...

The first one was Han attempting a pretty high bluff dc and didn't roll high enough. If that happen in game I would assign +10 especially if they were heighten alert and heard weapons fire. If Han succeeded the officer would've sent people in Hazmat suits. "Uh, high, how are you?" The only way he could have done worse was "Hey there good buddy, you got your ears on?" Yeah that was a fumble.


Second situation Han was doing something outside of his specialty. He relied on R2D2 to do his task for him so he decided to hack into a highly secure area without using a computer/datapad instead by splicing live wire together. The computer detected the intrusion and decided to up the security. Now if this wasn't first attempt we seen and/or he used a datapad then yes I could considered it a fumble.1) Slicing is well within the purview of a smuggler. Slicing, gambling and drugs are what they do.
2)If he has the electronic skills to repair a starship then he'd have the skills to bypass a switch.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-27, 10:01 PM
Dunno about the CdG rule, but it should take 5-10 fights before it pops up.

I think it's only showed up once, and the target managed the save against it, somehow.

Milskidasith
2009-11-27, 10:02 PM
Or you could just point out that the total NPC fumbles will equal or exceed the total PC fumbles. Exceed because there are usually more NPC's than PC's, therefore in total more likely to fumble.

NPC fumbles are meaningless. It is a simple concept.

PC lives require massive amounts of time to make up, and they live for a long time. Losing them losings hundreds of rounds of past character development and future fighting potential. Losing an NPC to a fumble means, guess what, the party gets maybe six seconds less time in combat.

Myrmex
2009-11-27, 10:02 PM
NPCs use the same character creation rules in my games as PCs. If it's approprate for them to take levels of X, they have levels of X. That DOES NOT mean every NPC ever is a wizard or fighter or PC class.

It is my fundamental belief (borne out my my experience playing in and running games) that players appreciate the story and their characters more when they have had to become awesome, rather than being awesome by dint of being a PC. No, I don't run 4e. Or 3.x anymore.

And sometimes, you get bored of being killed by dire rats, or playing the same character for a year before he gets to do the things you want him to do.


And so, I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Bad things SHOULD, on occasion, happen to PCs via sheer bad luck.

Like rolling poorly on a save, a skill check, or opposed check. There's plenty of room for bad luck killing your PCs. There's actually about 1,000 ways to kill a PC with bad luck. Just use spells.


Because PCs (obviously) are not going to do this to themselves, we are left with a random dice roll to decide when a PC screws up. If you feel that they're too frequent, you have an argument (one I agree with, btw), but I cannot agree to the assertion that fumbles are inherently bad game design.

With a roll-heavy system like 3e and a the granularity of a d20, they are an extremely bad idea, unless you enjoy arbitrarily penalizing some PCs over others.


Perhaps if all players were awesome and were willing to voluntarily trip their PCs or drop their sword on occasion, then fumble mechanics would be unnecessary. However, they aren't and they won't...therefore they are.

There's a difference between having characters fail checks vs. monsters that force them (wargs trip, dragons eat you on a failed grapple, wizards make you obey them on a failed save), and then just penalizing them because 5% of the time when they get out of a wagon, they fall down and break their neck.

Unless, as a DM, you cannot figure out how to use monsters to target your PCs weak spots, and/or need to humiliate PCs, there's no need for fumbles.

If you really want your players' characters to drop their swords, instead of telling the level 20 fighter on every fourth turn that his butterfingers are slippery, you could try giving opponents the improved disarm feat, rather than implementing a set of rules that penalize a character for no good reason.


Also, the bit about penalizing the PC more than the NPC bugs me: the PC with 4 attacks/round has the exact same odds in a fight as the NPC with 4 attacks/round of having a fumble - while the PC has greater odds of fumbling over the course a career, the NPC has lesser odds because he/she/it is dead. If my players were to complaing about its, I'd offer them the ability to switch places with the NPC at any time. Greater odds to have a run of bad luck is simply a result of living longer.

This is already well addressed in prior posts.

UglyPanda
2009-11-27, 10:12 PM
I once had a DM obsessed with rolling and munchkinism. Ten minutes into the first session, I rolled a natural one on a slight of hand check to do some juggling in a bar. He said the balls magically grew spikes and killed three people.

Then he acted surprised when I left money as restitution (less than 200 gp when my character was level 10). I think I only played one more session with that guy because his crap was just too much to deal with.

The guy really used to piss me off. Of course, I pissed him off quite a bit.



Anyway, where was I going? Oh yeah, fumbles are pure crap, they're an unfair house rule. A PC makes hundreds of times as many rolls as an NPC, they shouldn't be penalized for something that's built into the game that they can't control.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-27, 10:14 PM
I dislike them primarily because they add insult to injury. D&D is a fairly coarse system. At low levels having a guaranteed miss 5% of the time is fine, because you won't hit anywhere close to 95% anyway. But at high levels tossing a dagger 15' to land on a particular 5'x5' square (that's AC 3: base 10, -5 for 0 DEX, -2 for the ground not moving) shouldn't miss 5% of the time. So adding fumbles whereby you can pierce your own foot when you miss that 15' dagger toss is simply ludicrous.

Akisa
2009-11-27, 10:21 PM
Or you could just point out that the total NPC fumbles will equal or exceed the total PC fumbles. Exceed because there are usually more NPC's than PC's, therefore in total more likely to fumble.

I don't think fumbles are so much bad game design as they highlight all the bad game design inherent in 3.x. "Uh, high, how are you?" The only way he could have done worse was "Hey there good buddy, you got your ears on?" Yeah that was a fumble.
[qute]
Second situation Han was doing something outside of his specialty. He relied on R2D2 to do his task for him so he decided to hack into a highly secure area without using a computer/datapad instead by splicing live wire together. The computer detected the intrusion and decided to up the security. Now if this wasn't first attempt we seen and/or he used a datapad then yes I could considered it a fumble.1) Slicing is well within the purview of a smuggler. Slicing, gambling and drugs are what they do.
2)If he has the electronic skills to repair a starship then he'd have the skills to bypass a switch.[/QUOTE]

1) Seriously? How are you going to convince a gost erm a military personal that he did not hear a weapons fire while they're on alert status and the person on the other end does not give proper reply to identification/challenge words.

2)So what he has electronic skills to repair a starship, it's a starship he knows how the computers interface with each other. He was trying to by pass a highly secure military security system. It wasn't a simple switch it was complex computerize lock. Han essentially was trying to hack into a computer by opening the case pulling out wires and splicing it together while it's, in middle of a battle and without the proper equipment to do so. In reality he should've got shocked badly...

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-27, 10:35 PM
If we go by Saga, Han has a mechanics skill of 13. He may have rolled badly, but he was also doing it in not very good circumstances (imperials firing upon him and all that) which does not help in a skill check, trained or otherwise and the level of security on that bunker would have been Hostile.

By itself, the task has a DC of 25 with an added 2 by unfavourable circimstances bringing it up to 27 as well as a penalty of-2 for the same reasons. Han would have to roll at least a 16 to have any chance of success. That's not a fumble, it's just a very hard roll.

The doors closing may have just been one of the consequences of a failure, maybe by 5 or less. A failure by more (as if Han did roll a Natual 1) could have had him getting shocked.

Same would go for the intercom on the Death Star, but Han is not trained in Persuasion.

Talyn
2009-11-27, 10:59 PM
I happen to like fumbles, and I use them in all of my games. Granted, I also play in 4e, which has a different "feel" in the attack rolls (no bajillion attacks for high-level weapon users, mage-types make attack rolls, too).

Now, truly ridiculous fumbles (ones that directly harm, cripple, or kill the user) are not appropriate in a typical D&D game. But a halfway-decent DM can add an element of surprise and danger to their games, and encourage strategic thinking, with a very simple procedure for adjudicating fumbles.

Step 1: A combatant rolls a 1.
Step 2: Are they attempting to do anything particularly dangerous? (That is, more dangerous than getting into a fight with something that wants to kill you - an example would be firing a ranged weapon or spell into melee, or attempting to bull rush an orc in spiked armor.) If so, move on to the next step. If not, it just counts as an automatic miss.
Step 3: Is there an appropriate penalty that can be inflicted? (Continuing the example above: combatant makes a second attack roll against the ally with the power he just used / combatant stabs himself on the armor.) If so, move on to the next step. If not, it just counts as an automatic miss.
Step 4: Combatant who rolled a 1 makes a saving throw. If it succeeds, it just counts as an automatic miss. If it fails, apply the suitable penalty.

Provoking attacks of opportunity, disarm attempts or grapple attempts of opportunity, and accidentally hitting your allies are fairly standard penalties - enough that they hurt, but not enough, in and of themselves, to be game changing.

Players, especially in 4e, are dangerous badasses right away. The fact that they sometimes make mistakes does not make them any less badass. What it does do is keep players on their toes, and force them to consider possible consequences for their actions in the event that they go wrong...

Hiest, monkey
2009-11-27, 11:09 PM
Many people argue that fumbles are like reverse criticals.
A critical hit happens 5% of the time (sometimes 10%), usually adds a mere 5-15% to your overall average damage factoring in frequency into average damage.

A bad fumble table ruins the best builds, and furthermore, makes a mockery of the logic that seperates DnD from comic books, Paranoia, and Munchkin.

A very low level novice, that is severely distracted or endangered is a viable target for a fumble. The logi of the above post is what I would use for such a case.

Nai_Calus
2009-11-27, 11:16 PM
You miss on a natural one. In a game where virtually everything requires you to, I dunno, HIT to have any effect, barring 4e powers that do something even on a miss, MISSING is penalty enough.

And um, why do you think you missed? Well maybe you... Whacked yourself in the head with your sword on accident and that gave your enemy time to dodge. Wow, that was hard to come up with.

I blame the general lack of in-combat roleplay I've seen for why people like inane stupidities like crit fumbles. Very rarely do I see people describe what they're actually doing, so I suppose the DM decides 'well here let's add some description by adding in stupid extra penalties'.

There's also that if I want some gritty game where I want to have something lame happen 5% of the time, I'm going to play a game that isn't heroic fantasy like D&D is.

The most recent game I was in that used fumbles, they made an already outmatched and painful encounter worse. I would, in fact, refuse to play in a game that used them. Combat is already my least favourite part of the game, though 4e is less annoying for me than 3.5 was, so making it worse and giving it more than the pre-existing possibility of failure and extra punishment on top of the already terrible missing... Yeah, no. There's games besides yours, and if there aren't? Well, I've been in some really asstastic games with the same or similar player-punitive houserules, and frankly? I'd rather not play. I play RPGs to unwind and be someone heroic and capable. Not to spend my time worrying that I'm going to lose more of my precious HP or my already too-short supply of actions to some extra punishment the DM has randomly decided to inflict upon me. I already roll bad enough that I miss most of the time anyway. Crit fumbles are just further insult. Do not want.

horseboy
2009-11-27, 11:29 PM
NPC fumbles are meaningless. It is a simple concept.

PC lives require massive amounts of time to make up, and they live for a long time. Losing them losings hundreds of rounds of past character development and future fighting potential. Losing an NPC to a fumble means, guess what, the party gets maybe six seconds less time in combat.
If there are four orcs attacking a fighter and they all have the same number of attacks then the NPC's side is four times more likely to fumble.

"Best block, Danielsan, no be there." Any fumble and ensuing negative repercussion means less drain on the PC's. More charges on their belts of healing unused so they can go farther before having to stop. fewer spells having to be used, more charges on wands, less gold spent on consumables.

1) Seriously? How are you going to convince a gost erm a military personal that he did not hear a weapons fire while they're on alert status and the person on the other end does not give proper reply to identification/challenge words. Well you don't do it with "We're fine, how are you?" You do it with something like Grabbing a nearby body and saying "[read off name tag]'s IFF badge malfunctioned and the auto-turrets activated. We're sending him up to the Infirmity. Make sure anyone who's coming down has their badge checked before they get here. Don't want a repeat in front of Lord Vader I like breathing."


2)So what he has electronic skills to repair a starship, it's a starship he knows how the computers interface with each other. He was trying to by pass a highly secure military security system. It wasn't a simple switch it was complex computerize lock. Han essentially was trying to hack into a computer by opening the case pulling out wires and splicing it together while it's, in middle of a battle and without the proper equipment to do so. In reality he should've got shocked badly...
Just because it's in a car electricity doesn't behave differently from when it's in your house. All he had to do was send power from the hot, bypass the key pad (switch) and send power directly to the motor that opened the door. He fumbled and hooked it to the wrong motor and attached the wires in backwards, powering the motor in reverse and closing the blast doors.

Boci
2009-11-27, 11:33 PM
To everyone who supports critical fumbles. Line up X amount of professionally trained soldiers and have them fire a single round at a target 100ft away. At what value of X will one soldier statistically shoot himself in the foot?

FerhagoRosewood
2009-11-27, 11:39 PM
As a player and as a DM, I enjoy fumbles. Maybe it's because my group does the AoO/roll to "confirm" set-up, but it makes the game even more unexpected. The player character trying to take out the frail kobold misses, drops his sword, and is stabbed for 2 damage is just (to me) a hilarious visual. And I can't count the many times that my party (when I was a player) have won or got the tide of battle in our favor because of a NPC fumble. Especially when it's a Dire Wolf that tripped over itself.

I've had the pleasure, or displeasure, of having two epic fumbles. The first was me playing the character of a guy that wasn't that, that nobody (even the DM who was our teacher) liked. I fumbled a balance check on a stairway with no walls. Death instantly.

The other was just too funny for words. I was playing my now favorite character, a cleric/swashbuckler who uses a greatbow before switching to her Thinblade. Anyways I stood behind the party tank, having just survived a Half-Black Dragon's breath (which hit the whole party). I drew my bow and fired into the room at the mini-BBEG. 1. Crapes. So I roll again. 1.

o.o;

The official ruling was that I shot the tank in the back of the head with a critical (which basically the only bad thing that could have happened; the bow was magical). He was left with 1 HP and a huge hole in the back of his helmet. After the battle, and much guilt healing by my girl, the tank walked up to her. Without a word he grabbed her bow from her, snapped it in half, and handed it back to her. She wordlessly gave a coy grin and looked the other way. She basically almost aided the BBEG in killing the tank. Plus the fact that the tank was a battle crazy killer, and she knew this, so he went easy on her. Meanwhile I found it hilarious.

Akisa
2009-11-27, 11:41 PM
Just because it's in a car electricity doesn't behave differently from when it's in your house. All he had to do was send power from the hot, bypass the key pad (switch) and send power directly to the motor that opened the door. He fumbled and hooked it to the wrong motor and attached the wires in backwards, powering the motor in reverse and closing the blast doors.

Except he was trying to slice through a computer lock on a door mechanism. So the computer was looking for a password. So he was trying splice wires to send a series specific 1 and 0 combination. When the computer controlling the door mechanism received a bad password from splicing the wires together the computer responded by closing the blast door as an added precaution.

Dienekes
2009-11-28, 12:24 AM
Except he was trying to slice through a computer lock on a door mechanism. So the computer was looking for a password. So he was trying splice wires to send a series specific 1 and 0 combination. When the computer controlling the door mechanism received a bad password from splicing the wires together the computer responded by closing the blast door as an added precaution.

So... an annoyingly bad response caused by excessively failing a check (as opposed to moderately failing, causing nothing to happen) How is that not a fumble again?

Now you can make up an idea as a replacement to the fumble system that if you mess up by X extent something bad happens. Ex. Miss by -5 to -1 nothing, just failure. Miss by -10 to -6 door is considered jammed and will not open. Miss by -15 to -11 blaster doors fall down. But you have to realize that this would be a hell of a lot of writing to describe these random events about anything. From a mechanical standpoint fumbles work easier.

Belobog
2009-11-28, 12:45 AM
I am against fumbles, but I am also against the auto-hit and auto-failure properties given to the natural one and the natural 20. To me, there are such things as limitations on ability, and there's only so far that chance will get you. If you can't hit someone on a twenty, then all the luck in the world won't help you; if you can peg a guy in the back of the head with a one, then he's pretty much not getting away.

horseboy
2009-11-28, 12:46 AM
To everyone who supports critical fumbles. Line up X amount of professionally trained soldiers and have them fire a single round at a target 100ft away. At what value of X will one soldier statistically shoot himself in the foot?Per brick of 100 Remmingtons, usually at least 3 duds and depending on which rifle, up to three jams. That's 6% without me even screwing up.

Ultimately it's just a question of how do you like to feel like a bad ass, do you want to just wade through and feel like a bad ass crushing everything or playing Ninja Gaiden hard and feeling like a bad ass for surviving.

Grumman
2009-11-28, 01:01 AM
I am against fumbles, and wouldn't play in a game where they are used. If on a scale of 1 to 5 Miyamoto Musashi rates at 5 and you rate at 20, you shouldn't be injuring yourself four times a minute if you choose to full attack. This is not cool. This is not realistic. This is an insult to my intelligence.

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 01:02 AM
Some of my best gaming moments have come from fumbles.

A fumble has to be confirmed, and I use a table (a 2nd ed one, I think) that I modify (generally downwise) to fit the occasion. Enemies can fumble as well - I generally build my baddies the same way as PCs, anyway, and that includes rules.
I also, as a rule of thumb, consider a natural 20 to be "plus 10" (on top of the dice roll and any other bonuses), and a natural 1 to be "minus 10" (and bonuses). So if someone gets a natural 20 on their Forgery check to create a detailed holy document in a language they don't speak that they've never seen, and they only have 2 ranks, then it counts as 32. They're unlikely to do a very convincing job. I remarkably good one, perhaps, that may even be worth a bit of money or could be passed off as something else, but not what they were trying to do.
And, of course, if someone gets a natural 1 in their attempt to do a handstand, but they have 30 ranks in Tumble or Perform (acrobatics), it'll count as 20. They'll probably be fine - unless, as has happened in my games, they decide they're happy to accept an "automatic fail".

tyckspoon
2009-11-28, 01:21 AM
Per brick of 100 Remmingtons, usually at least 3 duds and depending on which rifle, up to three jams. That's 6% without me even screwing up.


