The Triple 1

[TheLooker]

I don't know if it is specific to my group, but we play that three 20's is an instant kill (even against deities) and three 1's is an instant death. I recently started Dming my brother and some of his friends in a campaign where they have to transport this witch to be destroyed (going off of the movie Season of the Witch as they are totally new to this and I really liked the movie's setup, I can totally see them role-playing it into the script). The witch escaped, and they chased it down to a graveyard loaded with zombies and a black pool. Naturally, one of them got pulled into the pool, was knocked to negative 2 by lots of zombie hits, and the other was at a standoff with four others. The third player goes to save him, rolls three ones on his swim check, and dies (crazy, isn't it?). Now, they are thinking of bargaining with the witch so that they can bring back their dead comrade. An interesting position for a DM, no? Things I have come up with to do so far are as following:
Animate Dead followed by a Vile Death (dupe them into thinking the fiend is their buddy)
Some sort of Graft
Making him come back undead.
Would love to hear what is cooking out there!

[CTrees]

The third player goes to save him, rolls three ones on his swim check, and dies (crazy, isn't it?).

"Why I Hate Fumble Rules"

~~~~~~~~~~~~

More productively, I like the "raised as undead" option. My first thought would be a wight without the ability to create spawn. Well, unless the character was a monk/unarmed swordsage/totemist/druid/etc. Then the energy drain could get a little too good.

[pwykersotz]

I love fumble rules. Both as a DM and a player, they entertain the heck out of me.

Maybe the witch could raise him with her power, but that's what's keeping him alive. If she dies, the power consumes his soul to res her. A little insurance, and now the party belongs to her until they can figure out a way to break the curse.

[Morph Bark]

Three 1s on his swim check. Seriously? So if he had had three 20s on his Swim check in a row he would have instantly killed someone? Even though skill checks don't auto-succeed on a 20 or auto-fail on a 1?

[TheLooker]

I love fumble rules. Both as a DM and a player, they entertain the heck out of me.

Maybe the witch could raise him with her power, but that's what's keeping him alive. If she dies, the power consumes his soul to res her. A little insurance, and now the party belongs to her until they can figure out a way to break the curse.

As entertaining as that would be, it's not entirely mechanical (at least, not to anything that I know of) and would be pretty evil to hit 2nd time players with. Soul-eating crap? I've made epic level guys that still have their pants torn by that stuff! (although I can totally relate to the great times it could produce).


Three 1s on his swim check. Seriously? So if he had had three 20s on his Swim check in a row he would have instantly killed someone? Even though skill checks don't auto-succeed on a 20 or auto-fail on a 1?

Haha. :smallbiggrin: I realize that three twenties on a check wouldn't constitute an instant kill, rather, a deific success. The three ones just shows the epitome of epic failure, as it can happen, even while doing skill checks. He would've probably quantum-tunneled through the water to his buddy if he had rolled three twenties.

[Morph Bark]

I would probably take one rank in Autohypnosis and keep trying to turn myself into a god. Mentally speaking, at least. :smalltongue:

[Gavinfoxx]

Ugh. I HATE fumble rules for anything other than comedy campaigns... Whenever fumble rules are in place for skill checks (a house rule, remember!), I always try to Take 10 whenever possible, or get spells that make needing to roll for skills superfluous... HATE fumble rules.

[Psyren]

Where's that one post about the DM lining up X NPC Warriors in front of some target dummies and having them each attack 50 times or something, and if they're dismembered or dying at the end of the exercise the DM has to print his fumble rules out and eat them?

I'm fuzzy on the details obviously but it sums up my feelings on the matter.

[Gavinfoxx]

Here's the quote for you:


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.

[erikun]

I would recommend attempting to spit on any BBEG you run across. Assuming your character doesn't choke on their own spit, it can apparently solve a lot of future problems.

[Vortling]

Here's the quote for you:

Thank you, I've been looking for that quote. It also expresses my views on critical fumble rules.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I wonder what the average lifespan is of an adventurer in a world where you have a 1:8000 chance of dying every time you make an attack roll, save, skill check, ability check, caster level check, or combat maneuver.

I can see it already:

DM: "Alright, I need you to establish a marching order."
Tim: "I'll go first!"
DM: "OK, Tim, you reach the crest of the hill, and on the horizon you see..."
/DM rolls a passive Spot roll; the result is a 1
DM: "...Oh, my."
Tim: "What? What do I see?"
DM: "You see..."
/DM rolls another 1
DM: "...Nothing."
/DM rolls a third 1
DM: "...Ever again."
Tim: "...What?"
DM: "As you look out on the horizon, a blood vessel bursts in your eye. The blood swells into your brain, causing you to suffer a fatal aneurysm."
Tim: "...You're joking, right?"
DM: "No. You're dead."
Tim: "..."
DM: "Dave, you reach the crest of the hill, and on the horizon--"
Dave: "I AVERT MY GAZE!!!"
DM: "If you say so..."
/DM rolls a listen check
Tim: "The next character I roll is going to be the Pinball Wizard."

[Drork]

The major reason not to have an instant death is simple. Players take a lot more chances than monsters and you expect the monsters to die. If a monster dies from an instant kill thats awesome but another will be there next week. If a player does thats not so cool and can you be sure there will be one there next week?
Also if you have to fight something stupidly strong just pay for 1000 level 0 archers to shoot arrows at them at max range. Chances one of them going to come up an instant kill isnt too bad.

On a side note Critical fumbles vs 1 always misses. Mathematically when you think about it a more skilled fighter is going to drop his sword more often than a non skilled one. This makes no sense at all. With triple 1s its even worse, a highly skilled fighter is more likely to stab himself in the leg and bleed out than a non skilled one ?

[Randomguy]

Does this mean that artifacts are created by commoners and gods who have enough free time to take 20 on 3 craft checks in a row?
If you roll 20 3 times on a spot check, would that give you eye beams?
3 1's on a listen check: Would you hear a wizard cast a power word: kill spell from far away?
3 20's in a row for a swim check kills the nearest sea god, and 3 1's in a row on a saving throw against charm person, which has no way at all of killing someone, means you die for some reason (and 3 20's mean you kill the wizard casting it on you somehow)

At the very least make 3 ones an epic fail (so he would start drowning) instead of an insta kill. With these rules you're most likely to die of random chance (so either a lucky hit or killing yourself accidently) than from hit point damage. It would be worth getting your hands on a Lucky Coin since you'd survive longer against Really Bad Things than you would without it at all.

[FMArthur]

I was about to say that you could probably make a great living making coffin-like boxes that offered complete safety from the world and safety from having to perform any action on account of their 1/8000 chance of death. But then I remembered that crafting and selling them and making food for the customers would amount to more skill checks than I could reasonably expect to survive with.

[SowZ]

This also means that one in every eight bakers dies in a baking related accident before they reach their twenty year mark. This does not account for the other deaths from trying to fix the chair, searching for the wifes birthday present, etc.

(Of course, you could argue most people take tens on the vast majority of things they do. This is not as fun of an image.)

Triple twenties shouldn't kill anything immune to the type of damage you are causing or immune to criticals, btw.

[ericgrau]

I was about to say that you could probably make a great living making coffin-like boxes that offered complete safety from the world and safety from having to perform any action on account of their 1/8000 chance of death. But then I remembered that crafting and selling them and making food for the customers would amount to more skill checks than I could reasonably expect to survive with.
