Fumbles: Critical Failures

[MukkTB]

The general consensus is that screwing up horribly 1 time out of twenty isn't good. But my group like our fumbles. So this is how we house ruled it.

A 1 is always a miss and threatens a fumble. In order to confirm a fumble you roll an attack roll with the same modifier as the attack that made the fumble. If you roll a 10 or higher its not a fumble. (The threshold could be set to whatever value you want.) We then use a chart that allows saving throws about half the time.

My point is, Confirming a fumble is a massive improvement over fumbling 1 in 20 times. A decent fighter can reduce the chance of fumbling to 1 out of 400 times unless he starts swinging wildly.

[Fax Celestis]

My group confirms fumbles through a second attack roll against the target's AC. If the confirmation also misses, it fumbles. We use the fumble deck from Pathfinder.

[Cog]

For my group, you have to confirm your 1 with another 1, and it's only on the first attack and first AoO of a round so that iteratives don't make you more likely to fail. I haven't yet had to figure out exactly what the penalty would be - it's only happened once, and the character quickly made use of his Lucky weapon.

[erikun]

I've heard the variant of a natural 1 provokes an AoO from nearby enemies. It makes rolling low dangerous without everyone dropping their weapons or claws half the time. Then again, I'm not a big fan of fumbles. (I walked out of one game because of it.)

Rolling a 10+ on a confirmation roll would only reduce the frequency to around 1:40, not 1:400.

[NOhara24]

My current group is as follows. Roll a nat 20? Crit. No confirmation roll. Roll a nat 1? You drop your weapon, no confirmation roll. No Critical Fail craziness or "You accidentally killed the cleric." nonsense.

I think it works out fine. Yes, the stakes are higher. But the reward for a Critical Hit outweighs the failure of rolling a natural 1.

[DeAnno]

My current group is as follows. Roll a nat 20? Crit. No confirmation roll. Roll a nat 1? You drop your weapon, no confirmation roll. No Critical Fail craziness or "You accidentally killed the cleric." nonsense.

I think it works out fine. Yes, the stakes are higher. But the reward for a Critical Hit outweighs the failure of rolling a natural 1.

Dropping a weapon with no confirmation is pretty devastating to anyone who uses iterative attacks. A TWF Rogue attacking 6 (a conservative number) times per turn has a 26% chance of dropping a weapon every turn. This basically turns quick draw into a feat tax for anyone using such a build, and messes up any use of expensive weapons.

[Philistine]

My current group is as follows. Roll a nat 20? Crit. No confirmation roll. Roll a nat 1? You drop your weapon, no confirmation roll. No Critical Fail craziness or "You accidentally killed the cleric." nonsense.

I think it works out fine. Yes, the stakes are higher. But the reward for a Critical Hit outweighs the failure of rolling a natural 1.

Really? Double damage on one attack, one time in twenty, outweighs a one in twenty chance of losing the rest of your attacks for the current turn as well as your attacks on the next turn while you retrieve your weapon? I suspect nobody in the group has really done the math on that.

And really, it's not like 3E NEEDS any more mechanics that make life hard for martial archetypes while leaving magic users unmolested.

[Zhirax]

Critical hits and critical misses are Hilarius.

My groups are always using the confirm rules of (hit once then hit again on same ac to confirm critical)

i use the d20 made critical hit and critical fumble cards.

which you draw a card for every point above x2 crit you normally have (so x4 is 3 cards) chose the card you like (eks broken spine 3d6 dex dam ref half or brained 1 int bleed until healed) these are the hardcore crits, there are lesser once too . so the damage output is more random, but the fights are cooler and can inflict lasting damage to both sides... which leads to role playing opportunities,

fumbls are likewise drawn from a deck there you can get (lost weapon, hit nearest friend, minimum damage, damage yourself, sprain muscle or magic fail like (you made him bigger +8 str for 1d4 rds)

all these are fun and the whole table awaits the drawing of these cards with glee and fright.

and there are diffrent type of crits and fumbles.
crits for slashing, magic, piercing and bludgeoning
fumbles for. natural weapons, meelee,magic and ranged

before i got the cards i played with making my own Hilarius effects and happenings. and it has only made the gamer better

[Hiro Protagonest]

My current group is as follows. Roll a nat 20? Crit. No confirmation roll. Roll a nat 1? You drop your weapon, no confirmation roll. No Critical Fail craziness or "You accidentally killed the cleric." nonsense.

I think it works out fine. Yes, the stakes are higher. But the reward for a Critical Hit outweighs the failure of rolling a natural 1.

I think that's a pretty bad one. Besides, sometimes it's good to kill the cleric (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo).* :smallamused:

*You never said it had to be the party's cleric.

[Victoria]

The only critical failure rule I've ever used is, that if you rolled a natural 1 on your attack roll, your turn ended even if you had plans to do something afterwards. No other penalty than that, and half the time it meant nothing extra than just missing the attack.

In the one campaign I'm currently DMing, we are not using that rule.

[Amphetryon]

At my table, critical failures only happen at 1st level. If you roll a natural 1 and then confirm the miss, roll a d3. 1 = drop weapon, 2 = hit self (weapon damage only), 3 = hit closest ally (if possible, weapon damage only). It adds a little levity, isn't terribly lethal, and goes away once characters get enough XP to show competence, avoiding the "high level TWFer saws off own foot twice in one combat" issue.

[Gavinfoxx]

With the drop your weapon thing... how do you drop unarmed strike, claws or other natural weapons, spells or anything other than a manufactured weapon that you hold?