That would be the rough equivalent of "you rolled a 1, you miss. Next attack roll, please." That's already part of the rules and one nobody minds all that much. At worst the jams would be "you rolled a 1, lose the rest of your attacks/spend a move action to clear it." A little more extreme, but still generally acceptable. Critical Fumbling with that rifle would involve.. oh, having a screw inexplicably work itself loose so that the barrel detaches from the stock. Or you becoming bizarrely and irresistibly distracted by a passing bird, such that you turn your whole body to follow it while it flies by, and just happen to pull the trigger at the same time as your weapon passes across the man next to you.. which is something a trained gunner will *never ever do.*

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 01:33 AM
What godawful table are you using? :smallconfused: :smalleek: I use this (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/vinifera/critical_hit_table_2e.pdf) one, and while even it is probably a bit harsher than I'd like (although the DCs are generally 10ish, and I modify it freely), it's definitely not an automatic "BLOOD AND CARNAGE".
So, if we assume that a flat natural 1 is just a miss, and that you have to miss again to confirm it, and if you use this table as written with its 7/100 (pretty high, really) chance to definitely hit a friend (I'll leave the multiple "roll agains" for now) then the chance of hitting a friend on a roll is... We need a statistician! Uh... stat.
Considering the amount of friendly fire in battles, I don't think the chance of it happening is exactly 0 <.<

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-28, 01:36 AM
What godawful table are you using? :smallconfused: :smalleek: I use this (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/vinifera/critical_hit_table_2e.pdf) one, and while even it is probably a bit harsher than I'd like (although the DCs are generally 10ish, and I modify it freely), it's definitely not an automatic "BLOOD AND CARNAGE".
So, if we assume that a flat natural 1 is just a miss, and that you have to miss again to confirm it, and if you use this table as written with its 7/100 (pretty high, really) chance to definitely hit a friend (I'll leave the multiple "roll agains" for now) then the chance of hitting a friend on a roll is... We need a statistician! Uh... stat.
Considering the amount of friendly fire in battles, I don't think the chance of it happening is exactly 0 <.<I think this may be the biggest disconnect between the sides. Some people have dealt with 1s killing characters, others just take an AoO and move on. There's more than a bit of a difference there, but it means that when someone has dealt with permanent blinding from a bowstring breaking and whipping across his eyes, he's likely to avoid any game that uses fumble rules.

Mojo_Rat
2009-11-28, 01:47 AM
Conceptually the Idea of Fumbles are not a horrible thing. The 3.5 campaign i was in before the current one The group liked the idea of Two guys fighting on the edge of a cliff woops one fumbles his sword goes over. There are alot of good storytelling Thematics to Fumbles.

However Their mechanical application in games is poor. The problem is the better Melee types get at being melee types the higher chance every round that they will fumble. I think somone said once a character with 5 attacks has a 19% chance to fumble every round.

Secondly Many groups add some secondary check to try for the fumble but what this really does is just add un-neccecary eronious extra rolls.

Lastly spellcasters Very rarely make more than one attack if at all a wizard doesnt check every extra 2d6 of fireball if his fireball fizzles part way through.

and ultimately thts why its a Horrible Idea.

In the older editions of the game it was less problematic Mainly 1e 2e because you did not get very many attacks. Short of Dual wielding your fighter was at most 2 attacks until well into his Career rather than the 4 or 6+ some rangers in 3.5 might end up with.

All of that said and i fully thingkfumbles are a bad Idea for 3.5 I do have a funny thogh really dated 1e fumble story

Game in Greyhawk, We kill some muckey muck at lvl 2 and he has a Katana (which for those who know 1e is a really aesome weapon) fighter in our groupd ecides hes going to use it. Uses it with no proficiency to lvl 4 for the use of the weapon no one else has. a little after we hit lvl 4 were on a boat and he Is next to the railing wearing plate armor as we fight off pirates and he fumbles Dm said if he rolled 'droped out of reach' it would go overboard. We figured he might actually dive into the ocean in plate armor to try and retrieve his sword.

averagejoe
2009-11-28, 01:49 AM
I think this may be the biggest disconnect between the sides. Some people have dealt with 1s killing characters, others just take an AoO and move on. There's more than a bit of a difference there, but it means that when someone has dealt with permanent blinding from a bowstring breaking and whipping across his eyes, he's likely to avoid any game that uses fumble rules.

Agreed. Also note that, RAW 3.5, there are no fumbles to my knowledge. A natural 1 is simply a miss.

Akisa
2009-11-28, 01:50 AM
What godawful table are you using? :smallconfused: :smalleek: I use this (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/vinifera/critical_hit_table_2e.pdf) one, and while even it is probably a bit harsher than I'd like (although the DCs are generally 10ish, and I modify it freely), it's definitely not an automatic "BLOOD AND CARNAGE".
So, if we assume that a flat natural 1 is just a miss, and that you have to miss again to confirm it, and if you use this table as written with its 7/100 (pretty high, really) chance to definitely hit a friend (I'll leave the multiple "roll agains" for now) then the chance of hitting a friend on a roll is... We need a statistician! Uh... stat.
Considering the amount of friendly fire in battles, I don't think the chance of it happening is exactly 0 <.<

Wow with that table I have to use to upgrade my hammer gun to be hammer machine gun.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-28, 01:51 AM
In high school when I was forced in the DM and inherited some of the standard table rules I used the "d6 of doom" on fumbles: (1) hit yourself, (2) hit your ally (or yourself if no one's near), (3) crit yourself, (4) drop your weapon, (5) break your weapon, (6) reroll twice.

Thing is, during my tenure the players (mostly) managed to avoid the 1s. All it took, though, was for one marauding hobgoblin to roll a 1, and somehow his sword felled his friend, impaled himself, broke and fell to the ground in one swing. I personally killed that group's fumble rules.

Realistic...

Anyway, my "fumble" when it's requested by the group is that the fumbler chooses to either provoke an AoO (if possible) or he can't attack any more that turn.

horseboy
2009-11-28, 01:52 AM
Except he was trying to slice through a computer lock on a door mechanism. So the computer was looking for a password. So he was trying splice wires to send a series specific 1 and 0 combination. When the computer controlling the door mechanism received a bad password from splicing the wires together the computer responded by closing the blast door as an added precaution.
I take it you've never hot wired something. The computer is a switch. When the correct code is put in it completes the circuit and sends power from the generator to the motor to open the doors. You ignore the computer completely. You take the red wire feeding into the computer from the generator and the wire that goes from the computer to the motor and connect the two. That's it. That's all you have to do. There is no binary anything he's got to do because he's going AROUND with the computer.

SadisticFishing
2009-11-28, 01:53 AM
I once heard of a guy who cut off his own leg due to a fumble.

Fumbles are the worst optional rule in D&D that I can think of - they're illogical, inconsistent with reality, and not fun.

Solaris
2009-11-28, 01:54 AM
I once heard of a guy who cut off his own leg due to a fumble.

Fumbles are the worst optional rule in D&D that I can think of - they're illogical, inconsistent with reality, and not fun.


To everyone who supports critical fumbles. Line up X amount of professionally trained soldiers and have them fire a single round at a target 100ft away. At what value of X will one soldier statistically shoot himself in the foot?

Well, you're lumping two groups together there. Group 1 supports badly-thought-out tables that have some really mean penalties. Group 2 supports things like natural 1, auto-miss and end turn, roll again to confirm a failure. If also a miss, this provokes an AoO.
So for Group 2's Fumble version, you're really looking for the value of X where a soldier will jam his weapon badly enough that he has to eject a round, and what value of X where a soldier will double-feed his weapon and have to drop the magazine, stick his hand up in there, and clear out the two mangled bullets before he can reload, recharge, and resume shooting again.
Of course, with medieval firearms we could easily say that yes, yes they do explode with alarming regularity (say, one in four hundred). The soldier in this scenario isn't shooting himself in the foot, his weapon is blowing up in his face. Similarly, warriors tend to tag themselves with their own weapons, drop them, or simply knock themselves off-balance if they're not that good at fighting - hence why I like 'roll to confirm' for fumbles. I wouldn't say they should actually deal hit point damage, but provoking an AoO certainly sounds reasonable in that situation.


I am against fumbles, but I am also against the auto-hit and auto-failure properties given to the natural one and the natural 20. To me, there are such things as limitations on ability, and there's only so far that chance will get you. If you can't hit someone on a twenty, then all the luck in the world won't help you; if you can peg a guy in the back of the head with a one, then he's pretty much not getting away.

... Yeah, fighting doesn't work like that. Even the best-trained fighter in the world will, every once in a while, misstep. Even the worst-trained fighter in the world will, every once in a while, get lucky.

I think the biggest disconnect seems to be between the groups that like their combat random and lethal against the groups who don't.

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 01:55 AM
I think this may be the biggest disconnect between the sides. Some people have dealt with 1s killing characters, others just take an AoO and move on. There's more than a bit of a difference there, but it means that when someone has dealt with permanent blinding from a bowstring breaking and whipping across his eyes, he's likely to avoid any game that uses fumble rules.I once had a series of fumbles (and bad decisions) very nearly result in character death (I bent the rules a bit to prevent it). That made one of my best D&D stories. I just don't think they necessarily detract from the fun. Can be frustrating sometimes, sure, but can also create some pretty funny, or even cool, situations. And does anyone really make a natural 1 an automatic disaster? You roll to confirm criticals, why not fumbles?
I actually think the idea of a bowstring breaking and blinding someone is a pretty cool ideal, although it would almost certainly be very temporary, and if nothing else a quick Cure spell would fix it right up.

Solaris
2009-11-28, 01:57 AM
I once had a series of fumbles (and bad decisions) very nearly result in character death (I bent the rules a bit to prevent it). That made one of my best D&D stories. I just don't think they necessarily detract from the fun. Can be frustrating sometimes, sure, but can also create some pretty funny, or even cool, situations. And does anyone really make a natural 1 an automatic disaster? You roll to confirm criticals, why not fumbles?
I actually think the idea of a bowstring breaking and blinding someone is a pretty cool idea, although it would almost certainly be very temporary, and if nothing else a quick Cure spell would fix it right up.

Judging by the responses from the players, you'd think every DM used these meant-to-be-comical fumble tables. A'course, judging by the responses from the DMs, you'd think none of us did.

Belobog
2009-11-28, 02:10 AM
... Yeah, fighting doesn't work like that. Even the best-trained fighter in the world will, every once in a while, misstep. Even the worst-trained fighter in the world will, every once in a while, get lucky.

I think the biggest disconnect seems to be between the groups that like their combat random and lethal against the groups who don't.

I like lethal. I can get behind lethal. Random, though, is definitely a turnoff.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought combat worked like that in real-life, though. I know it doesn't. I just prefer to remove that aspect from the game, as I don't think it adds much to the game but a lot of headaches. Conversely, I do like such complications to things, but only if they take place outside of combat. I'm an odd duck that way, I guess.

Dienekes
2009-11-28, 02:14 AM
I like lethal. I can get behind lethal. Random, though, is definitely a turnoff.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought combat worked like that in real-life, though. I know it doesn't. I just prefer to remove that aspect from the game, as I don't think it adds much to the game but a lot of headaches. Conversely, I do like such complications to things, but only if they take place outside of combat. I'm an odd duck that way, I guess.

I accept your position and understand your reasoning. However, I fundamentally disagree. For me and my group, the randomness is a lot of the fun in battles. Being able to think up a new solution when dirt is in your eyes, when your main weapon gets a chip in it, or whatnot, that's simply more fun and cinematic.

Random832
2009-11-28, 02:17 AM
... Yeah, fighting doesn't work like that. Even the best-trained fighter in the world will, every once in a while, misstep. Even the worst-trained fighter in the world will, every once in a while, get lucky.

Neither of those can reasonably be characterized as a 5% chance. That's once every five rounds on average for a 16-20 level fighter. And the severity of 'misstep' that appears on some critical failure tables ought to be more like a one in a thousand, or even one in a million chance.

Akisa
2009-11-28, 02:39 AM
I take it you've never hot wired something. The computer is a switch. When the correct code is put in it completes the circuit and sends power from the generator to the motor to open the doors. You ignore the computer completely. You take the red wire feeding into the computer from the generator and the wire that goes from the computer to the motor and connect the two. That's it. That's all you have to do. There is no binary anything he's got to do because he's going ARROUND with the computer.

This is not hot wiring a car or home alarm system, this is lock system for a military bunker. Imagine two sets of computers, one computer receives input from end user lets say imperial officer. The imperial officer would input his password the computer panel which it would then convert into coded encrypted signal to a second computer, the second computer will not be looking for on or off signal like an alarm.

Instead when Han bypasses the keyboard to send a hot signal to the motor, the computer controlling the motor for the doors interpenetrates it as the wrong signal as the electronic lock is not sending the coded signal it was looking for. The computer controlling the door motor would it would then send either a hot (as sending specific voltage) or another coded signal depending the security of the bunker. The blast doors will then not open until the hot signal goes away or in the case of coded signal until the right code is inputted to release the lock.

Ok lets say the bunker's door that has equivalent value of one of USA nuclear silo bunker (I could go as far to say it's like bunker at Area 51) is only looking for a hot signal (absurd as that sound, but hey imperials are idiots). The electronic lock would generate a specific voltage and amp (lets say DC). The voltage that feeds the lock would either be too low or high to the motors. If the voltage or amps is too low the motor would simply would read the signal as off. If the voltage is too high it could damage the equipment and cut off the signal that is keeping the blast door open. In the case of amp being too high it would a blow fuse or trip a breaker which would result power being rerouted to the blast door and the motor that controls the blast would close.

The equipment of these sort of places will be highly sensitive and are not as simple or robust as the switch of a car.

FerhagoRosewood
2009-11-28, 02:55 AM
I am against fumbles, but I am also against the auto-hit and auto-failure properties given to the natural one and the natural 20. To me, there are such things as limitations on ability, and there's only so far that chance will get you. If you can't hit someone on a twenty, then all the luck in the world won't help you; if you can peg a guy in the back of the head with a one, then he's pretty much not getting away.

So you're saying you believe in a world where George McFly can't hope to beat Biff Tannen?

o.-

Sliver
2009-11-28, 03:06 AM
In my first game I DMed IRL, I used critical fumbles.. It resulted in the party rogue flying around destroying skeletons with his body.. We also had a half half-giant.. The player had him moving around on a shopping cart.. And then I had gave him mecha-legs..

Solaris
2009-11-28, 03:15 AM
Neither of those can reasonably be characterized as a 5% chance. That's once every five rounds on average for a 16-20 level fighter. And the severity of 'misstep' that appears on some critical failure tables ought to be more like a one in a thousand, or even one in a million chance.

Missing and hitting? I disagree, at least for the chance of getting in a hit. Missing... well, even the best fighter doesn't tag his target each and every time. In the books (DMG somewhere, if I recall correctly - this could be old data from previous editions that is still viable on account of not having been countermanded), it's explained that a character is constantly attacking and parrying. You only roll the dice to see if he gets in a worthwhile attack - or not. So, in all honesty, we're looking at four-five notional attacks in a round that don't get rolled at all. The game uses a d20, so they went with the smallest possible chance.
Of course, we're discussing realism in a system where a single warrior can realistically expect to defeat a hundred lesser warriors. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not talking about those critical failure tables. I'm not trying to defend them, as I think they're freakin' moronic and always have. I'm talking about the critical fumble I use, which is nowhere near as harsh. The fumble I use is that, on a natural 1, the attacker's attack is over and he misses. He also has to roll to confirm the critical fumble. If also a miss, then he provokes an AoO. With a high-level fighter facing a level-appropriate enemy, odds are good that he won't get the critical fumble unless he rolls really cruddy again.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-28, 03:18 AM
So, I've never been a fan of fumbles, but I gotta say the arguments in this thread convinced me.

However, for 2E I'm thinking the sort of mechanics-heavy table posted by Serpentine is not my style. Instead, how about using a more narrativist device?

Basically, my thinking is that combat in 2E is sufficiently narrativist that it would be easier to add 4E-style granuality (e.g. pushes, temporary statuses, etc.) by using something like a Degree of Success system to determine the amount of extra narrative control the "winner" gets to use.

Or, to break it down - how much extra stuff the winner/loser gets to say happens.

The System
Whenever a Natural 20 or 1 is rolled in melee combat, the Player and the DM each roll a d6 and compare the difference of those two values. For Natural 20's ("Criticals" - Attacker is Winner) you subtract the Defender from the Attacker's value; for Natural 1's ("Fumbles" - Defender is Winner) you subtract the Attacker from the Defender's value.

Degree of Success Chart
0 or less: Basic Effect
For a Critical, the weapon does maximum damage. For a Fumble, the Defender gets to make an immediate melee attack.

1: Minor Success
Either take the Basic Effect, or the Winner can roll damage as normal (or forgo the extra attack) and take an extra action. Appropriate actions include maneuvering about the Loser to gain a better position, moving past the Loser, freely adjusting an item of their equipment, grabbing a nearby dropped weapon, and the like.

2: Success
The Winner gets to take the Basic Effect and take an action as described in Minor Success.

3: Great Success
As Success, but the Winner may opt to instead roll damage as normal (or forgo the extra attack) and force the Loser to take a minor action. Appropriate actions include being backed up against a wall, dropping their weapon, falling down and the like.

4: Dazzling Success
The Winner gets both the Basic Effect and the ability to force the Loser to take a minor action.

5: Act of Fate
The Winner may either take a Dazzling Success or they can roll damage as normal (or forgo their extra attack) and declare a Fateful Action. Fateful Actions can influence the larger events of the battle or even cause permanent injuries.

Fateful Actions range from forcing the Loser to collide with their ally, causing both to fall to the ground (or off a ledge) to gouging out an eye or lopping off a hand. Fateful Actions can also include third party effects (i.e. natural or coincidental ones) such as causing a ledge to crumble beneath the opponent, a minor cave-in that cuts off the Loser from his allies, and the like.

