PDA

View Full Version : Crit Fail table; what to do when you dont want it



Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 07:09 PM
ok, I've go a problem. My DM wants me to use the Crit Fail table and i don't want to use it, mostly because i think its silly. at lest without a roll to confirm.

I made two attacks with my claws (playing a vampire druid who specializes in claw attacks) missed with the first on a 1 (which was really a 5 due to my bonus to hit). Now i need to roll on this (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/vinifera/critical_hit_table_2e.pdf) table to see what happens.

My problem is this, i dont think that any warrior should twist their ankle 1/20th of the time they make an attack. that's why i like crit confirms. it allows you to factor in your actual skill (your BAB) to the problem rather than just making it a matter of probability.

But aside from the above rant, my question remains.

How do i approach telling him "No, i won't use this table."?

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 07:19 PM
Didn't someone do a statistical analysis that says that these tables screw over players far more than they screw over DMs? Because the DM plays many characters all the time? Maybe you could dig that up? Also there was some analysis which means that LOWER LEVEL characters end up being better off than higher level, more powerful characters, and lower level characters make fewer mistakes than higher level ones with these crit tables, which doesn't make any sense? AND these tables limit the sorts of concepts which can be made in roleplaying, IE, characters that are dramatically capable of out-damaging their hit point total?

DiBastet
2011-08-31, 07:31 PM
I completly like random tables for crits, both fumbles and crit attacks. Just ask your DM to allow a confirmation roll.

Unless, of course, he intends to allow a 20 to be a auto-crit, instead of a critical threat. This will probably be enough.

However, if he don't want to listen to reason and says something like: No, if you roll 20 you must confirm to be awesome, if you roll 1 you're ****ed without chance, tell him to say this sentence again, slowly.

If it doesn't work, well, suck it. There are worse DM flaws than forcing a stupid no-confirmation fumble...

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 07:37 PM
With a table like that in an otherwise normal D&D 3.5e game, I would threaten to walk... AFTER explaining the faults of the math to him (again, I've gotta find some of those proofs)... If it is in a slapstick game where I am not supposed to have any attachment to my character, and he said that at the BEGINNING, I'd be okay with it.

Greenish
2011-08-31, 07:37 PM
Didn't someone do a statistical analysis that says that these tables screw over players far more than they screw over DMs?What do you need statistical analysis for? That a PC will make far more attack rolls than any given NPC over a campaign seems obvious, as does the fact that higher level PCs make more attacks per round than lower level ones.

Anyhow, once the table kills your current PC, make one focusing on single powerful attack, such as ToB or mounted charger, and invest some on luck feats to reroll nat 1's. That, or a caster/DFA not using attack rolls.

Any DM who thinks that table (without even confirmation) is a good idea has at least temporary difficulties with their cognitive abilities. That is to say, they're fools. Your chances of reasoning with one are pretty low, so you'll have to go with it or drop from the game.

[Edit]: Unless it's not a serious game, in which case, go wacky.

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 07:37 PM
If it doesn't work, well, suck it. There are worse DM flaws than forcing a stupid no-confirmation fumble...

i guess...

i must admit my first reaction was really knee jerk. it just really grates with how i perceive the fighting mechanics of the game. also that he didn't tell us this before it came up.

Also, an npc that we are fighting rolled a one while attacking my Animal Companion and did not take a crit fail.

So yeah, im just a bit worried, because i really like this campaign and i want it to go places.

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 07:44 PM
Well, the issue is one of iterative probability. Any player character is FAR more likely to experience fumbles than any NPC, so they have a far far higher chance of being screwed over by such a table than any character the DM cares about. Further, the DM can pad the encounters with LOTS of characters, but the player characters tend not to have this option. FURTHER, this totally screws over people who do work by hitting things with weapons, who hardly need to be made WEAKER in D&D 3.5e. ALSO, these tables aren't heroic. A Barbarian who charges and deals a few hundred damage on a full attack, slaughtering an iron golem (or whatever) through SHEER AWESOMENESS is an epic and incredible character to behold, but with this table, making a character like that is INSANE, because he will inevitably end up killing himself, whereas a simple low level fighter who does a moderate amount of damage with a one handed longsword, and isn't doing much of anything INTERESTING is far less likely to kill themselves or folk near them, despite being far, far, far, FAR more boring. It also screws over ANY melee character whose schtick is that they make lots of attacks.

In a game like this, I would consider making characters which NEVER MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL EVER. Like certain types of Warlocks or Wizards.

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 07:47 PM
@Gavinfoxx: in the event that i have to explain why i don't want to use the fail tables can i just copy paste that? :smallbiggrin:

you summarized my feelings almost exactly without getting into the whole "its not realistic" fallacy.

DM

Circle of Life
2011-08-31, 07:50 PM
I suggest liberal application of fire.

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 07:50 PM
I suggest liberal application of fire.

Does that work over the internet? :smallconfused:

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 07:52 PM
Also monsters often don't have weapons to drop, and PC's DO. This screws over PC's UNEQUIVOCALLY, in several profound ways. I mean look at 'fool' and 'unaware'. Some of my favorite character concepts would end up killing any character in the party (or themselves) if they deal the MINIMUM DAMAGE ON A NORMAL HIT.

Circle of Life
2011-08-31, 07:54 PM
Does that work over the internet? :smallconfused:

Yes. Enough fire works anywhere.

Gavinfoxx already covered the pertinent bits. Really, crit fumbles are one of the WORST ideas you can put in 3.5. It makes people less likely to play melee characters out of frustration (bad), more likely to make casters that don't have to roll to win (bad), and detracts from the fun of the players for no reason, save for possible DM sadism (bad).

There is no good that comes from this.

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 07:57 PM
Yes. Enough fire works anywhere.

yesssss

i suppose i could consume everywhere between me and him in fire.

that would be fun :smallamused:

anyways, thanks guys for giving me some very good points. And confirming that i'm not insane in my hatred of Crit Fail tables.

HunterOfJello
2011-08-31, 08:09 PM
Critical Misses really shouldn't be used without unanimous consent. If they are, then they should allow for a second save or roll of some sort before a penalty is incurred. the DMG suggestion for critical misses/fumbles was a DC 10 Reflex save or the character drops their weapon. If a critical fumble table is used, then some sort of extra save should be used.

In general this just hurts the characters who attack more often than characters who use fewer attack rolls. A TWF Fighter or similar character would get the worst of things because they would be dropping their weapons or stabbing themselves on accident the most often while not having a great reflex save to recover.

If the DM has an even rudimentary understanding of the class tiers, then it might be good to point out that the higher tier characters often do the fewest rolls and that a general policy like that one will only encourage players to gravitate towards characters that use fewer attack rolls. When a critical miss table like that one comes into play, it just encourages lots of metagaming. Players have to make sure that their character uses as few rolls as possible to do melee damage and that whenever they attack they'll be unlikely to do more damage than they have current hit points so that they don't end up killing themselves.

~

If your DM doesn't understand how class tiers work, then it would be good to sit down with your DM along with other players involved and calmly explain that you don't like the fumbles table because you think it makes the entire game less fun. D&D is supposed to be a game in which this strange intangible thing called Fun happens. Fumble tables can occasionally be Fun in the right group, but your group thinks that using that rule variant will only scare the Fun away.

~

I personally DM a game in which I would enjoy using the fumbles table, but I know that the one player who uses lots of melee attacks in the group would hate it to death. In a group full of people who think its funny when each of their characters die and enjoy the Tomb of Horrors, a fumbles table can be hilarious. In a group that hates when their character dies and doesn't enjoy having their level 15 Warblade accidentally critically stab himself with a Fullblade while making a full power attack maneuver, the fumbles table is a bad idea.

tyckspoon
2011-08-31, 08:11 PM
If it doesn't work, well, suck it. There are worse DM flaws than forcing a stupid no-confirmation fumble...

Depends on the fumble chart. About half of the one Darius linked, I could live with- I wouldn't like it, but I could live with it. If you must have critical fumbles, effects like "you make an awkward attack and enemy ripostes strongly, you provoke an AoO from your target" or "your sword/shield is caught out of defensive position, -AC on the next attack against you" are reasonably appropriate. But anything that includes "hit/crit self or ally" is right out, and I would refuse to abide by those results, and would call enforcing them (and believing they're reasonable in the first place) a fairly severe DM flaw.

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 08:17 PM
Yea, my main issue is the ability to DEAL DAMAGE TO YOURSELF OR ALLIES. I can go with high level characters being more likely to make mistakes than low level characters -- over strenuous objections! -- but more likely to kill themselves and their friends??

Ask what the DM wishes to encourage with this table? Realism? Fun? Chaos?

TheCountAlucard
2011-08-31, 08:17 PM
Aww, jeez, someone else is using that table?

Okay, a question occurs... how the hell is "roll DEX" supposed to work? :smallconfused:

Is it a Reflex save? :smallannoyed: Is it a Dex check? If so to either of these, what's the difficulty? :smallmad: Why on earth would they word it like that? :smallfurious:

If you haven't guessed, our GM is using that table, and it's gone a long way to making things harder for our poor TWF Fighter. For one, he has pretty bad luck with his dice rolls, and he is the one who most frequently gets attacks leveled at him (and the GM has a horrendous habit of rolling natural 20s), and he also makes the most attacks out of the group.

By contrast, my Wizard has a Luckblade (no wishes, though), so when I do roll terribly, I have the option of erasing it with a reroll. Likewise, the Cleric decided to go with the Luck domain.

DiBastet
2011-08-31, 08:18 PM
Block of Hate

I don't agree. Oh I on't agree.

And see why, OP. Why I don't believe in the "pcs will make many more rolls than any npc the dm cares about" fallacy.

This point of view, op, implies that somehow the dm is being vs the players. First, I don't believe that the games of today are like this. Second, even if it is, the DM will be against the players in any case, with ot without table.

However, this point fails to understand that, if the DM is "against the players", it's the DM who is against, and not npc X or Y. If the npc two-weapon fighting shuriken thrower monk attacks the party 6 attacks in a round, he's got a chance to fail at each. This argument says that "but he'll probably die in this encounter, so he didn't have so many chances to fail as the pcs", however the DM is still rolling attacks with many other monsters and npcs. So, I don't really see the point on the whole fallacy! If it's DM vs PLAYER, does it matter that it's a lot of npcs vs a single pc (and maybe summoned monsters?).

I, however, disagree with the whole point of "making the game more realistic". In my opinion this is fallacy, because it's not a realistic game. In this scenario you make physical combat more realistic but leaves the spell system in place as it is? So the physical combat receives some nerf because of realism and magic doesn't? I only accept this fallacy if the magic system does something like causing CON or WIS drain (magic drains your life, or eats your sanity), at least the two highest levels a caster can use.

If the dm says "because I believe it's cool", or "because adds more drama" or whatever, then you have to suck it. Really. Implore for his sense of balance, and ask:

Or we confirm BOTH crits AND fumbles.

Or we don't confirm fumbles NEITHER crits.

Since you DO care about the campaign, it won't help you fight over this matter, not even "tell him he's wrong and go away, or take his group and dm for them", or even confronting him by saying "so I won't make a character who rolls attacks because this is stupid", and you know why? Because he wants to add this rule because he believes it IS cool.

And I will tell you, while many players don't like it (as there are some bad players who refuse to play my games because I turned every caster into spontaneous and reworked the combat system so melee is REALLY powerful and versatile), critical fumbles and hits can make some really nice moments in the game.

As final thoughts: As a dm with many years under my belt, and who had my share of houserules and bad players, don't, ever, be a disruptive player if you care about the game. It takes you nowhere. Talk with the dm about the balance of the rule, because it's your best bet to make the rule more balanced than to make the mind of the DM to leave the rule behind.


Ps: You must know if you people are going to use ONLY the critical hit and fumble TABLES or the whole system as presented in the link. If you're going to use the system, note that there is NO confirmation for crits NOR fumbles, only a d100 roll.

Zaq
2011-08-31, 08:20 PM
If I were in a group with that table in play and nothing I said or did could sway it, I'd just roll a DFA. I think my old DFA rolled a single attack in his career, and that was a why-the-hell-not AoO.

So in some sense, yes, "liberal application of fire" does apply . . .

DiBastet
2011-08-31, 08:24 PM
Depends on the fumble chart. About half of the one Darius linked, I could live with- I wouldn't like it, but I could live with it. If you must have critical fumbles, effects like "you make an awkward attack and enemy ripostes strongly, you provoke an AoO from your target" or "your sword/shield is caught out of defensive position, -AC on the next attack against you" are reasonably appropriate. But anything that includes "hit/crit self or ally" is right out, and I would refuse to abide by those results, and would call enforcing them (and believing they're reasonable in the first place) a fairly severe DM flaw.

I personally like paizo's critical hit deck and critical fumble deck. There are some nice cards, divided by damage type on the critical hit (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning and magic) and by attack type on the fumble (melee, ranged, natural and magic attacks). While there is a single fumble who makes you attack an ally in range, most give you some kind of status or penalty. Finally, most stats (like being stunned by a riposte the enemy makes) allow a Fort save DC equal the enemy's original AC.

I agree with you: There are good tables / decks and bad tables / decks...:smallfrown:

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 08:26 PM
, however, disagree with the whole point of "making the game more realistic". In my opinion this is fallacy, because it's not a realistic game. In this scenario you make physical combat more realistic but leaves the spell system in place as it is? So the physical combat receives some nerf because of realism and magic doesn't? I only accept this fallacy if the magic system does something like causing CON or WIS drain (magic drains your life, or eats your sanity), at least the two highest levels a caster can use.


