So I accidentally joined a Play By Post game which uses Fumble Rules... HELP!

[Gavinfoxx]

So I kinda, uh, joined a play by post game. This would be great, the premise of the game is really interesting...


...except I had a reading comprehension fail, and the DM is using Fumble Rules. Apparently, bad fumble rules, too.

He's apparently said that his reason for using them, when I raised objections and threatened to quit the game over it was this:

"I like critical fumbles because they're funny, and most certainly not for any kind of realism

For instance, in my other game, a warlock was using a teleport scroll and had a 1 on Use Magic Device. They were teleporting into a city, and I had them miss the teleporting target area in such a way that they instead ended up inside the women's public bath house (also, the warlock was suddenly holding his disembodied arm, and he couldn't get it fixed for hours)."

His 'full' description of the rules is this:

"Critical fumbling applies, if you roll a 1 on attacks/skills, I will roll a d20 and use a handy dandy rotating list of nasty, painful happenings to determine what the result of the failure is (these range from dropped weapons to random meteor strikes and time-space warps)."

He also didn't like my comment that a high level barbarian, under these rules, is less competent than a low level one... And he didn't address my suggestion of confirming fumbles like confirming a crit, or removing fumbles from skills.

Here's what he said:

"I believe I mentioned early on about my handy-dandy chart of bad things for 1's, which no one but myself will ever know about. I'll admit that a fair chunk of the d100 range is just a failure/miss. Mild damage to self or allies (when combining both the natural 1 chance and the d100 chance) is 1 in 500, and full damage is even less. Things that are more likely to happen are circumstances such as a -1 to AC for a round (the opponent parries the poor attack in such a way that you are left open to a counter) or a penalty to the next attack roll for a similar reason. In your case here, I didn't even roll the d100 because I just wanted to do something slightly off-color while you were using nonlethal weaponry. I don't really think you could make a good argument that a powerful barbarian never makes a slight mistake which a clever opponent could take a small advantage from."


If it matters, here is the thread in question (it contains my arguments so far):

http://www.dndonlinegames.com/showthread.php?t=120616&page=17

Is there anything I am missing? Could I have explained the iterative probability thing better? Can someone help me with some specific math to show that Fumbles on skills and attack rolls in 3.5e is a really bad idea??

[JadePhoenix]

Well, his game, his rules.
You already tried convincing him/her. I'd just accept it as is or drop out of the game.

[Gavinfoxx]

Well I think I could've done a better job -- specifically with a bit more math, some percentages, some talk of probability, perhaps. That's what I am asking for help with.

Could someone help me with that??

[eggynack]

One decent arguement against this is that it hurts the kinds of characters who need the most help. Wizards clerics and druids aren't really hurt by this much at all if they don't want to be hurt by it, and monks, as the core class that likely makes the most attacks in a round (at a base level) are hurt the most. I could go as far as to say that the amount that this rule hurts a character is proportional to how much the class sucks already, but there are probably a few exceptions. If it's really a problem for you, just play a class for whom it's not a problem. You can actually likely do that for any tier. At high power levels you have stuff like a wizard, who can take nothing but spells that you don't have to roll for, and at somewhat lower power levels you can build something like an inspire courage bard. You may want to avoid diplomacy, but you shouldn't worry about it too much. It's a bit of a silly rule, but if everyone else is fine with it, then you should just make it not effect your character and move on.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I think you made the argument from the math side as well as it can be made. I think you have made it eminently clear that you're willing to quit over the use of fumble rules. I think the DM has made it clear that he finds crit-fumbles hilarious, that the chances of actually damaging yourself or your allies is very slim, and that he intends to continue to use fumble rules regardless of the argument you make.

So, it seems you're at a decision point. Do you embrace the chaos and try to find fun in the occasional over-strike that causes you to drop your weapon? Or do you do as you said you would and refuse to play in a game where fumbles happen?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Unfortunately without access to his rules nobody can make a math based argument about how stupid they are.

Well that's not entirely true. If he rolls a d100 then there is a 1 in 2000 chance of the worst possible thing his table can do happening with each attack/skill check etc. A 20th lvl TWF that attacks 8 times a round will have that happen in just 250 rounds or 25 minutes of fighting. If say 5 of the 100 things on the table are truly bad ie killing or dismembering then this shrinks to just 50 rounds which could be covered in just a few sessions.

There's saying that's classic on this board.

"Put 10 1st level warriors in a room attacking AC 10 training dummies for ten minutes. If any of them are killed or dismembered the gamemaster should eat his critical failure rules."

I've also heard an almost as popular addendum

"The same is true of 10 20th level TWF."

My brother added his own addendum recently that I'm rather fond of.

"Have 10 1st level Warriors attack a god for 10 minutes if the god is dead at the end as above but for critical hit rules."