A Fateful Action can only result in permanent injuries when triggered by a Critical, and such a Critical will do no HP damage; the permanent injury will have an immediate effect and will never be completely healed without powerful magical healing. For example, a leg broken during an Act of Fate will slow the warrior and cause him great pain; even after it has been set and healed by natural causes it will trouble him for years - only a spell like Regeneration will cure the bum leg.

However, a Stroke of Fate triggered by a Fumble can result in temporary injury; a sprained leg or a gouged eye will hinder the warrior for the rest of the battle, but it will heal clean once it has been tended to.
Not only will this reduce the "random" feeling that Crit/Fumble tables can produce (WTF, I dropped my Two Handed Sword while swinging at a zombie?), but it gives the Players free license to add in livelier events in the midst of combat - and fair warning that the DM will do the same to them.

Thoughts?

Fortuna
2009-11-28, 03:33 AM
That looks awesome, and I am stealing it.

Sliver
2009-11-28, 03:42 AM
I love it!

Kurald Galain
2009-11-28, 04:26 AM
The problem really isn't about fumbles ... The problem is with unrealistically common fumbles and or unrealistically harsh fumbles.

This, precisely.

Fumbles are fun. Impaling yourself on your own blade 5% of the time is stupid.

Saph
2009-11-28, 05:06 AM
So adding fumbles whereby you can pierce your own foot when you miss that 15' dagger toss is simply ludicrous.


Basically, fumbles are a moderate benefit to PCs when NPCs fail, and an instagib when players fail.


At what value of X will one soldier statistically shoot himself in the foot?


you shouldn't be injuring yourself four times a minute if you choose to full attack

Oh, for heaven's sake. Let's take a quick vote here.

Everyone in this thread who plays with the rule that "natural 1 means you automatically kill or injure yourself", put up your hand.

*waits*
*waits*
*crickets*

Oh look, nobody.

Standard fumble rules by competent DMs are something like "you provoke an AoO" or "you lose your balance and fall over". And usually you have to confirm it first with a second roll, as with criticals. And often only the first attack roll each round counts, too, because once players get a half-dozen attacks per round it's just not worth it.

So the "If I play with fumbles my 20th-level fighter WILL KILL HIMSELF EVERY 5 ROUNDS!" line is a total strawman. Yes, if your DM is a complete idiot, this might happen. Guess what? If your DM is a complete idiot, your game is going to suck anyway.

Personally, the only time I use the "hit yourself/hit your ally" fumble rule is if the player is doing something stupid anyway. And I generally warn them first.

Player: "I shoot the orc Bob is fighting."
Me: "Okay . . . you're in a 5' wide corridor, and you're at the back of the party."
Player: "OK."
Me: "Have you got Precise Shot or anything like that?"
Player: "No."
Me: "You realise you're going to have a chance of shooting one of the other PCs?"
Player: "What? Why?"
Me: "Because you're shooting through the squares of four allies, all of which provide improved cover, into melee. With the penalties you're taking you'll need a 20 to even hit."
Player: "Oh. OK, I do something else, then."

Yes, I've actually had this conversation several times. You'd think "shooting through your friends is dangerous" is a fairly obvious concept, but players keep doing it. It probably doesn't help that 4e removed ally cover and firing into melee penalties. :P

Clovis
2009-11-28, 05:35 AM
To reply to the question I'd like to quote Lord Xykon: 'That's the entertainment I was talking about. Frigging hilarious'.

Fumbles do add value to the game. Without any kind of penalties to both sides of the conflict -- monsters and PCs -- it's just gimme gimme gimme.

We use d20 fumbles deck. If you roll 1, the DM hands you the deck. You select one card and then you'll see the result you brought upon yourself by rolling badly [you DO need to train your dice!]. In this deck there are different results for using a ranged weapon, a melee weapon, a natural weapon etc.

It IS frigging hilarious. Some fumbles are epic: I've had one character killed (a fledgling snake shaman with not many hit points) from a fumble: a minotaur PC was rampaging with two greatswords, one in each hand. On a roll of 1 one sword slipped out his hand and duly impaled my poor shaman and nailed him to a door. Time to roll a new character.

Of course we've had the enemies fumble as well to the PCs advantage. It is not demeaning to either parties even though it might feel like an embarrassment. But the point is that it has to go both ways. If you have a possibility to crit, you have to have a possibility to fumble. It all evens out in the long run.

To kill a a few catgirls: it is possible to fumble in fencing. It is possible for the epée to break and injure either you or the opponent; that's what the kevlar suit is for. It is possible to pull a muscle on a failed rush attempt, ie fumble.

Melamoto
2009-11-28, 05:39 AM
I prefer to just have a Natural 1 count as a roll of -10. Means that a level 20 Fighter will not miss a level 1 wizard. If they miss the AC of the opponent by a certain amount, then a minor effect happens, like the weapon bounces off of the enemy and out of their hands, or or they hit a random adjacent ally. I still like to keep a 20 as an autohit though. Add to awesomeness levels, don't detract from anyone's awesome levels, including enemies. A game just isn't fun when the BBEG lunges at you with his sword, and suddenly drops it mid swing.

Emmerask
2009-11-28, 05:48 AM
The problem is the better Melee types get at being melee types the higher chance every round that they will fumble. I think somone said once a character with 5 attacks has a 19% chance to fumble every round.

Secondly Many groups add some secondary check to try for the fumble but what this really does is just add un-neccecary eronious extra rolls.

Lastly spellcasters Very rarely make more than one attack if at all a wizard doesnt check every extra 2d6 of fireball if his fireball fizzles part way through.


1) not really an issue with extra check and ofcourse that skilled fighter also has a 19% chance to autohit crit each round.
2) The extra check doesn´t come up that often
3) thats why a spellcasters fumble should have much more serious implications then a melee fumble :smallbiggrin:

Solaris
2009-11-28, 06:13 AM
Oh, for heaven's sake. Let's take a quick vote here.

Everyone in this thread who plays with the rule that "natural 1 means you automatically kill or injure yourself", put up your hand.

*waits*
*waits*
*crickets*

Oh look, nobody.

Standard fumble rules by competent DMs are something like "you provoke an AoO" or "you lose your balance and fall over". And usually you have to confirm it first with a second roll, as with criticals. And often only the first attack roll each round counts, too, because once players get a half-dozen attacks per round it's just not worth it.

So the "If I play with fumbles my 20th-level fighter WILL KILL HIMSELF EVERY 5 ROUNDS!" line is a total strawman. Yes, if your DM is a complete idiot, this might happen. Guess what? If your DM is a complete idiot, your game is going to suck anyway.

Personally, the only time I use the "hit yourself/hit your ally" fumble rule is if the player is doing something stupid anyway. And I generally warn them first.

Player: "I shoot the orc Bob is fighting."
Me: "Okay . . . you're in a 5' wide corridor, and you're at the back of the party."
Player: "OK."
Me: "Have you got Precise Shot or anything like that?"
Player: "No."
Me: "You realise you're going to have a chance of shooting one of the other PCs?"
Player: "What? Why?"
Me: "Because you're shooting through the squares of four allies, all of which provide improved cover, into melee. With the penalties you're taking you'll need a 20 to even hit."
Player: "Oh. OK, I do something else, then."

Yes, I've actually had this conversation several times. You'd think "shooting through your friends is dangerous" is a fairly obvious concept, but players keep doing it. It probably doesn't help that 4e removed ally cover and firing into melee penalties. :P

Thank you. I hope most of the people posting saying how they hate fumble tables will pay attention to this - but somehow I doubt it.
Sense, after all, isn't as much fun as nonsense.

JadedDM
2009-11-28, 06:32 AM
I use fumbles, but not fumble tables. I find that using a table often creates bizarre and illogical situations. I just make a judgment call depending on the variables. Is anyone nearby? What kind of attack were they making? Melee or ranged? What's the weapon made of? And so forth.

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 06:41 AM
I do use fumble tables (as mentioned), but not strictly. More as a guide and creativity prompt.

Otherwise, what Saph said.

gman
2009-11-28, 07:11 AM
For me the big deal with fumble houserules is not so much how the mechanics work but how the DM narrates them. Rolling the natural 1 is so often described as your skillful, heroic character doing something really clumsy or stupid, without any particular reason given. This is lame. That natural 1 is supposed to represent bad luck, not a lack of skill (your skill is in your attack bonus). So it should be narrated as bad luck: it's not that you just tripped up, it's that the ground you were standing on at the edge of the cliff crumbled and fell away and you become exposed as you rebalance. The midday sun suddenly emerges from behind the clouds and dazzles you just as you're releasing your bowstring. Fumbles need a really creative DM who's good at description to stop them making you feel liek your chracter is just bizarrely hapless.

Milskidasith
2009-11-28, 08:40 AM
Oh, for heaven's sake. Let's take a quick vote here.

Everyone in this thread who plays with the rule that "natural 1 means you automatically kill or injure yourself", put up your hand.

*waits*
*waits*
*crickets*

Oh look, nobody.

Wrong; while I don't play with those rules, that's because I hate them so much. Multiple PbP games I had wanted to enter had rules like this (the critical fumble table wasn't as bad on one of them; it was stuff like "drop your weapon, shatter your weapon, hit yourself, hit the nearest ally regardless or range, your weapon is planeshifted to the far realms, and you just miss" but that still gimped players. One in 120 attacks your weapon goes to the far realms, woo!)

Don't arbitrarily assume that people don't play with stupid rules because you don't.

Sliver
2009-11-28, 08:49 AM
Even if the opponent's weapon planeshifts it just removes possible loot.. But if it goes to a specific plane, you could summon weapons from there.. And soon there would be a flaw weapon infested, and you would have 50% chance to draw a random weapon with random enchantments every time you try to draw something...

Milskidasith
2009-11-28, 08:53 AM
Even if the opponent's weapon planeshifts it just removes possible loot.. But if it goes to a specific plane, you could summon weapons from there.. And soon there would be a flaw weapon infested, and you would have 50% chance to draw a random weapon with random enchantments every time you try to draw something...

Far realms. Whatever your weapon was, you don't want it back.

Sliver
2009-11-28, 08:57 AM
Could this happen with natural attacks too?

Milskidasith
2009-11-28, 08:59 AM
No clue, I didn't play in that game because of, well, the critical fumble table (it was a PbP game, in case you are wondering).

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 09:31 AM
So because one person has ridiculous idiotic rules, all rules of the same theme must be useless?

Okay then. Saph, we have a grand total so far of one.

Random832
2009-11-28, 09:36 AM
Spear, Cursed Backbiter

This is a +2 shortspear, but each time it is used in melee against a foe and the attack roll is a natural 1, it damages its wielder instead of her intended target. When the curse takes effect, the spear curls around to strike its wielder in the back, automatically dealing the damage to the wielder. The curse even functions when the spear is hurled, and in such a case the damage to the hurler is doubled.

Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bestow curse; Price 7,500 gp.

Any game in which this is a just a regular shortspear is not a game in which I will play.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-28, 09:50 AM
So the "If I play with fumbles my 20th-level fighter WILL KILL HIMSELF EVERY 5 ROUNDS!" line is a total strawman. Yes, if your DM is a complete idiot, this might happen. Guess what? If your DM is a complete idiot, your game is going to suck anyway.

There are DMs that aren't complete idiots yet play with OMGWTFPWNED fumble rules. They're mostly idiots, to be sure, but their games are worth salvaging. And there are a lot of mostly-idiots. None of the people here are idiots of that brand, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. As a specific counter-argument, that line is a strawman, because nobody here does that; but as a general statement it's not a strawman because people do that.


Okay then. Saph, we have a grand total so far of one.
What the F.
Are you really insisting that we pull out a grand, exhaustive list of anecdotal evidence? Because if we're going to do something inane like that somebody is going to swamp the thread in piles of text. People in here have talked about experiences with horrible DMs like this. The count is really more like 3, and if you insist on making a count it can go up to a few dozen before people get tired of posting.

starwoof
2009-11-28, 10:11 AM
I love fumbles! We always use the Dragon Compendium fumble/crit chart when I DM, and often when I don't. Its almost as fun as Hackmaster. :smallbiggrin: Most of the fumbles are just dex check or fall on your ass, its not that bad. And monsters tend to roll way more fumbles than players, in my experience anyway. Maybe I just suck at rolling.

We once had a player charge, fumble, crit himself three times, and throw his artifact axe into the lava! He died. It was a hilarious anticlimax.

ITS FUN (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Fun)!

Cyanic
2009-11-28, 10:48 AM
Alot of hate in here for the fumble chart DMs, makes me wonder if mine is too much. Not going to post the whole jazz in here but I will give the basic idea:


PC/NPC rolls nat 1: They have missed and need to roll another d20.
second d20 is not a natural 1: they are off the hook.
2nd nat 1: minor effect such as being off-balance from the attack until their next turn or until they take a move action (-2 on their ac and attacks).
3rd nat 1: moderate screw-up, such as weapon getting stuck in the ground, dropped, or something else that will cost a move action to fix.
4th nat 1: haymaker hit, player rolls a new attack roll at full original bonus against a randomly determined target within range (could be ally), for normal damage if hit connects.
5th nat 1: same as 4th, but add self to possible targets and treat a hit as a possible crit.
6th nat 1: get a new d20, your turn is over due to facepalm with weapon, normal damage to self w/o str mods.

Effects are not cumulative, just the worst result is used.


Notice no permanent effects; this still too mean ? If it helps the descision process I will add the PCs are rarely in the advantage category, as I kind of like mini/boss-style combat.

UglyPanda
2009-11-28, 10:56 AM
I just remembered something. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Arcane full casters* tend not to roll dice most of the time (Spell Resistance and Caster level checks, mostly). The people getting the most fumbles would be a trapfinder or a front-liner.


*Wizard, Beguiler, Warmage, and something else, I can't remember.

Boci
2009-11-28, 11:07 AM
Per brick of 100 Remmingtons, usually at least 3 duds and depending on which rifle, up to three jams. That's 6% without me even screwing up.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the rifle screwing up and not the shooter? I.E. not something that would then translate to a melee weapon?


Oh, for heaven's sake. Let's take a quick vote here.

Everyone in this thread who plays with the rule that "natural 1 means you automatically kill or injure yourself", put up your hand.

*waits*
*waits*
*crickets*

Oh look, nobody.

Standard fumble rules by competent DMs are something like "you provoke an AoO" or "you lose your balance and fall over". And usually you have to confirm it first with a second roll, as with criticals. And often only the first attack roll each round counts, too, because once players get a half-dozen attacks per round it's just not worth it.

I'm pretty sure an expirienced martial artist will never loose his balance or provoking a AoO when he kicks. Ever.



So the "If I play with fumbles my 20th-level fighter WILL KILL HIMSELF EVERY 5 ROUNDS!" line is a total strawman. Yes, if your DM is a complete idiot, this might happen. Guess what? If your DM is a complete idiot, your game is going to suck anyway.

Fair enough, but isn't a 20th level fighter against a CR: 20 something more likely to fumble than a 1st level fighter against a CR: 1 something, no matter which system you use? Also, its usually just exaggerating, not a stawman.

Dienekes
2009-11-28, 11:41 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the rifle screwing up and not the shooter? I.E. not something that would then translate to a melee weapon?

Sure, now replace the gun with a dangerous piece of sharpened metal that your flinging into a tangled mess of bodies while blood and dust is being splashed or kicked around and pure adrenaline is being pumped through you.

Also, this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIxVxt-oWxc


I'm pretty sure an expirienced martial artist will never loose his balance or provoking a AoO when he kicks. Ever.

You can be sure of whatever you want. You'd be wrong, very very (and hilariously) wrong. A quick question though, before you write something like this do you know, and or have experience with dealing with martial artists? They aren't super human, the laws of chance affect them too.


Fair enough, but isn't a 20th level fighter against a CR: 20 something more likely to fumble than a 1st level fighter against a CR: 1 something, no matter which system you use? Also, its usually just exaggerating, not a stawman.

One of the many things wrong with multi-attack per round system. On the other hand, they do get proportionately better chance to crit.

Boci
2009-11-28, 11:48 AM
Sure, now replace the gun with a dangerous piece of sharpened metal that your flinging into a tangled mess of bodies while blood and dust is being splashed or kicked around and pure adrenaline is being pumped through you.

Nothing a 10th level fighter shouldn't be able to handle, let a lone 20.


Also, this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIxVxt-oWxc

Nice video, but it doesn't prove anything.


You can be sure of whatever you want. You'd be wrong, very very (and hilariously) wrong. A quick question though, before you write something like this do you know, and or have experience with dealing with martial artists? They aren't super human, the laws of chance affect them too.

I do ju-jitsu and I've watched Olypic fights, as well as many other videos on youtube. I've never seen one loose their balance. Provoking an AoO is a bit hard since RL isn't turn based. This example is a bit hard to use because there's no obvious indication of when one combatant fumbles or just misses and the opponent hits.


One of the many things wrong with multi-attack per round system.

ToB helps to solve that somewhat, but its still an issue in 3.5.


On the other hand, they do get proportionately better chance to crit.

Which is what I would expect from a high level fighter

Akisa
2009-11-28, 11:52 AM
Sure, now replace the gun with a dangerous piece of sharpened metal that your flinging into a tangled mess of bodies while blood and dust is being splashed or kicked around and pure adrenaline is being pumped through you.

Also, this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIxVxt-oWxc

Oh wow you show a video of someone who is untrained with the weapon fumble. It's also proves its rare enough to happen people would bother youtubing it.



You can be sure of whatever you want. You'd be wrong, very very (and hilariously) wrong. A quick question though, before you write something like this do you know, and or have experience with dealing with martial artists? They aren't super human, the laws of chance affect them too.

They may fumble but it's not 5% of the time you rarely them do. Do you go to championship boxing event where both contenders fall on the ground, hit themselves etc multiple times in a round?



One of the many things wrong with multi-attack per round system. On the other hand, they do get proportionately better chance to crit.

You still have to confirm and yet most fumble rules you don't confirm.