Take a 10 on your checks. Hire a vendor to sell them so you never have to interact with anyone except him once in a long time. Heck arrange a drop zone for money and coffins so you don't have to interact with him much either.

[SowZ]

Take a 10 on your checks. Hire a vendor to sell them so you never have to interact with anyone except him once in a long time. Heck arrange a drop zone for money and coffins so you don't have to interact with him much either.

Whenever a threatening situation comes about, (restricting taking ten,) quickly sit down and slap on a blinfold and earplugs.

[ericgrau]

This thing gives new meaning to the old gaming table joke of requiring a poop check every time you use the bathroom. It was bad enough to miss 1 out of 20 times.

[killem2]

This is probably the reason skills don't have crits one way or the other. Most of these things don't even make sense.

I'm all for home brew ideas and adding some spice but this isn't the way I'd do it.

As far as the normal scale of fumbles, I just made a d12 chart, to which I am looking to expand.

[erikun]

This thing gives new meaning to the old gaming table joke of requiring a poop check every time you use the bathroom. It was bad enough to miss 1 out of 20 times.
This means that, assuming one poop per day, most people are likely to suffer a fatal colon aneurysm by the time they are 22 years old. The ones that don't will have ascended to godhood through the same means.

[NNescio]

This means that, assuming one poop per day, most people are likely to suffer a fatal colon aneurysm by the time they are 22 years old. The ones that don't will have ascended to godhood through the same means.

"POOP FOR THE POOP GOD! HAEMORRHOIDS FOR THE HAEMORRHOID THRONE!"

[CTrees]

Just occurred to me: I wonder if this applies to rolling initiative?

[Killer Angel]

HATE fumble rules.

Pretty much. The max fumble rules we used, was "you accidentally drop your sword" and "you cannot complete you full routine of three attacks after those two 1", and eventually we stopped using even those.

[Palthera]

See, my group have both a fumble and a double 20 rule, but both only apply in combat. You fumble, you fall over or some other irritating but probably not fatal variant.

Double 20 is an auto-kill (if the creature isn't immune to critical or whatever damage type you're doing). It's a 1 in 400 chance and it makes a player feel awesome.

[Heliomance]

See, my group have both a fumble and a double 20 rule, but both only apply in combat. You fumble, you fall over or some other irritating but probably not fatal variant.

Double 20 is an auto-kill (if the creature isn't immune to critical or whatever damage type you're doing). It's a 1 in 400 chance and it makes a player feel awesome.

Until it happens on the first attack of the fight against the final campaign boss, at which point it's just anticlimatic and everyone feels vaguely cheated.

[Jon_Dahl]

Personally I love fumble rules.

This largely is influenced by two things:
a. There's always puncher's chance. It's part of the enjoyment.
b. I watch lot of sporst and even the greatest fall sometimes. Quick-paced action, stress... Stuff happens.

I don't use overly lethal fumble-rules and I think my players enjoy them because you rarely get the same chance twice.
Couple of points to consider when you create a fumble-table:
- Give fumble-immunity in certain cases if you have a weapon specialization. Fighter is the ultimate underdog of D&D, let's give him a hand!
- Use Reflex-saves to realistically emphasize the fact that fumbles are for clumsy characters.
- Think A LOT of options so that your players will be always intrigued of what happens next.
- Only let really horrible things happen with less than 10% chance when you roll a natural 1.

Let me add few links how fumbles work in games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXDY8bmnSck
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2609345.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dxPO_Z57xg

[Razanir]

Until it happens on the first attack of the fight against the final campaign boss, at which point it's just anticlimatic and everyone feels vaguely cheated.

1st attack of the 1st encounter of the 1st adventure- wizard gets critical and one-shots an enemy

[Tyndmyr]

I don't know if it is specific to my group, but we play that three 20's is an instant kill (even against deities) and three 1's is an instant death.

This is...a bit ridiculous. Let me clarify, the odds of either of these happening is precisely 1/8000. So, overall odds of someone dying instantly is 1/4000 dice rolls.

A high level fighter can easily roll an attack a second(six a round, six second rounds). Therefore, assuming he miraculously survived to level 20, a master of his craft has an average lifespan of a bit over two hours of fighting.

In fact, the better he gets, the more he tends to kill himself.

[Flickerdart]

By comparison, it's pitifully simple to build a spellcaster that never rolls a d20, simply by using no-SR spells that don't require an attack roll. So all fumble rules are basically screwing mundanes over even more than they have been already.

You'd think that the triple-20 rule counterbalances the triple-1 rule, but it really doesn't. Auto-killing your opponent is just something that hastens the inevitable, as opponents are there for killing. Auto-dying, on the other hand, is losing a character for no reason, as PCs are not expected to die anywhere nearly as often as the opponents they face.

[SowZ]

Fumble rules work better in games with a bell curve where multiple dice are rolled. As it stands, a one is rolled pretty often. So, if nothing else, you are now rolling an extra die pretty often. (This may not bother some people who want more complexity.) If you don't roll to confirm the fumble but always get it on a 1? Let's say in the average fight every player attacks four times and there are five players. Almost every fight someone will fumble at least once.

[TroubleBrewing]

Our group has one DM that uses fumble rules. The rest of us have figured it out, but this guy insists that they're fine.

I'm trying that test, and I'll have a nice rule omelet ready for him when he's finished rolling.

[Gavinfoxx]

Make sure it's "Bleeding Severely, Dying, or Dead". And you might need to do more than two minutes or more than 10 guards. Also make sure that the guards are right next to each other, so that each guard has at least one other guard in their threatened area...

[pwykersotz]

Jeez...so much hate for fumbles using exaggerated arguments. Houserules for fumbles are easy and fun as long as they aren't over-done.

My house rules:

A critical failure on a skill check is always treated as though the die roll is 10 lower than what was actually rolled. If the check still makes the DC for what it was trying to do despite the crit fail, the task itself is completed properly, but similarly to a wish being subverted, unintended consequences may occur.

A natural 20 on a skill check is always treated as though the die roll is 10 higher than what was actually rolled. If the DC is beyond even this, the check technically fails, though problems which may have arisen from a subverted attempt are avoided. If the DC was met/surpassed with this, unintended good consequences may occur.

Critical failures on attack rolls are always misses, per RAW. Natural 20's always hit and threaten a critical. That's enough.

Saves are also per RAW.

Double Natural 20's for consecutive skill/save/attack indicate significant bonuses to what was being attempted. Doubling crit damage, becoming temporarily immune to the type of spell that was cast, or winning allies Exemplar style through your craft are all possibilities.

Double Critical Failures for consecutive skill/save/attack rolls indicate major loss. Spilling Ink all over the book you were trying to scribe, Auto-missing the rest of your full attack, or taking double the effect/duration from that nasty spell.

Triple Natural 20 - You auto-kill an opponent on an attack, get a +30 to a skill check, or become immune to the spell type for the day.

Triple Critical Failure - You die, get a -30 to the skill check, or suffer a major loss to the spell, possibly requiring a special quest or power magic such as Wish to revert. On an attack roll, you might injure your wrist and get a negative to attacks for the rest of the day.

None of these things are too much in my opinion. No shenanigans of the more experienced fighter dropping his sword more, or straw dummies beating fighters. No getting bludgeoned to death by your own loaf of bread that you triple crit fail to make. Though that bread may be burned on the outside, raw on the inside, and have worms. Fumble rules are there to shake things up a bit, not to anger PC's.