{Scrubbed}

anyway. thanks for the ideas you have given me, i will take them into consideration.

if i need to ill probably just ask him for permission to allow me to remake my character to a caster focused druid rather than a combat focused druid.

DM

DiBastet
2011-08-31, 08:28 PM
i praised people in my last post for not bringing this up

I don't understand your point. I was arguing against the whole fallacy of "critical fumbles make the game more realistic", not someone's post.

What are you talking about?:smallconfused:

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 08:30 PM
I don't understand your point. I was arguing against the whole fallacy of "critical fumbles make the game more realistic", not someone's post.

What are you talking about?:smallconfused:

my point is you wasted time by making me read a point that wasn't nessesary to the discussion we were having as it had never been brought up.

no one was arguing about "critical fumbles make the game more realistic" in the first place as it is a fallacy.



i would like those 20 seconds of my life back please :smallannoyed:

DiBastet
2011-08-31, 08:34 PM
you summarized my feelings almost exactly without getting into the whole "its not realistic" fallacy

:smallamused:

Well, that fallacy.


But don't worry. Here is a ticket for 30 seconds of life. You gain 10 seconds!

Problem? :smallbiggrin:

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 08:36 PM
On the side topic that someone somehow brought up about making the game more realistic, on the off chance that the OP's GM brings that up as an argument, you could simply say, "Why are we playing D&D if we want a realistic game? If you want to play a D&D-LIKE game that is realistic, we can do an E6 game of Codex Martialis with no spellcasters allowed. That game focuses on using Fighters, Rogues, and Aristocrats as the main classes anyway."

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 08:37 PM
But don't worry. Here is a ticket for 30 seconds of life. You gain 10 seconds!

Problem? :smallbiggrin:

yay!

10 more seconds of fleeting life!

thanks :smallbiggrin:

DM

theflyingkitty
2011-08-31, 08:37 PM
I would try to figure out if your problem is more with having a table, or THAT table. That table seems fairly aweful.

Why can't he make up something based on the situation, atleast?

Kaun
2011-08-31, 08:37 PM
my point is you wasted time by making me read a point that wasn't nessesary to the discussion we were having as it had never been brought up.

no one was arguing about "critical fumbles make the game more realistic" in the first place as it is a fallacy.



i would like those 20 seconds of my life back please :smallannoyed:



You should have stream lined your op to;


DM does stuff i don't like!

How do i make him stop?

GO!

AVOID MAXIMUM SIDE CHATTER!

DiBastet
2011-08-31, 08:41 PM
"Why are we playing D&D if we want a realistic game? If you want to play a D&D-LIKE game that is realistic, we can do an E6 game of Codex Martialis with no spellcasters allowed. That game focuses on using Fighters, Rogues, and Aristocrats as the main classes anyway."

Amen. My exact idea. If it is "I want the fumble table", then we need to work the rule to be the best we can. The dm wants. It is his game too. However, if ever it is "it's more realistic" then no. Then it's fallacy.


I would try to figure out if your problem is more with having a table, or THAT table. That table seems fairly aweful.

Bad tables, good tables... I would point out to buy the decks by paizo. They are cheap and really good fumbles / crits, if he insists on using tables.

The Glyphstone
2011-08-31, 08:50 PM
:smallamused:

Well, that fallacy.


But don't worry. Here is a ticket for 30 seconds of life. You gain 10 seconds!

Problem? :smallbiggrin:

Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) is a little more complicated than 'thing I disagree with'...


OT: Give you DM a few 'crit fails' with the flat of your PHB if he doesn't listen?

Circle of Life
2011-08-31, 08:51 PM
OT: Give you DM a few 'crit fails' with the flat of your PHB if he doesn't listen?

He might end up killing an ally if he has to use the proposed table though. I recommend no-roll arson.

Joking. Obviously.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-08-31, 08:51 PM
Try and convince the DM to have something more reasonable. Non-killer DM's tend to like the Critical Fumble Tables of Death because it makes combat more interesting; oblivious to the fact that, it make players die very frequently.

And unlike for a DM, dieing is a problem for a player until getting close to epic at the least. Especially if it happens every 20 attacks.


Instead, suggest to the DM that for interesting things on a natural one, why limit your creativity on a table. Lets say that in a bar fight on a natural one, the player knocks over an oil lantern, starting the floorboards nearby on fire. This is interesting, because it provides the player (or the enemy) with a possibly exploitable tactical situation, while not immediately ruining a fight. Unlike randomly chopping off your own arm with a knife, the player can adapt to the change in momentum, sure lighting the tavern on fire wasn't a good thing, but you might be able to turn it into an advantage, or you might find that you are especially flammable when that drunk tries to push you into it.

They're best when they change the battlefield a bit, not directly effect any of the combatants.



...That's all I got...

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 08:55 PM
Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) is a little more complicated than 'thing I disagree with'...


Thats what i thought i meant.

did i use it wrong? :smalleek:

DM

Lord.Sorasen
2011-08-31, 09:01 PM
My biggest concern here is that it WILL hurt those who attack more frequently more than it will hurt those with fewer attacks.

I mean, most of these effects are independent of the type of attack. If you attack once in a round, that's a 1/20 chance of a bad thing happening. If you attack 4 times, it's a much greater chance. "But the chance of getting a critical is much greater as well!" Ah, that's true, but a critical for a 2handed swordsmen is going to be a lot stronger than the critical of an arrow volley. However "unconscious (roll 61)" is going to effect both characters equally. Also a single fumble from a fighter at low levels could actually kill the party's own wizard. Which is just silly.

Honestly I feel like this goes entirely against character creation policies. I want my own character to attack more cautiously. He is careful, he would never hurt his teammates. There's no way within these rules to even influence the chance that I'll critical hit my own team. Though I suppose this could be fixed by homebrewing feats that match the system. Perhaps one that lets you roll the fumble chart twice and choose your poison.

The Glyphstone
2011-08-31, 09:02 PM
Thats what i thought i meant.

did i use it wrong? :smalleek:

DM

No, you had it right, in that DiBastest was conducting a Straw Man Fallacy by arguing against the 'realism' thing. Thus, the quote was directed at him for misusing 'fallacy'.

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 09:11 PM
A single fumble from the barbarian where he does normal damage at ANY LEVEL could kill ANYONE IN THE ENTIRE PARTY, if the barbarian is made right...

OracleofWuffing
2011-08-31, 09:30 PM
When you talk to your DM about it, do you present your stance as, "I do not want to use the critical failure table," or "I do not want to use either additional critical rules?" Saying that you don't want to use rules that make your character harm your team might come off as selfish, saying you don't want to use rules that hurt or rules that help your team helps show that your issue is founded on something other than "This rule can hurt me."

That said, I just got to the third page of that link, and these rules aren't "Always fumble on a natural one." Every missed attack has a chance to fumble now, with natural ones just having a higher chance. :smallconfused: You're more likely to fumble when attacking a heavily-armored target because their armor figures into the chance formula. The upside, though, is that you can expect a ~55% chance of not fumbling on a natural one.

Which system is this for? I guess the best way around it would be to build something that can get its defenses up and doesn't need to attack.

The Glyphstone
2011-08-31, 09:36 PM
When you talk to your DM about it, do you present your stance as, "I do not want to use the critical failure table," or "I do not want to use either additional critical rules?" Saying that you don't want to use rules that make your character harm your team might come off as selfish, saying you don't want to use rules that hurt or rules that help your team helps show that your issue is founded on something other than "This rule can hurt me."

That said, I just got to the third page of that link, and these rules aren't "Always fumble on a natural one." Every missed attack has a chance to fumble now, with natural ones just having a higher chance. :smallconfused: You're more likely to fumble when attacking a heavily-armored target because their armor figures into the chance formula. The upside, though, is that you can expect a ~55% chance of not fumbling on a natural one.

Which system is this for? I guess the best way around it would be to build something that can get its defenses up and doesn't need to attack.


You may be on to a hilariously passive-aggressive way to exploit the DM's stubbornness. Build a character who never attacks, ever - even go so far as using the Vow of Peace for that extra AC boost. Maximally enchanted Mountain Plate, Tower Shield, Defending Weapon, Defending Armor Spikes, Defending Shield Spikes, every GP and feat you can find into a stupidly high AC, then just walk up to enemies and watch them murder themselves while trying to hit you.

Greenish
2011-08-31, 09:38 PM
Why I don't believe in the "pcs will make many more rolls than any npc the dm cares about" fallacy.It's not a fallacy of any sort, mere a simple fact. For example, one of my PbP campaigns (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196232), going over just the first fight, no NPC used more than six attack rolls. I used twelve. None of the NPCs were present at any of the other fights in the campaign, while my character was in each of them.

An NPC usually sees one fight, maybe two, more for recurring enemies and allies, but PCs typically fight in every single fight in the game. If they're the sort to use attack rolls at all, they will be making more of them than any NPC.


This point of view, op, implies that somehow the dm is being vs the players.It doesn't. It's just common sense.


However, this point fails to understand that, if the DM is "against the players", it's the DM who is against, and not npc X or Y.Well, if that's the case, it only aggravates the amount of FAIL the tables have. A DM has as many NPCs as he needs. A PC has one character. Guess who suffers more from fumbling?


If the npc two-weapon fighting shuriken thrower monk attacks the party 6 attacks in a round, he's got a chance to fail at each. This argument says that "but he'll probably die in this encounter, so he didn't have so many chances to fail as the pcs", however the DM is still rolling attacks with many other monsters and npcs. So, I don't really see the point on the whole fallacy!Try this for size: who is hurt more by fumbling, a player with his one PC, or DM with his infinite NPCs?


I, however, disagree with the whole point of "making the game more realistic". In my opinion this is fallacy, because it's not a realistic game.True that.


If the dm says "because I believe it's cool", or "because adds more drama" or whatever, then you have to suck it.Or tell her you hate it, or quit, or stop caring about your character (the latter also often resulting in Attack of the Clones).


Since you DO care about the campaign, it won't help you fight over this matter, not even "tell him he's wrong and go away, or take his group and dm for them", or even confronting him by saying "so I won't make a character who rolls attacks because this is stupid", and you know why? Because he wants to add this rule because he believes it IS cool.So? DM isn't the only person who matters for a game. If a player isn't having fun, he should say so, and the DM should listen.

OracleofWuffing
2011-08-31, 09:45 PM
You may be on to a hilariously passive-aggressive way to exploit the DM's stubbornness.

:smalltongue:

For what it's worth, I was also thinking of making a low attack bonus character, defecting to team evil, and rely on fumbles to kill the bad guys, but it looks like "Hit ally" doesn't show up frequently enough on the table to make that really viable.

Oooh! If this is 3.5, you might even have a good reason to Total Defense!

The Glyphstone
2011-08-31, 09:48 PM
:smalltongue:

For what it's worth, I was also thinking of making a low attack bonus character, defecting to team evil, and rely on fumbles to kill the bad guys, but it looks like "Hit ally" doesn't show up frequently enough on the table to make that really viable.

Oh, and have as many ways as possible to force enemies to attack you. a Knight with the Goad feat is a good start. Dip into various classes that offer +stat to AC.

Also, some of those table results are very odd. A 71 with a Blunt Weapon Critical incapacitates the target's hand, and also makes you roll 1d4 to see how many fingers you broke? 82 Slashing Crit ruptures your belly, leaving your innards exposed and hanging out...and makes you roll STR or fall over?

OracleofWuffing
2011-08-31, 09:55 PM
Also, some of those table results are very odd.
You can decapitate a slime, instantly killing it, with a slashing weapon's 99-00. Wait, they're immune to crits. Nevermind. Can they fumble, then? How do you feel about playing a slime?

tyckspoon
2011-08-31, 09:56 PM
Which system is this for? I guess the best way around it would be to build something that can get its defenses up and doesn't need to attack.

File name is marked 2E, which explains the (Attribute) rolls (it means roll under your score in that attribute, for whoever it was who was wondering about it earlier) and the greater usage of percentile rolls. I'd imagine a DM who wanted to transfer them to 3E would discard the stuff about when you crit/fumble in favor of 3E's simpler 20 good/1 bad standard, but you never know.

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 10:01 PM
Sooo... how else does this table need to be updated from 2E to fit 3.XE? So the OP can ask the DM specific, pointed questions regarding how he is figuring out a way for these 2e rules to work with 3e?

OracleofWuffing
2011-08-31, 10:03 PM
Well, we don't know that the OP is playing 3e. For all we know, 2e is in play.

In which case, my suggestion is to play with the table, anyway, you'll die upon the first scorpion you'll find regardless of the table. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2011-08-31, 10:06 PM
Yeah, if this is 2E, just roll with the madness and keep a stack of character sheets handy.

hehe, 'roll' with the madness. I'm sleepy.

TheCountAlucard
2011-08-31, 10:32 PM
I'd imagine a DM who wanted to transfer them to 3E would discard the stuff about when you crit/fumble in favor of 3E's simpler 20 good/1 bad standard, but you never know.You'd imagine that, but...

:sigh:

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 10:32 PM
Nah, it's 3.5

If it was 2e I would have no problem with this crazy stuff. But in an RP heavy 3.5 game I do.

But were the sheets we're using seriously desinged for 2e? That's just kind of stupid.

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 11:14 PM
But were the sheets we're using seriously desinged for 2e? That's just kind of stupid.

Yes, they are seriously designed for 2E. You should point that out to him and where the issues in converting them to 3.5e are...

Circle of Life
2011-08-31, 11:17 PM
Tell him to roll INT to figure out what the problem is.