Artanis
2009-11-28, 11:59 AM
Fumbles do add value to the game. Without any kind of penalties to both sides of the conflict -- monsters and PCs -- it's just gimme gimme gimme.e.

They add value to the game for you. Not having them equates to "gimme gimme gimme" for you. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, somebody can be annoyed when a houserule adds extra penalties for bad rolls without being a shallow, greedy schmuck?

Dienekes
2009-11-28, 12:03 PM
Nothing a 10th level fighter shouldn't be able to handle, let a lone 20.

To each is own. Personally I think getting stuff thrown in your face, or losing footing is a pain no matter what level you are.


Nice video, but it doesn't prove anything.

Oh I know, I just thought it was funny.


I do ju-jitsu and I've watched Olypic fights, as well as many other videos on youtube. I've never seen one loose their balance. Provoking an AoO is a bit hard since RL isn't turn based. This example is a bit hard to use because there's no obvious indication of when one combatant fumbles or just misses and the opponent hits.

Not bad, though you should try youtubeing martial artist mistakes or bloopers. Some of those are funny.


They may fumble but it's not 5% of the time you rarely them do. Do you go to championship boxing event where both contenders fall on the ground, hit themselves etc multiple times in a round?

I have seen boxing where both contenders have fallen to the floor during a tourney. As to multiple times per round no. And if you're using a fumble system were hitting yourself and/or falling down happens with all the frequency of a multiple times a fight you're either extremely unlucky or have a terrible fumble system.


You still have to confirm and yet most fumble rules you don't confirm. Not all fumble rules are made equal. A really good one can be awesome. A really bad one and you can have your character continuously fall on their face like an old black and white comedy routine.

Akisa
2009-11-28, 12:29 PM
To each is own. Personally I think getting stuff thrown in your face, or losing footing is a pain no matter what level you are.



Oh I know, I just thought it was funny.



Not bad, though you should try youtubeing martial artist mistakes or bloopers. Some of those are funny.



I have seen boxing where both contenders have fallen to the floor during a tourney. As to multiple times per round no. And if you're using a fumble system were hitting yourself and/or falling down happens with all the frequency of a multiple times a fight you're either extremely unlucky or have a terrible fumble system.

Not all fumble rules are made equal. A really good one can be awesome. A really bad one and you can have your character continuously fall on their face like an old black and white comedy routine.

These bloopers happen very rarely and that's why it's funny. If they happen 5% of the time (or possibly higher) then it would be part of life. A normal boxing match is 3 minutes long which equals 30 rounds in DnD combat. So that's at least 60 attacks per round (made by both opponents) or possibly more. This would equal on average 3 fumbles per boxing round, do you goto tourneys much less professional events where they fumble that much?

Yes I agree not all fumble rules are made equal, some of them makes me want to take out a hammer gun, others makes me want to take out machine hammer gun (serptine's fumble table). None however I seen in this thread or elsewhere makes me think wow I should add this, it's only which is more tolerable.

Swordguy
2009-11-28, 02:34 PM
Yikes, thread exploded.

Anyway, Saph and Oracle Hunter have pretty much won the thread, as far as I'm concerned. I think most everybody is in agreement that the odds of critical fumbles is too high in d20. Some people think it's salvageable, some people don't. At this point, people are just beating on each other. I'll bow out with an amusing personal anecdote for the people who claim that trained folks can't hurt themselves.

I have, on my body, a whole mess of scars. Those people who know me or who have watched me post here know that I'm a professional fight director - I play with swords and guns and get paid for it. Some of my applicable credentials are in this thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109514&highlight=swordguy&page=2), believe them or don't. I don't really care. Of the various scars I've picked up over the years doing what I do, three of them are self-inflicted. I've got a scar going from my hairline back about four inches on the right side of my head from when a sword I was wielding snapped at the shoulders and went spinning off on contact with the opponents blade - it spun backwards directly into my scalp. I've got a scar on the right nostril from where it got split open - I was doing a Kali butterfly sword kata for a demonstration, and spun the weapon too close to myself. Last, I've got a puncture scar on my left thigh from where I managed to stab myself clean through the thigh in the course of a stage fight - with a rapier with a 40" blade. To this day, I don't know how I did it.

In this day and age, I'm probably as close to a professional "fighter" as you're likely to find. I've been doing what I do for nigh-on 15 years, and various forms of martial arts for 25. I Whatever I am, I am most definitely not and "untrained" combatant. Now certainly, these "critical fumbles" where I hurt myself aren't happening the 5% of the time that 3.x might insist they do...but to discount them completely does, I think, a disservice, to representing the chaos and unpredictability of a fight. Look at the circumstances in which I injured myself - only one (the first one) was in an actual "unpredictable" fight (an unchoreographed exhibition bout); the rest where under more or less "controlled" circumstances...and I still screwed up badly enough to draw my own blood. With that in mind, is it really so difficult to believe that on a chaotic battlefield where things really are trying to kill you and the adrenaline is really going, you really can manage to fumble hard enough to hurt yourself?

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-28, 02:38 PM
See, a reasonable critical failure like Fiddler's is fine. It's the big ones that annoy me, like "If you roll a 1, confirm a miss. If it's a miss, roll a 1d6: 1: you stab yourself for an auto critical [no lightning maces, hopefully!], 2: you throw your weapon 1d4 squares in a random direction 3: you just miss 4: you kill yourself and the enemy 5: your weapon is transported to another plane 6: your weapon explodes, dealing level*10d6 unmitigatable damage to all within level*10 squares."

wtf?! Honest? Someone runs that sort of crap? Hammer gun. face. now

Random832
2009-11-28, 02:41 PM
Yikes, thread exploded.

Anyway, Saph and Oracle Hunter have pretty much won the thread, as far as I'm concerned. I think most everybody is in agreement that the odds of critical fumbles is too high in d20. Some people think it's salvageable, some people don't. At this point, people are just beating on each other. I'll bow out with an amusing personal anecdote for the people who claim that trained folks can't hurt themselves.

Well... they don't actually exist in d20. The problem is rather with "do it on every natural 1", the simplest mechanic available to lazy DMs, results in too high odds.

Simply requiring two natural 1's in a row reduces the chance to 0.25%, a much more 'natural' probability (and its acceptance by players will be aided by the psychological perception that you _never_ get two natural 1's in a row unless the dice _really_ hate you)

erikun
2009-11-28, 02:48 PM
Everyone in this thread who plays with the rule that "natural 1 means you automatically kill or injure yourself", put up your hand.

*waits*
*waits*
*crickets*
*raises hand*

Well, let me add a caveat to that: I have played in games where a natural 1 means automatically injuring/killing someone. In fact, just about every gave I've been in with fumble rules did so.

A rare few would "only" make you drop your weapon, become dazed, and fall prone. So you're just losing two turns and becoming a punching bag for anyone nearby, which can be almost as fatal in a dangerous situation.


Of course, the games I'm in don't have fumble rules. That's because I quit games that did use fumble rules. The weren't fun, they weren't amusing, they didn't add suspense. They just made the hours spent on backstory, days spent on character creation, and months spent playing the character go away when they died from a 1:20 chance roll.

Now, I'm not saying that the Natural 1 = provoke AoO is a bad idea. In fact, I think it's an excellent idea, and something I would definitely use as a DM. What I'm saying is that I've never seen or heard of such a thing before this thread, and I'm sure several people are in the same boat as I am. My experience with fumbles has been from AD&D 2nd ed, with their d% fumble charts, and neither 3e nor 4e has changed that.


I'm pretty sure an expirienced martial artist will never loose his balance or provoking a AoO when he kicks. Ever.
I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong. Most experienced martial artists are seen in a controlled environment, without distractions and capable of focusing on their single task (to preform the kata they've been practicing for months, if not years).

Combat, especially life threatening combat, isn't so serene and peaceful. It isn't a practiced series of moves that can be pulled off in an orderly succession. The chances of "fumbling" are nowhere near as high as 5%, but if you're using your fists against a large number of skilled swordsmen, then there is a good chance that you'll lose an arm.

Solaris
2009-11-28, 02:55 PM
Well... they don't actually exist in d20. The problem is rather with "do it on every natural 1", the simplest mechanic available to lazy DMs, results in too high odds.

Simply requiring two natural 1's in a row reduces the chance to 0.25%, a much more 'natural' probability (and its acceptance by players will be aided by the psychological perception that you _never_ get two natural 1's in a row unless the dice _really_ hate you)

Well, shoot, like averagejoe said fumbles don't exist in RAW.
I do believe this thread has hit the point where the horse has died and we continue to beat it.

erikun
2009-11-28, 03:12 PM
*fumbles hitting the dead horse and decapitates self*

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-28, 03:15 PM
I LOVE fumble rules! Nothing like a Nat 1 to shatter my +3 axe. Every time it happens I use the closest enemy as my "weapon" and take a 1 on the roll.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-28, 03:55 PM
Ah, I think I see the problem.

Fumble rules give the DM license to screw you over. In a WotC D&D game (where power is firmly in the player's hands) this is bad enough; mix it in with an inexperienced/lazy DM and you can get traumatic results.

After all, WotC D&D is built so that the rules protect the players from arbitrary DM action - a supposed mechanic that contravenes this assumption is going to look mighty shady.

Back in TSR D&D, the rules gave no shelter to the players - they existed (where they did) to make life easier for the DM when he had to resolve conflicts. In this atmosphere, a Fumble Table is no worse than a Wandering Monster Chart (fear the 00!), a No-Save Trap (crushing ceilings FTW), or any other Ability-Check Moderated occurrence.

As such, TSR D&D types probably have a less severe allergy to Fumbles than people brought up on WotC D&D. Me, I stopped using Crits & Fumbles in 2E because, IMHO, they gummed up the works of my storytelling. Of course, with age and maturity, I now see their role in torturing my players enhancing the story :smallbiggrin:

Roderick_BR
2009-11-28, 04:48 PM
I think it is a silly reason to decline a game, yes.
The rules itself, depends on how "realistic" the group want the game to be.
Under the normal rules, except for the "miss a skill check for more than 5 points", no character can ever do wrong. They never trip, they never point the wand to the other side. They can fail to do something, but never will they screw up majorly.
Some groups like it that way, they want their heroes to be flawless.
Others, like it to make the game more simulationist.

In my group, we used these rules: a natural 1 is always a miss, be it saving, attacks, or skill checks, and also adds a related penalty.
In craft, for example, the object is damaged and you need to start over. In jump, swim, or other activity related skill, you fall down, fall back, slips, or something that makes you waste one round to get back to your feat.
In attacks, you drop/damages your weapon, or just lose balance, losing the rest of your attacks/round.
For saves, they are just auto-fails, no extra rules for it.

So, aside from an extra thing for DMs to screw you up (like a speedbump, not something to make you lose the whole encounter), I don't see how it would ruin a game.

Jastermereel
2009-11-28, 05:06 PM
The last game I played in had fumble rules where a 1 meant you'd roll something else (pretty arbitrarily) to determine if you'd A. drop/throw your weapon, B. hit yourself or an ally. I argued against the system for the reasons most people note here, but the DM thought it fun and no one died from it so it was a minor inconvenience at worst.

However, I can see it making sense in a reduced way. Looking at the video someone posted, that guy is expected to fail pretty regularly because of his lack of experience with the sword, but someone trained in it can be expected to handle it for a few minutes without stabbing themselves or someone else.

What do people think of rules where fumbles can only happen with weapons you're not proficient in?

Why not have it be that gaining proficiency, whether through class features or feats, makes you immune to fumbling with that weapon, but that fighting with something you're not, in addition to the standard -4 penalty, also means you'd fumble (or risk fumbling) on a natural 1.

Someone fighting with a weapon they're not familiar with (even if it's unarmed) or with an improvised tool should be expected to risk hurting themselves or others accidentally. I don't care for universally fumbling on a 1, but might offer this to the players in the game I'm DMing now if they (including the old DM) miss the hijinks of fumbling.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-28, 05:20 PM
What do people think of rules where fumbles can only happen with weapons you're not proficient in?

Why not have it be that gaining proficiency, whether through class features or feats, makes you immune to fumbling with that weapon, but that fighting with something you're not, in addition to the standard -4 penalty, also means you'd fumble (or risk fumbling) on a natural 1.

Someone fighting with a weapon they're not familiar with (even if it's unarmed) or with an improvised tool should be expected to risk hurting themselves or others accidentally. I don't care for universally fumbling on a 1, but might offer this to the players in the game I'm DMing now if they (including the old DM) miss the hijinks of fumbling.
Meh, that is almost the same as removing Fumbles entirely. How often, after all, do you try to fight with something you're not proficient with?

In 2E this could happen a lot - because nobody was proficient with very much. But nowadays?

I guess if you got rid of the -4 penalty and used Fumbles instead it might be interesting - but more trouble than it's worth, I'd say.

Jastermereel
2009-11-28, 05:43 PM
Meh, that is almost the same as removing Fumbles entirely. How often, after all, do you try to fight with something you're not proficient with?

In 2E this could happen a lot - because nobody was proficient with very much. But nowadays?

I guess if you got rid of the -4 penalty and used Fumbles instead it might be interesting - but more trouble than it's worth, I'd say.

Sure, it's not common, but how often do most rules come up? My players (and I'm betting many others) avoid grapple rules like the plague, and heck, how often does anyone use the rules for underwater fighting.

I'm not saying it's particularly useful, just a reasonably sensible compromise on the "if you're trained, you don't stab yourself 5% of the time" issue. Besides, with the right group of crazed brawlers, this could be rather amusing. Bar fights with tables, chairs and beer-steins are meant to be more hijink-oriented than dungeon crawls, no?

Myrmex
2009-11-28, 05:47 PM
I think it is a silly reason to decline a game, yes.
The rules itself, depends on how "realistic" the group want the game to be.
Under the normal rules, except for the "miss a skill check for more than 5 points", no character can ever do wrong. They never trip, they never point the wand to the other side. They can fail to do something, but never will they screw up majorly.
Some groups like it that way, they want their heroes to be flawless.
Others, like it to make the game more simulationist.

In my group, we used these rules: a natural 1 is always a miss, be it saving, attacks, or skill checks, and also adds a related penalty.
In craft, for example, the object is damaged and you need to start over. In jump, swim, or other activity related skill, you fall down, fall back, slips, or something that makes you waste one round to get back to your feat.
In attacks, you drop/damages your weapon, or just lose balance, losing the rest of your attacks/round.
For saves, they are just auto-fails, no extra rules for it.

So, aside from an extra thing for DMs to screw you up (like a speedbump, not something to make you lose the whole encounter), I don't see how it would ruin a game.

My group plays with the same rules, and I hate it. For most tasks, you have an astronomical chance of not just failure, but really horrible failure where you would have been better off playing a wizard.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-28, 05:47 PM
If you have to confirm your fumble, then the people making the most attacks won't be confirming them as often, because they have the attack bonus to make sure they don't confirm it.

Sure, they get a 1 every 20 attacks (4 rounds, if they attack 5 times a round), but since they don't confirm the failure, they'll only just miss like normal.

Myrmex
2009-11-28, 05:52 PM
If you have to confirm your fumble, then the people making the most attacks won't be confirming them as often, because they have the attack bonus to make sure they don't confirm it.

Typically when you're making more attacks, your attack bonus goes down, so TWF types & monks are still going to be fumbling more than a wizard that make a single touch attack every couple rounds.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:00 PM
If you have to confirm your fumble, then the people making the most attacks won't be confirming them as often, because they have the attack bonus to make sure they don't confirm it.

Not really. A monster's AC rises with a players attack bonus.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-28, 06:03 PM
I've never played at such high levels, so I'm only going by what I've heard, but don't people usually skip the last attack in a full attack on the basis that it's unlikely to hit?

Akisa
2009-11-28, 06:08 PM
I've never played at such high levels, so I'm only going by what I've heard, but don't people usually skip the last attack in a full attack on the basis that it's unlikely to hit?

Nah people roll that last attack in hopes of 20, but not so much if there are fumbles.

Boci
2009-11-28, 06:08 PM
I've never played at such high levels, so I'm only going by what I've heard, but don't people usually skip the last attack in a full attack on the basis that it's unlikely to hit?

No. They sometimes find creative uses for it, like 5ft step away and quickdrawing a tanglebag to throw at touch AC, but they never just don't roll it. Why would you do that?

Gnaeus
2009-11-28, 06:11 PM
In my group, we used these rules: a natural 1 is always a miss, be it saving, attacks, or skill checks, and also adds a related penalty.
In craft, for example, the object is damaged and you need to start over. In jump, swim, or other activity related skill, you fall down, fall back, slips, or something that makes you waste one round to get back to your feat.
In attacks, you drop/damages your weapon, or just lose balance, losing the rest of your attacks/round.


Myrmex has it exactly right.

Shall I be a rogue, who can climb up a mountainside, but fails one time in 20, even if it is an easy climb, or a Wizard, and Spider Climb or Fly up with no chance of failure?

Shall I be a monk or 2 weapon fighter, with close to 10% fumble chance per round starting at level 1? Or a wizard, who casts spells which never fail and lets his opponents roll dice that could be fumbles?

I guess it is a balancing factor, since rogues, monks and fighters are so much better than wizards and clerics.

Eldariel
2009-11-28, 06:18 PM
Not really. A monster's AC rises with a players attack bonus.

Huh? High AC level 20 creatures have rational AC of maybe 44 or so accounting for armor and what not (take Ancient Black with Mage Armor, or Pit Fiend, for example). Even an equipment-based level 20 PC doesn't go much above without AC optimization (which is spell-based). Attacks are something like:
20 BAB + 13 Str/Dex + 5 Weapon + 2 Morale + 1 Competence + 1 Luck + 1 Speed = +43 - and that's not accounting for Charge, Flanking, Invisibility, Blinking, High Ground, Feat-based boosts, other Weapon Bonus abilities, and various other boosts.

More realistically we're looking at +45-+50 or something along those lines, meaning the first iterative is an autohit too and the second iterative is likely to hit and the last one is 50/50. Of course, since you'll be power attacking, your To Hit will be slightly worse, but that's no issue.