[NNescio]

Jeez...so much hate for fumbles using exaggerated arguments. Houserules for fumbles are easy and fun as long as they aren't over-done.

My house rules:

A critical failure on a skill check is always treated as though the die roll is 10 lower than what was actually rolled. If the check still makes the DC for what it was trying to do despite the crit fail, the task itself is completed properly, but similarly to a wish being subverted, unintended consequences may occur.

A natural 20 on a skill check is always treated as though the die roll is 10 higher than what was actually rolled. If the DC is beyond even this, the check technically fails, though problems which may have arisen from a subverted attempt are avoided. If the DC was met/surpassed with this, unintended good consequences may occur.

Critical failures on attack rolls are always misses, per RAW. Natural 20's always hit and threaten a critical. That's enough.

Saves are also per RAW.

Double Natural 20's for consecutive skill/save/attack indicate significant bonuses to what was being attempted. Doubling crit damage, becoming temporarily immune to the type of spell that was cast, or winning allies Exemplar style through your craft are all possibilities.

Double Critical Failures for consecutive skill/save/attack rolls indicate major loss. Spilling Ink all over the book you were trying to scribe, Auto-missing the rest of your full attack, or taking double the effect/duration from that nasty spell.

Triple Natural 20 - You auto-kill an opponent on an attack, get a +30 to a skill check, or become immune to the spell type for the day.

Triple Critical Failure - You die, get a -30 to the skill check, or suffer a major loss to the spell, possibly requiring a special quest or power magic such as Wish to revert. On an attack roll, you might injure your wrist and get a negative to attacks for the rest of the day.

None of these things are too much in my opinion. No shenanigans of the more experienced fighter dropping his sword more, or straw dummies beating fighters. No getting bludgeoned to death by your own loaf of bread that you triple crit fail to make. Though that bread may be burned on the outside, raw on the inside, and have worms. Fumble rules are there to shake things up a bit, not to anger PC's.

When attacking a training dummy, The Master Swordsman still misses more often (and with a greater pecentage of his attacks), and is more likely to injure his wrists than a Level 1 Wizard swinging around a spiked chain that he is not trained in.

[Heliomance]

Why would the master swordsman miss with a greater percentage of his attacks? :smallconfused:

[Drork]

Why would the master swordsman miss with a greater percentage of his attacks? :smallconfused:
He is wrong with that statement its not percentage, but the logic behind it he is trying to say.
If the straw dummy is "unmissable" the fighter swings more often so misses more so given 2 min aka 20 attacks from the wizard with the spike chains. The wizard critically misses once (20/20) giving the chance of the critical fail fail 1/20 and a critical fail fail fail 1/400.
The skillful fighter making 4 attacks around in the same 2 min time makes 80 swings. Giving him 4 critical misses (80/20) ... giving him 4/20 chance of a critical fail fail and a 4/400 chance of a critical fail fail fail. Which means that 1/100 of these fighters will hurt themselves ever 2 min of combat.

The problem with 3x1 on a D20 is simple I get better so I make more checks so the chances of it coming up is more likely.
I hurt myself for the rest of the day more likely because Ive trained better is counter productive. Fighters would forgo their low attack roll attacks because the chances of hitting are not worth the risk of hurting yourself.

[Phaederkiel]

On a side note Critical fumbles vs 1 always misses. Mathematically when you think about it a more skilled fighter is going to drop his sword more often than a non skilled one. This makes no sense at all. With triple 1s its even worse, a highly skilled fighter is more likely to stab himself in the leg and bleed out than a non skilled one ?

Easy. He fights against more powerfull opponents :)
because he doesn´t do one attack while Clutching to his weapon with all his might, but 4 while thinking he knows what he is doing.

Honestly, I had a Player once that complained about Fumble Rules at my table (which are only about attack rolls, btw, normally throwing your weapon away).
(we are all training medieval european swordfighting together).

He whined: "I have never lost my sword in training."

I answered: "Yes. Because it was training. The last fight I was in I lost my telescope baton about 5 seconds in. I do not even remember when or how."


Yesterday, while training, I kicked someone (slightly :smallbiggrin: ) and disarmed him by catching his crossguard in my trousers leg. Or, to paraphrase Varsuvius:

once more probability proves willing to sneak into a back alley and serve comedy as would a copper harlot...

Please do not assume that 10 Bowmen under pressure against unclear moving targets wouldn´t lose one of their own by friendly fire.

[absolmorph]

Why would the master swordsman miss with a greater percentage of his attacks? :smallconfused:
On attack rolls, double natural 1s result in the rest of the attack missing and triple natural 1s result in a penalty to attacks for the rest of the day.
Having more attacks generates more opportunities for natural 1s, and the penalties from triples in addition to the auto-miss from doubles would create more misses.

I've got fumble rules: on a natural 1 on an attack roll, you make a special Dexterity check (Dex modifier + 1/2 BAB), with a DC of 10. If you fail, you drop your weapon and have to either draw another one or spend a move action to pick it up.
If you roll a second 1 and fail (it's not an automatic failure), your weapon flies off a bit and you have to move over to pick it up. If you roll a 20, you re-roll the attack (and a 1 isn't an automatic failure).
Rolling a 20 on a critical confirmation increases your crit multiplier by 1.
A small bonus for rolling 20s, and a small penalty (that can be negated by a character who's skilled enough).
It's been a while since they had any serious impact on the game (I don't think my players have rolled any natural 1s during significant fights).

[SaintRidley]

1st attack of the 1st encounter of the 1st adventure- wizard gets critical and one-shots an enemy

Ah, but that's three 1s, so the wizard dies.

[FMArthur]

On attack rolls, double natural 1s result in the rest of the attack missing and triple natural 1s result in a penalty to attacks for the rest of the day.
Having more attacks generates more opportunities for natural 1s, and the penalties from triples in addition to the auto-miss from doubles would create more misses.

I've got fumble rules: on a natural 1 on an attack roll, you make a special Dexterity check (Dex modifier + 1/2 BAB), with a DC of 10. If you fail, you drop your weapon and have to either draw another one or spend a move action to pick it up.
If you roll a second 1 and fail (it's not an automatic failure), your weapon flies off a bit and you have to move over to pick it up. If you roll a 20, you re-roll the attack (and a 1 isn't an automatic failure).
Rolling a 20 on a critical confirmation increases your crit multiplier by 1.
A small bonus for rolling 20s, and a small penalty (that can be negated by a character who's skilled enough).
It's been a while since they had any serious impact on the game (I don't think my players have rolled any natural 1s during significant fights).

The possibility for this to happen at all is what's ridiculous, not that it's unlikely or selective for who it affects. What if one of your players wants to play as a serious, skilled hero instead of a hilarious fumbling amateur? They have to have a massive Dexterity investment not to have a chance to be the class clown instead of a warrior at a reasonable level. :smallconfused:

[SowZ]

The possibility for this to happen at all is what's ridiculous, not that it's unlikely or selective for who it affects. What if one of your players wants to play as a serious, skilled hero instead of a hilarious fumbling amateur? They have to have a massive Dexterity investment not to have a chance to be the class clown instead of a warrior at a reasonable level. :smallconfused:

Although I think it is overly complicated, I assume the answer to that is that the player needs to be a higher level to have that level of skill.