[BlueEyes]

If you persist in convincing him, you'll just be a jerk. It's his game and he already addressed your concerns. Drop it and leave the game.

[Ceaon]

Play a character that rolls very few d20s, enjoy the game.

[eggynack]

Play a character that rolls very few d20s, enjoy the game.

When I suggested that before I hadn't noticed that he was planning on being an archer. They basically make as many d20 rolls as you can make in a game between all of the arrows and the reasonably good skills. OP may be screwed in that archetype.

[TypoNinja]

Well I think I could've done a better job -- specifically with a bit more math, some percentages, some talk of probability, perhaps. That's what I am asking for help with.

Could someone help me with that??

This guy sounds like he likes his fumbles enough that you are unlikely to be able to successfully apply logic to him. Its something he put time into it, and he enjoys them.

If the fact that it penalizes melee over casters by far, or allows silly things like a 20th level fighter stabbing himself in the face while practicing thrusts against a bale of hay don't convince him its just a bad idea, probability discussions won't help either.

Though you weren't exactly eloquent in your opposition you did hit the high points that it screws melee disproportionately, makes high level characters more likely to fail than lower levels characters thanks to iterative attacks, and skills don't actually fail on a one (unless that's still too low).

But, in the end hes the DM that's how hes running the game, if you really hate the fumbles that much, drop the game, tell him that you are dropping the game specifically because of those rules and find a DM who shares your burning hate for fumble rules.

[Ceaon]

When I suggested that before I hadn't noticed that he was planning on being an archer. They basically make as many d20 rolls as you can make in a game between all of the arrows and the reasonably good skills. OP may be screwed in that archetype.

Ah, good call.
If you are set on playing an archer, I would indeed advice to look for another game. Otherwise, roll up a wizard or something.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Have ten level 1 warriors (they don't need to have unremarkable stats) full attack test dummies for 10 minutes (this amounts to 1000 attack rolls if all survive the ordeal). AC 5 or something (Medium-sized, DEX 0). Record the number of hits, misses (these should be on a 1), fumbles, and Horrible Kobold Deaths (assume that a 100 on the "Nasty Stuff Happens to You" chart is a Horrible Kobold Death).

Then, have ten level 20 warriors (again, stats don't need to be remarkable) full attack test dummies for 10 minutes (this amounts to 4000 attack rolls if all survive the ordeal). Record the number of hits, misses, fumbles, and Horrible Kobold Deaths as before.

On average, four times as many of the ten level 20 warriors will die in 10 minutes' time than the level 1 warriors (the level 1 number may be less than 1, which means math-y stuff), meaning that, by virtue of the fact that level 20 warriors get more attacks, they will die more often, even against a clearly non-threatening encounter.

Also, if a single warrior, level 1 or 20, dies against a test dummy because of fumble rules, you have demonstrated that they are not only horribly unrealistic, but terribly unfun, because even something completely non-threatening, mundane, even banal, can kill you, which means that entire encounters and even characters can be undone by crappy rolls.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, I would NEVER have joined this game as an archer if I knew he had fumble rules on a hidden chart -- if I joined at all.

Also, I added some stuff about how these rules actually inhibit roleplaying.

[JadePhoenix]

Also, if a single warrior, level 1 or 20, dies against a test dummy because of fumble rules, you have demonstrated that they are not only horribly unrealistic, but terribly unfun, because even something completely non-threatening, mundane, even banal, can kill you, which means that entire encounters and even characters can be undone by crappy rolls.

I respectfully disagree.
This DM thinks fumbles are fun, which we all clearly don't. He already mentioned he doesn't care about it being realistic.
We can't prove something is unfun. It's a matter of opinion and taste.
This experiment would be a waste of time. The DM has already made his opinion abundantly clear - the fumbles are not going away. Now, the OP either buckles up for the ride or rides into the sunset.

[Darrin]

I think all the posts about 1st level warriors may be missing the point... so far, I don't think anyone has died as a result of the fumbles. It sounds mostly like the DM prefers funny/embarassing results, which is juvenile and annoying but whatever, Rule Zero.

It sounds like the DM is unlikely to revoke this rule, and you gave your tacit agreement to it by joining the game in the first place. So I see at least two options to mitigate the hurt:

1) Stock up on Luck feats and skill tricks that let you reroll or change 1's to something else. Take Planar Touchstone -> Catalogues of Enlightenment to pick up the Luck domain power.

2) Bring in a PC that doesn't rely so much on attack rolls/skill checks. For example: Dragonfire Adept, Crusader w/ Aura of Perfect Order, or Druidzilla Summoner (pawn off the fumbles to your minions).

[eggynack]

Yea, I would NEVER have joined this game as an archer if I knew he had fumble rules on a hidden chart -- if I joined at all.

Also, I added some stuff about how these rules actually inhibit roleplaying.