That simple Heroism + Competence Ioun Stone + Boots of Speed + the whatever Luck thingy + Greater Magic Weapon + maxed out attack stat with no racials + BAB.


And that's for a high AC level 20 creature. Something like the Tarrasque or Balor, even equipped, is gonna be hit on anything but 1 for most likely all but the last iterative. No, critical confirmation isn't really challenging once the levels ramp up. Attack bonus grows faster than AC.

Even on level 10, you can be looking at 10 BAB + 7 Stat + 3 Weapon (from Greater Magic Weapon again; with Beads of Karma, it's at +3) + 1 Boots of Speed + 1 Morale (Heroes' Feast, most likely). Again, stuff like Rage, Melee Weapon Mastery, Trips and such make the realistic To Hit much higher. That's already +22 though.


But yeah, it's more of an issue for medium BAB types and TWFers due to obvious penalties. Still, monster AC doesn't scale nearly as fast as PC To Hit. so if you play with confirming fumbles, they're far less of an issue. That said, it doesn't eliminate the fundamental balance problem already presented.

Saph
2009-11-28, 07:21 PM
Okay then. Saph, we have a grand total so far of one.

Actually, so far we have zero.

The question isn't "Have you ever played with a DM that uses outrageously deadly fumble rules?" The question is "When you're choosing how to run your game, do you play with outrageously deadly fumble rules?"

By my count, we have a handful of people answering yes to the first question, and a grand total of zero answering yes to the second.

So Mils and Foryn and the rest are attacking a position that no-one in this thread is defending. No-one in this thread thinks that "You roll a 1, you automatically cut your own head off" is a good way to run a game. It's a complete straw man.

Sensible fumble rules run something like this:

• If you roll a 1 on your first attack roll of the round, roll again. If the second attack roll is also a miss, it's a fumble. Details of the fumble are up to the DM and are determined by:

1. Competence of character: A character above a certain level isn't going to make really the elementary mistakes. Legolas isn't going to hit an ally with his longbow, but Bob the 1st-Level Cleric is a different story.
2. Difficulty/danger of task: If you're shooting an acid arrow at an enemy who's standing in the middle of a flat plain, nothing much is going to go wrong. If you're shooting a scorching ray at an enemy who's in melee with three of your allies in the middle of a fireworks factory, this is not the case.
3. Whatever's funny: Fumbles are there to make combats more unpredictable, not to provide you with an extra way to kill PCs. If you have a choice between a fumble that's deadly and one that's weird and amusing, you always pick the second.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:24 PM
Sensible fumble rules run something like this:

• If you roll a 1 on your first attack roll of the round, roll again. If the second attack roll is also a miss, it's a fumble. Details of the fumble are up to the DM and are determined by:

1. Competence of character: A character above a certain level isn't going to make really the elementary mistakes. Legolas isn't going to hit an ally with his longbow, but Bob the 1st-Level Cleric is a different story.
2. Difficulty/danger of task: If you're shooting an acid arrow at an enemy who's standing in the middle of a flat plain, nothing much is going to go wrong. If you're shooting a scorching ray at an enemy who's in melee with three of your allies in the middle of a fireworks factory, this is not the case.
3. Whatever's funny: Fumbles are there to make combats more unpredictable, not to provide you with an extra way to kill PCs. If you have a choice between a fumble that's deadly and one that's weird and amusing, you always pick the second.

Fair enough, but isn't that a bit complicated? How much will it add to the game? I guess it does depend a lot on the players.

Radiun
2009-11-28, 07:26 PM
I enjoy fumbles for their comedic effect, that being said, I prefer rolling 3d6 instead of 1d20, so 1's are not a 5% risk

Tetsubo 57
2009-11-28, 07:28 PM
Combat fumbles penalize high level Fighters more than low level Commoners. That is annoying, unrealistic and rather unfair to the players. I wouldn't play in such a game either.

Saph
2009-11-28, 07:29 PM
Fair enough, but isn't that a bit complicated? How much will it add to the game?

It's not really that complicated. 1 time in 40 or so, someone will fumble an attack, and the DM makes something up. In practice it's less than 1 in 40, because if the timing's such that it wouldn't be funny I usually don't bother.

On the other hand, I often notice that players get a lot more entertainment out of watching other PCs screw up than from watching them routinely succeed.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:32 PM
It's not really that complicated. 1 time in 40 or so, someone will fumble an attack, and the DM makes something up. In practice it's less than 1 in 40, because if the timing's such that it wouldn't be funny I usually don't bother.

That putting too much power in the DMs hand. Sooner or latter someone will point out that their fumble was worse than someone elses, and it will sometimes be true, since the Dm is not perfect. A table would at least make it fair.


On the other hand, I often notice that players get a lot more entertainment out of watching other PCs screw up than from watching them routinely succeed.

Rolling a natural one results in screwing up. Do you really need more?

Saph
2009-11-28, 07:54 PM
Rolling a natural one results in screwing up.

If you're not playing with fumble rules, rolling a natural one is typically the same as rolling a natural two or a natural three. You're still going to fail unless you were trying to do something incredibly easy.

Boci
2009-11-28, 07:56 PM
If you're not playing with fumble rules, rolling a natural one is typically the same as rolling a natural two or a natural three. You're still going to fail unless you were trying to do something incredibly easy.

Depends. True strike, touch attacks. But yes, isn't screwing up by rolling too low enough?

Saph
2009-11-28, 07:57 PM
Depends. True strike, touch attacks. But yes, isn't screwing up by rolling too low enough?

Isn't automatically hitting by rolling a natural 20 enough? Do you really need critical hits?

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:00 PM
Isn't automatically hitting by rolling a natural 20 enough? Do you really need critical hits?

Yes, because

1. it allows for more heroic moments

2. It opens up a new branch of options, such as staggering critical, weapon properties

3. Some monsters are made more dangerous by being immune to them. Although I guess this one could be reversed.

Swordguy
2009-11-28, 08:01 PM
That putting too much power in the DMs hand. Sooner or latter someone will point out that their fumble was worse than someone elses, and it will sometimes be true, since the Dm is not perfect. A table would at least make it fair.


And we're right back to Oracle Hunter's point:


After all, WotC D&D is built so that the rules protect the players from arbitrary DM action - a supposed mechanic that contravenes this assumption is going to look mighty shady.

Back in TSR D&D, the rules gave no shelter to the players - they existed (where they did) to make life easier for the DM when he had to resolve conflicts. ...

As such, TSR D&D types probably have a less severe allergy to Fumbles than people brought up on WotC D&D.

I believe that to be the DM requires the DM to have some level of power over the PCs. Other's don't. That's a fundamental thought difference, and one we're unlikely to resolve.

And, frankly, if you can't trust your DM to arbitrate this (instead bowing to whatever some random designer said when he doesn't know the first thing about how your game works or the mood you prefer)...then you shouldn't be playing with that DM anyway. If you can't bring yourself to trust any DM, play cRPGs or find a different hobby.

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:03 PM
And, frankly, if you can't trust your DM to arbitrate this (instead bowing to whatever some random designer said when he doesn't know the first thing about how your game works or the mood you prefer)...then you shouldn't be playing with that DM anyway. If you can't bring yourself to trust any DM, play cRPGs or find a different hobby.

I do not trust a DM to consistently come up with fumbles on the fly that affect us equally. I doubt I could.

Swordguy
2009-11-28, 08:08 PM
I do not trust a DM to consistently come up with fumbles on the fly that affect us equally. I doubt I could.

Can you trust him to come up with an adventure on the fly that challenges you all equally? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's what most DMs (try to) do as a manner of course. Fumbles are no different. Sometimes it won't be equal - them's the breaks.

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:12 PM
Can you trust him to come up with an adventure on the fly that challenges you all equally?

Without notes? I'd be a bit worried, but sure.


'Cause I'm pretty sure that's what most DMs (try to) do as a manner of course. Fumbles are no different. Sometimes it won't be equal - them's the breaks.

But the game setting affects us all equally. Critical fumbles are about only one PCs at a time.

Lamech
2009-11-28, 08:14 PM
Hmm... well fumbles are certainly realistic. Swordguy is right you can screw up. OTOH, getting a nat one and going to the table of doom is not cool.

A couple ideas to improve fumbling and remove some stupidity:
First, to counteract Bob the superfighter fumbling every round, only his first attack should be at risk of fumbling not his 40th. You could also pick a random attack each round but that would be annoying.
Second, there should be some sort of conformation method, Bob the super-fighter should be less likely to fumble than Jim the disabled peseant boy. Nor should it just be the "beat the AC/TN"; Just because Jane the super wizard has has +20 AC from dex, armour, and insight each doesn't mean Bob is significantly more likely to hit himself in the head.

Finally a huge differance is how deadly the fumble table is: If its the 1d6 roll for random doom I've seen mentioned that stuipid. If its roll a d20 or d100 and a large chunck of the table is stuns, mutilation, or other serious effects, you have a proble. If its roll a d100 and 95% of the table is missing in a luck based way, AoO on yourself, losing one attack, or nicking yourself... not as bad.

P.S. I didn't read the last few pages... sorry if these ideas have been mentioned.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-28, 08:29 PM
Actually, so far we have zero.

The question isn't "Have you ever played with a DM that uses outrageously deadly fumble rules?" The question is "When you're choosing how to run your game, do you play with outrageously deadly fumble rules?"

By my count, we have a handful of people answering yes to the first question, and a grand total of zero answering yes to the second.

So Mils and Foryn and the rest are attacking a position that no-one in this thread is defending. No-one in this thread thinks that "You roll a 1, you automatically cut your own head off" is a good way to run a game. It's a complete straw man. Actually, the questions in the OP were 'Are crit fumble tables a good idea' and 'is a game using crit fumble tables a good reason to skip the game'. The number of people who have dealt with 1=lolraep is very important to that. I'm another who has dealt with that, by the way.

As is, this thread has at least convinced me that some DMs run them decently, where before I would run in fear from any DM that admitted to using them. Doesn't mean I trust them(my dice luck is bad enough that I don't want any extra penalties for rolling low) but means that I'll at least ask what the fumbles are before running.

horseboy
2009-11-28, 08:30 PM
This is not hot wiring a car or home alarm system, this is lock system for a military bunker. Imagine two sets of computers, one computer receives input from end user lets say imperial officer. The imperial officer would input his password the computer panel which it would then convert into coded encrypted signal to a second computer, the second computer will not be looking for on or off signal like an alarm. Yeah, he did say "Well, I suppose I could hot wire it." You're describing a redundancy system, it takes a little more time and a few more steps but the same principles apply.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the rifle screwing up and not the shooter? I.E. not something that would then translate to a melee weapon?A bit of both. It's jamming because I'm shooting it faster than it's designed to go. In mid evil times it'd probably more comparable to going for your arrows and missing, knocking them out of your quiver. (Which is result 31-40 on the bow fumble table)


I'm pretty sure an experienced martial artist will never loose his balance or provoking a AoO when he kicks. Ever.So, you don't watch WWE? You know when the audience chants "You ****ed up!" In fact, it's not that uncommon for them to screw up something every other show or so, and they rehearse that.
*Cough* Owen Hart *Cough*

Swordguy
2009-11-28, 08:31 PM
But the game setting affects us all equally. Critical fumbles are about only one PCs at a time.

Not the game setting - actually running the game session. Here we have game session A, in which someone has made off with the wizard's spellbook. Here we have game session B, in which the cleric finds out that the head of his church is corrupt. Here we have game session C, where the king has noticed that the party bard has written a damn nice sonata, and wants a command performance.

Each of those was come with on the fly, and each could very well be a one-line synopsis of an entire game session. Do they affect the party equally? *consults magic 8-ball* Signs point to "no". The trick is that each PC ends up with a disproportionate share of the spotlight once in a while, not all the time.

So, if you can trust your DM to run a campaign where stuff will even out for each party member in the long run, why can't you trust him to run a combat where the exact same improvisational judgment that generated those session ideas can come up with fumbles for a character?

Glass Mouse
2009-11-28, 08:42 PM
I really like Fumbles. In my one group, I actually complained because the GM didn't use them enough.
I enjoy the randomness faktor. But then again, I play D&D for the roleplaying, not the epicness.


That said, they need to be used for theatrics more than mechanics, especially with skill fumbles. Either for some kind of comic relief ("the rogue sneaks two steps... right into a tree where he scares a bird... which attacks!"), or as an opportunity for tension building ("you sneak closer to the ogre. Roll. ... Yeah, you stumble. Other PCs, you hear this. What do you do?")

In combat, they kinda need to have a disadvantage similar to the advantage gained by a crtitcal hit. None of that "you decapitate your friend" crap.

On the other hand, failing EPICLY can be extremely cool (ventilation ducts in the tank's helmet, anyone?)
Just like succeeding epicly, actually.

In short, it depends on the GM's grasp on it. Flexibility, creativity, fairness.

But then again... Maybe I've just been lucky with my GMs.

Boci
2009-11-28, 08:47 PM
Not the game setting - actually running the game session. Here we have game session A, in which someone has made off with the wizard's spellbook.

What, just randomly? Yes that would be up there with critical fumbles in a list of things I hate in a game.


Here we have game session B, in which the cleric finds out that the head of his church is corrupt.

He hasn't just messed up in combat, we've got a problem that the whole party will solve together.


Here we have game session C, where the king has noticed that the party bard has written a damn nice sonata, and wants a command performance.

As long as this doesn't happen too often, sure, let one PC be the in the spotlight for some time. As long as every one gets their chance


Each of those was come with on the fly, and each could very well be a one-line synopsis of an entire game session. Do they affect the party equally? *consults magic 8-ball* Signs point to "no".

Its different though. This isn't the DM coming up with a panelty for us on the fly, and it affect us all (if not equally), not just the PC in question.



So, if you can trust your DM to run a campaign where stuff will even out for each party member in the long run, why can't you trust him to run a combat where the exact same improvisational judgment that generated those session ideas can come up with fumbles for a character?

Because he's less likely to keep track of who fumbled when and how then who got the spotlight when and for how long?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-28, 08:53 PM
You could make only simple weapons and natural weapoms fumble. Sure, it penalizes Clerics and Monks, but the Cleric can just get War domain of a martial weapon.

I've been in 2 campaigns with nat 1 a Dex DC 10 check. Sucess meant fumble (hit an ally/ self) or Failure fall prone.

Felt sorry for the knight: he kept rolling 1's all the time.

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 10:12 PM
What the F.
Are you really insisting that we pull out a grand, exhaustive list of anecdotal evidence? Because if we're going to do something inane like that somebody is going to swamp the thread in piles of text. People in here have talked about experiences with horrible DMs like this. The count is really more like 3, and if you insist on making a count it can go up to a few dozen before people get tired of posting.One, or even three, does not a "fumbling rules are always bad!" trend make. And as Saph said, none of us are saying that those super-idiotic "1 = instant death" rules are good, or even reasonable.
Oh wow you show a video of someone who is untrained with the weapon fumble. It's also proves its rare enough to happen people would bother youtubing it.Cute kitty-cats are rare, now?

They may fumble but it's not 5% of the time you rarely them do. Do you go to championship boxing event where both contenders fall on the ground, hit themselves etc multiple times in a round?No. Miss by a mile? Sure, absolutely, all the time. Doesn't a lot of boxing technique rely on exploiting your opponent's mistakes?
.
You still have to confirm and yet most fumble rules you don't confirm.From memory, everyone here who is pro-fumble ALWAYS confirms. Did you ask your prospective DM whether they confirm? Or any other details of their fumble rules? Or did you just hear "fumble" and immediately jump to the worst possible definition?
Rolling a natural one results in screwing up. Do you really need more?"You miss" is no more interesting than "you hit extra-hard". It's boring. Dull, dull, dull, dull, so dreadfully dull. Having more interesting consequences of screwing up (whatever that might be) serves the exact same role as having more interesting consequences of doing exceptionally well: It makes it more than just a "you attack. You hit/miss. Next person...".

As for the "it only effects one character" argument... What? :smallconfused: So do critical hits (which are rarely really entertaining), attacking and being attacked, turn-based roleplaying... It is no more "single character-centric" than any other part of D&D.

BloodyAngel
2009-11-28, 10:23 PM
My standard house rule for fumbles has always been that rolling a 1 in melee is an auto miss, and your opponent can take advantage of an unintentionally drop in your guard, or just sheer dumb luck to make an AoO on you. I used to make you "confirm" the fumble by rolling again and if you missed the second time it taking effect, but my players actually preferred the quicker route.

I've also played in a game where a fumble meant you disarmed yourself. Even my monk, who was wearing weighted gloves to add punching damage. With my insane number of attacks, it was a rare fight when I didn't hurl both my gloves across the room "In a gesture of defiance", or so I claimed. It was silly enough to become a running joke that Twi'leks were naturally oily somehow, but I can see how not everyone would love that idea.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-28, 11:29 PM
See, a reasonable critical failure like Fiddler's is fine. It's the big ones that annoy me, like "If you roll a 1, confirm a miss. If it's a miss, roll a 1d6: 1: you stab yourself for an auto critical [no lightning maces, hopefully!], 2: you throw your weapon 1d4 squares in a random direction 3: you just miss 4: you kill yourself and the enemy 5: your weapon is transported to another plane 6: your weapon explodes, dealing level*10d6 unmitigatable damage to all within level*10 squares."

I had a DM use something like this, once. It had a d100 table. At least six of the results included "death, no save". Other things included permanent blindness, missing limbs, etc. There was a span of about twenty numbers that resulted in critting yourself for double damage. A smaller span of numbers including critting yourself for triple damage.

It was also missing the "confirm a miss" portion of that rule. The players revolted. I think he's trying to bring back a newer, weaker crit table, but frankly, I still think it's a terrible idea.

Not terribly realistic either. I've done archery, swordfighting, etc. I'm not an expert at either of those, but I can guarantee that I won't shoot myself 5% of the time.

Swordguy
2009-11-28, 11:45 PM
Not terribly realistic either. I've done archery, swordfighting, etc. I'm not an expert at either of those, but I can guarantee that I won't shoot myself 5% of the time.