In my three years of fighting on Larp battlefields, disarms or people losing their weapons themselves by hitting someone too hard or overswinging and missing is actually a pretty common occurence even among reasonably experienced fighters. I think it makes sense from a realism point of view. Mechanically? It hurts two weapon fighters even more and hurts martial characters. But, again, I see more dual wielders lose their weapons than two handers so...

[Kenneth]

wait.. so your hoursrule for triple 20s is an insatnt kill. so I can roll tripel 20s on a KNowlegde:Arcana cehck and kill said baddie?


becuase the is the same logic as rolling 3 1's in a row during a skill check and dieing.

while I do enjoy a critical/critical fumble chart.. its ones like these you have that get the majority of RPG'ers up in arms.

[Killer Angel]

He whined: "I have never lost my sword in training."

I answered: "Yes. Because it was training. The last fight I was in I lost my telescope baton about 5 seconds in. I do not even remember when or how."


Apparently, you're still alive, despite the fumble.
"crit fumble: lose your weapon", and "crit. fumble: you die" are different things.



Please do not assume that 10 Bowmen under pressure against unclear moving targets wouldn´t lose one of their own by friendly fire.

There's a reason Precise Shot exists.

[absolmorph]

Although I think it is overly complicated, I assume the answer to that is that the player needs to be a higher level to have that level of skill.

In my three years of fighting on Larp battlefields, disarms or people losing their weapons themselves by hitting someone too hard or overswinging and missing is actually a pretty common occurence even among reasonably experienced fighters. I think it makes sense from a realism point of view. Mechanically? It hurts two weapon fighters even more and hurts martial characters. But, again, I see more dual wielders lose their weapons than two handers so...
I put it together specifically for the campaign I'm currently running, which doesn't have any two-weapon fighters; I'm abandoning all fumble rules for my next one, since I don't particularly enjoy the effect.

[SowZ]

I put it together specifically for the campaign I'm currently running, which doesn't have any two-weapon fighters; I'm abandoning all fumble rules for my next one, since I don't particularly enjoy the effect.

Yeah, I've played with them before. Done right they can be realistic, sure. But the mechanics can be tough to work out without unwanted side effects.

[Tyndmyr]

Please do not assume that 10 Bowmen under pressure against unclear moving targets wouldn´t lose one of their own by friendly fire.

Hi, I'm a longbow archer in a larp group. Was very active a while ago, and trained weekly for at least three hours of mock combat, with a high of something like 40 hours during rag. Over the course of a year, that's something like 200+ hours of fighting, being VERY conservative. I routinely fire between people's heads and into melee and am fairly aggressive as an archer. The amount of shots fired in that time is unknown, but has to be fairly large.

# of times I shot a friendly target: 3.
# of times friendly target was a fellow archer: 0
# of times I dropped my bow in combat without it or me being actually hit: 0
# of times being hit caused me to shoot a friendly target: 0
# of times my period-materials bow or string broke: 0
# of times shooting my bow caused me to fall down or incapacitate myself: 0

Frankly, any critical miss system is a really, really poor representation of anything like reality. Historical discussion of combat does not really make significant note of armies in combat proceeding to accidentally maim and kill each other in vast quantities.

A better way of representing the problem of identifying people in poor conditions would be using the actual rules for that. If they're disguised as friendly soldiers, for instance, reference the disguise rules. If the player targets the wrong one...oops. It happens. But it happens for a reason, not merely random chance, which need not crop up when it's at all appropriate.


Although I think it is overly complicated, I assume the answer to that is that the player needs to be a higher level to have that level of skill.

In my three years of fighting on Larp battlefields, disarms or people losing their weapons themselves by hitting someone too hard or overswinging and missing is actually a pretty common occurence even among reasonably experienced fighters. I think it makes sense from a realism point of view. Mechanically? It hurts two weapon fighters even more and hurts martial characters. But, again, I see more dual wielders lose their weapons than two handers so...

Nah. It gets remembered because it's NOT especially common. Intentional disarms are a thing, yes. Those are handled by the disarm rules. How many fights have you been in where all day you have have not disarmed yourself by accident? How many swings per day? Probably a lot. The overall incidence is quite rare for anyone with basic proficiency.

[FMArthur]

You know, it is actually amusing to see it happen to NPCs from time to time and not screwing over the party, come to think of it. I may just start using minor fumble rules for unskilled NPC entities like untrained soldiers, commoners and people who lack proficiency in their weapon. It adds the fun and silly to a lighthearted game without actually detracting from heroic roleplaying.

[Tyndmyr]

You know, it is actually amusing to see it happen to NPCs from time to time and not screwing over the party, come to think of it. I may just start using minor fumble rules for unskilled NPC entities like untrained soldiers, commoners and people who lack proficiency in their weapon. It adds the fun and silly to a lighthearted game without actually detracting from heroic roleplaying.

For people who lack proficiency, it makes a great deal more sense. The first time you pick up a sword, you're MUCH more likely to hold it wrong or do something dumb than a master of swordfighting is.

I haven't seen a non-proficient only system yet...but it would be the most logical.

[Cespenar]

Make a campaign out of this premise. All the people who have died from triple ones or have been killed by triple twenties in the previous campaign wake up in a demiplane. It appears that the plane belongs to the Goddess of Luck and she plans to award the winner by returning him or her back to life.

Winner of what, you say? Why, a poker game, obviously. With the Deck of Many Things.

Secret ending: Punch the Goddess and roll three twenties in a row.

[killem2]

For people who lack proficiency, it makes a great deal more sense. The first time you pick up a sword, you're MUCH more likely to hold it wrong or do something dumb than a master of swordfighting is.

I haven't seen a non-proficient only system yet...but it would be the most logical.

I understand this, but when the 3x 1 and 3x 20 system starts creeping in to skill checks, that's the problem. And I don't think anyone really has issues with the fumble system when it comes to attacks (at least not in general), but what is going on here is:

The DM/GM of this group has went 100% against one of the core rules of the game, which is there are no crit or bad fails on skill checks. There are a times varying degrees on "successful" checks. Then on top of having a 180 change to the rules, you can die or kill based on these.

To me its a logistical nightmare trying to determine how passing a craft check of basketweaving could lead to you killing someone, and if you can't kill some one I don't feel its fair to DIE from it either.

My fumble chart is not nearly as hardcore as most people, mine are trip ups and penalties not death or broken weapons. (Not automatically that is, there is hardiness damage)

[Tyndmyr]

I understand this, but when the 3x 1 and 3x 20 system starts creeping in to skill checks, that's the problem. And I don't think anyone really has issues with the fumble system when it comes to attacks (at least not in general), but what is going on here is:

I do. I wrote an article about how bad they are in the blog in my sig.

The skill checks are merely an extension of the ludicrous idea.

[Venser]

Triple 20=automatic kill
is really really stupid IMO.

You are facing a huge dragon or maybe even a God, you roll a triple 20 and kill him with your +4 sword.

WHAT...THE...HELL...DID...JUST...HAPPEN?

It usually makes no sense.
How in the world did you manage to do that? XD

[Tyndmyr]

It makes leadership + slings hilarious.

Free weapon, free ammo. When you get thousands firing...well, it's 1/8000 shot at insta-gibbing. Nothing like killing the gods via commoners with slings.

[pffh]