If he asks for the DC, you've won.

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 11:22 PM
Tell him to roll INT to figure out what the problem is.

If he asks for the DC, you've won.

Sadly I don't get it

Please dont Joker rage on me :smalleek:

DM

TheCountAlucard
2011-08-31, 11:27 PM
Sadly I don't get itNamely, the bit being referred to was about how "roll Dex" doesn't mean anything in 3.5e, and thus that asking him to "roll Int" should get the point across.

Hawkfrost000
2011-08-31, 11:29 PM
Namely, the bit being referred to was about how "roll Dex" doesn't mean anything in 3.5e, and thus that asking him to "roll Int" should get the point across.

Ahhhhh

OK thanks, I'll point this stuff out.

Thanks for your help all of you.

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-31, 11:48 PM
Also the bit where the table doesn't reference CONFIRMING anything. In 3.Xe, Crits are confirmed. This table doesn't have anything of the sort -- you roll a 20, you roll on the table, AND it treats fumbles the same way... This is different than how 3.5e treats Crits and Fumbles. Is the table assuming this only works on confirmed crits, but for all fumbles? Are we removing the crit confirming rules? How is this supposed to work?

NNescio
2011-09-01, 02:56 AM
Auto-fumbling attacks on a Natural 1 (without confirmation rolls) is mind-numbingly stupid.

Why? Simple, the Fighter 20 is four times more likely to trip himself up than the Wizard 1.

I'll second Glyphstone's suggestion. Alternatively, a Dragonfire Adept could work as well. Worst comes to worst you can just use your druid as a controller-type spellcaster who doesn't need to rely on attack rolls at all.

ILM
2011-09-01, 04:18 AM
I'd go passive-agressive too. Either à la Glyphstone, push your AC as high as you can, or the opposite: maximize your attacks, minimize your bonus (power attack!) and try to accumulate as many fumbles as you can. "Oh and in this one fight, I dropped my armor AND punched myself in the groin AND threw dirt in my own eyes." If you want this to last longer, try to maximize your hp/healing.

Also: "Light crossbows multiply critical percents by 1.5X and heavy crowwbows double critical hit percent chances." Cause clearly you're much more likely to hit yourself in the face with a crossbow, or have the opponent (who's standing 30 ft away) parry and hit you in the funny bone. :smallconfused:

Yeah, none of that makes any sense at all.

WitchSlayer
2011-09-01, 05:11 AM
If I WERE to use a critfail table as a GM? Three things would have to happen for you to actually get a critical fail.

1. You roll a natural 1 (Obviously)
2. You have to fail a saving throw
3. Every entry on the critfail table would have Roll (Skill/ability score) if below (a DC whether easy medium or hard) if you fail then you (thing)

That way the chance would be very very small and when it happened it would actually be a critical failure.

hewhosaysfish
2011-09-01, 06:44 AM
I've never met a GM who's made me insist on this but my take (as a player) on fumble rules is this:

Take ten 1st level warriors, in melee with 10 straw dummies (medium inanimate objects, AC5).
The warriors make their 1 attack per round, for 2 minutes (20 rounds); the dummies make no attacks during this time.
If, after 2 minutes of battering straw dummies, any of the warriors are dead or dying then the GM must butter his fumble rules and eat them.

Gnaeus
2011-09-01, 07:54 AM
I've never met a GM who's made me insist on this but my take (as a player) on fumble rules is this:

Take ten 1st level warriors, in melee with 10 straw dummies (medium inanimate objects, AC5).
The warriors make their 1 attack per round, for 2 minutes (20 rounds); the dummies make no attacks during this time.
If, after 2 minutes of battering straw dummies, any of the warriors are dead or dying then the GM must butter his fumble rules and eat them.

That is one good analysis. Another one I like is "Look at this legendary monster, the Kracken. It is iconic, everyone has heard of it, awesome. You realize that it trips or hurts itself on average every 12 seconds, right?" That line of reasoning at least got our DM to limit crit fails to the first attack of every round, so that monsters and characters with multiple attacks don't get completely hosed.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-01, 08:49 AM
ok, I've go a problem. My DM wants me to use the Crit Fail table and i don't want to use it, mostly because i think its silly. at lest without a roll to confirm.

I made two attacks with my claws (playing a vampire druid who specializes in claw attacks) missed with the first on a 1 (which was really a 5 due to my bonus to hit). Now i need to roll on this (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon3/vinifera/critical_hit_table_2e.pdf) table to see what happens.

My problem is this, i dont think that any warrior should twist their ankle 1/20th of the time they make an attack. that's why i like crit confirms. it allows you to factor in your actual skill (your BAB) to the problem rather than just making it a matter of probability.

But aside from the above rant, my question remains.

How do i approach telling him "No, i won't use this table."?

Say "this table is stupid/retarded/other pejorative term". I like calling a spade a spade.

If he protests, point out that with his system, a fighter at the pinnacle of his career fails five times as often as he did when starting out. He injures himself or throws his weapon away every few seconds. Ask him to explain how this character is being depicted as anything other than stupid/retarded/other pejorative term.

If he goes ahead with it anyway, play a caster, and never make an attack roll again. Make sure he does so for all opponents.

Alternatively, take leadership, and make 1d2 crusaders for your minions. Make him roll on the table CONSTANTLY.

DiBastet
2011-09-01, 10:24 AM
Try this for size: who is hurt more by fumbling, a player with his one PC, or DM with his infinite NPCs?

This is exactly what in your mind is a simple "fact" and that I personally call no more than a fallacy.

If you want to put it on simplistic terms of "what person in the game world will suffer more times in a row", then by all means I say that "the person that is controlled by the player".

However, the exact point of comparing between "characters" is what I disagree. Of course, I already pointed that, and you just said your opinion, that is the exact contrary to mine. In that case, your opinion is simply wrong for me, and I'm just glad that I never had to play with someone with an opinion like yours, and never had the displeasure of even seeing face to face in a convention such a person. And wow, that sounded hard. But it's not that hard. Why?

Because of this supposed "the dm characters vs my character" that is implied on this idea of my character vs his character. Oh gods, I only have one character, and the dm has so many characters, then surely my character is going to suffer a lot more than the dm characters... It is so simple, actually, so funny, that Imust ask the following questions?

Wich characters, each of the "dm characters" or each of the "player characters" will benefit more times alongo the campaign when their enemies fumble?

Wich characters, each of the "dm characters" or each of the "player characters" will benefit more times along the campaign when they crit on their opponents?

In my opinion all of this is an exercise of futility, no more than using semantics to put the opinion of one person as more righteous than the other person. After this I will not bother trying to put my opinion as righteous again, so, just one time:

My opinion is:
A - Crit fumbles are just the other side of crit hits. They should exist.
B - You should use for fumbles a similar ability than the one you use for critical hits, whatever you thin it is similar in terms of power.
C - In that vein, if you use crit tables, or fumble tables, you MUST use the other. No exception. No selfish person saying "crit tables is okay, fumble tables hurt me, so no".


PS: And just something that nugged me on the wrong side: Yes, the dm has saying on his fun too. It is a game that the dm must enjoy while making the players have fun. The dm is never a slave to be threatened with "I will break your game because you want to play in a way that I dont like".

"I never said that". No one did. Of course. No one did. Never.

Hmph. Time to go to work.

Gavinfoxx
2011-09-01, 10:46 AM
Dibastet: Have you actually looked at the proposed table??

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-01, 11:11 AM
If he goes ahead with it anyway, play a caster, and never make an attack roll again. Make sure he does so for all opponents.

Alternatively, take leadership, and make 1d2 crusaders for your minions. Make him roll on the table CONSTANTLY.

Or do both!

hmmmm, im thinking a sorcerer....

or at least modifying my combat druid to a very spell heavy druid

Gnaeus
2011-09-01, 11:14 AM
Wich characters, each of the "dm characters" or each of the "player characters" will benefit more times alongo the campaign when their enemies fumble?

Wich characters, each of the "dm characters" or each of the "player characters" will benefit more times along the campaign when they crit on their opponents?

In my opinion all of this is an exercise of futility, no more than using semantics to put the opinion of one person as more righteous than the other person. After this I will not bother trying to put my opinion as righteous again, so, just one time:

In general, players are expected to win 90+% of their battles. That is how you have a campaign, after all. Critical hit charts or critical fumbles radically increase randomness in outcome. If you think it is a good thing for PCs to regularly die or be horribly maimed in routine encounters with mooks, critical hits/fumbles are good. Also, 3.5 may not be the best system for you, you may want to try systems with more lethal combat. If you think it is a bad thing for PCs to die in such encounters, these critical hit charts are not a good idea. The reason that it hurts PCs more than NPCs is that most NPCs are EXPECTED to die in any given combat, whereas PCs are usually expected to win with an expenditure of 20% or so of daily resources.

OracleofWuffing
2011-09-01, 11:49 AM
But were the sheets we're using seriously desinged for 2e? That's just kind of stupid.
I can't speak much about 2e, but there's another wrench that is thrown into the plans here since you're running 3.5.

Effectively, this table and the rules with it treat all successful hits as potential critical hits, and- for lack of a better term- your critical "confirm" chance is (intYourToHit - intTargetAC)/100, times two if you got a nat 20. The spanner in the machine is that, unless there are some additional houserules in play, any threat range beyond natural 20 on a weapon is worthless, as is any feat or enhancement that increases your crit range. So, yeah, Crit fishing isn't the "optimal" 3.5 strategy, but this nerfs that significantly.

This is one of the things where there should be more dialogue between you and the DM, because either the DM hasn't thought this through completely or he's adding more rules to these tables that we don't know about. For example, concealment and Fortification armor means that fumbles are going to happen more frequently than critical hits.

If you do want to go the passive-agressive route, which I'd really only go with if you're in a This-is-the-only-gaming-group-I-can-go-to situation, you can most certainly go the route of not making attack rolls, just roll a Cleric that focuses on buffing his friends, or a similar buffbot Wizard if you got access to downtime/magic mart and don't think the DM will try to hit you.

A specialized Charger build is also an idea, you basically want to snag Shock Trooper from Complete Warrior to make Power Attack run off of your AC instead of your melee damage rolls, and charge for all the penalty you can take. You will probably kill your targets outright as long as you hit, even without a critical, and your high BAB means that you won't fumble too frequently when you do miss. Though, anything that you don't kill will pretty much have your BAB as a chance to crit you on their turn, possibly multiplied by 2- again I will mention Fortification armor, or finding something that makes you immune to critical hits. (Necropolitan, I believe, does that?)

DiBastet
2011-09-01, 11:53 AM
Dibastet: Have you actually looked at the proposed table??

The proposed table, as I mentioned several posts behind, isn't the brighetest. I even did recommend the OP, if his party really don't like the table but can't convince the DM to not use it, to buy paizo's critical hit deck and critical fumble deck. Both decks are very good, and ith interesting crits and fumbles. In all the cards of the deck, there is only one that makes you attack (not hit) another person, and with that it is a random person that you threaten (it may be the enemy after all). There is another fumble, worth mentioning, named "Hurricane of Shame", where you make an attack against all threatened creatures, except the one you tried to hit. It's much, several times better, than the proposed table.

Fumbles aren't SO bad as people point out, if you also use random critical hits. THAT'S what I'm saying. The table in the example isn't the brightest example of neither critical hits nor fumbles, however.


If you think it is a good thing for PCs to regularly die or be horribly maimed in routine encounters with mooks, critical hits/fumbles are good.

I don't think... No, it's not the exact word. I don't SEE in such a long time tht I'm using paizo's critical decks, that pcs die horribly because of the fumbles or crits. Most of the crits make normal damage and a status, or double damage and a worse status but with a fort / reflex save, while some just make it plain x3 damage. I don't see any way why this kills the characters against mooks. The "routine mook" don't have enough attack bonus to reliably confirm the critical threat.

On the other hand, the fumble deck has mostly "affected by x status" or "affected by Y worse status, but ref / fort partial", with some pearls here and there. Against "routine mooks", when the character rolls 1, there is a big chance the character can make the confirmation roll because "routine mooks" don't have that high ac.


The reason that it hurts PCs more than NPCs is that most NPCs are EXPECTED to die in any given combat, whereas PCs are usually expected to win with an expenditure of 20% or so of daily resources.

I understand this point. A single pc will be affected by it more times than a single NPC. However, in my opinion and experience this whole point "a single given pc will suffer more than any single given npc" is irrelevant. As the rule applies to all characters of the game, both "sides of the game" (the party and their enemies) will suffer equal. And as I joked, but it was actually a serious question, if really "character vs character" instead of "side vs side" is important (my whole point is that "side vs side" is the important part): Which is going to benefit more times in a campaign from opponents fumbling? The pc who stays the whole campaign, or the enemy?


However, I am not blind to people's hate about fumbles and their reasons: However, my experience proves to me that most people never played with a GOOD fumble and critical table long enough to see that the "worst possible scenario" doesn't happen so much.



Note: With bad random tables, and bad general rules (as the one propposed in the link), however, the defense rest its case...

Tyndmyr
2011-09-01, 12:09 PM
However, in my opinion and experience this whole point "a single given pc will suffer more than any single given npc" is irrelevant. As the rule applies to all characters of the game, both "sides of the game" (the party and their enemies) will suffer equal. And as I joked, but it was actually a serious question, if really "character vs character" instead of "side vs side" is important (my whole point is that "side vs side" is the important part): Which is going to benefit more times in a campaign from opponents fumbling? The pc who stays the whole campaign, or the enemy?