You should probably avoid making too many arguements on this issue directly. You're unlikely to gain your success in changing the dm's mind. Try taking a step back, and asking to bring in a new character that is less effected by this rule. You could even offer to have it match the flavor of the original, which is pretty trivial given the versatility of the system. If he doesn't let you then you're kinda screwed. Even if the rule didn't hurt most characters that much, with an archer you're really shooting yourself in the foot (pun definitely intended).

[Killer Angel]

"I like critical fumbles because they're funny, and most certainly not for any kind of realism"

(snip)

"I don't really think you could make a good argument that a powerful barbarian never makes a slight mistake which a clever opponent could take a small advantage from."


The DM doesn't care for fumble's realism, but tries to justify it with a supposed realism, to contest your example about the barbarian. :smallsigh:
As already said: quit the game or play another char.

[Lonely Tylenol]

He already mentioned he doesn't care about it being realistic.

Yeah, I know, but if the argument is "I don't care how unrealistic they are, they're fun", and you can provide a situation where doing something objectively un-fun (something you can even describe as banal) where fumble rules actually make things less fun (such as falling on your sword and insta-gibbing yourself while hitting a test dummy... With a non-lethal weapon), then you have at least presented a new problem (the issue of "fun") that the DM has to explain.

If the DM literally says to this fact, not "I contest the claim" but "I just don't care, my fun is more important than the group's fun", then...


The DM has already made his opinion abundantly clear - the fumbles are not going away. Now, the OP either buckles up for the ride or rides into the sunset.

Ride into the sunset.

Or shoot your own eye out, kid, but make it as reminiscent of A Christmas Story as possible, because you're not going to get much enjoyment out of being an archer in a game with fumble rules otherwise.

Better yet, ask the DM if he can just roll on the random damage chart (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0524.html) instead of running an encounter, as this is what archery is going to amount to for you anyway, and just rolling the damage/limb loss/gratuitous death and dismemberment that you have to deal with for being stupid enough to ply a suicidal skill for so many levels (talk about unrealistic. Where's the character reroll? :smallconfused:) is a real time-saver. :smallbiggrin:

[Musco]

Actually, just quit the game.

You already said you would, and you told us you THREATENED you would, and there's nothing worse for your stree cred in the future than threatening to get a result and then bending over and taking it when you don't succeed. If you really did threaten to leave, leave.

His game, his rules, you can't do squat about it. He's prepared (and by this point expects) to refute your every argument, so not even with the whole Spanish Inquisition (and NOBODY expects them!) on your side you're getting somewhere.

[Gavinfoxx]

I'm going to give him a chance to change the rules or let me change my character before quitting.

[GreenSerpent]

the whole Spanish Inquisition (and NOBODY expects them!)

You have won an internet, sir.

I'd suggest quit while you're ahead. In fact, see if you can get those tables from him. I want to look over them and then come up with a fumbles system of my own that actually works and involves no material from them.

[JadePhoenix]

I'd suggest quit while you're ahead.
+1 to this. Quit.

[Gavinfoxx]

I got emotionally invested in the character though...

[JadePhoenix]

I got emotionally invested in the character though...

Play your character in another game.
Damn, I'm recruiting for a RHOD game. Come over to the recruitment thread.

[eggynack]

I got emotionally invested in the character though...

If you got emotionally invested in the character then doesn't that make quitting a more logical solution? If the fumble rules are really problematic, then making an archer is basically a death sentence, or at least an annoyance sentence. Rebuilding a character from the ground up in terms of combat role tends to hurt the innate nature of that character, and I don't think adding a few luck feats will be enough to remove the problem. If the character is intricately connected to the setting, then I guess that changing everything about the character could work, but porting it over shouldn't be that hard.

[JonRG]

Have ten level 1 warriors (they don't need to have unremarkable stats) full attack test dummies for 10 minutes [...]

I rather liked the version of this experiment which had the amendment, "If any warriors are dead at the end, the DM must butter his critical fumble rules and eat them." :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, Gavin. If you're invested in your archer, I would quit the game and apply to another one before he garrotes himself with his own bowstring.

[Larkas]

You could argue that critical fumbles would need to be confirmed like critical hits, or ask why (if?) he doesn't add critical hits to skill checks.

But, as things stand now, I would just quit the game. You won't convince him and you might as well have turned him against you, and you never want the DM to be against you. Save him the time and you the annoyance and just quit it.

Just join JadePhoenix's game and remake your character there :smallsmile:

[Zedicius]

You could argue that critical fumbles would need to be confirmed like critical hits...

This is what an old DM of mine used to do which is arguably better then an instant fumble.

You could also ask if the DM applies the same rule too his own NPCs, though if this is play-by-post I doubt that will happen.

Still, it's hilarious to see an NPC fumble. In this case it was a halfling rogue who tripped, fell down and stabbed himself in the throat. Fair is fair.