See, you shouldn't be, and with that table, you aren't.

If I were to do that, with the d100 table, you'd have results 1-50 being variations on "grant opponent a free attack against you", 51-80 being "drop weapon/weapon malfunction/etc", and then 81+ would be various flavors of "you hurt yourself", the VAST majority of such being "do normal weapon damage to self", and maybe...MAYBE ...a result of 100 being "self dies".

There does need to be a difference between a fumble where you stumble over a rock, and a fumble where you somehow stab yourself in the leg (see my previous posts) and somehow nick an artery. The rock bit is VASTLY more probably, and should be reflected as such. Normally, I'd say that a sane DM would simply rule this...but I keep forgetting that the D&D mindset now is to have a written rule for everything, since DM's can't be trusted. Thus, weigh the critical fumble table heavily in favor of the "rock" -level fumble, rather than the "slice off own leg" fumble. Done.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-28, 11:51 PM
See, you shouldn't be, and with that table, you aren't.

If I were to do that, with the d100 table, you'd have results 1-50 being variations on "grant opponent a free attack against you", 51-80 being "drop weapon/weapon malfunction/etc", and then 81+ would be various flavors of "you hurt yourself", the VAST majority of such being "do normal weapon damage to self", and maybe...MAYBE ...a result of 100 being "self dies".

There does need to be a difference between a fumble where you stumble over a rock, and a fumble where you somehow stab yourself in the leg (see my previous posts) and somehow nick an artery. The rock bit is VASTLY more probably, and should be reflected as such. Normally, I'd say that a sane DM would simply rule this...but I keep forgetting that the D&D mindset now is to have a written rule for everything, since DM's can't be trusted. Thus, weigh the critical fumble table heavily in favor of the "rock" -level fumble, rather than the "slice off own leg" fumble. Done.
Yep, d% FTW :smallbiggrin:

Actually, I think "Kill Self" or even "Harm Ally" should be somewhat less severe for all such tables.

"Kill Self" for example, should be - at worst - "Inflict Critical Hit On Self." After all, HP is there to stop those sort of OHKO situations.

"Harm Ally," in addition, should require a separate attack roll to see if you can even hit them. Some sort of "surprise" effect should exist, of course (in 4E, I'd say re-roll the attack, but with CA); and if no ally is a valid target, a lesser penalty should occur (like "drop weapon" or "-2 AC until next turn").

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-28, 11:52 PM
Normally, I'd say that a sane DM would simply rule this...but I keep forgetting that the D&D mindset now is to have a written rule for everything, since DM's can't be trusted.And I think this thread is evidence of that. There are reasonable people on here, but there's also a large number of horror stories.

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 11:54 PM
Y'know... I think I'm gonna make my own table. And I won't have an "instant death". Probably the closest will be, at 100, "critical hit on random ally (including self)". 99 will probably be "normal hit on random ally".

As an aside, when someone gets a critical hit in my games I often ask them where they were generally aiming for or what they were focussing on (not a called shot - if they are trying to, say, chop off a hand or poke out an eye, I add the appropriate AC bonus for the spot's size) and customise - with crunch or just fluff - the damage.

horseboy
2009-11-28, 11:55 PM
There does need to be a difference between a fumble where you stumble over a rock, and a fumble where you somehow stab yourself in the leg (see my previous posts) and somehow nick an artery. The rock bit is VASTLY more probably, and should be reflected as such. Normally, I'd say that a sane DM would simply rule this...but I keep forgetting that the D&D mindset now is to have a written rule for everything, since DM's can't be trusted. Thus, weigh the critical fumble table heavily in favor of the "rock" -level fumble, rather than the "slice off own leg" fumble. Done.
Yeah, and the DM (as opposed to several GM'S) has to remember that in D&D combat no one ever actually gets hurt for real, even on a crit. So they shouldn't get hurt on a fumble.

Serpentine
2009-11-28, 11:58 PM
Yeah, and the DM (as opposed to several GM'S) has to remember that in D&D combat no one ever actually gets hurt for real, even on a crit. So they shouldn't get hurt on a fumble.By "for real", do you mean permanently? Cuz yeah, I agree. In this context... If you get your eye taken out, and then someone casts a Cure spell on you, it should be completely healed, no matter how it happened. Though I'd consider making it permanent if it was left long enough... but yeah, unlikely and not in this context.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 12:08 AM
By "for real", do you mean permanently? Cuz yeah, I agree. In this context... If you get your eye taken out, and then someone casts a Cure spell on you, it should be completely healed, no matter how it happened. Though I'd consider making it permanent if it was left long enough... but yeah, unlikely and not in this context.

One of the great weaknesses of martial characters in 3.x is their inability to inflict status modifiers. If a fighter can't cut a tendon or break a bone with his sword to make the other guy have to take a - to AC or attack or anything, then it's not really fair for them to do it by accident to themselves.

Also, regeneration is the one you use to regrow lost limbs, or did that not make it into 3rd?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-29, 12:21 AM
One of the great weaknesses of martial characters in 3.x is their inability to inflict status modifiers. If a fighter can't cut a tendon or break a bone with his sword to make the other guy have to take a - to AC or attack or anything, then it's not really fair for them to do it by accident to themselves.

Also, regeneration is the one you use to regrow lost limbs, or did that not make it into 3rd?

7th level Cleric spell in 3.5.

tyckspoon
2009-11-29, 12:26 AM
Also, regeneration is the one you use to regrow lost limbs, or did that not make it into 3rd?

It is, but since 3.x also very definitely moved away from that kind of location-specific damage it's very much a relic kind of spell. It only comes into use when the DM specifically decides to amputate something for some reason; otherwise the Restoration and Cure lines cover pretty almost every other kind of injury, even debilitating non-HP ones. All of the caltrop/hamstring cutting/muscle-damaging-fluffed effects I can think of say something like "these penalties last until treated with a Heal check or any magical healing."

horseboy
2009-11-29, 12:34 AM
It is, but since 3.x also very definitely moved away from that kind of location-specific damage it's very much a relic kind of spell. It only comes into use when the DM specifically decides to amputate something for some reason;
Actually in prior editions, it only came up with DM fiat, swords of sharpness and the various Vecna body parts.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 12:46 AM
Let me put it this way. I have definitely fired hundreds of thousands of rounds from firearms. Thousands of arrow shots, and certainly many thousands of sword swings. I've never managed to shoot myself with either of the ranged weapons. Ever. Also, save for very early, when just learning, I've never randomly dropped either of the ranged weapons. The sword...it's possible. Not likely at all, but when you're moving, and the person you're fighting with is moving, accidents happen. However, my experience is that it's generally LESS dangerous than being hit with an aimed blow from an opponent, not more so.

Now, take a weapon like a three piece staff. Despite briefly trying to pick it up in martial arts training, I would probably manage to hit myself in the balls and the head at the exact same time. It's frigging dangerous to those without training.

The point being...fumbles are possible, but no rule set described yet is vaguely realistic, and cannot be made realistic without a ridiculous amount of rather fiddly detail, on a per weapon basis, with proficiency and experience of the wielder factored in.

In the end, I can't help thinking...is it worth it? What's the point, to gimp the monk even further? Why can't we just thematically describe the auto-miss on a 1 and leave it at that?

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 12:49 AM
You could, and I wouldn't complain if I had a DM who did. But I think they're fun, and I like the counter-weight to criticals.

Dienekes
2009-11-29, 12:59 AM
Tyndmyr, if you're worried about realism, why in the 7 hells are you playing DnD?

DnD is realistic-ish with a strong aftertaste. We use the fumble rules because 1) they're fun and funny and 2) they vaguely sorta realistic-ish kinda way simulate that yes, you can mess up.

Now let's say that you had the perfectly realistic system to start out with, by definition wouldn't it kinda have to in some way incorporate a means to show when dumb luck strikes in either for or against anyway, thus a critical and fumble system, just a perfectly realistic one.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 01:02 AM
I'm not worried about realism. I was countering the earlier arguments that fumble tables should be allowed because "they're realistic".

Fumble tables are objectively not at all realistic.

They also objectively weaken classes that rely on rolls to do things. IE, melee. I consider weakening melee relative to casters to be a poor design choice.



Sure, failure can be quite amusing. You don't need fumble tables to fail, though.

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 01:06 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has insisted that fumble charts are realistic... I think people have said they're not unrealistic - or rather, that they're not as unrealistic as is claimed.

Aquillion
2009-11-29, 01:09 AM
Increasing the number of die-rolls required for combat is undesirable. That's all.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 01:10 AM
Well, in general, the people who are saying fumbles are realistic are also saying things like jams and tripping on a rock qualify. People who are claiming fumbles are unrealistic are all expecting Owen Hart level fumbles.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 01:11 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has insisted that fumble charts are realistic... I think people have said they're not unrealistic - or rather, that they're not as unrealistic as is claimed.

It was part of the original post. Others rapidly chimed in saying that they were.

Also, yes, increasing the number of die rolls does slow down combat. How much this slows down combat depends on how frequently it happens, though, so things like auto-misses or AoOs on a 1 really aren't a factor at all. Things involving confirming and random tables likely are, though.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 01:20 AM
Well, in general, the people who are saying fumbles are realistic are also saying things like jams and tripping on a rock qualify. People who are claiming fumbles are unrealistic are all expecting Owen Hart level fumbles.

A fumble is something that has a greater negative effect than merely missing the shot. I miss plenty. It's pretty rare that anything more drastic than that happens, though.

Lets look at a jam in a modern weapon. Excluding 22 rimfire, if you're jamming even 1% of time time, you are either using terrible quality ammo, or have a defective gun. Or both. Most of the time, working the action will clear a simple hangfire/misfire, etc, and even including every possible malfunction, firearms will fire correctly when the trigger is pulled well over 99% of the time. The times when it does not, often will simply be "failed to fire". IE, a miss. No injury. No weapon dropping. No shooting friends.

Let's look at more historical weapons. Bows, for example. I don't really know how you could "jam" a bow. You could break a bowstring. You could have the arrow jump the nock, but at most, that's going to result in a miss and a cut on your thumb. IE, falls under the category of "covered by a miss" with the rare exception of breaking the string.

Now, lets look at the spiked chain. Leaving aside the lack of historical use of it, critical failures with such a weapon would be more likely in combat, and more likely to be dangerous. Any jointed or chained weapon has this to some degree.

Basically, even if you tried to use "realistic" fumbles, not all weapon types are equally likely to fumble, nor are they equally dangerous when fumbled. There is no realistic way to handle them that is at all manageable within the context of a game.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 01:32 AM
A fumble is something that has a greater negative effect than merely missing the shot. I miss plenty. It's pretty rare that anything more drastic than that happens, though. And that's the fundamental disagreement. A fumble can include you missing for some reason other than yourself, which can include a great many things.



Basically, even if you tried to use "realistic" fumbles, not all weapon types are equally likely to fumble, nor are they equally dangerous when fumbled. There is no realistic way to handle them that is at all manageable within the context of a game.A game or A D&D game, cause I've seen several systems that do it much better.

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 01:36 AM
The first post to address the "it's not realistic" argument is this:
Ever fought with weapons for real? Ever watch people fight (say, in an SCA or ARMA bout)? Dropping weapons is actually pretty common, as is tripping over bodies or stones on the ground ("get up Prince of Troy - I'll not let a stone steal my glory"), smacking yourself in the head with your quillons (crossguard), and many other such things that people would never willingly let their characters do that ultimately impede your chances of victory.

With that said, it's not 5% common, that's for sure. Fumbles on a 1 are an unfortunate consequence of the given granularity of the d20 system. Fumble systems like Shadowrun's "Rule of One" are far superior (if you roll >50% ones on multiple dice, there's a fumble), because the odds of rolling greater than 50% ones drop significantly the more dice you roll (the better you are, the less chance to fumble) AND give the GM a guideline on how bad the fumble should be (up to and including having the character die if rolling LOTS of dice and rolling ALL ones). So I can see the argument against fumbles in d20, it's not really fair to the players to hit them with a fumble on 5% of rolls.

I'd simply make it as when you roll a one, there's a chance of a fumble, with the GM getting to decide the algorithm he prefers (I rather like d20+level, meet or beet the TN you were rolling against or a fumble occurs; the tougher the thing was, the more likely the fumble, and the more experienced you are, the less chance of a fumble).

But to remove fumbles from the game completely smacks somewhat of "gimme-ism"; people don't like bad things to happen to their characters, and so argue to get rid of penalties, fumbles, and so forth - things that aren't "fun". What they fail to realize is that it's the unplanned failures and the brilliant improvisational recovery/response on the part of the players that tend to make the most interesting and enjoyable stories. Thus, I argue to keep fumbles in the game, if less common than the d20 might indicate.He's not saying that it's realistic, just that it's not as unrealistic as claimed. Same with the next (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7394313&postcount=23) one, and the next (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7395966&postcount=73), and the next (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7396386&postcount=86), and the one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7396475&postcount=88) after that, and after (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397269&postcount=111) that, and I'm at the end of page 4.
NO ONE has said that fumble rules are realistic. We ARE saying that they are not as unrealistic as is made out, especially when reasonable ones are used, and especially in comparison to other realism-compromising D&D rules. Please don't say we're saying things that we're not.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 01:42 AM
And that's the fundamental disagreement. A fumble can include you missing for some reason other than yourself, which can include a great many things.


Automiss on a 1 is normal. This isn't what is described by a fumble.

A fumble is some other negative effect happening in addition to that. The exact details of the effect is irrelevant, because as fumble tables are mostly homebrewed, they vary quite a bit.

The fact is, it's extremely rare in real life to fail an attack so badly that you not only miss, but have some other negative effect, like falling over, throwing your weapon away, or injuring yourself in some way. What chance does exist is vastly more likely to happen to untrained, unproficient users.

The level of the negative effect isn't what's causing the unrealism, the frequency, and the way in which that frequency changes, is.

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 01:46 AM
And those are the sorts of factors for which many of us have been trying to come up with solutions.

That was a surprisingly difficult sentence to write...

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 01:51 AM
There is no possible "realistic" solution that doesn't require both of the following:

Changing the probability so it becomes less likely on a per-attack basis as you get higher. Failure to do this means that growing in skill results in a higher probability of failure. This makes no sense.

Changing the probability of it so that it happens with a differing rate for every type of weapon.

This has the following effects:
Being biased against PCs, who will be subject to the results of many of them. NPCs, being freshly generated, only face those in one fight, that facing the PCs.
More randomness in encounter difficulty.
Longer combat resolution.
Melee being less powerful compared to magic.
TWF/Monk being gimped the most.

Why is this "realism", that ends up being extremely, extremely rare in real life worthy of all this?

horseboy
2009-11-29, 02:02 AM
There is no possible "realistic" solution that doesn't require both of the following:

Changing the probability so it becomes less likely on a per-attack basis as you get higher. Failure to do this means that growing in skill results in a higher probability of failure. This makes no sense.

Changing the probability of it so that it happens with a differing rate for every type of weapon. Harn and Earthdawn do the first, Rolemaster does the second on a weapon by weapon basis and there's only one attack roll per round per round so you don't have to worry about being penalized for being higher level. After all the OP never made this system specific and just asked if we use fumbles in our games. :smallwink:


This has the following effects:
Being biased against PCs, who will be subject to the results of many of them. NPCs, being freshly generated, only face those in one fight, that facing the PCs.
More randomness in encounter difficulty.
Longer combat resolution.
Melee being less powerful compared to magic.
TWF/Monk being gimped the most.

Why is this "realism", that ends up being extremely, extremely rare in real life worthy of all this?I wouldn't call it extremely, extremely rare. After all that's half of the sports coverage on Monday is which professional athlete hurt themselves over the weekend.
Because it adds to the same Ninja Gaiden hard level fun.

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 02:05 AM
Changing the probability so it becomes less likely on a per-attack basis as you get higher. Failure to do this means that growing in skill results in a higher probability of failure. This makes no sense.Confirmation roll means that higher level characters are less likely to have more than a miss. I could even handle removing the "auto-miss", and only having even a miss (outside of not reaching the AC) happen upon confirmation. Chance of a damage-dealing critical hit increases with number of attacks, chance of a negative-consequence fumble decreases with base attack.

Changing the probability of it so that it happens with a differing rate for every type of weapon.I really don't see this as such an issue. But, because I like tables, I'd consider having separate tables for "high risk" and "low risk" weapons.

Being biased against PCs, who will be subject to the results of many of them. NPCs, being freshly generated, only face those in one fight, that facing the PCs.I've gotta say, I don't really follow this argument. I like to think, at least in my own mind, that NPCs do exist beyond the few rounds they coincide with the PCs... But in any case, this really only applies to permanently maiming fumble systems, and I don't think anyone here supports those. Otherwise, if the system involves the potential for damage, then... well, it's just damage, like any other.

More randomness in encounter difficulty.Again, not an issue for me (anyone for whom it would be have any suggestions?), but as either side can fumble, I'd expect it to even out overall.

Longer combat resolution.Combat length is a problem for me, but that's because of other issues, and I think the entertainment value outweighs an extra minute or two.

Melee being less powerful compared to magic.A legitimate issue. I don't know that getting rid of fumbles is going to make that much difference to the power gap, though... I would consider coming up with ways of making magical fumbles more significant.

TWF/Monk being gimped the most.One of my best characters is a TWF. It never really bothered me, but you're right, TWFers (dunno about monks) are probably the most at risk from fumbles. I don't know how that could be fixed. Maybe only one fumble per pair of attacks? No, that wouldn't work...

Why is this "realism", that ends up being extremely, extremely rare in real life worthy of all this?I don't think it's that rare - others with more experience in real-life combat have said this. And, like I already said a few times, NO ONE is saying that it is especially realistic. More importantly, it is fun (at least for me, and a number of other people). And while I am often a stickler for realism, what little fumbling has is good enough for me, with the fun I get from it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-29, 02:17 AM
The reason randomness is a problem is because the encounters in most cases are slanted in favor of the PCs. This is how they manage to survive the 100+ combats needed to hit level 10. If you add randomness, you increase the chances of the PCs losing, even if the randomness is evenly distributed.