It's not just about single characters, really. Let's look at side vs side.

Let's look at the crit hit portion first. Note that it has effects like no-save death, or permanent damage due to maiming. If you roll one of these vs an npc...great, he dies a round or two earlier if you're lucky. If they roll it vs you, you are at a disadvantage for the remainder of the campaign. Or just dead. Obviously, this benefits the non PC side more.

The crit fails are a similar effect(autohit friend for double damage = no-save death, generally).

I mean, if you kill a PC and an NPC at the start of every combat, it is "fair" in that it's equal....but doing this would quickly result in a dramatically increased mortality rate and probably unhappy players. See, the mortality RATE isn't the same for both side. And you don't affect rate equally by adding to it, but instead, by multiplying both sides by a static number. This result cannot reasonably be achieved by any crit fail system simple enough for practical use.

Consider: Average PC lifespan: say, ten days, at four encounters a day. This is, if anything, a pretty brutal campaign.
Average NPC lifespan: 5 rounds.
Average NPCs/PCs per group: 4

Killing an NPC and a PC at the beginning of each fight would affect it as follows:
Average PC lifespan: Roughly 1 day. Decreased by 90%
Average NPC lifespan: About 4 rounds. Decreased by 25%

See? Not even the slightest bit fair.

faceroll
2011-09-01, 12:20 PM
Wow, banging your knuckles gives you a penalty as large as not knowing how to use a weapon. That's dumb.

DiBastet
2011-09-01, 01:59 PM
This result cannot reasonably be achieved by any crit fail system simple enough for practical use.

The auto-death as you present surely points this, but this doesn't explain nothing about som many other (good) tables and decks. Even in your example, that is if we suppose one player dies per combat. Even considering that horrible table it's taking a very long shot.

For the idea propposed, to illustrate bigger death rates, I understand, however, it is easy to lose ourselves in the cloud of the argument, forgetting the Suppose on "suppose one player dies per combat".

Edit: Forum ate part of the post.

Now, my opinion about the failure of the charts with the "you die, no save" crits, for example, is making that some crits are more powerful than others by order of the d100. Higher roll = more deadly. The tables I've seen that work don't use this idea. No crit is more deadly than any other. Well, that's my two cents.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-01, 02:08 PM
The auto-death as you present surely points this, but this doesn't explain nothing about som many other (good) tables and decks. Even in your example, that is if we suppose one player dies per combat. Even considering that horrible table it's taking a very long shot.

It's to illustrate the mathematical fallacy that adding an equal amount to ratios has an equal effect.

Changing the size of the equal amount does not change that basic truth...it's simply a matter of much more random lethality you're exposing the players to.

Vassago
2011-09-01, 05:55 PM
First off I admit I used to use a similar fumble table, and never really got any complaints about it. But over time I did come to see how such a vicious table was weighted more in favor of the monsters I was running rather than the players. So I set about creating a far less deadly table. It sounds like your DM likes using tables on critical hits/misses so it may be hard to get him to give itup entirely. Another suggestion would be to offer up something far less lethal for him to use. It still allows for some flavor on a fumble but will not have you killing yourself or party members right and left. One note is that rolling 100 in it is till fully lethal, this was left over from when we used to play AD&D and none of my players wanted to see if removed, feel free to change any results that do not fit your playstyle.

In that vein here is the fumble table I wrote up, feel free to use it. Spoiler for length. It has different fumble sections based on weapon type and also fumbles for spells require touch attacks based on the damage type.




CRITICAL FUMBLE CHARTS
By

Vassago




CRITICAL FUMBLE CHARTS

SLASHING (Scimitar, Bastard Sword, Broad Sword, Long Sword, Great Sword, Axes)

1d100 - Result

1-15 - Tripped self Reflex save DC 10 + level or fall prone

16-20 - Weapon is stuck in your surroundings, if there is nothing for it to stick in, dropped at your feet

21-24 - Pinched nerve -2 to hit and reflex saves for 2d4 rounds or until heal check DC 15

25-30 - Overconfident attack exposes a moment of vulnerability. One opponent within range may make an attack of opportunity.

31-37 - Loose your grip mid swing send weapon flying 10ft in a random direction

38-41 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn.

42-44 - Misplaced attack causes complete loss of strain, roll on LIMB table

45-46 - Temporary loss of motor control, hit self

47 - Wild swing, critically hit self

48 - Surge of Adrenalin causes temporary loss of control over emotions, critically hit ally within range

49-51 - Off balanced swing, hit ally within range

52-53 - Weapon chips -1 permanently to weapon hardness and -2 hp. Magic weapons get a save as if you had hit them. Chipped piece hits you in the eye. Blind in one eye for 1d4 days or until heal check DC 15 using water to wash out eye

54-60 - Weapon chips -1 permanently to weapon hardness and -2 hp. Magic weapons get a save as if you had hit them.

61-63 - Entangled in your own armor, considered grappled until you make a grapple or escape artist check DC 15

64-75 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned.

76-80 - Pommel of weapon accidentally hits you int he stomach causing you to Barf: Sickened -2 attacks, damage, and saves for 2 rounds.

81-83 - Fatigued for 1 round, may only take a move or a standard action next turn not both

84-86 - Forget to breathe, choking on spit/tongue stunned for 1d2 +1 rounds

87-91 - Graze face, 1d4 damage and -2 to charisma until damage is healed. 25% chance of scar.

92-97 - Nick a minor vein, bleed for 1d3 damage for 8 rounds or until bandaged

98-99 - Trip and fall on your weapon Max damage to you and stunned for 1
round

100 - Embed your weapon in your own skull and die instantly



THRUSTING (Short Sword, Dagger)

1d100 - Result

1-12 - Weapon is stuck in your surroundings, if there is nothing for it to stick in, dropped at your feet

13-18 - Tripped self Reflex 10 + level or fall down

19-21 - Distracted by something seen out of the corner of your eye, hit someone else within range

22-30 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn

31-36 - Lose your grip and send your weapon flying away from you

37 - Slit own wrist, Max weapon damage and bleeding for 1d6 for 8 rounds or until bandaged. Poison applied to self if weapon was poisoned.

38-44 - Cut palm -1 to attack rolls for 1d4 rounds, poison applied to self if weapon was poisoned.

45-47 - Sever your own belt -5 movement, and pants fall down when not held up

48-51 - Twist Ankle. Speed reduced by 10 feet until 10 minutes of rest is taken.

52-62 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned.

63-69 - Twist your elbow, -2 to attack and damage rolls for 1d3 rounds

70-78 - Overconfident attack exposes a moment of vulnerability. One opponent within range may make an attack of opportunity

79-90 - Misplaced attack causes strain roll on LIMB table

91-99 - Fall into opponent, both are considered grappled. 25% chance fragile item on person breaks or you are hurt by item you are carrying

100 - Attack deflected, and pierces your heart instant death



CRUSHING (Bo-stick, Club, Hammer, Mace, Morning Star, Jo-stick, Quarterstaff, Flail)

1d100 - Result

1-3 - Hit self in a major organ, see ORGAN chart damage is subdual

4 - Weapon rebounds hitting in the forehead causing concussion. Weapon damage to wielder and -2 to intelligence and wisdom for 2d4 days or until healed for 3x damage dealt

5-21 - Pulled muscle -2 to attack and damage for 1d4 rounds or until successful heal check DC 15

22-27 - Weapon dropped on foot damaged based on size: small 1d4, med 1d6, large 1d8 and -10 to movement for 1d4 rounds

28-29 - Weapon splinters -1 permanently to weapon hardness and -2 hp. Magic weapons get a save as if you had hit them. Splinter hits you in the eye. Blind in one eye for 1d4 days or until heal check DC 15 using water to wash out eye.

30-36 - Weapon hits a hard nearby object. Reverberations cause 2d4 sonic damage to you.

37-42 - Overconfident attack exposes a moment of vulnerability. One opponent within range may make an attack of opportunity

43-46 - Entangled in your own armor, considered grappled until you make a grapple or escape artist check DC 15

47-50 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned

51-57 - Off balanced swing, hit ally within range

58-63 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn

64-65 - Misplaced attack causes severe strain roll on LIMB table

66-73 - Weapon accidentally hits you in the stomach causing you to Barf: Sickened -2 attacks, damage, and saves for 2 rounds.

74-77 - Hit your one of your containers 1d4 items destroyed. Magic items get a save as if you had hit them.

78-83 - Fatigued for 1 round, may only take a move or a standard action next turn not both

84-85 - Handle of weapon breaks into splinters 1d4 damage to self and weapon unusable. Magic weapons get a save as if you had hit them.

86-90 - Overextended shoulder +5 reach and 1d6 damage to self per attack for 1d4 rounds

91-94 - Glancing blow to your face, 1d3 teeth knocked out, -2 Charisma

95-99 - Heavy swing trips you, causing you to fall prone

100 - Impossibly bad swing hits you in the side of your head crushing your own skull. Dead



PROJECTILE (Arrow, Dart, Thrown Dagger, Crossbow Bolt, Sling)
1d100 - Result

1-9 - Weapon stalled/unstrung requires a move equivalent action before usable again

10-12 - Somehow you manage to knock your head – hard. You are dazed for 1d3 rounds.

13-23 - Fatigued for 1 round, may only take a move or a standard action next turn not both

24-30 - Load ammo backwards causing a misfire 1d4 damage to you and -2 to attack for 1d3 +1 rounds

31-36 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn

37-40 - Misplaced attack causes strain roll on LIMB table

41-45 - Loss of concentration: initiative drops by 2d4

46-50 - Twist Ankle. Speed reduced by 10 feet until 10 minutes of rest is taken.

51-59 - Handling your weapon like a rank amateur your weapon whips back and catches you in the eye. You take a -2 circumstance penalty to attacks rolls and manual actions for 1d3+2 rounds.

60-68 - Entangled in your own armor, considered grappled until you make a grapple or escape artist check DC 15

69-77 - Distracting shot, next person in initiative order gets a -2 to checks on their turn

78-84 - Nick the tendon of an ally within range. They take 1d3 damage and get -5 movement for 2 rounds

85-93 - Your weapon is slightly damaged. Any further attacks with that weapon receive a -1 circumstance penalty for the rest of the combat. The weapon can be repaired with a full-round action, but to do so would provoke an attack of opportunity.

94-98 - Ricochet off of surroundings, hit ally within 1 range increment

99 - Deadly Ricochet off of surroundings, critically hit ally within 1 range increment

100 - Rebounding ricochet into your forehead piercing your brain. Dead



POLE ARM (Bardiche, bec de corbin, bill-guisarme, fauchard, fauchard-fork,
glaive, par ransuer, spetum, voulge)


1d100 - Result

1-9 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned.

10-12 - Weapon slips and is throw at target within 30ft

13-18 - Weapon is stuck in your surroundings, if there is nothing for it to stick in, dropped at your feet

19-24 - Overconfident attack exposes a moment of vulnerability. One opponent within range may make an attack of opportunity

25-40 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn

41-43 - Misplaced attack causes strain roll on LIMB table

44-47 - Loss of concentration: initiative drops by 2d4

48-51 - Entangled in your own armor, considered grappled until you make a grapple or escape artist check DC 15

52-54 - Nick your tendon of an ally within range. They take 1d3 damage and get -5 movement for 2 rounds

55-62 - Twist Ankle. Speed reduced by 10 feet until 10 minutes of rest is taken.

63-71 - Fatigued for 1 round, may only take a move or a standard action next turn not both

72-78 - Weapon accidentally hits you int he stomach causing you to Barf: Sickened -2 attacks, damage, and saves for 2 rounds.

79-80 - Throw shoulder out -3 to hit for 1d4 rounds

81-88 - Knock ally off balance they lose their dex bonus to AC until next turn

89-96 - Hit surroundings, Your weapon is slightly damaged. Any further attacks with that weapon receive a -1 circumstance penalty for the rest of the combat. The weapon can be repaired with a full-round action, but to do so would provoke an attack of opportunity.

97-99 - Weapon is accidentally thrown and impales an ally within 30 ft with a critical strike

100 - Blade cleaves off the top of your skull instant death



SPEAR-LIKE (Spear, Javelin, Trident, Lance, Fork, Pick, Pike)


1d100 - Result

1-9 - Nick your tendon of an ally within range. They take 1d3 damage and get -5 movement for 2 rounds

10-12 - Loss of concentration: initiative drops by 2d4

13-20 - Weapon is stuck in your surroundings, if there is nothing for it to stick in, dropped at your feet

21-29 - Overconfident attack exposes a moment of vulnerability. One opponent within range may make an attack of opportunity

30-36 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn

37-41 - Misplaced attack causes strain roll on LIMB table

42-46 - Twist Ankle. Speed reduced by 10 feet until 10 minutes of rest is taken.

47-48 - A near fatal miss causes a loss of confidence, shaken for 6 rounds or until a will save DC 12 is made. -2 penalty on all attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks

49-55 - Hit surroundings, Your weapon is slightly damaged. Any further attacks with that weapon receive a -1 circumstance penalty for the rest of the combat. The weapon can be repaired with a full-round action, but to do so would provoke an attack of opportunity.

56-60 - Entangled in your own armor, considered grappled until you make a grapple or escape artist check DC 15

61-70 - Fatigued for 1 round, may only take a move or a standard action next turn not both

71-79 - Roll on THRUSTING table.

80-83 - Knock Ally off balance, they lose their dex bonus to AC until next turn

84-87 - Hit face, Additional damage 1d4, 25% chance of scar, -2 charisma until cured for 2x damage.