I've been a saber fencer for a few years and with these rules I would be dead. Lets say I make 100 attacks per week on average (I probably attack more often but meh) and my opponents makes 100 attacks against me per week. That means I'll be dead in around 40 weeks and not only that it means that on average someone dies every 40 weeks either through killing him(her)self or by being killed by his(her) opponent.

In training matches.

In sport fencing.

[Tyndmyr]

Playing darts would suddenly be an extreme sport.

[SamBurke]

I would probably take one rank in Autohypnosis and keep trying to turn myself into a god. Mentally speaking, at least. :smalltongue:

But what happens if you roll three 1's before three 20's? You'll DIE! :smallbiggrin:

Rules sound OK to me (There's an astronomically low chance for 1, 1, 1, anyway, so when it happens, it should be important.), and I'd go for the "Hold hostage with life force" option set.

[Gavinfoxx]

On the realism thing, If you want to get away from the SCA / LARP stuff and get into the people who actually learn the real martial arts of swords with appropriately weighted weapons, you have to go look at some of the historical martial arts forums. Here's a question about self-injury on one of those forums:

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

[killem2]

I do. I wrote an article about how bad they are in the blog in my sig.

The skill checks are merely an extension of the ludicrous idea.

Well, I should specify, my fumble chart is a lot more forgiving, just simple stuff, like, you fall prone for a round, or if its ranged, roll a 1d8, and that's the direction you fire instead this shot, or if you lose your weapon, roll 1d8 and it flys 2d6 squares.

I'm work on a a ranged/melee touch attack as well, but that's harder to do.

I also include two "nothing happens" things.

I have never been a supporter of the die, break, or any fatal aspect.

[Flickerdart]

Well, I should specify, my fumble chart is a lot more forgiving, just simple stuff, like, you fall prone for a round, or if its ranged, roll a 1d8, and that's the direction you fire instead this shot, or if you lose your weapon, roll 1d8 and it flys 2d6 squares.
Your weapon flies up to sixty feet away*? A seasoned warrior trips on solid ground and falls over like a child of two? An experiences archer shoots his bow backwards somehow?


*Until 1954, the world record for shot put was 60 feet, and those are designed to be thrown. Under your system, any character will casually match this record, without trying, just by letting their hands slip, with any weapon - including the 17lb mercurial greatsword, the 23lb Fullblade or the 30lb greathammer, which weighs almost twice as much as the male shot, and almost four times as much as the female shot.

[pffh]

Well, I should specify, my fumble chart is a lot more forgiving, just simple stuff, like, you fall prone for a round, or if its ranged, roll a 1d8, and that's the direction you fire instead this shot, or if you lose your weapon, roll 1d8 and it flys 2d6 squares.

I'm work on a a ranged/melee touch attack as well, but that's harder to do.

I also include two "nothing happens" things.

I have never been a supporter of the die, break, or any fatal aspect.

And for spellcasters? Is there a 5% (or 0.25%) chance everytime they cast a spell that they fall prone or strain their wrist so they have to massage it with a move action next round to cast a spell with a somatic component?

[killem2]

Your weapon flies up to sixty feet away*? A seasoned warrior trips on solid ground and falls over like a child of two? An experiences archer shoots his bow backwards somehow?


*Until 1954, the world record for shot put was 60 feet, and those are designed to be thrown. Under your system, any character will casually match this record, without trying, just by letting their hands slip, with any weapon - including the 17lb mercurial greatsword, the 23lb Fullblade or the 30lb greathammer, which weighs almost twice as much as the male shot, and almost four times as much as the female shot.

5 ft square x 6 = 30 feet max? That's how I'm figuring it. I don't use the 5/10/5/10 thing going diagonal for losing a weapon.

Also, you have to remember active combat assumes players are flailing, dodging, being aware, and swinging, if you have a natural 1, and that is considered an ALWAYS miss, and if it is to be a fumble, you think its unrealistic every once an a while, that even a seasoned warrior, weilding a 10-40 lb weapon, swings with their might and hits nothing but air that they may lose grip or possibly lose footing?



And for spellcasters? Is there a 5% (or 0.25%) chance everytime they cast a spell that they fall prone or strain their wrist so they have to massage it with a move action next round to cast a spell with a somatic component?


You can tone down the sarcasm. It's really not needed, thanks.

If you bothered to read, it states I'm working on a spell caster variant, that would deal with things like that. :smallannoyed: Since d&d doesn't have anything in place that effects non-touch attack spells, I don't know what can be done for fumbles in that regard. For most of the melee and ranged touch attacks though, most of the same penalties could apply.

[CTrees]

5 ft square x 6 = 30 feet max? That's how I'm figuring it. I don't use the 5/10/5/10 thing going diagonal for losing a weapon.


Well, I should specify, my fumble chart is a lot more forgiving, just simple stuff, like, you fall prone for a round, or if its ranged, roll a 1d8, and that's the direction you fire instead this shot, or if you lose your weapon, roll 1d8 and it flys 2d6 squares.

2*6*5=60'

wordswordswords

[Flickerdart]

5 ft square x 6 = 30 feet max? That's how I'm figuring it. I don't use the 5/10/5/10 thing going diagonal for losing a weapon.

Also, you have to remember active combat assumes players are flailing, dodging, being aware, and swinging, if you have a natural 1, and that is considered an ALWAYS miss, and if it is to be a fumble, you think its unrealistic every once an a while, that even a seasoned warrior, weilding a 10-40 lb weapon, swings with their might and hits nothing but air that they may lose grip or possibly lose footing?
2d6 = max 12, average 7, not six.

Also, most weapons are not even 8 pounds, much less 10. I don't know of any 40 pound weapon. Anyone competent enough to fight dragons is competent enough to not trip over themselves when they miss a swing.

[killem2]

Thanks for not correcting me or anything.

My mistake, it should be 1d6.



. Anyone competent enough to fight dragons is competent enough to not trip over themselves when they miss a swing.


I was just listing weight as a generalization. Either way, players don't control physics. And if anyone competent enough to fight dragons, by that logic, should never miss anything, since they are the perfect warrior.


In addition, having critical fumbles opens up the opportunity for enemies to by pass melee protecting the casters and come after them. By the next round the melee is playing catch to the protect the casters.

[DoctorGlock]

*Until 1954, the world record for shot put was 60 feet, and those are designed to be thrown.

You know the records for all obscure sports from the 1950s? :smallconfused:

Anything more can't really be added. It is inane for a skilled master of a style to more of a bumbling idiot than an untrained novice, and moreover it is not fun. Even if it's more realistic, which it isn't, do your players enjoy running about in circle looking for their finger 5% of the time? If not there is no reason to include fumbles in a game ever. It is not enjoyable and it contributes nothing. Even the stale laughs you got cease to be funny after the first fumble.

Can you see this happening?

Player has 10 pages of back story, has hit level 15, and is engaged in a solo sword duel with the man who killed his family. He charges... and cuts his own head off.

well, that was fun, reroll, might not want to invest in the character much since there's a non zero chance you will randomly die. Might as well roll up a clown so it makes sense.

[Flickerdart]

I was just listing weight as a generalization. Either way, players don't control physics. And if anyone competent enough to fight dragons, by that logic, should never miss anything, since they are the perfect warrior.
They'll miss plenty of times - they might be a good warrior, but the dragon is a dragon, and is rather hard to hurt.

In addition, having critical fumbles opens up the opportunity for enemies to by pass melee protecting the casters and come after them. By the next round the melee is playing catch to the protect the casters.
When you're fighting someone, and they dropped their sword, do you go "huzzah, now they are not a threat forever and I can walk right past them and kill those fireball guys" or do you go "huzzah, I have disarmed this guy, now I am going to kill him before he can pick it up and resume turning my limbs into a salami"?