Basic math-esque examples. Whichever side gets the higher end number wins(ties get rerolled). PC has a 90+1d10.
Jerk has an 80+1d10. PC wins 100% of the time.

PC has a 90+1d20.
Jerk has an 80+1d20. PC wins 87.4% of the time. Which is better from the perspective of a player? Or from the perspective of a DM who wants challenging encounters without char deaths? Less randomness. That's why people say it hurts PCs more(ignoring the perma-cripple effects).

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 02:20 AM
I've gotta say, I don't really follow this argument. I like to think, at least in my own mind, that NPCs do exist beyond the few rounds they coincide with the PCs... But in any case, this really only applies to permanently maiming fumble systems, and I don't think anyone here supports those. Otherwise, if the system involves the potential for damage, then... well, it's just damage, like any other.

NPCs are typically created at the level at which the PCs will encounter them. There isn't really any chance that the NPC will be killed due to untimely fumbles before they bump into the PCs. The PCs, on the other hand, need to take risks all the way there.

This applies not only to permanently maiming fumble systems(though obviously, they are the worst offenders), but to ones that merely reduce effectiveness. A thrown away weapon at the wrong time could result in a player death.

The players, however, will not face less opponents because "some of them died to fumble rolls earlier in their career". Thus, it provides danger with no corresponding benefit.


Again, not an issue for me (anyone for whom it would be have any suggestions?), but as either side can fumble, I'd expect it to even out overall.

Applying the same effect to both sides does not make it equal. Increased randomization always makes relative power levels and strategy less important in comparison to the randomization. This is mostly a bad thing for the more powerful party

In real terms, the PCs are almost invariably the more powerful party, as shown by their usual survival of NPC encounters. This reduces that odds for any given ECL. Worse, it does so in a method that is not reliant upon skill.


Combat length is a problem for me, but that's because of other issues, and I think the entertainment value outweighs an extra minute or two.

A value judgement, but I posit that the entertainment comes from the randomness of watching party members fail amusingly, not from the mechanics themselves.

In other words, how you describe a roll of a natural 1 resulting in a miss could be just as entertaining, without invoking mechanical penalties.


A legitimate issue. I don't know that getting rid of fumbles is going to make that much difference to the power gap, though... I would consider coming up with ways of making magical fumbles more significant.
One of my best characters is a TWF. It never really bothered me, but you're right, TWFers (dunno about monks) are probably the most at risk from fumbles. I don't know how that could be fixed. Maybe only one fumble per pair of attacks? No, that wouldn't work...

Not sure, exactly. So long as it's keyed to "rolling a 1", whoever rolls more dice is at risk. You could do things like adding a die roll to every turn, but in addition to speed, this doesn't mesh well with other mechanics. What if you crit and fumble at the same time?

As for magic, it just doesn't mesh well. A great many spells don't require attack rolls. You'd need to key it off save rolls or something, which could be awkward, and doesn't cover no-save spells. No need to make those any better than they already are.


I don't think it's that rare - others with more experience in real-life combat have said this. And, like I already said a few times, NO ONE is saying that it is especially realistic. More importantly, it is fun (at least for me, and a number of other people). And while I am often a stickler for realism, what little fumbling has is good enough for me, with the fun I get from it.

As already stated, I have plenty of experience with real life combat. It's far, far too rare to be represented in d20 systems and have any real chance of it coming up.

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 02:30 AM
Sstoopidkid: Fair enough. But does "you miss every once in a while, and sometimes the miss will result in a disadvantage" really make that much difference to randomness, to swing enough encounters that far?

Tyn:
A value judgement, but I posit that the entertainment comes from the randomness of watching party members fail amusingly, not from the mechanics themselves.

In other words, how you describe a roll of a natural 1 resulting in a miss could be just as entertaining, without invoking mechanical penalties.
Basically, I'm not that clever. I can't come up with something funny or epic or whatever every time from "you miss". "You miss and stumble", or "you miss and potentially drop your weapon" gives a bit of a boost in that regard. And mechanics add something real to that miss, something that isn't just me describing "something happens".


As already stated, I have plenty of experience with real life combat. It's far, far too rare to be represented in d20 systems and have any real chance of it coming up.From memory, most of the pro-fumble fighters have experience with melee weapons, and most anti-fumble fighters (which I think includes you?) have experience with modern ranged weapons. I think this could perhaps have an impact.
Regardless, is it really "extremely, extremely rare" for you to miss more than would be covered with a "you miss"? Especially in the middle of a high-tension, dusty, grubby, frantically moving, noisy, distracting battle in which you are surrounded by friend and foe alike, between which it may be difficult to distinguish? If nothing else, as I mentioned, "friendly fire" is not exactly rare...

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 02:47 AM
Sstoopidkid: Fair enough. But does "you miss every once in a while, and sometimes the miss will result in a disadvantage" really make that much difference to randomness, to swing enough encounters that far?

It's pretty significant. For example, lets say the average penalty is "you drop your weapon". Not horrible, but lets look at what it means. That attack fails, and any further iteratives fail. The meleer is now unarmed, and thus, possible AoOs are lost. He spends the next turn picking his weapon up, so that turn is wasted too. In addition, he's stuck in the front lines in this vulnerable state.

How much does the fighter being out of commission for two turns mean? We'll assume that the average combat is 4 rounds, perhaps a bit more, and a party of 4. That means, in that fight, you lost 12.5% of your combat ability if you got only one crit failure. If you have four melee types, this happening is extremely likely...but it won't happen evenly.

The fight in which you have no crit fails, you kill them about half a round more rapidly. The fight in which you have two crit fails, you are essentially down a party member. If you have more, well...you're probably screwed.



Basically, I'm not that clever. I can't come up with something funny or epic or whatever every time from "you miss". "You miss and stumble", or "you miss and potentially drop your weapon" gives a bit of a boost in that regard. And mechanics add something real to that miss, something that isn't just me describing "something happens".

Use a random table with reasons, instead of relying on mechanics? No, not every time will be funny or epic, just glance at the table, roll if you feel like it, or grab something appropriate. I wouldn't even do it every time. Experimenting with it, I found that if it happened every time someone rolled a 1, it lost it's novelty...sort of like crits, only without the excitement of something good happening.


From memory, most of the pro-fumble fighters have experience with melee weapons, and most anti-fumble fighters (which I think includes you?) have experience with modern ranged weapons. I think this could perhaps have an impact.

As mentioned earlier, I did sword fighting for a few years, and archery for many, as well as martial arts. I do have more experience with modern weaponry than historical weapons, but I certainly have a rather solid experience base to draw from. I suspect that the others with experience would agree that fumbles severe enough to translate to mechanical disadvantages beyond missing are pretty rare among those with the appropriate competency, and vary strongly between weapon types.


Regardless, is it really "extremely, extremely rare" for you to miss more than would be covered with a "you miss"? Especially in the middle of a high-tension, dusty, grubby, frantically moving, noisy, distracting battle in which you are surrounded by friend and foe alike, between which it may be difficult to distinguish? If nothing else, as I mentioned, "friendly fire" is not exactly rare...

Casualties to friendly fire are extremely rare even in modern warfare, where the friendlies are the same creature types, and warfare takes place at great distances. D&D makes heavy use of creature types that are highly distinguishable from the party, and the party being a small team that knows each other well, is unusually unlikely to accidentally shoot each other.

Sure, if you have a changeling in your midst, such concerns may come up, but as a matter of course, in normal fights? Extremely unusual.

FerhagoRosewood
2009-11-29, 06:31 AM
So, you don't watch WWE? You know when the audience chants "You ****ed up!" In fact, it's not that uncommon for them to screw up something every other show or so, and they rehearse that.
*Cough* Owen Hart *Cough*

Off topic, but I'd seriously choose a better choice for an example for a wrestler in a fumbled situation. Owen fell to his death doing a stunt he was inexperienced in, in restraints that didn't work, weren't safe, and above all else he was afraid of heights.

Having someone like RVD brake his ankle on a simple Baseball Slide would be more fit and less heartless as a real man died.

Just my two cents. Argue on.

Nai_Calus
2009-11-29, 08:23 AM
Is it just me or do most of the pro-fumble people seem to be unwilling to accept that some people really don't give a hoot whether or not they're 'realistic' or not, and that for us it's just plain *not fun*?

I don't care if it's the most realistic perfectly modeled fumble table ever. I don't want it in use in a game I'm in. I don't play D&D for realism, which should be fairly obvious. (Let's see, I'm currently playing in 4e an Eladrin, a half-elf and an elf; and a 'drow' in 3.5. Very realistic. They're all using magic of some sort. Also very realistic. Two of them aren't even from the plane the party is adventuring on. Extremely realistic! Wait no, none of that is realistic, I wonder why. Oh right, D&D, no wonder.)

Also, no fumble rule I've been around has been in conjunction with confirming fumbles. You roll a 1, you roll to see what ludicrous thing happens. Even if crits are confirmed, fumbles often aren't from what I've been exposed to.

If you like it, that's great for you, go find games with one. I'll avoid those games with all my might and I'll have a good time finding games that will not make me want to slam my head into the wall.

Also, on the idea of 'well we'll come up with stuff for casters'... Er... Every 3.5 arcane caster I've played... Doesn't really roll attacks. My players hated me when I DMed because I used a lot of NPC wizards as opponents. With lousy spells at that, but I wasn't rolling attacks, they were rolling saves. Many of the best spells and the no-brainers don't *have* an attack roll, too, not just the lousy damage spells I was using on them. So herpderp melee characters take it up the rear even more than usual, as has been stated what seems like thousands of times in this thread. Again with the non-fun for me. Especially since the 3.5 rules make melee unfun for me to begin with. Making it worse... Makes the only sane option a wizard. Problem is, I don't want to be a wizard. (Solution is that I mostly avoid 3.5 nowadays.)

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 08:37 AM
That's fine, but deal with the fact that many people do find them fun, not everyone follows ridiculous rules for them, it's not necessarily insane, stupid or head-bangingly frustrating to use them, and NOONE IS SAYING THAT IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY REALISTIC, or at least any more than any other part of D&D. And basically, I think it's a silly thing to judge an entire game on. I could take it or leave it, if someone cared enough to take it out, and I don't really understand how, beyond the extreme rulesets, someone could have such a violent hatred for it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-29, 10:01 AM
And basically, I think it's a silly thing to judge an entire game on. I could take it or leave it, if someone cared enough to take it out, and I don't really understand how, beyond the extreme rulesets, someone could have such a violent hatred for it.That's the thing. Most of the people here who hate them have experienced those extreme rulesets. Yes, not every ruleset will be that idiotic, but after one of those, hearing the word fumble scares them. Once bitten and all that. It's like DMPCs, it only takes one bad experience to make you flee from any game that hints at them.

Serpentine
2009-11-29, 10:07 AM
Man, you guys would flee in terror at one of my games... Which is kinda funny, cuz while I undeniably have flaws as a DM, those aren't them.

In any case, that still doesn't make it fair to declare all possible fumble rules - or even all applied fumble rules - fundamentally bad, and an automatic deal-breaker*.


*ladies

starwoof
2009-11-29, 10:07 AM
NOONE IS SAYING THAT IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY REALISTIC

I'm certainly not. I love fumbles not for the realism, but for the laughs they provide. I totally understand why people wouldn't like them, I just want people to understand why my group does, and why every game I run will use my fumble/crit system.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-29, 10:20 AM
Is it just me or do most of the pro-fumble people seem to be unwilling to accept that some people really don't give a hoot whether or not they're 'realistic' or not, and that for us it's just plain *not fun*?
Actually, I think most people who make "realism" arguments are making them in direct response to the "fumbles are not realistic" statement. Fumbles aren't some crazy idea from Mars any more than Critical Hits are - both assume special situations where something "extra" is done in combat.

I'll buy the "once bitten, twice shy" argument, of course, but I honestly think there's a stronger theme of "Power to the PCs" going on here. While I don't doubt that Fumbles rules could be irritating to TSR D&D players (I was one of them), the sort of extreme aversion I'm seeing from some posters here (OP included) is an artifact of the WotC D&D gaming mentality. Fumble mechanics just aren't as dramatic a play variation as, say, failing to compensate for 'caster cheese in a 3.5 game - and yet Fumbles arouse more passionate responses by far.

In 2E, Fumbles were just one houserule among many - and few houserules, if any, were sufficiently game-destroying to warrant dodging a game, sight unseen.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 10:42 AM
Off topic, but I'd seriously choose a better choice for an example for a wrestler in a fumbled situation. Owen fell to his death doing a stunt he was inexperienced in, in restraints that didn't work, weren't safe, and above all else he was afraid of heights.

Having someone like RVD brake his ankle on a simple Baseball Slide would be more fit and less heartless as a real man died.

Just my two cents. Argue on.

Also, wrestling is probably a horrible example for realism regarding combat.

Matthew
2009-11-29, 11:22 AM
You can see an interesting progression in D&D as regards fumbles/critical hits

In AD&D/1e (1977-1989) the DMG strongly advised against either because of the randomness they introduced to combat; loads of people used them, probably the most common house rule to encounter, to the extent that many people still think they are an official part of the game. A natural "1" and a natural "20" had no special effect [e.g. neither automatic hit or miss].

In D&D 1982-2000 and AD&D/2e (1989-2000) automatic hit and miss rules became part of the official default system, and the latter offered critical hit and fumble optional sub-systems that reflected what groups were actually doing. In 1995(ish) C&T introduced a plethora of critical hit tables that somewhat reflected Role Master (the true home of critical hit and miss charts). [117-119: "While daydreaming you put your hand in front of the bolt while firing. Lose a finger. +4 hits. 2 hits per rnd."]

With D20/3e (2000-2007) critical hits became a default part of the game, differentiating weapon types and linking up with feats. Fumbles were included as an optional rule (DMG. p. 28) and required a dexterity check versus DC 10 to avoid some unfortunate and undefined happen stance.

To a large extent you just have two groups of people, one that is attracted to the idea of fumble/critical as two ends of the same spectrum, and another group that has disconnected the idea of "critical hits" from fumbles entirely. That is to say, you can always do exceptionally well, but never exceptionally badly. I enjoy critical hits and fumbles as additional randomisers in the game, but if I want to reduce randomness they are the first thing to go.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 11:25 AM
An automiss on a 1 is already a representation of doing exceptionally badly. When the level 20 fighter fails to hit a level 1 commoner, there's clearly some heavy duty fail at work there.

Artanis
2009-11-29, 11:28 AM
One of the things I notice in this thread is that it mostly revolves around d20 in general and 3e DnD in particular. As has been noted, two of the big problems with putting fumbles in this system are the relatively high probability of rolling a 1 and the fact that fumbles are houserules.

Many systems have fumbles built into the rules, and thus are accounted for in the balance of the system. They're also thus (presumably) severe/lenient and rare/common as appropriate. I have no problem with these, and I'm sure that many of the anti-fumble people here feel the same way. No matter how lenient or "realistic" fumbles may be in d20-based systems, it's still a balance-skewing event that happens with far too much regularity.

Saph
2009-11-29, 11:32 AM
An automiss on a 1 is already a representation of doing exceptionally badly. When the level 20 fighter fails to hit a level 1 commoner, there's clearly some heavy duty fail at work there.

People keep on saying this when it simply isn't true. Assuming you're fighting a challenging opponent, a 1 is generally exactly the same as a 2 or a 3; you're still going to miss.

Furthermore, the chance of confirming a fumble when you need a 2+ to hit are 1 in 400, so unless you regularly play games where your 20th-level fighter fights hundreds of rounds of combat against level 1 commoners, 1-then-confirm fumble rules are going to be almost completely irrelevant in this situation.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 11:38 AM
Also, wrestling is probably a horrible example for realism regarding combat.

It's at least as realistic as D&D combat. :smallwink:
But they are trained professionals, which puts them above SFCA, but not quite the Royce Gracie/Ken Shamrock era of UFC. I've seen Raven miss a chair and fall flat on his face, Mankind being choked slammed through the cage, and enough "Oh, he landed wrong, he's actually hurt" to believe a paraphrased statement like "Professionals never, ever screw up."

Another interesting question: How many of the don't confirm fumbles DM's are from prior editions? There was no confirmation roll in prior editions, you rolled a 20 you crited, rolled a 1 fumbled. Sounds a lot like a relic issue.

Matthew
2009-11-29, 11:38 AM
An automiss on a 1 is already a representation of doing exceptionally badly. When the level 20 fighter fails to hit a level 1 commoner, there's clearly some heavy duty fail at work there.

I think you are probably missing the point. An auto hit and an auto miss rule are equivalents; there is no need for critical hit rules in that dynamic. If you introduce a chance of doing "even better" without a chance of doing "even worse" that goes beyond automatic hits and misses there can be a perceived lack of equality.



Sounds a lot like a relic issue.

Almost certainly.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 11:43 AM
I think you are probably missing the point. An auto hit and an auto miss rule are equivalents; there is no need for critical hit rules in that dynamic. If you introduce a chance of doing "even better" without a chance of doing "even worse" that goes beyond automatic hits and misses there can be a perceived lack of equality.


Why does it need to be equal? Why should highly trained people(beyond any comparison in reality) be equally likely to fail spectacularly as they are to be spectacularly successful?

Boci
2009-11-29, 11:44 AM
I think you are probably missing the point. An auto hit and an auto miss rule are equivalents; there is no need for critical hit rules in that dynamic. If you introduce a chance of doing "even better" without a chance of doing "even worse" that goes beyond automatic hits and misses there can be a perceived lack of equality.

But critical hits lead to a lot of new mechanics, like weapon properties, crit range and feats like staggering critical. And D&D is about heroes and monsters, neither of which commonly are prone to screw up that badly.

Matthew
2009-11-29, 11:45 AM
Why does it need to be equal? Why should highly trained people(beyond any comparison in reality) be equally likely to fail spectacularly as they are to be spectacularly successful?