88-94 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned.

95-99 - Weapon is accidentally thrown and impales an ally within 30 ft with a critical strike

100 - Weapon juggles out of your hands as you trip and impale your self. instant death.


SPIKED (Some maces, Morning-stars, Flails, Clubs)


1d100 - Result

1-50 - Roll on crushing table, with +1d4 damage to self.

51-57 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn

58-67 - Misplaced attack causes strain roll on LIMB table

68-73 - Pierced your own hand, bleed for 1d3 damage for 8 rounds or until bandaged. -2 to hit for 8 rounds.

74-77 - Pierced your thigh, bleed for 1d3 damage for 8 rounds or until bandaged, -5 movement for 8 rounds or until bandaged

78-83 - Weapon pierces foot 1d6 damage and is stuck Strength check of 10 to remove

84-88 - Spikes on weapon bent it gets a -2 to damage rolls until repaired. Repairing requires a full round action which provokes attacks of opportunity

89-94 - Weapon accidentally hits you int he stomach causing you to Barf: Sickened -2 attacks, damage, and saves for 2 rounds.

95-99 - Organ hit, see ORGAN chart.

100 - Crushed skull, dead.



BITES AND CLAWS (Monsters, unarmed humanoids)


1d100 - Result

1-9 - Overconfident attack exposes a moment of vulnerability. one opponent within range may make an attack of opportunity

10-12 - Accidental damage to an internal organ, see ORGAN chart

13-31 - Misplaced attack causes loss of balance. Lose Dex Bonus to AC until next turn

33-35 - strain your wrist. This gives you a -2 circumstance penalty to attacks and manual actions with your injured hand for 1d3 +1 full rounds

36-38 - Bump into nearby ally, they lose dex bonus to AC until their next turn

39-51 - Misplaced attack causes strain roll on LIMB table

52-54 - Fatigued for 1 round, may only take a move or a standard action next turn not both

55-57 - Twist Ankle. Speed reduced by 10 feet until 10 minutes of rest is taken.

58-65 - Loss of concentration: initiative drops by 2d4

66-75 - Roll on SPIKED table. Add 1d4 damage

76-79 - Pull groin muscle stunned for 1 round

80-99 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned.

100 - Removed throat dies instantly



LIMB DAMAGE

AREA -Reverse all L & R for left-handers

1d4 - Result

1 - Right Leg

2 - Left Leg

3 - Right Arm

4 - Left Arm



LOCATION

1d10 - Result

1 - Fingers (toes)

2-3 - Wrist (ankle)

4-5 - Mid-forearm (mid-calf)

6-8 - Elbow (knee)

9-10 - Shoulder (hip)



EXTENT

1d6 - Result

1 - Temporarily damaged

2 - Bruised

3-4 - Strained

5-6 - Hyper extended



ARM

Extent - Result

Temporarily Damaged - -1 to hit, -1 to damage.

Bruised - -2 to hit, -2 to damage.

Strained - -3 to hit, -3 to damage.

Fingers Hyper Extended - -3 to hit, -3 to damage, -4 to skill checks

Hyper Extended - -4 to hit, -4 damage.



LEG

Extent - Result

Temporarily Damaged - -5 to movement

Bruised - -10 to movement

Strained - -10 to movement -2 to reflex saves

Hyper Extended - -15 to movement, -4 to reflex saves


ORGAN DAMAGE

1d6 - Organ - Result

1 - Lung - Additional Damage 2d3, Fort save DC 10 +1 per 3 damage taken or stunned for 3 rounds

2 - Heart - (nicked): bleed for 1d3 damage for 6 rounds

3 - Kidney - 1d3 Damage, blood poisoning Fort save DC 15 1d3 primary Con damage, 1d3 secondary strength damage

4 - Liver - Damage 1d4, bleed for 1d2 hp for 3 rounds.

5 - Spleen - Damage 1d6, bleed for 1d3 hp for 3 rounds.

6 - Stomach - Violently vomit for 1d3 +1 rounds stunning you and causing you to take 1d4 acid damage per round



FIRE


1d100 - Result

1-9 - Explosion knocks you off balance lose dex bonus to AC for 1d2 rounds

10-40 - All oil, alcohol, or other flammables explode for 1d2 damage each

41-45 - If holding metal item, it melts onto hand 1d6 damage and 1d3 when removed.

46-50 - Destroy 1d4 items

51-54 - One eye is burned, from sparks add 1d4 damage, -2 to hit, -4 with missiles, lose Dex bonus on AC for 1d4 rounds.

55-60 - Explosion causes spell to be miss aimed, hits random target with range.

61-66 - Blinded for 1d3 rounds.

67-74 - Smoke inhalation, partial actions for 1d2 rounds.

75-80 - Flame gets under clothes or armor, Additional Damage 2d3 25% chance of burn scars

81-99 - Burned face and skin, spell damage to self causing scars and -2 to charisma until magically healed for 2x the damage

100 - Inhaled flame and lunged are burnt completely, dead



COLD


1d100 - Result

1-40 - Fingers numbed, -2 to hit and dex skill checks for 1d4 rounds

41-50 - Hands numbed causes spell to go awry, hits a random target within range

51-60 - Severely frozen, Strength and Dexterity -2 and -10 movement for 1d6 rounds.

61-70 - Go into shock from cold shaken for 1d3 rounds

71-75 - Body completely numbed- all surface nerves paralyzed for 1d2 rounds: will not know damage taken per each blow, must roll under Dex on d20 for each attack or will drop weapon.

76-88 - Severe frostbite- 1d4 damage and -3 to reflex saves for 3 rounds

89-99 - Flesh frozen and gangrene will set in, Additional Damage 2d3. Heal check DC 15 to thaw

100 - Blood crystallized, instant death


ELECTRICITY

1d100 - Result

1-20 - Static discharge for 1 damage

21-40 - Static shock 1d2 damage and -1 to all actions for 2 rounds

41-46 - Fatigued for 1 round, may only take a move or a standard action next turn not both

47-52 - Shock to nervous system causes spell to go wild affects a random target within spell range

53-65 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned.

66-70 - Feedback knocks you back 5 feet and you are off balance, denied dex bonus to AC for 1 round

71-80 - Nervous system damaged: lose 1d2 of dexterity (regained if healed magically for 2X damage).

81-85 - Nervous system damaged: lose 1d2 of wisdom (regained if healed magically for 2x damage).

86-90 - Nervous system damaged: lose 1d2 of intelligence (regained if healed magically for 2x damage).

91-93 - Temporary amnesia lasts 1d3 rounds

94 - Temporary amnesia lasts 1d2 minutes

95-98 - Goes into convulsions, stunned for 1 rounds, Additional Damage 2d4

99 - Temporary amnesia lasts 1 hour

100 - Crossed the streams, Electrical feedback Strikes heart, death.



POISON

1d100 - Result

1-40 - Temporary loss of muscle control Fortitude save DC 10 + level to regain control and not drop weapon. Soil armor -4 to Charisma based checks until cleaned.

41-49 - Weak exposure to poison nauseated for 1d4 rounds

50-59 - Moderate exposure to poison sickened for 1d2 rounds

60-79 - Strong exposure to poison unable to act for 1 rounds, after that disoriented lose dex bonus to AC for an additional round

80-97 - Accidental self poisoned one score lowered 1-2 must neutralize poison and heal 2x damage to regain.

99 - Enters major artery, Max Ability Score Loss or Damage

100 - Poison was exceptionally potent if you fail your save you die



ACID, DISSOLVING


1d100 - Result

1-40 - Acid splatters on you for 1d2 damage

41-60 - Weak chemical burn -1 to attack rolls and skill checks for 2 rounds, -1 to concentration checks

61-70 - Moderate chemical burn -2 to attack rolls and skill checks for 2 rounds, -2 to concentration checks

71-77 - Acid gets into potion flask, water skin, etc.

78-82 - Extreme chemical burn -3 to attack rolls and skill checks for 3 rounds, -3 to concentration checks

83-90 - Acid burn to hand causes spell to go wild hits a random target within spell range

91 - Hair burned off, in addition to spell damage normal damage

92-99 - Severe facial damage, -2 charisma until healed magically for 2x damage

100 - Acid splashed back all over your face. All features melted off and brain destroyed. Dead

Lord.Sorasen
2011-09-01, 06:04 PM
I'd go passive-agressive too. Either à la Glyphstone, push your AC as high as you can, or the opposite: maximize your attacks, minimize your bonus (power attack!) and try to accumulate as many fumbles as you can ... Also: "Light crossbows multiply critical percents by 1.5X and heavy crowwbows double critical hit percent chances." Cause clearly you're much more likely to hit yourself in the face with a crossbow, or have the opponent (who's standing 30 ft away) parry and hit you in the funny bone. :smallconfused:

On the thing about the crossbow: "If the critical does not apply then make a reroll or just say 'no effect'." says the document. But that sort of gives me an idea. Or rather, an expansion of your idea.

So, if a critical does not apply, it requires a reroll. So it goes to say that if we can create a character immune to all but one fumble, we can guarantee that character gets that fumble every time.

How about master of many forms... and taking an ooze shape? No appendages to get damaged, no way to "trip and fall" without sides, no manufactured weapons to break... The way I see it every time this character fumbles he attacks his teammate.

First roll : 79. Slimes don't wear clothes. Next. (For the record, apparently having my belt torn off would detract my AC by 2.)
Second roll : 91. Hit friend. Let's just say I'm a gray ooze so I can also destroy their equipment on impact.

Next time...

First roll : 13. What can I trip on? No feet and no direction face. Also nowhere to fall. Next.
Second roll : 54. Can I drop my weapon? I can be dazed I think... But I'm not sure.
Third roll : 93. Stunned a friend and attacked it, destroying equipment.

Gavinfoxx
2011-09-01, 06:06 PM
Actually, in D&D, can't damn near anything trip and be prone?

Lord.Sorasen
2011-09-01, 06:13 PM
Actually, in D&D, can't damn near anything trip and be prone?

You know I really don't know. By RAW it would seem so... But http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a by this article not oozes. Also incorporeal creatures are immune. So maybe instead of ooze just be a ghostlike thing (ghostwalk had a couple classes for it I think) and use a draining touch. And be naked I guess. Clothing damaging effects don't work and plus you can tumble better.

NNescio
2011-09-01, 06:16 PM
Actually, in D&D, can't damn near anything trip and be prone?

Flyers can be tripped, but they won't necessarily be knocked prone. They do get checked though.

Perfect flyers and flying creatures without wings are outright immune to tripping though.

Keld Denar
2011-09-01, 07:17 PM
Some creatures like oozes and snakes can't be tripped either.

OracleofWuffing
2011-09-01, 11:29 PM
Y'know, there's a little voice inside my head wondering if these suggestions we're handing out are already on the DM's notes for encounters.

I mean, yeah, it's the DM's prerogative to set up challenging encounters that sometimes play with the rules, just that how frequently they toe specific lines might make or break the campaign on his end. There's no reason to suspect that the DM's just out to screw with you, though, the voices in my head just love overcomplicating scenarios.

Arbane
2011-09-02, 01:03 AM
If the GM is dead-set on his fumble rules, see if they'll let you play a Pathfinder Witch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch). They're not too blasty, so he might go for it.

If he does (the fool!) take the Misfortune and Cackle hexes (you can get both at level 1, playing a human), and spam them in combat. Watch the enemies fumble 1 roll in 10. After you've made a few boss encounters into Happy Fun Miserable Failure Hour, maybe he'll reconsider.

SowZ
2011-09-02, 01:33 AM
I don't agree. Oh I on't agree.

And see why, OP. Why I don't believe in the "pcs will make many more rolls than any npc the dm cares about" fallacy.

This point of view, op, implies that somehow the dm is being vs the players. First, I don't believe that the games of today are like this. Second, even if it is, the DM will be against the players in any case, with ot without table.

However, this point fails to understand that, if the DM is "against the players", it's the DM who is against, and not npc X or Y. If the npc two-weapon fighting shuriken thrower monk attacks the party 6 attacks in a round, he's got a chance to fail at each. This argument says that "but he'll probably die in this encounter, so he didn't have so many chances to fail as the pcs", however the DM is still rolling attacks with many other monsters and npcs. So, I don't really see the point on the whole fallacy! If it's DM vs PLAYER, does it matter that it's a lot of npcs vs a single pc (and maybe summoned monsters?).


It's about action economy. Yeah, if the DM is outnumbering the players, he IS more likely to fumble. But it also doesn't hurt him much. Losing a turn for a character when you have ten characters on your side is fairly insignificant compared to losing a turn for a character when you have four characters on your side. Also, if an NPC rolls fumble and kills themself it is no biggie. Someone replaces him and no one cares. When a PC does the same thing, it is a much bigger deal.

Besides, it isn't just about it making it unfair on a DM vs. Player level, but martial characters are hit HARD. Casters immediatly become more viable. One of the few advantages mechanically of playing martial classes over magic ones is low level survivability. Not anymore! yay. More than that, even if everyone is playing a martial character, certain builds become powerful while others become walking hara-kiri machines.

I am not totally against fumble tables, but a player should have to roll two ones in a row. That is still fumbling nearly every five hundred attacks.

HERE IS A RESULT OF A CALCULATION OF THE LUDICROSITY!

Let's say you are a Half-Orc Figher with 20 Str at level one. You have the highest health in the party at 12. You are using a Great sword. Assuming proper CR work, an average of four swings per encounter, (12 encounters to level or 50 attacks per level,) assuming average damage rolled there is, quite literally, over a 20 percent chance you will kill a party member outright before hitting level 2. This chance goes up considerably when you factor in the chance of rolling twice or three times on the fumble chart, allies with very low HP either through low con/small HD or just having been damaged, or if he swings more than 50 times before leveling.