[NNescio]

In addition, having critical fumbles opens up the opportunity for enemies to by pass melee protecting the casters and come after them. By the next round the melee is playing catch to the protect the casters.

Eh, most casters can fly. And if the enemies can fly too, the melee aren't going to do much protecting, even if they're up in the air.

[Tyndmyr]

5 ft square x 6 = 30 feet max? That's how I'm figuring it. I don't use the 5/10/5/10 thing going diagonal for losing a weapon.

Distance works the same way for everything. Regardless of how you cut it, 60 feet is 60 feet. Even at 1d6, tossing a weapon thirty feet on accident is kind of hard to justify. And the fact that they toss it further on the diagonal directions is just frigging weird.


Also, you have to remember active combat assumes players are flailing, dodging, being aware, and swinging, if you have a natural 1, and that is considered an ALWAYS miss, and if it is to be a fumble, you think its unrealistic every once an a while, that even a seasoned warrior, weilding a 10-40 lb weapon, swings with their might and hits nothing but air that they may lose grip or possibly lose footing?

Frankly, yes. It is especially unrealistic that the more experienced the warrior, the more often they accidentally hurl their weapon away.

I have never, ever fired my bow, and somehow ended up with the bow thirty feet away from me. Frankly, I'm not even sure how this is possible. If I turned the bow around, took the head off the arrow, placed it against MY FACE, steadied it with my hand, drew the bow back, angled it up into the arrow, and let the bow go, it probably still wouldn't go that far. And that's a remarkably ludicrous setup.

It's bad mechanically, it's bad realistically, it's bad for balance, it's bad for speed of play, and it's bad for the story. Frankly, it's just bad.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...You know by the rules that criticals and fumbles don't affect skill checks, right? It can only lead to bad things if you change it. Someone posted in a thread a while back that the group he was playing with made him die when he rolled "instant kill" on the fumble table the group used for all checks... making a decipher script roll.

[CTrees]

You know the records for all obscure sports from the 1950s? :smallconfused:


Track and field is an obscure sport?


...You know by the rules that criticals and fumbles don't affect skill checks, right? It can only lead to bad things if you change it. Someone posted in a thread a while back that the group he was playing with made him die when he rolled "instant kill" on the fumble table the group used for all checks... making a decipher script roll.

If we're going by the rules, a natural one on an attack roll is a miss, and nothing else of interest happens. Also, a confirmation roll on a critical threat allows for damage to be multiplied, and some other effects to activate (based on feats, class features, etc.) - a twenty on that roll doesn't do anything else interesting, either. Anything beyond those is in house rule territory, without even getting into applying these rules to skill checks.

[Slipperychicken]

Knowledge rolls. Spellcraft rolls. Identification rolls. Int checks. Wis checks. You have a 1/8,000 chance of dying every time you think.

[Cespenar]

Someone posted in a thread a while back that the group he was playing with made him die when he rolled "instant kill" on the fumble table the group used for all checks... making a decipher script roll.

It looks like...

:smallcool:

...he couldn't handle the truth.

[Medic!]

IDK if it's been mentioned yet, but the first thing I lit up on reading this was equating Season of the Witch to a campaign, which is exactly what our group did the first time we watched it, A+.

Since we've sidetracked into awful fumble stories/20 stories, we had a vassal of bahamut in a party once with a vorpal sword. Went to fight a dragon, and FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY we made a battle plan that wasn't an initiative race to who gets to charge first.

My monk was supposed to go in, taunt the dragon into using its breath weapon (since the monk was pretty much an invincible SoB machine, especially on saves), then half the party assaults the front while the rogue and sorcerer sneak in a tunnel behind it and go nova.

Monk runs in, starts teasing, and kamehameha's the dragon's face (Ki Blast from phb2), dragon (descriptive reaction only) narrows his beady little eyes and begins a big nasty inhale.

Vassal of Bahamut was right after me in initiative, and instead of delaying or readying, he charges! One natural 20 later, there is no dragon. The crowd goes "Aw."

[Rubik]

Ugh. I HATE fumble rules for anything other than comedy campaigns... Whenever fumble rules are in place for skill checks (a house rule, remember!), I always try to Take 10 whenever possible, or get spells that make needing to roll for skills superfluous... HATE fumble rules.If you can die on any roll of the d20, taking 10 shouldn't ever be possible, since the risk of failure is so incredibly bad.

So no dice on that (or more specifically, always dice on that).

[CTrees]

If you can die on any roll of the d20, taking 10 shouldn't ever be possible, since the risk of failure is so incredibly bad.

So no dice on that (or more specifically, always dice on that).

Actually...


When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20.

If one can fumble - and injure or kill oneself - on a skill check, taking twenty should be either impossible or a great way to commit suicide.

[Rubik]

Actually...



If one can fumble - and injure or kill oneself - on a skill check, taking twenty should be either impossible or a great way to commit suicide.But wouldn't the penalties be bad enough that you'd be under incredible pressure any time you did ANYthing?


Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.I'd say the potential of dying a horrible, messy death any time you blew your nose would lead to a ton of pressure (and not just sinus pressure).

[Phaederkiel]

by killerangel:
Apparently, you're still alive, despite the fumble.
"crit fumble: lose your weapon", and "crit. fumble: you die" are different things.

yes I am still alive. To a good part because the guy who attacked me (you will probably not believe me, its too convenient...) tried to spray me with pepper spray and then ran after me, right through his own cloud. Which was a fumble if I ever saw one...:)

And yes, I like people dropping their swords, not dying from Craft:basketweaving checks. Although, to be fair, he died by drowning, which is at least remotely thinkable.

@tyndmyr: Excuse me saying so, but I fear there is a distinctive difference between mock combat and a real lif threatening situation.

(My last Post was a little unclear on that matter, I do train european Swordfighting) In mock combat, even in something as chaotic as Linefights, there is a high level of adrenaline. And this does not compare at all to the heights of adrenaline while fighting for your Life. Sport is sport, no matter how realistic you try to get.

I can only offer my own experience. Good Fighter, lots of training, fought for real, lost weapon 5 seconds in.

Ps:
you seem to be a bowman i´d like to team up with... My experience with Larp-bowmen is that they shoot at moving things, mostly indiscriminating between friend and foe. And bowmen are so very controlled compared to mages...

[Tyndmyr]

@tyndmyr: Excuse me saying so, but I fear there is a distinctive difference between mock combat and a real lif threatening situation.

(My last Post was a little unclear on that matter, I do train european Swordfighting) In mock combat, even in something as chaotic as Linefights, there is a high level of adrenaline. And this does not compare at all to the heights of adrenaline while fighting for your Life. Sport is sport, no matter how realistic you try to get.

I can only offer my own experience. Good Fighter, lots of training, fought for real, lost weapon 5 seconds in.

Correct, but the physics of the thing are similar. If you do not randomly hurl your bow thirty feet behind you when you shoot poorly because...it's actually impossible due to physics, the same is still true when shooting real arrows.

And I did mention real life combat. Historical records of archers in say, medieval times, suddenly accidentally shooting each other a lot randomly is basically non-existent.


Ps:
you seem to be a bowman i´d like to team up with... My experience with Larp-bowmen is that they shoot at moving things, mostly indiscriminating between friend and foe. And bowmen are so very controlled compared to mages...