[2xMachina]

Give up. Just quit the game. Preferably in a hilarious manner where you get your whole party killed by a fumble. Maybe even taking a few important NPCs together.

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is what an old DM of mine used to do which is arguably better then an instant fumble.

You could also ask if the DM applies the same rule too his own NPCs, though if this is play-by-post I doubt that will happen.

Still, it's hilarious to see an NPC fumble. In this case it was a halfling rogue who tripped, fell down and stabbed himself in the throat. Fair is fair.

All of this is technically true: a confirmed fumble is less bad than an an instant fumble. Further, I have played with two DMs that used critical fumbles: the first used them only against the PCs, and the second used them against the PCs and against the NPCs/enemies, however the dice fell. The second was less grating and actually produced some hilarious results at times, although I still wouldn't recommend them. The first is the kind of DM decision Hulk would go green over.

[Telonius]

It's really too bad for the emotional investment. But there's nothing that says you can't take the character sheet and use it for another game.

Personally I wouldn't quit outright. When your character dies, decline a resurrection and gracefully bow out. (If you make enough d20 rolls, this should happen fairly soon anyway).

[Larkas]

Indeed. Confirmed fumbles have a measly 0,25% chance of happening, versus a 5% chance for an unconfirmed one.

[Rallicus]

Well, he is the DM. I have an inkling that if this was anything but a PbP campaign, he might be a little more open to suggestion. A vocal argument is generally better than a written one, in my opinion.

But uh... yeah, I don't know what to say. Sounds like a stupid gimmick for his campaign but it is, after all his campaign.

And unfortunately, it is PbP. Another problem that comes along with PbP is that players are easily disposable (due to no real time restrictions), so while rallying the players to boycott this fumble rule may work in a real campaign, I'm not sure it'll work here.

[Answerer]

I'd leave. I'd apologize profusely, as he did put that out there up-front and you missed it, but I wouldn't play in that game.

[2xMachina]

And unfortunately, it is PbP. Another problem that comes along with PbP is that players are easily disposable (due to no real time restrictions), so while rallying the players to boycott this fumble rule may work in a real campaign, I'm not sure it'll work here.

Games are pretty disposable too. A lot die due to disinterest by players. In my experience, 1 player never responds, the others wait, and before long everyone forgets the game.

[Steward]

Games are pretty disposable too. In my experience, 1 player never responds, the others wait, and before long everyone forgets the game.

Yeah, and it takes, what, a minute to make a whole new thread and get a whole set of people? It's a feature and a flaw of play-by-post. The feature is that you're not shackled to the same group because it's too difficult to find another group in your community, since your 'community' could encompass hundreds or even thousands of other people. The flaw is that it's easier and less socially-awkward for people to just vanish without saying a word though, you're right.

That's probably part of the reason why gavinfoxx isn't getting very far with the negotiations. In a physical, real world game, people tend to be a little more flexible because it can sometimes be pretty hard to find another gamer. On the Internet? Just reopen the recruiting thread. OK, the next guy might be a flake, but you can always get alternates. And if the whole thing collapses, just keep recruiting.

[Gavinfoxx]

Actually, I think I might not be doing that well in the argument because no one else in the game has gotten online to check my posts and reply yet..

[Rallicus]

Games are pretty disposable too. A lot die due to disinterest by players. In my experience, 1 player never responds, the others wait, and before long everyone forgets the game.

I wouldn't really consider that "disposable."

What I meant was, in general, the biggest real-life obstacle when it comes to tabletop campaigns is time. In order to get a good group together, you need to have a certain time to play that works for all the players. It's difficult to achieve, and finding replacements is hard. They also need to fit this time frame, unless literally every other player is willing to change for the new player. It's unlikely.

With PbP, as Steward said, it's a feature and a flaw. The fact that there's no real time constraints allows for easier access, but at the same time, it makes everyone involved pretty disposable, because all you have to do is post a recruiting thread and wait for the influx of interested players.

Imagine if OP confronted him DM about this fumble rule in real life. Imagine if the DM kicked him from the group for this. Even if the other players didn't agree with OP, chances are that the campaign would be in jeopardy due to a lost player.

Now imagine the same thing happened in a PbP game. Even if all the players agreed and refused to play until the fumble rule was taken out, the DM could always just say, "Alright, fine, you're all done - I'll find some people who want to play." He could easily do so, and with no real repercussions other than perhaps being slandered on a message board.

That's my little rant on PbP games, and one of the many reasons I refuse to participate in them. :smallyuk:

[Verte]

Basically, from skimming the thread you linked to, it seems like the problem was with the tone, quantity, and length of the messages, not with the arguments or examples themselves. If this comes up in the future, I'd recommend starting with a calmer, shorter argument stating your disfavor and with only a couple concise examples. Then I'd recommend waiting for a response before launching into a fuller fledged argument.