And that is just counting one character! It is totally possible for other party members to have an average damage of 14 or so at level one and party members to have healths of 5 or 6. With this crit chart, a normal, reasonably well made party might have a 30 or 40 percent chance of someone killing another party member in one levels worth of play.
[/I]

Xyk
2011-09-02, 01:48 AM
I didn't know a table existed, but I've always used critical fumbles. I actually use a threat system that's virtually identical to the critical hit threat. When a 1 is rolled, roll again and if you miss the second roll, then something bad happens at the DM's discretion.

The warblade of our last campaign had terrible luck with this. He was the party's main damage dealer and receiver, being a low-level low-op party (swashbuckler, rogue, cleric were other characters). In one fight on a boat against the pirate captain, while enlarged and bull strength'd, he critical missed (including the threat). I ruled that he should roll damage as normal and apply that to his weapon. He ended up hitting the mast in his ferocious swing and broke his sword in half. Luckily, the captain was nearly defeated at that point and the rogue tumbled in to flank, SA, and kill him.

Another time, he was fighting giants atop the outer wall of the city (while enlarged and bull strength'd) and swung his greataxe (which he got to replace the falchion from before) with such force that he was unable to hold it and it flew into the city. The party had to stall the fight by getting the swashbuckler and rogue to distract the giants so that the warblade could go pick up his axe.

faceroll
2011-09-02, 02:35 AM
I didn't know a table existed, but I've always used critical fumbles. I actually use a threat system that's virtually identical to the critical hit threat. When a 1 is rolled, roll again and if you miss the second roll, then something bad happens at the DM's discretion.

The warblade of our last campaign had terrible luck with this. He was the party's main damage dealer and receiver, being a low-level low-op party (swashbuckler, rogue, cleric were other characters). In one fight on a boat against the pirate captain, while enlarged and bull strength'd, he critical missed (including the threat). I ruled that he should roll damage as normal and apply that to his weapon. He ended up hitting the mast in his ferocious swing and broke his sword in half. Luckily, the captain was nearly defeated at that point and the rogue tumbled in to flank, SA, and kill him.

Another time, he was fighting giants atop the outer wall of the city (while enlarged and bull strength'd) and swung his greataxe (which he got to replace the falchion from before) with such force that he was unable to hold it and it flew into the city. The party had to stall the fight by getting the swashbuckler and rogue to distract the giants so that the warblade could go pick up his axe.

Ugh, such antics would be totally out of place in my campaign.

SowZ
2011-09-02, 02:46 AM
Ugh, such antics would be totally out of place in my campaign.

Wait, distracting giants to pick up weapons or doing zany fumbles? Or something else?

Skaven
2011-09-02, 04:35 AM
Fumble tables are terrible things.

Honestly the fact you have proficiency in a weapon should mean that you are less likely to fumble, if not have been trained to avoid it. That's what proficiency -is-. Fumble table with a weapon you are not proficient in? Fine. I wouldn't know how to shoot a rocket launcher if I had one, I would be as much a danger to myself as the target.

If a soldier messed up so bad that every 1/20th of the time he shot his gun he ended up hurting himself or a friend he'd be kicked out of the forces.

Thats what training (proficiency) is supposed to represent.

My advice? Refuse to play wit the table. Thats what I would do if I disagreed with a rule so badly. Its happened before.

Friend: I want to run this system and use this critical / fumble table! What do you wanna play?

Me: Sorry, i hate those things. I'll be giving that game a miss. Let me know when it ends and what you're playing next.

ILM
2011-09-02, 04:44 AM
I understand this point. A single pc will be affected by it more times than a single NPC. However, in my opinion and experience this whole point "a single given pc will suffer more than any single given npc" is irrelevant. As the rule applies to all characters of the game, both "sides of the game" (the party and their enemies) will suffer equal. And as I joked, but it was actually a serious question, if really "character vs character" instead of "side vs side" is important (my whole point is that "side vs side" is the important part): Which is going to benefit more times in a campaign from opponents fumbling? The pc who stays the whole campaign, or the enemy?
I think what you fail to perceive here is the asymmetry between each "side" (though for the record I disagree with the very notion of sides in this game). It's not just statistics. If a monster fumbles and stabs himself in the eye, he just dies faster. No matter: a couple hours later, another monster is there to take his place. If a PC fumbles and stabs himself in the eye, he dies. Game over, roll a new character. Now unless you're playing with an army of backup throwaway PCs, this has a significantly higher impact for everyone involved. The DM's side has effectively infinite lives, which isn't a luxury PCs have.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-02, 08:15 AM
If a soldier messed up so bad that every 1/20th of the time he shot his gun he ended up hurting himself or a friend he'd be kicked out of the forces.

Thats what training (proficiency) is supposed to represent.

There is this too. Aright, example time. I got into a mock combat society a while back, played pretty hard for a year or so. I use primarily a longbow. Over the course of the year, I averaged playing once every week or better, for hours at a time. That comes out to hundreds of shots per weekend, so, probably about 10,000 shots over the year.

I believe I shot friendlies exactly twice, and I was notorious for popping shots off between peoples heads. Number of times I dropped my bow just because I shot: 0. That's not a logical thing to do. You might drop it because you just took a particularly hard hit and fell over, but not just because you shot unless you're the worst archer ever. Number of times string/bow broke: 0. I had one arrow break on the string due to being shot while drawing it back. That was the freakiest of freak accidents. Number of times I shot myself: 0. I don't even know how that could work.

It was also not normal for people to stab themselves or their friends with any kind of frequency. Even the very, very new managed to swing at the other guys pretty reliably.

Sure, sometimes, you really blow a shot. What happens then is...you miss badly. That's normal. That's realistic. Everybody misses sometimes. But if you believe that a 1/20 chance of actively harming your own team is normal, then you must have some very odd ideas about combat. Ones in which the way to victory includes nothing but waiting for your opponent to maim himself.

DiBastet
2011-09-02, 11:01 AM
Archery things in real life

That's why one of the first things I said was that "if the DM says that it's more realistic, than it's a fallacy".

On the other hand, I believe this a problem of how you rp it. In my games characters don't drop their weapons on their feet because they suck. As I understand, one attack roll doesn't mean you make one attack; your mini being still on the table doesn't mean that you are still; your mini being at the feet or the giant don't mean you killed it by stabbing his feet many times; and dropping your weapon 10ft away don't mean you just flung it. It means that your attack sequence ended with a poorly planed blow that the opponent did parry easily then with the force of the motion it flew away.

The "it's not realistic" part is fluff. Fluff is mutable. To be fair, most of my fumbles are usually rped as a "inverse critical". It isn't that you (pc or npc) are stupid, but your opponent was awesome. There is no single city guard that charges the character but trips and falls to the ground. The character avoided the blow and tripped the city guard.

Of course this does not solve what many people perceive as injust because "with fumbles you kill your party / yourself".

But I will at least concede to Tyndmyr that with bows things are more complicated to rp, but nothing a good dm can't come with.


EDIT!!!
BTW: I believe a 1 should be a fumble threat. Supposing you have 50% to hit your opponent (like, in a 11 or more in the d20), what it would be the chance of a fumble? First 1/20, then confirmation of 1/2?

Someone with good math skills, what would be the % chances of actually getting a fumble, instead of a threat, with the following chances on the confirmation roll:
1 - Roll 1 on the d20 then confirm a fumble with 5- on the d20?
2 - Roll 1 on the d20 then confirm a fumble with 10- on the d20?
3 - Roll 1 on the d20 then confirm a fumble with 15- on the d20?

Cuaqchi
2011-09-02, 11:18 AM
One system I would use is to treat 1's as an open ended roll of -10. In this case a one isn't an auto-miss or a natural fumble instead you only fumble with a final to-hit <=0.

Emmerask
2011-09-02, 11:30 AM
Well its actually quite simple and straight forward what you should do:

Ask the dm politely if he/she would be willing to play without the crit and fumble tables.
If he/she is not willing to play without them, then stop playing, don´t go kicking and screaming like a little child who wants his cookies.

Oh and I´m quite a bit shocked about all the suggestions that in essence say destroy the campaign if it doesn´t go your way...

Arbane
2011-09-02, 11:37 AM
On the other hand, I believe this a problem of how you rp it. In my games characters don't drop their weapons on their feet because they suck. As I understand, one attack roll doesn't mean you make one attack; your mini being still on the table doesn't mean that you are still; your mini being at the feet or the giant don't mean you killed it by stabbing his feet many times; and dropping your weapon 10ft away don't mean you just flung it. It means that your attack sequence ended with a poorly planed blow that the opponent did parry easily then with the force of the motion it flew away.

The "it's not realistic" part is fluff. Fluff is mutable. To be fair, most of my fumbles are usually rped as a "inverse critical". It isn't that you (pc or npc) are stupid, but your opponent was awesome. There is no single city guard that charges the character but trips and falls to the ground. The character avoided the blow and tripped the city guard.

This strikes me as much better, unless of course it's a comedy game where the PCs are supposed to be intermittently-lethal buffoons.



EDIT!!!
BTW: I believe a 1 should be a fumble threat. Supposing you have 50% to hit your opponent (like, in a 11 or more in the d20), what it would be the chance of a fumble? First 1/20, then confirmation of 1/2?

Someone with good math skills, what would be the % chances of actually getting a fumble, instead of a threat, with the following chances on the confirmation roll:
1 - Roll 1 on the d20 then confirm a fumble with 5- on the d20?
2 - Roll 1 on the d20 then confirm a fumble with 10- on the d20?
3 - Roll 1 on the d20 then confirm a fumble with 15- on the d20?
[/quote]

1: 1/20 * 5/20 = 5/400 = 1/80. = 1.25%
2: 1/20 * 10/20 = 10/400 = 1/40 = 2.5%
3: 1/20 * 15/20 = 15/400 = 3.75%

Edit: This ignores any +tohit on the confirm roll, obviously.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-02, 11:41 AM
Oh and I´m quite a bit shocked about all the suggestions that in essence say destroy the campaign if it doesn´t go your way...

Destroy the campaign? The suggestions merely are to make maximum use of these New!, Fun!, and Fantastic! rules!

If doing so destroys the campaign, then perhaps the rules are not so great after all...

Emmerask
2011-09-02, 11:53 AM
You can also destroy any d&d game at first level by raw, that does not however mean you should just because you would much rather play shadowrun :smallwink:.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-02, 11:55 AM
You can also destroy any d&d game at first level by raw, that does not however mean you should just because you would much rather play shadowrun :smallwink:.

I am interested in the mechanics of this, and wish to know more.

DiBastet
2011-09-02, 11:56 AM
This strikes me as much better, unless of course it's a comedy game where the PCs are supposed to be intermittently-lethal buffoons.

Thanks. Now that I think about it, people probably don't use this approach, and the idea of people not using this approach seems really scary...


1: 1/20 * 5/20 = 5/400 = 1/80. = 1.25%
2: 1/20 * 10/20 = 10/400 = 1/40 = 2.5%
3: 1/20 * 15/20 = 15/400 = 3.75%

Edit: This ignores any +tohit on the confirm roll, obviously.

Hmm, in the basic 50/50, you have 2,5% chance of rolling on whatever table you have. To take the example of the paizo deck, there are 50 cards, and only one of those make you hit yourself (I always rped the enemy turns your sword against you), or hit another creature on the threatened area.

So, 1/40 * 1/50 = 1/2000 = 0,0005.


Supposing that you have to roll 11 to hit your opponent with your to hit you have only 2,5% chance of rolling a fumble. 1/40 chance. Then draw a card that mostly will give you ability damage or a status, with fort or half saving throw.

And you have only 0,0005% of chance of the enemy making you hit yourself or your ally, with the paizo's deck. 1/2000.

Bah, I can live with that...

Emmerask
2011-09-02, 12:00 PM
I am interested in the mechanics of this, and wish to know more.

wish is part of it true :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2011-09-02, 12:00 PM
Yeah. Honestly, that strikes me as unlikely enough to not make a real difference...I'd go with no cards, just to keep combat moving snappily, but w/e.

Edit: Also, Emmerask, first level pun-pun is only available in Faerun. With a heavily permissive DM. By straight RAW. Nothing obliges Pazuzu to hand you wishes.

DiBastet
2011-09-02, 12:06 PM
Yeah. Honestly, that strikes me as unlikely enough to not make a real difference...

I win my week!:smallbiggrin:

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-02, 08:47 PM
Guess how my esteemed DM responded to my criticism.

He threatened to sic a white dragon on us (me in particular). :smallannoyed:

No discussion, not even an actual no just "direct all further complaints to my assistant (insert picture of white dragon)"

after i asked him to elaborate he said that he had wanted to sic a dragon on us (just), but had relented for some unnamed reason.

my response: "seriously? that's the kind of behavior i would expect from a two year old."

needless to say i quit, my charecter (a druid vampire who exists only to enforce natural selection, ie: kill off the weak) ran off into the sunrise in search of better prey, and better companions.

Gavinfoxx
2011-09-02, 08:51 PM
Wow. Someone is on a power trip and is gaming for the wrong reasons...

You did the right thing with quitting.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-09-02, 09:04 PM
Number of times I shot myself: 0. I don't even know how that could work.

...Shooting straight up with absolutely no wind? Otherwise I guess you could have a tube with gradual enough of a curve that it ended up coming out the other end at you... Or you could have ridiculously long arms... so that you could somehow manage to aim at yourself.