Odd...I've never seen this to be a problem, and fully half my local group engages in archery at least some of the time. I consider myself above average on accuracy, but friendly fire seems to be exceedingly rare, even given that larp attempts at uniforms are very often...sketchy at best.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I can only offer my own experience. Good Fighter, lots of training, fought for real, lost weapon 5 seconds in.

How much training is "lots"? An hour a day every day for a month before you fought for real? A first level D&D fighter is supposed to have been training for years, or seen months of actual combat.

[Synovia]

This also means that one in every eight bakers dies in a baking related accident before they reach their twenty year mark. This does not account for the other deaths from trying to fix the chair, searching for the wifes birthday present, etc.

(Of course, you could argue most people take tens on the vast majority of things they do. This is not as fun of an image.)

Triple twenties shouldn't kill anything immune to the type of damage you are causing or immune to criticals, btw.



The only time you're really supposed to be rolling skills on is in combat, or in a high stress/tension setting. A 0-level baker would never roll a skill. Swimming while being attacked by zombies? I think there should be a chance of death, no matter how high your swim skill is.

[Synovia]

Distance works the same way for everything. Regardless of how you cut it, 60 feet is 60 feet. Even at 1d6, tossing a weapon thirty feet on accident is kind of hard to justify. And the fact that they toss it further on the diagonal directions is just frigging weird.

Clearly you've never seen a highschool kid lose his grip on an aluminum bat. They go a LOT further than 30 feet.

[Flickerdart]

Clearly you've never seen a highschool kid lose his grip on an aluminum bat. They go a LOT further than 30 feet.
That bat also weighs, oh, about a pound? Less? The only weapon in D&D that compares weight-wise is a dagger or similar knife-like stabbing weapon (not enough momentum to lose it like that). Even your average club is 3 pounds, and the illustration shows it as being quite a bit shorter than a baseball bat (so you get less momentum).

[Hiro Protagonest]

The only time you're really supposed to be rolling skills on is in combat, or in a high stress/tension setting. A 0-level baker would never roll a skill. Swimming while being attacked by zombies? I think there should be a chance of death, no matter how high your swim skill is.

Uh huh. What about the guy who's pouring his cereal but hasn't had a coffee yet? Why should he die from that? Or set it on fire?

[Arundel]

The only time you're really supposed to be rolling skills on is in combat, or in a high stress/tension setting. A 0-level baker would never roll a skill. Swimming while being attacked by zombies? I think there should be a chance of death, no matter how high your swim skill is.

Sure swimming should be a risky activity. If only there were rules for drowning so my character is not removed from the living instantly upon skill failure. If only I could hold my breath for a matter of time, say at least 30 seconds, before drowning started.

What a better world that would be. There are rules for this, rules that DM gave the bird to and went on his merry way assassinating characters. This is textbook for why fumbles are terrible.

[Crasical]

Eeesh. I had considered making an optional system for my 4e games where a PC can opt to change a nat 1 from a 'You just miss' to something more strange, like accidentally trading squares or weapons with your target, you and your target both fall prone, ect, but after this thread I'm reconsidering it...

[Mystic Muse]

Uh huh. What about the guy who's pouring his cereal but hasn't had a coffee yet? Why should he die from that? Or set it on fire?

Because clearly this guy is Homer Simpson.

[Flickerdart]

Because clearly this guy is Homer Simpson.
If Homer Simpson could die from fumbles, he would die in every episode.

[Mystic Muse]

If Homer Simpson could die from fumbles, he would die in every episode.

I more meant the "Set it on fire" part.:smalltongue:

[Helldog]

Fumbles, fumbles, fumbles...

Gosh. I wonder what happened to the original topic of this thread, you know, the dead player and the witch... :smallannoyed:

[Crasical]

Fumbles, fumbles, fumbles...

Gosh. I wonder what happened to the original topic of this thread, you know, the dead player and the witch... :smallannoyed:

If someone came in as a ranger asking for advice on how to stop the party wizard from buttsexing his Wolf animal companion while he's asleep, everyone would focus on the outrageous behavior of the wizard instead of trying to help out the ranger OP. Kind of an extreme example, but the same sort of thing has happened here.

[Helldog]

If someone came in as a ranger asking for advice on how to stop the party wizard from buttsexing his Wolf animal companion while he's asleep, everyone would focus on the outrageous behavior of the wizard instead of trying to help out the ranger OP. Kind of an extreme example, but the same sort of thing has happened here.
Your point is? That it's justified to go off-topic for over 2 pages and ignore the original purpose of the thread? :smallconfused:
I've already reported this situation. The Mods will do what they think is right.

[Heliomance]

It's an interesting topic, it's not spam, why does it matter if it's not quite the topic the OP had envisaged?

[Helldog]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Heliomance]

Why is it such a big deal? You're not the OP, why do you care?

[Helldog]

{{Scrubbed}}

[CTrees]

Meh, this forum tends to go off-topic on most threads, after awhile. Not sure why you're surprised. OP is AWOL, it's on-topic for the forum as a whole, no one else seems bothered... *shrug* I really don't get why you're so up in arms.

[Hirax]

It probably would have been a better idea to rename this thread fumble rules discussion, then try to start what you actually wanted to talk about in the new thread.

[Helldog]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Heliomance]

{{Scrubbed}}

[CTrees]

It probably would have been a better idea to rename this thread fumble rules discussion, then try to start what you actually wanted to talk about in the new thread.

Actually, "The Triple 1" is a pretty good name for a discussion of fumble rules, when invocation of a triple-one rule was what started everything. Just sayin'

[Helldog]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Geigan]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227923
Here is what you want. It is you who has no business in this thread. I at least am interested in the original topic. Your every post was just off-topic.


The topic is quite clear: What to do with a dead PC and the Witch.

While one of them talks to the witch, roll heal checks until they manage to roll triple 20s and revive him? Not anymore ridiculous than how he died.

Anyway, the witch has the upper hand now so she could have them sit still for a geas(or something to that effect) and get them to do her bidding. What were the witch's motivations again? I've never seen Season of the Witch.

[Hiro Protagonest]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Helldog]

{{scrubbed}}

[nolispe]

Hm. I hate to say it, guys, but maybe you should just give i nand move teh discussion. Helldog is certainly being over confrontational, and shouldn't be suprised that people are getting annoyed, but... C'est la vie, right?

[Heliomance]

{{Scrubbed}}

[CTrees]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Crasical]

:smallconfused: How on earth would screwing up your attack result in you swapping weapons or places with your target? That's just weird.

Like I said, It was supposed to be a deliberate choice of 'something strange happens' instead of just missing. And considering what my GM's fumble table has done to my poor druid in 3.5, like stabbing myself and starting to bleed FROM A CLUB....

[absolmorph]

'Cause I know it would piss me off if people started discussing s**t I don't care about and ignore my problem. And why do you absolutely have to continue it here? Is it such big deal to just create a new thread?
Now please stop being difficult. Take the off-topic somewhere else if it's SOOO interesting, but be careful, I've seen discussions about fumble rules and sooner or later it will degenerate into a flamewar, like always.

Here, I created a new thread for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227923)

It was answered.


"Why I Hate Fumble Rules"