Also, I want to make it clear that I don't actually like critical fumble rules and I wouldn't use a similarly controversial houserule unless I knew all of the players were fine with it.

Edit: I mean, I don't like critical fumble rules in d20 based systems or in systems where attacks are resolved with the roll of a single die.

[Gavinfoxx]

Again... I'm waiting for DM to reply to the arguments...

[Deophaun]

From the math side, ask for a compromise. Let the fumble only apply on the first d20 rolled for a full attack. After that, if you roll a 1, nothing bad happens. That way, you aren't growing more incompetent as you level, and he still gets his fun when someone rolls a 1 while teleporting.

[Gavinfoxx]

From the math side, ask for a compromise. Let the fumble only apply on the first d20 rolled for a full attack. After that, if you roll a 1, nothing bad happens. That way, you aren't growing more incompetent as you level, and he still gets his fun when someone rolls a 1 while teleporting.

I've already mentioned that...

[Toliudar]

Forgive me if this has been covered, but why not just stick it out and try not to let it bother you. Yes, it's a silly rule, but we deal with silly rules in all aspects of our life, all the time. We still find ways around it to express ourselves, connect with other people, and have a good time.

Sure, an archer character is going to be unfairly impacted by fumbles. Maybe that can be mitigated by looking at archery effects that force opponents to roll more as well (ranged pin, that kind of silliness)? And if a disproportionate number of bad things happen - if a fumble kills you - you're no worse off than if you'd quit the game right away. Come back with a beguiler or dragonfire adept, or some other class that doesn't roll quite so often, or decide at that point not to come back with a new character.

Having a PBP game that has any kind of longevity is a kind of holy grail. Odds are good that the game will stutter to a halt long before you get pissed off about fumbles. Enjoy the ride.

[eggs]

Quit immediately.

Regardless of what the rule is, from the other side of the table, I would hate to play with someone who bitched this much about something this minor.

[Tyndmyr]

So I kinda, uh, joined a play by post game. This would be great, the premise of the game is really interesting...


...except I had a reading comprehension fail, and the DM is using Fumble Rules. Apparently, bad fumble rules, too.

He's apparently said that his reason for using them, when I raised objections and threatened to quit the game over it was this:

"I like critical fumbles because they're funny, and most certainly not for any kind of realism

For instance, in my other game, a warlock was using a teleport scroll and had a 1 on Use Magic Device. They were teleporting into a city, and I had them miss the teleporting target area in such a way that they instead ended up inside the women's public bath house (also, the warlock was suddenly holding his disembodied arm, and he couldn't get it fixed for hours)."

His 'full' description of the rules is this:

"Critical fumbling applies, if you roll a 1 on attacks/skills, I will roll a d20 and use a handy dandy rotating list of nasty, painful happenings to determine what the result of the failure is (these range from dropped weapons to random meteor strikes and time-space warps)."

He also didn't like my comment that a high level barbarian, under these rules, is less competent than a low level one... And he didn't address my suggestion of confirming fumbles like confirming a crit, or removing fumbles from skills.

Here's what he said:

"I believe I mentioned early on about my handy-dandy chart of bad things for 1's, which no one but myself will ever know about. I'll admit that a fair chunk of the d100 range is just a failure/miss. Mild damage to self or allies (when combining both the natural 1 chance and the d100 chance) is 1 in 500, and full damage is even less. Things that are more likely to happen are circumstances such as a -1 to AC for a round (the opponent parries the poor attack in such a way that you are left open to a counter) or a penalty to the next attack roll for a similar reason. In your case here, I didn't even roll the d100 because I just wanted to do something slightly off-color while you were using nonlethal weaponry. I don't really think you could make a good argument that a powerful barbarian never makes a slight mistake which a clever opponent could take a small advantage from."


If it matters, here is the thread in question (it contains my arguments so far):

http://www.dndonlinegames.com/showthread.php?t=120616&page=17

Is there anything I am missing? Could I have explained the iterative probability thing better? Can someone help me with some specific math to show that Fumbles on skills and attack rolls in 3.5e is a really bad idea??

All this is available in my blog (http://travislerol.com/wordpress/?p=9).

I advise you to make a char that simply put, never rolls dice. Caster is my choice. If you must roll dice, invest in luck feats(for instance, there is an entry level one that applies to all skills) to get rerolls. Then, the bad things only happen to other people.

Barring that, just ditch the game. Questionable judgement tends to lead to more of the same, and badly run pbp games tend to die off quickly anyway.

[Gavinfoxx]

I was going to link to that... thanks for the link! But can you clean up the replies first??

[Tyndmyr]

Ugh, it got spammed again...I get literally hundreds of attempts per day, it's ridiculous. I think this time they literally hacked it, as It's set to approval only. Time to update software, I'll try to do that at some point today or tomorrow.