Yeah, I got nothing. :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2011-09-02, 09:04 PM
Guess how my esteemed DM responded to my criticism.

He threatened to sic a white dragon on us (me in particular). :smallannoyed:

No discussion, not even an actual no just "direct all further complaints to my assistant (insert picture of white dragon)"

after i asked him to elaborate he said that he had wanted to sic a dragon on us (just), but had relented for some unnamed reason.

my response: "seriously? that's the kind of behavior i would expect from a two year old."

needless to say i quit, my charecter (a druid vampire who exists only to enforce natural selection, ie: kill off the weak) ran off into the sunrise in search of better prey, and better companions.


Here's to a happy ending to an awful story.

Infernalbargain
2011-09-02, 10:22 PM
Fundamental reason why crit hits and crit fumbles are structurally against the players. If the rolls go in the party's favor, then the encounters are slightly easier. If the rolls go against the party, TPK. Basically because the PC's have to go through encounter and encounter, things going in their favor is just a side benefit. The party only needs to fail once.

SowZ
2011-09-02, 11:22 PM
Guess how my esteemed DM responded to my criticism.

He threatened to sic a white dragon on us (me in particular). :smallannoyed:

No discussion, not even an actual no just "direct all further complaints to my assistant (insert picture of white dragon)"

after i asked him to elaborate he said that he had wanted to sic a dragon on us (just), but had relented for some unnamed reason.

my response: "seriously? that's the kind of behavior i would expect from a two year old."

needless to say i quit, my charecter (a druid vampire who exists only to enforce natural selection, ie: kill off the weak) ran off into the sunrise in search of better prey, and better companions.

Yeah, let him live in a world where 20 percent of forrays from level 1 to 2 involve party members killing themselves/each other in fits of inexplicable incompetence. Who needs it? I also hate totally random monsters especially to 'punish' the player. "I've always wanted the party to fight a dragon, but I held off until now because there has been no rational reason to do so." is one thing. But, "I always wanted the party to fight a dragon, but since it would punish you as players to do so I held off until a good opportunity to lay down the law and assert ma' authoritae" is just silly and poor DMing.

OracleofWuffing
2011-09-02, 11:27 PM
...Shooting straight up with absolutely no wind? Otherwise I guess you could have a tube with gradual enough of a curve that it ended up coming out the other end at you... Or you could have ridiculously long arms... so that you could somehow manage to aim at yourself.

Yeah, I got nothing. :smalltongue:
Well, you could curve the arrow in a- wait, no, Mythbusters busted that one.

I guess I could make it work, but it requires a very powerful magnet.

EDIT: Or a really small planet.

EDIT EDIT: Ring gates! Okay, we can make this work!

Tyndmyr
2011-09-02, 11:40 PM
Guess how my esteemed DM responded to my criticism.

He threatened to sic a white dragon on us (me in particular). :smallannoyed:

No discussion, not even an actual no just "direct all further complaints to my assistant (insert picture of white dragon)"

after i asked him to elaborate he said that he had wanted to sic a dragon on us (just), but had relented for some unnamed reason.

my response: "seriously? that's the kind of behavior i would expect from a two year old."

needless to say i quit, my charecter (a druid vampire who exists only to enforce natural selection, ie: kill off the weak) ran off into the sunrise in search of better prey, and better companions.

Wow! That is...a pretty illogical response on his part.

Well, better to find out soon, than waste time in a slowly worsening game, I always say. Better luck finding a more reasonable GM and a more fun game.



...Shooting straight up with absolutely no wind? Otherwise I guess you could have a tube with gradual enough of a curve that it ended up coming out the other end at you... Or you could have ridiculously long arms... so that you could somehow manage to aim at yourself.

Yeah, I got nothing. :smalltongue:

Yeah, in theory, I could probably shoot into the wind or something and set it up...but I'd really, really have to work at it. And with an actual bow, it'd be a pretty wild shot to set up, lots of luck to even make it work. I'd be impressed with anyone who managed to shoot themselves that way, tbh.

I concede that ring gates would make it quite doable, though. I'd also probably give kudos for anyone utilizing sets of ring gates as impromptu armor of arrow deflection. This is like...begging for a custom item now. I'm going to go homebrew this up.

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-02, 11:51 PM
Wow. Someone is on a power trip and is gaming for the wrong reasons...

You did the right thing with quitting.

but here's the kicker

apparently this game was soured by an Inexperienced Player

@$%& him

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh

* indescribable screaming*

god dammit that makes me so angry :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

*punches computer monitor*

/allcapsrage

I'm better now...

kinda

Rational argument: not only is that not true, it doesn't apply to the situation; it does not resolve the problems i express and it causes nothing but enmity between us.

two year old behaviour

OracleofWuffing
2011-09-03, 12:07 AM
No discussion, not even an actual no just "direct all further complaints to my assistant (insert picture of white dragon)"
Yeowch, rough hand you've been dealt there. Though, perhaps there were going to be worse things than the crit table in the campaign. I mean, the white dragon could have been an encounter within the suggested challenge rating guidelines, they start at CR 2 so in theory a group of four level 1's can handle it as a Very Difficult encounter (that is, good chance someone will die), but since it sounds that he was planning to make it a big thing, so he probably didn't have the Wyrmling in mind.


I concede that ring gates would make it quite doable, though. I'd also probably give kudos for anyone utilizing sets of ring gates as impromptu armor of arrow deflection. This is like...begging for a custom item now. I'm going to go homebrew this up.
Is there a front and back to ring gates? I'm totally picturing wearing one and then sticking the other one on to my enemy, outbound side pointing into him. So, like, you get shot, arrow goes into him, he gets shot, arrow comes out of me. Bonus points if the arrow coming out of me hits him. Extra slice of pizza if the arrow that came out of me hit him so it came out of me so it hits him so it comes out of me so it hits him so *Booked*

ILM
2011-09-03, 06:00 AM
but here's the kicker

apparently this game was soured by an Inexperienced Player

@$%& him

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh

* indescribable screaming*

god dammit that makes me so angry :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

*punches computer monitor*

/allcapsrage

I'm better now...

kinda

Rational argument: not only is that not true, it doesn't apply to the situation; it does not resolve the problems i express and it causes nothing but enmity between us.

two year old behaviour
The DM's a player too right? So technically, I guess, it's true :smalltongue:.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-09-03, 09:51 AM
needless to say i quit, my charecter (a druid vampire who exists only to enforce natural selection, ie: kill off the weak) ran off into the sunrise in search of better prey, and better companions.
Just wanted to say, this was funnier than it probably was supposed to be :smallbiggrin:

GeminiVeil
2011-09-03, 11:44 AM
Just wanted to say, this was funnier than it probably was supposed to be :smallbiggrin:

I'm so glad I wasn't the only one that noticed that. lol

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-03, 02:48 PM
Just wanted to say, this was funnier than it probably was supposed to be :smallbiggrin:

well i couldn't really run of into the sunset could I? Plus i kinda wanted them to think i committed suicide so they couldn't keep using my character as an NPC (its happened before.)

I'm still just really frustrated that they think giving a logical an thought out compalint and then having it responded to with being ignored and a threat (joking or not) constitutes being an "Inexperience Player" and "never being satisfied"

ragh :smallfurious:

The Glyphstone
2011-09-03, 03:09 PM
Do the other players think this, or are you taking only the DM's sour-grapes word for it?

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-03, 05:41 PM
Do the other players think this, or are you taking only the DM's sour-grapes word for it?

one player does, the others im not sure

DiBastet
2011-09-04, 08:49 PM
This will sound very jerk on my part, but his response of "direct further complaints to my assistant" was really cool. Of course I would laugh first, then type (becase this seems like an internet conversation, not something someone would say face to face) "Lol. If this is really how you're going to handle things, then don't count on me".

...nice aweser... lol... gonna steal it for me. Am thinking on using an image of that burocratic fat devil with lipstick. Hehehehe.

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-05, 12:25 AM
This will sound very jerk on my part, but his response of "direct further complaints to my assistant" was really cool. Of course I would laugh first, then type (becase this seems like an internet conversation, not something someone would say face to face) "Lol. If this is really how you're going to handle things, then don't count on me".

...nice aweser... lol... gonna steal it for me. Am thinking on using an image of that burocratic fat devil with lipstick. Hehehehe.

Yeah it was cool at first, then he amended the post and you realised he meant "If you want to complain then fight this dragon or suck it!"

hewhosaysfish
2011-09-05, 06:58 AM
Is there a front and back to ring gates? I'm totally picturing wearing one and then sticking the other one on to my enemy, outbound side pointing into him. So, like, you get shot, arrow goes into him, he gets shot, arrow comes out of me. Bonus points if the arrow coming out of me hits him. Extra slice of pizza if the arrow that came out of me hit him so it came out of me so it hits him so it comes out of me so it hits him so *Booked*

Now you're thinking with portals...

There is actually a magic shield which does this, though. I think it's in the MIC.

But if you want to shoot yourself with a bow that badly, maybe you could experiment with ricochets. Because that would be funny; almost Rube-Goldberg-esque.

DiBastet
2011-09-05, 07:57 AM
Yeah it was cool at first, then he amended the post and you realised he meant "If you want to complain then fight this dragon or suck it!"

Fumble charts don't suck and kill the party. That fumble chart you posted, that one gave the whole group a bad name.

Fumble charts don't suck and kill the party. Your dm gives the rule a bad name.


Note: We could make a Bon Jovi parody with this statement. :smallsigh:

TheCountAlucard
2011-09-05, 10:41 AM
Fumble charts don't suck and kill the party.Obviously some do, or people's perspectives of them wouldn't be such. :smallannoyed:


That fumble chart you posted, that one gave the whole group a bad name.Not really; it's just one of many - this one just happened to have seen some use. :smallsigh:


Fumble charts don't suck and kill the party.Clearly wishful thinking on your part. :smallannoyed:

DiBastet
2011-09-05, 01:34 PM
{{Scrubbed}}
However, I'm fairly satisfied with the numbers some members helped to find out. I can live with 1/2000 chance to hit a party member.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-06, 06:11 AM
Fumble charts don't suck and kill the party. That fumble chart you posted, that one gave the whole group a bad name.

Fumble charts don't suck and kill the party. Your dm gives the rule a bad name.

I've seen worse ones in play. One previously seen included a d100 table for both crits and fails, most of which resulted in either instant death(Im including results like quadruple damage in this category), or permanent maiming.

I invariably played a wizard in such scenarios, avoiding the horrible fate of the melee types. It tended to make weapons with a high crit range more important, as having a large crit multiplier was made essentially irrelevant by the table. It also did hilariously bad things to dual wielders, who became nearly as dangerous to the party as the opposing team.

The effects are ALWAYS negative. It's just that if the effect is only a .000whatever chance, it's relatively unlikely to arise. At that point, I'd likely just save myself the time of using the system.

Re'ozul
2011-09-06, 08:07 AM
Considering all the comments in this thread I either have a very easygoing group or am just very very lucky.

I use critical hit and critical fumble card decks.

A natural one on an attack earns you a crit-fumble card without any confirmation.

A critical hit needs to be confirmed (and you can choose wether you want the card or just the damage multiplier). However, if you crit-threat on your confirm, you may roll again basically allowing for multicrits.
The highest one of my players ever got was a triplecrit with a 19-20/x3 large energy bow. Suffice to say, it hurt the target ... alot.
Obviously this only works or is in effect as long as my players don't make ludicrous threat ranges.
Otherwise the what I think normal rules are in effect. You get crit-hit cards equal to your multiplier minus one per tier of crit and have to choose one to apply per tier. So the triplecrit bow-hit would have yielded 3 pair of cards with one of each pair being applied to the target if he had chosen to take them.

Now for the insane part.
I like to play with some wild magic rules in effect.
Whenever someone uses a spell, SLA or Su ability they have to roll a d100.

There is a chance of (2*Spell level/CL)*20% (max 20%) that you wild surge and 25% chances of your spell being stronger or weaker than expected in some way (area affected, damage dealt, duration, number of targets etc).

So for an arcane caster it would look like this for d100 results.
1-25 weaker
25-50 stronger
81-100 wild surge
at the worst.

divine spells and Su abilities are treated as having halve these chances.

EDIT: If they actually roll a wild surge, the result is defined by a d10000 roll and effect durations are defined by the level of spell that was used.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-06, 08:39 AM
Yeah...don't do that.

If your players want that stuff, they can go into the Wild Mage PrC.

And if you just skip it, combat runs faster! D&D combat does not need to be any slower than it already is. It's quite possible to spend an hour simulating a single minute of combat.

The Glyphstone
2011-09-06, 12:01 PM
A d10,000 roll? Why in the world would you need 10,000 different possible things to happen on a wild surge?

NNescio
2011-09-06, 01:03 PM
A d10,000 roll? Why in the world would you need 10,000 different possible things to happen on a wild surge?

Maybe he's a fan of FATAL.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-06, 01:25 PM
A d10,000 roll? Why in the world would you need 10,000 different possible things to happen on a wild surge?

I'm hoping he meant 100. The idea of a table with ten thousand entries makes me cry inside at the idea of using it, let alone making it.

DiBastet
2011-09-06, 01:50 PM
makes me cry inside at the idea of using it, let alone making it.

Amen Tyndmyr. Amen.

Zale
2011-09-06, 07:36 PM
Maybe he's a fan of FATAL.

That doesn't exist.

LaLaLaLaLaLaLaIcant'hearyou..