[Amphetryon]

With the drop your weapon thing... how do you drop unarmed strike, claws or other natural weapons, spells or anything other than a manufactured weapon that you hold?At my table, it's ruled a trip that doesn't provoke an AoO - because the opponent is a) surprised and b) laughing at you. There are corner-case scenarios where falling down is improbable in the extreme and hitting your ally with a melee weapon would need you to become Plastic Man, at which point some of the results are ignored. If the only possible result with D&D physics is hitting yourself, that's what happens.

[Talentless]

Honestly, the hate Crit fail rules get is something that bugs me. Now, i understand that 1/20 chance is way to high, but there should always be a chance to screw up whatever you happen to be doing.

The best in the world sword fighters and martial artists can still make mistakes(granted, it is less in failing the execution and more using the wrong move/technique. but the point is the same)

Now, with that said, if wizards don't have a chance to fail spells when unthreatened, then martial characters shouldn't have crit fail rules. It is only fair

[Gavinfoxx]

http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24395

A relevant topic regarding historic sword accidents...

[Mr.Bookworm]

Honestly, the hate Crit fail rules get is something that bugs me. Now, i understand that 1/20 chance is way to high, but there should always be a chance to screw up whatever you happen to be doing.

The best in the world sword fighters and martial artists can still make mistakes(granted, it is less in failing the execution and more using the wrong move/technique. but the point is the same)

There are three main reasons to dislike critical fumble rules, all of which I subscribe to:

1) They screw over PCs. This isn't even statistics, this is just common sense. A PC will roll hundreds or thousands more times than your usual NPC or monster.

2) This does absolutely nothing to spellcasters, only affecting melee characters. This is bad for self-evident reasons.

3) Screw realism, which even assumes fumble rules are realistic, which they aren't. A 1st level Fighter-type should already be relatively competent in their chosen field of combat. Have you ever seen someone competent fight? They don't stab themselves or drop their weapons a twentieth of the time, or even 1/400 of the time.

Alright, but fumbles can make a modicum of sense for low-level characters, who are green and probably can't be assumed to be at the top of "realistic" skill.

Once you get to 5th level, though? You are a master swordsman. At 10th or 15th level? You're Herakles or Gilgamesh. You can do things that are physically impossible. At 20th level, you can fight minor gods. It's pretty absurd that someone on the level of demigods makes ridiculous mistakes like that when they are, well, on the level of demigods.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a "you're doing it wrong" post. If you have fun playing with fumbles, great for you. This is just how I personally see it.

[Fortuna]

I don't remember where I saw it, but I did see a very good litmus test for crit fail rules on the forum.

Take twenty first level warriors and have them attack training dummies for a minute. If any of them are unconscious at the end of it, rethink.

[hewhosaysfish]

I don't remember where I saw it, but I did see a very good litmus test for crit fail rules on the forum.

Take twenty first level warriors and have them attack training dummies for a minute. If any of them are unconscious at the end of it, rethink.

I've been able to trace this idea at least as far back as this incredibly wise and handsome poster
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11761335&postcount=58).


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.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I've been able to trace this idea at least as far back as this incredibly wise and handsome poster
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11761335&postcount=58).

You have won the most shameless shameless plug award. Have a cookie. Your internets are in the mail and will arrive in 7 to 3754 business days. have a great day.

[John Campbell]

I'm an SCA heavy fighter. I've been doing armored combat - full-speed, full-contact, unchoreographed armored combat - for almost seventeen years. I've spent thousands of hours in armor, made uncountable thousands of "attack rolls" - in chaotic melees, in the rain, in the snow, in the blazing sun, in the near-darkness of torchlight, in dense underbrush, while too exhausted to run, while injured such that it hurt to walk...

I have never dropped my weapon, except as the direct result of deliberate enemy action - a successful disarm check on their part, not a fumble on mine. I have never killed myself with my own weapon. (I have killed other people with their own weapons, though.) I have never killed an ally... by accident.

I've been shooting bows for even longer, though I don't think I've put in as many hours at it. But still, I've put thousands of arrows downrange over the course of 25 years, maybe more. I've only once ever broken a bowstring, and that was due to a mechanical flaw in the bow - a sharp fiberglass edge on the string-nock, which rubbed against and eventually cut through the string where it looped around it. I've since filed that down smooth, and it hasn't bothered since.


Fumbles can die in a fire.

[Psyren]

I've been able to trace this idea at least as far back as this incredibly wise and handsome poster
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11761335&postcount=58).

Normally I don't encourage self-quoting, but that post is so win that you get a free pass. Enjoy.

[Person_Man]

I think that in an ideal world, every type of attack (including spells, breath weapons, etc) would involve an attack roll, and optional critical fumble rules of some type would be included for those groups who use them.

But in 3.X/PF, it basically makes the Totemist, Attack of Opportunity builds, Two Weapon Fighting builds, Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip users, etc un-playable. Does anyone honestly want that outcome?

[Snowbluff]

My critical fumble rule is that you provoke up to 1 AoO from one enemy. If you are one of my monsters, you provoke against all adjacent players (they'll beat you up).

[Victoria]

Another I remember playing under was the following, regarding saves:

If the save does not have a variable numeric effect, then nothing special happens.

A natural 20, in addition to being an automatic pass, means you take the minimum damage (i.e. 6 damage vs. a 6d6 fireball, then halved for passing).

A natural 1, in addition to being an automatic failure, means you take the maximum damage (i.e. 36 damage vs. that same 6d6 fireball).

It's going to sound incredibly MMO-esque to use terms like buff/nerf, but critical failures are a nerf. You can't nerf something without counter-buffing elsewhere, that just weakens characters for no good reason.