[2xMachina]

I think Fumble rules should be called (Epic) Fail rules. It describes what it is perfectly. How badly someone fails, and how badly the rules fail.

[Gavinfoxx]

Well, in that thread, I gave suggestions for some possible fumble rules that I would be okay with. I pretty much intentionally lowballed it... maybe the DM will take some of the ideas to heart... what do you guys think of those?

[Tyndmyr]

It's a compromise solution. Entirely reasonable on your part. I predict failure.

Why? Because these are secret rules he made. People often have an irrational fixation to the things they created. It's like taking a class with a professor who wrote the book he's teaching from. Never do it. He'll be unlikely to be receptive to criticism since he'll be more likely to take it personally.

[Verte]

Again... I'm waiting for DM to reply to the arguments...

What I meant was that your first post about the issue and your second post wer about twenty minutes apart. Your first post lacks any examples and is, IMO, overly aggressive. Your second post is also overly aggressive and is a huge wall of text. The demotivator image doesn't really help your case, either. Your third post seems to imply that you really want to rant about critical fumble rules, not resolve the issue. After he replied to you, you posted six times in between 4 am and now. Most of them are pretty lengthy posts and almost as aggressive as the initial posts, which means he might not reply to them at all.

Basically, I don't think posting more information will help your case at all; I don't think the DM is going to be convinced at this point. I guess I think it would be best to politely withdraw from the game.

As far as those rules go, they look fine. I don't think he'll go for them now, though.

[Musco]

You have won an internet, sir.

Yay! My very first internet! Thanks!

And seriously, OP, I stick to my point, if you're going to threaten something, get it done. I'd quit.

As an aside, I wouldn't actually have threatened to quit over it in the first place, I mean, it's just a game, if the guy wants to have his fun, and it gets in the way of YOUR fun - particularly, even if I didn't agree, I wouldn't bother, if nothing, it'd make encounters more memorable due to an unexpected situation, even if the situation in question is "slips and impales self, leaving the rest of the group to fend for themselves" - just go have your fun somewhere else, and leave him with his.

I'd at most ask to not be permanently harmed by it, for instance, if I actually DIE due to a homebrew critical fumble rule, I'd demand the DM to let me be rezzed at a low cost/as part of the story, and without a level loss (after all, level loss is RAW, and RAW does not include "randomly dying from a critical fumble rolled in a hidden table made by someone unnofficialy").

[2xMachina]

Personally, I prefer to let them realize how bad the Fail Rules are. Force the NPCs to roll as many dice as possible and watch them kill themselves.

Like getting a high AC and walking around provoking AoO. Or put yourself in position to cause accidental harm to everything around you (like using alchemist fire, or fight in cities to cause massive collateral damage accidentally)

When the BBEG kills itself through the Fail Rules, the DM will come around themself, no need to talk.

If you could, just play it for LOLZ and cause massive mayhem. Cause, the DM said it's Fun right?

And play your real char (that you are attached to) in another game.

[Tyndmyr]

Personally, I prefer to let them realize how bad the Fail Rules are. Force the NPCs to roll as many dice as possible and watch them kill themselves.

Like getting a high AC and walking around provoking AoO. Or put yourself in position to cause accidental harm to everything around you (like using alchemist fire, or fight in cities to cause massive collateral damage accidentally)

Yeah, I've done this. I've hired hirelings(dirt cheap), to make ridiculous quantities of throwing attacks with rocks when crazy crit rules were in place. I could basically guarantee an auto-kill on things. With rocks.

If in an exceptionally bad game that you won't quit, playing for humor value is a legitimate outcome.

[cagemarrow]

Any chance you could summon one of those demons that forces attackers to roll twice and take the worse roll to you advantage? I don't remember the name but had a party fight them from the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits adventure. Had levels in Assassin. . .

[Moginheden]

I DM a campaign with a critical hit deck and a critical fumble deck. The second you allow critical hits into the game you NEED critical fumbles in there to balance them, especially if you allow for fatality rolls, (20, 20, hit or sometimes 20, 20, 20 being an instant kill of anything, a common house rule.)

That twf barbarian who rolls a ton of d20s gets a chance to have something bad happening to him equal to the chance something amazing happens to him. The wizard who doesn't roll any d20s can't critically succeed or fail so it's balanced.

Even without fatality rules the ability of the d20 roller to get a critical hit gives them an advantage over the wizard without any chance at a critical hit.

Critical fails are not a bad idea to have, but they do need to be balanced against critical successes.

The only problem I'm seeing here is balancing failures vs successes. If there is an entry on his hidden table that reads "you lose" there needs to be an entry on a similar table for critical hits that reads "you win". It sounds like most of his table is the standard "you just missed" so the mathematical odds of getting something worse could quite easily be equal to the chance of confirming a critical hit. You'll just have to trust the DM isn't being a ****.