Anyway, I seem to recall someone once critical fumbling on a decipher script check..

They died instantly.

Such a world would be quite lethal, where you can't even read without head 'splosions.

Circle of Life
2011-09-06, 09:08 PM
Anyway, I seem to recall someone once critical fumbling on a decipher script check..

I... what... how...

"Hey guys, I'm trying to figure out what this says, but it's giving me a headache, so I'm going to stab myself in the eye with this inkpen!"?

How does that even work?

DiBastet
2011-09-06, 09:11 PM
I can imagine something like 1-2: You read only gibberish "One word for you: Agaboobabubababoo" (cookie for those whoe get the reference); 3-4: You understand a part wrong, getting the wrong meaning; 5-6: You read it really wrong, with a completly different meaning.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-06, 09:56 PM
I... what... how...

"Hey guys, I'm trying to figure out what this says, but it's giving me a headache, so I'm going to stab myself in the eye with this inkpen!"?

How does that even work?

I dunno. This really doesn't seem to work in anything outside of CoC...and even there, reading one book of mythos isn't generally sufficient to make your head explode.

General rule: If your players beg you to switch to the kinder, gentler Call of Cthulhu rules, you're doing D&D wrong.

navar100
2011-09-06, 10:16 PM
Stupid Paizo published Critical Hit and Critical Failure cards so now my DM uses them for our Pathfinder game after having given up on the idea previous 3E campaign. Grrr!

I gave him all the arguments, but he's stubbornly using them. I'm playing a Sorcerer so am less affected by it than the others, but that's besides the point and part of the point.

GRRRR!

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-06, 11:12 PM
I can imagine something like 1-2: You read only gibberish "One word for you: Agaboobabubababoo" (cookie for those whoe get the reference); 3-4: You understand a part wrong, getting the wrong meaning; 5-6: You read it really wrong, with a completly different meaning.

IIRC that's just not how the check works

there are no degrees of success, its pretty much a knowledge check; you know the language or you don't.

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-06, 11:16 PM
Stupid Paizo published Critical Hit and Critical Failure cards so now my DM uses them for our Pathfinder game after having given up on the idea previous 3E campaign. Grrr!

I gave him all the arguments, but he's stubbornly using them. I'm playing a Sorcerer so am less affected by it than the others, but that's besides the point and part of the point.

GRRRR!

Is leaving not an option?

i would say: "I don't agree with or enjoy the use of these rules, as such i don't wish to play this game if those rules are included." You can sit out for a bit and plan an epic (and non crit table using) campaign. :smallsmile:

Geigan
2011-09-06, 11:38 PM
That doesn't exist.

LaLaLaLaLaLaLaIcant'hearyou..

Anyway, I seem to recall someone once critical fumbling on a decipher script check..

They died instantly.

Such a world would be quite lethal, where you can't even read without head 'splosions.

Literature can blow your mind. Holy crap my English teacher was right!

Arbane
2011-09-07, 12:24 AM
General rule: If your players beg you to switch to the kinder, gentler Call of Cthulhu rules, you're doing D&D wrong.

Ah, that reminds me....



Weasly Crusher: "I can't believe the wagon fell on my head."

Cheating Bastard: "I can't believe your eyeball popped out, what kind of crit tables are these?"

Psycho Dave: "The manly kind. I've been coddling you with those Arduin crtitcal hit tables for too damn long."

From A Night At The Inn, A Day At The Racists (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?13446-A-Night-At-The-Inn-A-Day-At-The-Racists). And not, that's not mis-spelled. :smallbiggrin:

DiBastet
2011-09-07, 07:48 AM
Rage

I'm glad I don't have to play with this kind of people. Never. Ever.

I don't enjoy rolling stats. I won't play.

I don't enjoy that you banned t1, I won't play unless the game have them back.

I don't enjoy that you use Armor as DR, I won't play unless armor is back as normal.

I don't enjoy not being able to be an elven monk, I won't play unless I can be exactly this.


Gods, how grateful I am that I never met players like this. Of course, all my players, all that I had, were very mature.

Gnaeus
2011-09-07, 08:30 AM
I'm glad I don't have to play with this kind of people. Never. Ever.

I don't enjoy rolling stats. I won't play.

I don't enjoy that you banned t1, I won't play unless the game have them back.

I don't enjoy that you use Armor as DR, I won't play unless armor is back as normal.

I don't enjoy not being able to be an elven monk, I won't play unless I can be exactly this.


Thats, uhm, not what he said at all. He didn't like a rule. He told his DM. DM disagreed so he chose to play something that will be in contact with the rule as little as possible. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Also, if a rule bothers someone so much that they don't think they can enjoy the game, the mature thing to do IS to not play. An immature reaction would be to play and then whine, or play and then sabotage the game (like "I don't enjoy that you banned ToB so I will play the most broken T1 I can to show you!"). Rule 0, that the DM can do what he wants, is balanced by rule -1, that players can leave if they don't like it.

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-07, 09:30 AM
Thats, uhm, not what he said at all. He didn't like a rule. He told his DM. DM disagreed so he chose to play something that will be in contact with the rule as little as possible. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Also, if a rule bothers someone so much that they don't think they can enjoy the game, the mature thing to do IS to not play. An immature reaction would be to play and then whine, or play and then sabotage the game (like "I don't enjoy that you banned ToB so I will play the most broken T1 I can to show you!"). Rule 0, that the DM can do what he wants, is balanced by rule -1, that players can leave if they don't like it.

QFT

that's not what i intended to say. I'm sorry if i wasn't clear.

This is what i meant to say: "Since i don't enjoy the rules for this game and the DM wont listen to me about why i don't like them, i don't want to play this game."

if that's not a legit reason then i don't know what is, but am open to suggestions.

Mystic Muse
2011-09-07, 10:16 AM
I'm glad I don't have to play with this kind of people. Never. Ever.

I don't enjoy rolling stats. I won't play.

I don't enjoy that you banned t1, I won't play unless the game have them back.

I don't enjoy that you use Armor as DR, I won't play unless armor is back as normal.

I don't enjoy not being able to be an elven monk, I won't play unless I can be exactly this.


Gods, how grateful I am that I never met players like this. Of course, all my players, all that I had, were very mature.

He's not even saying he won't play. He's saying he doesn't like a rule, it negatively impacts his enjoyment of the game, it's unfair for the non-spellcasting classes, and he'd like the DM to scrap it.

If my DM had a rule I was against, or planned on putting in certain subjects I'm against, I'd try to convince him otherwise too. The game being fun for everybody is kind of the entire point of the game. In fact, trying to convince your DM otherwise, instead of just walking out without trying to explain things, or trying to ruin the game like I've seen advised a time or two in other threads, is mature. Unless the definition of "Mature" changed at some point and means the opposite now.

Claudius Maximus
2011-09-07, 01:29 PM
Who would bail without even trying to discuss the issue? I don't think that one is really mature. The most mature way to handle this is to try to compromise with the DM, whether it ends with him scrapping the rule for the sake of some players, or the players having to either suck it up or leave. But seriously, discuss it. Most DMs aren't uncompromising tyrants, and I know I'd try to change a lot of things if one of my friends told me it was having a serious negative effect on their fun.

Re'ozul
2011-09-07, 01:32 PM
Actually most wild surge events aren't bad (though you should never roll a 10,000).

The actual table can be found here (http://www.traykon.com/pdf/The_Net_Libram_of_Random_Magical_Effects.pdf).

And my players actually like the rules. (Which is why I kept them)
When I found the d10,000 table they wanted to switch over from the original d100 one.

Our sorcerer had a streak of really bad rolls once and since then everybody mockingly dreads his turn.

Mystic Muse
2011-09-07, 01:38 PM
Who would bail without even trying to discuss the issue? I don't think that one is really mature. The most mature way to handle this is to try to compromise with the DM, whether it ends with him scrapping the rule for the sake of some players, or the players having to either suck it up or leave. But seriously, discuss it. Most DMs aren't uncompromising tyrants, and I know I'd try to change a lot of things if one of my friends told me it was having a serious negative effect on their fun.

Umm, that's exactly what I was saying. Though I may have phrased it poorly. I was saying that discussing it with him and trying to get him to change his mind was the mature course of action.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-07, 01:38 PM
Umm, that's exactly what I was saying. Though I may have phrased it poorly. I was saying that discussing it with him and trying to get him to change his mind was the mature course of action.

I feel like everyone is arguing with each other, but they're all on the same side.

It's confusing.

Claudius Maximus
2011-09-07, 02:01 PM
Wow, you're right. I missed an important couple of words in there...

navar100
2011-09-07, 05:47 PM
I've been playing with this DM for 10 years. This is our 4th campaign. I'm not going leave over this. I'm just hoping he'll come to his senses again, but he's so much into how this is the Dark Ages for the gameworld. I'll have to bear with this for several levels at least. I'm almost curious what will happen when I roll a 1 to hit with my Ray Of Enfeeblement. The rule is at least giving me second thoughts on learning Scorching Ray at some future level.

Tyndmyr
2011-09-07, 07:22 PM
Haste is the kind of spell you want, then.

No risk of problems...for you. It neatly helps your allies...and the additional attacks are more likely to make them aware of the problems that crit fumbles will bring. No need to rush it or point it out...if they are aware of your stance, they'll certainly be aware of how frequently fumbles are hurting them. They'll get there on their own, eventually.

Presumably if it's a ten year gaming group, he'll be more amenable to change if everyone dislikes it.

TheCountAlucard
2011-09-07, 07:50 PM
If you're going that route, might I also recommend Mass Snake's Swiftness? :smallamused:

Agrippa
2011-09-07, 10:15 PM
As much as I think crit fail tables are bad ideas, there are worse random tables. Like deadEarth's char gen system. I present to you five horror stories all from the same blogger. Yes they include bad language so reader discretion is advised. The tales of Rikky (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/deadearth-rikky-the-beautiful-dead-eunuch-butler/), Headless Fred (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/deadearth-headless-fred-the-sneaky-surrender-monkey/), “Last Chance” Jones (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/deadearth-last-chance-jones/), Ian Jackson (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/deadearth-the-pain-never-ends/) and Stumpy (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/deadearth-the-continuing-saga-of-a-mutant-thats-gone-to-the-dogs/).

NoldorForce
2011-09-08, 05:53 AM
As much as I think crit fail tables are bad ideas, there are worse random tables. Like deadEarth's char gen system. I present to you five horror stories all from the same blogger. Yes they include bad language so reader discretion is advised. The tales of Rikky (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/deadearth-rikky-the-beautiful-dead-eunuch-butler/), Headless Fred (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/deadearth-headless-fred-the-sneaky-surrender-monkey/), “Last Chance” Jones (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/deadearth-last-chance-jones/), Ian Jackson (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/deadearth-the-pain-never-ends/) and Stumpy (http://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/deadearth-the-continuing-saga-of-a-mutant-thats-gone-to-the-dogs/).Wow, it seems like the only way to survive the mutation table is to get a mutation that allows you to remove, well, other mutations.

DiBastet
2011-09-08, 08:37 AM
QFT

that's not what i intended to say. I'm sorry if i wasn't clear.

This is what i meant to say: "Since i don't enjoy the rules for this game and the DM wont listen to me about why i don't like them, i don't want to play this game."

if that's not a legit reason then i don't know what is, but am open to suggestions.

If you meant "Since i don't enjoy the rules for this game and the DM wont listen to me about why i don't like them, i don't want to play this game." instead of "I don't like x, I won't play unless you remove x!" mindset, then it's all okay for me.


I feel like everyone is arguing with each other, but they're all on the same side.

I agree with most people around here: People should discuss with their dms in a mature fashion if they disagree with a rule, because it may take their enjoyment. The dm should (supposedly) explain why the rule, and good it will bring, and why it is (or it should be) so important. If it isn't important to him or his game, maybe he'll find a compromise with the player, but if it's important to him (like, banning t1 classes, a reworked magic system, changing all spells to full-round casting, whatever), and the DM says "sorry, but the rule will stay" (instead of "please, hand further objections to the (insert monster)"), the player will have to consider it it really will destroy the game for him, so he leaves, or believe he can suck it because the game is more important and enjoyable than a single rule.

The guy in "The Gamers 2" could really leave the game because he couldn't be the elf that he wanted. But he sucked it. Even having his ears removed mid-game.:smalltongue:

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-08, 09:57 AM
If you meant "Since i don't enjoy the rules for this game and the DM wont listen to me about why i don't like them, i don't want to play this game." instead of "I don't like x, I won't play unless you remove x!" mindset, then it's all okay for me.


Thanks, sorry if a wasnt clear. :smallsmile:

on the same note, if you dont like the features of a game then why play it? :smallconfused:

DM

Gnaeus
2011-09-08, 04:05 PM
Thanks, sorry if a wasnt clear. :smallsmile:

on the same note, if you dont like the features of a game then why play it? :smallconfused:

DM

I can think of several games with rules that I dislike that I would play if I thought the DM was otherwise good and/or I liked the other players.

Hawkfrost000
2011-09-08, 05:41 PM
I can think of several games with rules that I dislike that I would play if I thought the DM was otherwise good and/or I liked the other players.

i guess...

it was really just an opinion

DM

Zeb The Troll
2011-09-09, 12:47 AM
he can suck it You keep using this term. I don't think it means what you think it means. :smallcool:

(I think the phrase you want is "suck it up" which has an entirely different, forum appropriate, connotation than the one you're using.)

DiBastet
2011-09-09, 08:11 PM
Add the up for me grandpa. :smallcool: Forgive and ye shall be saved.