I am not arguing that it needs to be equal, I am saying that there is a tendency to want that equality in some quarters. There are no posts here arguing for fumbles without criticals, which I think is fairly indicative of what is going on.



But critical hits lead to a lot of new mechanics, like weapon properties, crit range and feats like staggering critical. And D&D is about heroes and monsters, neither of which commonly are prone to screw up that badly.

D&D is about whatever you want it to be about; some people will find criticals and fumbles suit their game, others will find one or the other to be antithetical. It is no big deal either way.

Boci
2009-11-29, 11:46 AM
There are no posts here arguing for fumbles without criticals, which I think is fairly indicative of what is going on.

You don;t think that could damage the hero idea of PCs?

horseboy
2009-11-29, 11:46 AM
Why does it need to be equal? Why should highly trained people(beyond any comparison in reality) be equally likely to fail spectacularly as they are to be spectacularly successful?

1) Not everything in the world is under your control. Events beyond your control can and do interfere with the best laid plans of mice and me.

2) I don't buy the "beyond any comparison in reality" argument and instead realize that the system his heavily flawed and that's their attempt at hand waving the inherent problems in a poorly designed system.

3) It makes it more challenging, and therefore more rewarding to a certain mindset.

Matthew
2009-11-29, 11:47 AM
You don't think that could damage the hero idea of PCs?

I think D&D damages the hero idea of PCs. People will play their game any way they please and in accordance with their idea of what is suitable.

Boci
2009-11-29, 11:48 AM
I think D&D damages the hero idea of PCs.

Yeah, nothing about D&D points towards heroes, good or evil. For core melee I'd agree with you, but that can easily be fixed.

Mike_G
2009-11-29, 11:48 AM
Why does it need to be equal? Why should highly trained people(beyond any comparison in reality) be equally likely to fail spectacularly as they are to be spectacularly successful?


That issue is easily solved by confirming a fumble, just like you have to confim a crit. A second roll must also be a failure, just like the second roll fro a crit must be a success.

Better fighters confirm crits more often, and confirm fumbles less often.

The nly other issue I would have would be deadly fumble tables. Fumbles should be annoying, not deadly.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 11:49 AM
Equality between players and such is a good thing. Equality in mechanics is not.

Imagine the fun if in every single fight, the monsters actually had an equal shot at killing the entire party.

I will agree with an earlier poster who said that for other games, and other systems, crit failures make much more sense. If I play paranoia, I fully expect there to be a chance of something going horribly, horribly wrong. It fits neatly within the system and setting. The same is not true of D&D.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 11:51 AM
Imagine the fun if in every single fight, the monsters actually had an equal shot at killing the entire party.


I'd have no problem with it. Since all D&D has to offer is killing and taking stuff anyway actually I'm all for making taking and killing challenging.

Boci
2009-11-29, 11:52 AM
I'd have no problem with it. Since all D&D has to offer is killing and taking stuff anyway actually I'm all for making taking and killing challenging.

Won't you die every second fight then? Personal taste I giess, I'd hate such a game.

Matthew
2009-11-29, 11:54 AM
This is where we get into a debate about what people expect from D&D... For some people critical hits and fumbles accord with their expectations of D&D, for others they do not. Nothing about that suggests that one or the other is absolutely good or bad outside of a narrow context of expectations.

Boci
2009-11-29, 11:55 AM
This is where we get into a debate about what people expect from D&D... For some people critical hits and fumbles accord with their expectations of D&D, for others they do not. Nothing about that suggests that one or the other is absolutely good or bad outside of a narrow context of expectations.

So you'd like a game where your characters dies in every second fight?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 11:56 AM
Won't you die every second fight then? Personal taste I giess, I'd hate such a game.

If it's actually equal, you'd have a 50/50 shot at death in every fight. I too enjoy challenging fights, but the fun of a challenging fight is in finding a way to overcome the challenge. If this is routinely unachievable, because the mobs are your equals, I'm going to get pretty tired of re rolling characters in short order.

Matthew
2009-11-29, 11:57 AM
So you'd like a game where your characters dies in every second fight?

No idea, never played one like that to the best of my recollection; I like the variety of action that critical hits and fumbles offer, but I think they are too random for D&D in general.

Krrth
2009-11-29, 12:03 PM
I'm going to echo the "it's all in what you're used to" idea. I know I started DnD early on, and the game just wouldn't be the same (to me) without fumbles.

That being said, we don't usually do something major to a character on a fumble. The process usually goes like this:

1)Roll a 1. Is the character doing something for which they are not trained or something unusual? If no you've managed to put yourself off balance, out of position, or something similar. End turn as your character recovers.

2)If yes look at what you are doing. Shooting into melee without precise shot and not taking the penalty? Roll attack on a random party member. Have precise shot or took the penalty? Your shot parts the hair/bounces off the armor/leaves a thin line of blood(but no HP loss)/otherwise narrowly misses a random PC. Fighting on a slippery surface? Roll balance to avoid slipping.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 12:05 PM
So you'd like a game where your characters dies in every second fight?

1) I do play Rolemaster.
2) I would prefer that I have to actually stop and think up a way to overcome a challenge rather than just "I cast a DC16 sleep spell" and end the encounter.
3) Picking on someone "My own size" is always more rewarding than beating up underclassmen for their lunch money.

Boci
2009-11-29, 12:09 PM
2)If yes look at what you are doing. Shooting into melee without precise shot and not taking the penalty? Roll attack on a random party member. Have precise shot or took the penalty? Your shot parts the hair/bounces off the armor/leaves a thin line of blood(but no HP loss)/otherwise narrowly misses a random PC. Fighting on a slippery surface? Roll balance to avoid slipping.

As thumble systems go I could accept this one. So a assuming no extreme terrain a fighter will never fumble for rolling a nat 1 when they swing their sword?

Piedmon_Sama
2009-11-29, 12:15 PM
Points of order:
1. Critical fumbles are awful and I despise them. You're meant to be playing a trained expert (in whatever your PC's class is), or at least a competent journeyman (from 1st level). I know anyone can foul up, sometimes in a bad way, but at 1/20 odds? That's like saying every 5% of the time, a professional soldier should suffer a gun jam or shoot himself in the foot; imagine having an army of 100,000 soldiers with a 5% chance of every infantryman critically fumbling. It's silly.

2. It's not a bad thing to make fights tough. I prefer a highly lethal playstyle where every fight is risky, and players are rewarded for thinking their way around obstacles rather than blasting through every single time. But everyone has their own preferences, and it's better to go with the group or arrive at a consensus rather than bag on endlessly about which way is "true D&D."

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 12:15 PM
1) I do play Rolemaster.
2) I would prefer that I have to actually stop and think up a way to overcome a challenge rather than just "I cast a DC16 sleep spell" and end the encounter.
3) Picking on someone "My own size" is always more rewarding than beating up underclassmen for their lunch money.

If they are equal to you, they are also stopping and thinking of a way to overcome you.

Challenging fights are great, yes. Equal fights are not. If the world actually worked the way D&D does, I'd be planning out how to take out encounters in the most blatantly unfair, unequal ways possible, because I don't particularly want to die. The entire point of thinking up a way to overcome a challenge is something that is supposed to tip the balance in your favor.

Krrth
2009-11-29, 12:17 PM
As thumble systems go I could accept this one. So a assuming no extreme terrain a fighter will never fumble for rolling a nat 1 when they swing their sword?

It would depend on what you would consider a "fumble". Assuming a fighter with no extreme terrain on a nat 1 would simply lose the rest of their attacks. It would be described differently, but the only mechanical effect is "end turn."

Boci
2009-11-29, 12:19 PM
It would depend on what you would consider a "fumble". Assuming a fighter with no extreme terrain on a nat 1 would simply lose the rest of their attacks. It would be described differently, but the only mechanical effect is "end turn."

Thats too harsh for me, but what ever works in your group.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 12:22 PM
Much better than the ridiculous auto-death tables I've seen, but it still has the unfortunate effect of penalizing characters that focus on multiple attacks(monks, twf, etc) more than characters focused on big attacks.

Krrth
2009-11-29, 12:28 PM
Much better than the ridiculous auto-death tables I've seen, but it still has the unfortunate effect of penalizing characters that focus on multiple attacks(monks, twf, etc) more than characters focused on big attacks.

Not really. The characters that focus on multiple attacks also have more of a chance to crit during any given round. It tends to work out about even.

Solaris
2009-11-29, 12:33 PM
Points of order:
1. Critical fumbles are awful and I despise them. You're meant to be playing a trained expert (in whatever your PC's class is), or at least a competent journeyman (from 1st level). I know anyone can foul up, sometimes in a bad way, but at 1/20 odds? That's like saying every 5% of the time, a professional soldier should suffer a gun jam or shoot himself in the foot; imagine having an army of 100,000 soldiers with a 5% chance of every infantryman critically fumbling. It's silly.

Nitpicking, I know, but the M16's jamming rate approaches 5% after the first couple magazines.

Boci
2009-11-29, 12:36 PM
Not really. The characters that focus on multiple attacks also have more of a chance to crit during any given round. It tends to work out about even.

Does that mean TWfighters without fumbles are OP?

horseboy
2009-11-29, 12:36 PM
If they are equal to you, they are also stopping and thinking of a way to overcome you.

Challenging fights are great, yes. Equal fights are not. If the world actually worked the way D&D does, I'd be planning out how to take out encounters in the most blatantly unfair, unequal ways possible, because I don't particularly want to die. The entire point of thinking up a way to overcome a challenge is something that is supposed to tip the balance in your favor.Unless it's and equal fight, the balance is already in my favor.

Boci
2009-11-29, 12:38 PM
Unless it's and equal fight, the balance is already in my favor.

Not really. You need to win every single time. The monsters only need to win once.

Krrth
2009-11-29, 12:40 PM
Does that mean TWfighters without fumbles are OP?

OP? They can be, especially with crit-range stacking. Of course just about anything can be OP if built right.

Keep in mind that I'm also a firm believer in the idea that if you can critically succeed you can critically fail as well.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 12:43 PM
Nitpicking, I know, but the M16's jamming rate approaches 5% after the first couple magazines.

That's mainly due to the ridiculous number of A1s still in service. Yeah, those ancient, overused ones do jam pretty frequently. Also, there was at one point a problem with the powder being used in the cartridge. This has long been fixed, and is no longer an issue. It shouldn't be considered typical of modern weapons, or the normal use of the modern M16.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 12:45 PM
Not really. You need to win every single time. The monsters only need to win once.
False. I don't need to "win every single time" Winning all the time is boring. Besides, "surviving" isn't always the same as "winning".

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 12:50 PM
False. I don't need to "win every single time" Winning all the time is boring. Besides, "surviving" isn't always the same as "winning".

How often do mobs lose and still survive?

Dienekes
2009-11-29, 12:53 PM
How often do mobs lose and still survive?

Depends on the GM really. Are you playing your mob intelligently? Or are they random vicious goblin/orc/ogre/whatever who takes a pounding without thinking of drawing back in retreat.

In my games quite a few times the PCs have forced mobs to retreat from them, just as in my games quite a few times the PCs were forced to retreat.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 01:08 PM
Depends on the GM really. Are you playing your mob intelligently? Or are they random vicious goblin/orc/ogre/whatever who takes a pounding without thinking of drawing back in retreat.

In my games quite a few times the PCs have forced mobs to retreat from them, just as in my games quite a few times the PCs were forced to retreat.

It's possible, sure. But in even the most retreat happy of situations, most the mobs are likely going to die unless the PCs choose not to kill them for flavor reasons. The reasons for this are many, ranging from rocket tag levels of hp in most low level mobs to SoD spells to mobs that are mindless, immobile, or otherwise will not/cannot retreat.

If defeat for mobs routinely ends in death, and defeat for the players routinely ends in retreat, this is not an equal system. It may be a perfectly good system, and make sense within the context of your world, but it is not equal.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 01:09 PM
Depends on the GM really. Are you playing your mob intelligently? Or are they random vicious goblin/orc/ogre/whatever who takes a pounding without thinking of drawing back in retreat.

In my games quite a few times the PCs have forced mobs to retreat from them, just as in my games quite a few times the PCs were forced to retreat.

Yeah, I miss the old morale rules of prior editions. Very few are willing to fight to the death. Course, then it becomes a question of if they can outrun the PC archer's arrows.

If defeat for mobs routinely ends in death, and defeat for the players routinely ends in retreat, this is not an equal system. It may be a perfectly good system, and make sense within the context of your world, but it is not equal.At this point in time I will point out my fondness for playing paladins. Attacking someone's back is a dishonourable and cowardly action.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-29, 01:14 PM
Yeah, I miss the old morale rules of prior editions. Very few are willing to fight to the death. Course, then it becomes a question of if they can outrun the PC archer's arrows.Or if they can run at all. Blindness is 50% move speed, and you tend to run into walls. Web is even worse.

Edit: Attacking someone's back is a reasonable action to protect others. They're almost certainly going to gather reinforcements, in hopes of returning and killing you and your allies so they can continue their evil acts. IKf they refuse to face you, then you either let them go free to continue raping and murdering, or you attack their backs.

Really, is this how people play paladins?

Dienekes
2009-11-29, 01:16 PM
Does that mean TWfighters without fumbles are OP?

If all else was equal, probably. However for reasons outside criticals and fumbles it is not.


It's possible, sure. But in even the most retreat happy of situations, most the mobs are likely going to die unless the PCs choose not to kill them for flavor reasons. The reasons for this are many, ranging from rocket tag levels of hp in most low level mobs to SoD spells to mobs that are mindless, immobile, or otherwise will not/cannot retreat.

If defeat for mobs routinely ends in death, and defeat for the players routinely ends in retreat, this is not an equal system. It may be a perfectly good system, and make sense within the context of your world, but it is not equal.

You have a valid point, though I doubt that even the most vicious of PCs would bother to hunt down each goblin if they all scatter.

Notably, I don't really want a perfectly equal system. Individual battles? Of course. Hell I may even once in a blue moon throw one at them that they have a better than 50% chance of losing, if only slightly. Most of the time though I prefer a 70-75% win condition for my group, enough to make them work for a victory, but not completely down to dumb luck, though luck does play a crucial part in it.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-29, 01:26 PM
Yeah, I miss the old morale rules of prior editions. Very few are willing to fight to the death. Course, then it becomes a question of if they can outrun the PC archer's arrows.At this point in time I will point out my fondness for playing paladins. Attacking someone's back is a dishonourable and cowardly action.

You are thinking of Knights. Paladins can do that. It must be a gross violation to make a pally fall so you must do it 144 times before you should worry.

John Campbell
2009-11-29, 01:27 PM
I've been an SCA heavy fighter for fifteen years. I can count on one hand the number of times I've dropped my weapon in combat - and in every one of those instances, I was fighting one-handed with a weapon that was designed for two, and it was not merely a drop, but someone else actively striking the weapon out of my hand.

I've shot hundreds, maybe even thousands, of arrows. I can count on one finger the number of times I've broken a bowstring, and that was because of a defect in the bow itself. Sharp edge on the string-nock, which eventually sawed through the string. I filed it smooth after that.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-29, 01:31 PM
I've been an SCA heavy fighter for fifteen years. I can count on one hand the number of times I've dropped my weapon in combat - and in every one of those instances, I was fighting one-handed with a weapon that was designed for two, and it was not merely a drop, but someone else actively striking the weapon out of my hand.


Isn't that a disarm if they are striking your weapon out of hand?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 01:33 PM
It may not have been intentional, but it would be closer to the disarm portion of the rules in that it was caused by action of your opponent, not by a random mistake.

John Campbell
2009-11-29, 01:42 PM
Isn't that a disarm if they are striking your weapon out of hand?
Yeah, that's what I'd think.

Not always intentional, in that they weren't necessarily intending to make me drop the weapon, but they were deliberately attacking my weapon in hopes of making me lose control of it to sufficient degree that I couldn't use it properly for a few moments. (Control being iffy to begin with when you're swinging a greatsword one-handed...)

Starbuck_II
2009-11-29, 01:54 PM
Wait, did you have powerful build? You aren't supposed to be able to use a meduim greatsword one handed unless large or PB ability.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 02:17 PM
Wait, did you have powerful build? You aren't supposed to be able to use a meduim greatsword one handed unless large or PB ability.

Monkey grip, most likely.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-29, 02:20 PM
Monkey grip doesn't work that way unless playing 3.0.

In 3.0 a large longsword is a greatsword. 3.5 Monkey grip lets you wield a weapon sized larger but the same type (a large longsword sword is still a longsword).
That was the part that confused me.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 02:26 PM
Bah...I really have to get around to buying a 3.5 phb someday. I always assume Ive got all the little differences memorized, but every now and then, I run across something new.

Saph
2009-11-29, 02:46 PM
It's possible, sure. But in even the most retreat happy of situations, most the mobs are likely going to die unless the PCs choose not to kill them for flavor reasons.

Actually, when I ran Red Hand of Doom, most battles between PCs and named enemies (as opposed to random mooks) ended up with survivors on both sides - because both sides treated their own survival as a higher priority than killing the enemy. So once the odds got sufficiently unfavourable, they'd retreat. Makes for a much more interesting campaign in the long run.

Artanis
2009-11-29, 03:08 PM
Bah...I really have to get around to buying a 3.5 phb someday. I always assume Ive got all the little differences memorized, but every now and then, I run across something new.

Have you tried the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org)?

John Campbell
2009-11-29, 03:16 PM
Wait, did you have powerful build? You aren't supposed to be able to use a meduim greatsword one handed unless large or PB ability.

Can't attack someone within 5' with a glaive without spending a feat on it, either, but that's Polearm 101 out here in the real world.

Handling a greatsword one-handed isn't easy, but if your body mechanics are good, it's possible to do it with reasonable effectiveness. I don't recommend it as a primary fighting style, but I find that when I'm down an arm, it usually works better than dropping the greatsword and drawing my seax.

Though I've gotten kills a couple of times because my opponent forgot about the seax, and figured I was helpless when I dropped the greatsword, right up until I stabbed him in the face.