Also when I DM a campaign both the players and the things they are fighting have access to critical hits, fatalities, and critical failures. The party has rolled a fatality on about 10 different mobs so far and last session was the first time I rolled a fatality against them. They were understandably shocked by this but accepted it as it was fair and they had used this against their enemies previously. I have had enemies hurt/impair themselves whenever they roll a 1 followed by a roll of 5 or less, (same rules as the players)

Personally I don't use critical failures on skills as there isn't a critical success to balance it, but if you put those in too and they were worth getting then failures would be fine.

[2xMachina]

20-Critical hit + confirm: +100% damage (for a x2 weapon)
1-Fumble: -100% damage

Sounds balanced. Heck, if anything, the 1-Fumble should be nerfed by adding a confirm roll.

If you use the, 20,20,20 autokill then sure, crit fumble being added would be balanced. When a 1,1,1 is the only time it happens.

But it's like adding weights of 1 ton on both sides of a see-saw. Balanced sure, but it'll break the plank sooner or later.

[Moginheden]

20-Critical hit + confirm: +100% damage (for a x2 weapon)
1-Fumble: -100% damage

Sounds balanced. Heck, if anything, the 1-Fumble should be nerfed by adding a confirm roll.

If you use the, 20,20,20 autokill then sure, crit fumble being added would be balanced. When a 1,1,1 is the only time it happens.

But it's like adding weights of 1 ton on both sides of a see-saw. Balanced sure, but it'll break the plank sooner or later.

You seem to be missing the whole natural 20 = hit part. No confirm needed. A level 1 unarmed commoner can hit that 60 AC level 20 warrior on a natural 20. He can't hit on anything BUT a 20. That's what balances the natural 1, not a critical hit.

edit: Also most of the fumbles in my deck are things like "got your elbow caught in the bowstring, 1d3 dex penalty for 3 rounds" That's no where near as powerful as a fatality. The critical hit deck we use has a similar effect that happens to the enemy along with normal damage, (instead of double damage.)

[2xMachina]

Yeah, you're right. *20 = +100% damage. 1 = -100% damage. Looks like 3.5's crit/fumble is already balanced. :P

EDIT: *Explaining: A 20 with no confirm is just an hit, so +100% damage. A 20 with confirm, is +100% damage on top of the normal hit damage.

[Tyndmyr]

I DM a campaign with a critical hit deck and a critical fumble deck. The second you allow critical hits into the game you NEED critical fumbles in there to balance them, especially if you allow for fatality rolls, (20, 20, hit or sometimes 20, 20, 20 being an instant kill of anything, a common house rule.)

That twf barbarian who rolls a ton of d20s gets a chance to have something bad happening to him equal to the chance something amazing happens to him. The wizard who doesn't roll any d20s can't critically succeed or fail so it's balanced.

Even without fatality rules the ability of the d20 roller to get a critical hit gives them an advantage over the wizard without any chance at a critical hit.

You realize that "immunity to critical hits" is a thing. All undead have it automatically, for instance. Not that big a deal to get.

Immunity to fumbles are not a thing, because fumbles are officially not a thing.

No balance.


The only problem I'm seeing here is balancing failures vs successes. If there is an entry on his hidden table that reads "you lose" there needs to be an entry on a similar table for critical hits that reads "you win". It sounds like most of his table is the standard "you just missed" so the mathematical odds of getting something worse could quite easily be equal to the chance of confirming a critical hit. You'll just have to trust the DM isn't being a ****.

Read my blog post. This is mathmatical fallacy that's shown there. Adding equal "you wins" to "you lose" options does not preserve the existing balance. It skews it against the players.


Personally I don't use critical failures on skills as there isn't a critical success to balance it, but if you put those in too and they were worth getting then failures would be fine.

If you allow a critical fail on a 1 for skill checks...like say, falling down for balance...

Then walking down a slope results in each char face planting 5% of the time. Party of four? Someone is slamming into the ground about every thirty seconds because of existential walking failure.

I suppose you could add crits to give "balance". Joe, you can't walk at all now. You just slide. On your face. Bob, you walk amazingly. You proceed to moonwalk on joe's sliding fail body.

Or, we could just accept that this is terrible, and not do it.

[Moginheden]

You realize that "immunity to critical hits" is a thing. All undead have it automatically, for instance. Not that big a deal to get.

Immunity to fumbles are not a thing, because fumbles are officially not a thing.

No balance.

Actually immunity to fumbles IS a thing. It's called "immunity to critical hits" If an enemy can't crit you, you can' crit yourself either.



If you allow a critical fail on a 1 for skill checks...like say, falling down for balance...

Then walking down a slope results in each char face planting 5% of the time. Party of four? Someone is slamming into the ground about every thirty seconds because of existential walking failure.