~~~~~~~~~~~~

More productively, I like the "raised as undead" option. My first thought would be a wight without the ability to create spawn. Well, unless the character was a monk/unarmed swordsage/totemist/druid/etc. Then the energy drain could get a little too good.

And after it was answered we started in on why this problem shouldn't have existed, because the best way to solve a problem is to prevent it from ever existing.
Also, if anything you're being difficult; you're the one demanding things, not anyone else. Everyone else is just discussing things, and the topic of discussion flowed quite naturally (especially since the thread title is specifically a reference to the fumble rules included in the first post).

[CTrees]

Like I said, It was supposed to be a deliberate choice of 'something strange happens' instead of just missing. And considering what my GM's fumble table has done to my poor druid in 3.5, like stabbing myself and starting to bleed FROM A CLUB....

This abject weirdness reminds me a bit of the weird wasteland option in fallout new vegas. Things which are so odd they're out of place, and yet... they're fairly fun. My group does some improv-style, off the cuff happenings on the same order. For instance, our alchemist was recovering acid from the body of some monster. One of the other players asked if it was "you know, acid acid." DM decided, you know what? Roll for it- you have a five percent chance it functuions as LSD. A 97 was rolled on the percentile die, and two months later, after everyone forgot it was there, it was used on a random city guard. "Weird stuff happens" can be a lot of fun, even if it does break immersion. Having it as an opt-in, optional rule? Actually... I'm not that against the idea, which is strange for a fumble rule (actually, THIS could even work for some skill checks!). Make it a "cursed by the goddess of irony" flaw or something, and I think it has potential!

[Heliomance]

Triple 1 on a sexytimes roll, swich gender?

[Geigan]

Triple 1 on a sexytimes roll, switch gender?

Or lose something important...:smallfrown::smalleek:

[Mystic Muse]

Or lose something important...:smallfrown::smalleek:

You could do both. :smalltongue:

[Geigan]

You could do both. :smalltongue:

Well I walked right into that one.:smallredface:

[Arundel]

Triple 1 on a sexytimes roll, swich gender?

As with most topics, it is really probably for the best if we leave the BoEF out in the gutter, where it belongs, showing a little leg......

Also, while patent absurdity is a perfectly viable option for fumble rules, it only shines in comparison to such flagrant disregard for player characters as the OP. I actually quite like the teleportaroo fumble rule above. It certainly has a time and a game, but if a good roleplayer got that fumble, the results would be entertaining.

[Phaederkiel]

by Jade Dragon:
How much training is "lots"? An hour a day every day for a month before you fought for real? A first level D&D fighter is supposed to have been training for years, or seen months of actual combat.

I am 28. I started training Judo when i was 6, later Jujutsu, Escrima and Swordfighting. I teach womens self defense and stage combat.


by Tyndmir
Correct, but the physics of the thing are similar. If you do not randomly hurl your bow thirty feet behind you when you shoot poorly because...it's actually impossible due to physics, the same is still true when shooting real arrows.

And I did mention real life combat. Historical records of archers in say, medieval times, suddenly accidentally shooting each other a lot randomly is basically non-existent.

I did not talk about hurling the bow... but breaking the chord of your bow is possible. I have seen this happen to a very good guy (while he demonstratet how many shots he could get in before his wife reloaded her frontloader rifle. 13 even with the time it took him fix the bow...)

For the historical events: There is little mentioning of double hits between swordsmen either, and yet it happens all the times. Both guys strike, both guys would be very dead. You never see this in films, either :)


on the larpy thing: now i am intrigued: could you tell me how your group fights? are you staying in formation ( most groups i know only know the formation "bloody cloud"...)

[Arundel]

On the topic of reality checks,

We are talking about a game where old people can light sheep on fire.
With their minds.
More ways than I can count.

[SaintRidley]

Triple 1 on a sexytimes roll, swich gender?

Nah, death by Snu-Snu!

[DoctorGlock]

On the topic of reality checks,

We are talking about a game where old people can light sheep on fire.
With their minds.
More ways than I can count.

Have a cookie

This is really what is boils down to. When your grandfather is off creating planets and igniting sheep, you may not use words like realism anymore. Here, need a reason you don't drop/throw/melt/fuse with your sword on a nat 1? Magic. It's magic. Magic sword, you don't drop it, everyone has fun. Non magic sword? You're just awesome, like the old sheep igniter.

It bogs down the game, makes it unfun and exacerbates the inherent imbalance in the system. The rules don't call for it and it really comes down to DM fiat equal to "rocks fall"

[Heliomance]

Ah, but the default assumption is "like reality unless otherwise stated". Magic is a very definite statement otherwise, it's fine for that to break the rules of reality because, well, that's what magic does. Swordfighting is not otherwise stated, and as such it is entirely reasonable to attempt to apply real world logic.

[DoctorGlock]

Ah, but the default assumption is "like reality unless otherwise stated". Magic is a very definite statement otherwise, it's fine for that to break the rules of reality because, well, that's what magic does. Swordfighting is not otherwise stated, and as such it is entirely reasonable to attempt to apply real world logic.

Magic weapons are "unless otherwise stated" for DMs who actually need a reason, or say that your fighter is infused with magical background radiation. The "magic is just better" has lead to a very degenerate game setting.

Any DM who actually feels that "Mundanes should screw up because it's realistic" (yeah, cutting your own head off with a club, realism) and turns around to say "Magic does anything effortlessly without failure because it's magic and that's realistic" is a bad DM and goes to Siberia.

[Heliomance]

Magic weapons are "unless otherwise stated" for DMs who actually need a reason, or say that your fighter is infused with magical background radiation. The "magic is just better" has lead to a very degenerate game setting.

Any DM who actually feels that "Mundanes should screw up because it's realistic" (yeah, cutting your own head off with a club, realism) and turns around to say "Magic does anything effortlessly without failure because it's magic and that's realistic" is a bad DM and goes to Siberia.

You're misrepresenting me. Apart from anything else, I don't think I've ever heard a fumble rule that distinguishes between magical and non-magical weapons. That said, most of the realism arguments are being used to say that fumble rules are not realistic, not that they are.

[DoctorGlock]

You're misrepresenting me. Apart from anything else, I don't think I've ever heard a fumble rule that distinguishes between magical and non-magical weapons. That said, most of the realism arguments are being used to say that fumble rules are not realistic, not that they are.

No, I am agreeing with you. I assume you were using sarcasm with "it's fine for that to break the rules of reality because, well, that's what magic does. Swordfighting is not otherwise stated, and as such it is entirely reasonable to attempt to apply real world logic."

It did not look like you were actually supporting that stance. If I came off as misrepresenting you than that is likely due to the limitations of the communications medium.

[Heliomance]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It makes perfect sense to not require reality checks on magic, but still argue from the point of realism for mundanes. This is not to say that magic is "better". That's a design flaw, not anything connected with concerns of realism. The arguments are not equivalent.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: See, y'all, this is a classic example of a thread gone wrong. The fumble discussion was mostly on topic. Then people started flaming, and responding to flames, until a number of people are sitting on warnings, infractions, and even probations that they would've avoided if they had FOLLOWED THE RULES.

These rules include:
1) Do not tell other people how to post. You are not a Moderator (See what I did there? That's what it looks like when you're a moderator. If it doesn't look like that, you're not one). If there is a problem, report it.
2) Do not flame. Do not make fun of other posters.
3) Do not troll. Do not poke other posters who are proving prickly.
4) Just because someone flames you, does not make it ok to flame them.

If the OP wishes to restart the topic, he may.