I suppose you could add crits to give "balance". Joe, you can't walk at all now. You just slide. On your face. Bob, you walk amazingly. You proceed to moonwalk on joe's sliding fail body.

This is what take 10 is for. You can easily avoid any chance at a fumble for all mundane tasks. If you are rolling a skill that means it's a special circumstance where something actually could plausibly go right or wrong.

edit: I don't remember if it was a houserule or we found it somewhere but in the games I'm in walking on a flat, dry surface is a DC of 5. It is possible to fail it if you have something odd happen to you, but 99.999% of the time you take 10 and succeed.

[Moginheden]

Read my blog post. This is mathmatical fallacy that's shown there. Adding equal "you wins" to "you lose" options does not preserve the existing balance. It skews it against the players.

Can you please link or quote the relevant section? I didn't see it.

[Ceaon]

Can you please link or quote the relevant section? I didn't see it.

It's very simple, actually; no math required. A player will roll WAY more dice than any single monster ever will. Thus, they will fumble more often.

[Gavinfoxx]

And player characters have more individual investment to them than any given monster the players fight, which is often only there to be killed.

[Moginheden]

It's very simple, actually; no math required. A player will roll WAY more dice than any single monster ever will. Thus, they will fumble more often.

And player characters have more individual investment to them than any given monster the players fight, which is often only there to be killed.

I guess this is a different mindset. You are treating the player characters as epic untouchable heroes, destined to always win. Whereas the things they are fighting are just cardboard cutouts there to make the heroes look good.

I tend to think of the player characters more as people in a world who are attempting a heroic task. They don't have a destiny to always win, and that makes their victories all the more sweet because they earned them.

Each monster might only roll a couple of failure chances in game, but they represent the enemies who have overcome the same odds as the player throughout their "lives" even if most of that time is off screen and they were made up on the fly by the DM.

[Gavinfoxx]

The thing is... by level 6, a D&D character is superhuman, better than any real world human ever was or ever will be. You have to remember that.

Also, fumbles aren't realistic at ALL. People don't have those types of problems in fights, or using skills like that. This sort of thing makes these D&D heroes worse than real life people in fights or when they use their skills.

[Moginheden]

The thing is... by level 6, a D&D character is superhuman, better than any real world human ever was or ever will be. You have to remember that.

Just like a dragon is more powerful than any human ever was or ever will be, not seeing a connection here.


Also, fumbles aren't realistic at ALL. People don't have problems in fights, or using skills like that. This sort of thing makes these D&D heroes worse than real life people in fights or when they use their skills.
Have you ever been in a true melee? (most likely LARP, or a bar fight) I regularly participate in Belegarth (http://www.belegarth.com) and these things DO happen.

When you are in the chaos of combat it's not like at a shooting range where you can take your time and line up every shot. You will occasionally trip on a rock, not notice your friend coming up behind you, lose your balance, etc.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, well. You all aren't as serious as the people who actually train the martial arts of this stuff. Look at the ARMA link I posted -- those people are seriously training in renaissance and medieval martial arts, with period weapons. RMA groups like ARMA are the closest modern thing to the sorts of training that really competent folk -- Knights and such -- had. Which is closest to the implied capability of D&D Heroes. And while injuries and such during training or bouts happen, and people make mistakes, they don't happen in the way most of these critical fumble tables often indicate. Really, the idea of 'making a mistake and your enemy taking advantage of that' is really perfectly contained within the "Armor Class" and "To-Hit" system. If you REALLY want to simulate that, use Tome of Battle Counters and such. You have to remember that D&D characters are supposed to be trained heroes, the elite of the elite, people who are better than everyone else around them... of course these people wouldn't make stupid mistakes as often -- or even MORE OFTEN -- than others!

[Rallicus]

Also, fumbles aren't realistic at ALL. People don't have those types of problems in fights, or using skills like that. This sort of thing makes these D&D heroes worse than real life people in fights or when they use their skills.

I think you might be watching too many movies or something. Also, "realism" probably isn't the best term to be using in a Dungeons and Dragons argument. There's a better term - but I can seem to think of it at the moment.

As Mogin said, in the chaos of battle or when attempting anything when your concentration isn't perfect, there's chances of messing up big time. From personal experience I've tripped over NOTHING after being attacked by five people outside a party (I reckon I rolled a 1 on my reflex save). That's the reason there's options to take 10 and 20 outside of combat.

Judging from your DM's "fumbling" rules, though, I can sort of see where you're coming from? It seems like he's got a whole set of "whacky, zany bad things" that will happen to anyone that rolls a 1. That's not necessarily bad DMing. It actually sounds kind of interesting to me, as though you're taking part in bizarre world where crazy bad things happen for almost no reason.

I'll honestly be surprised if you even win this argument with the DM. And honestly? You're criticizing a DM because he's not DMing the game that you want to play.

Maybe you're better suited to be a DM yourself, instead of a player.

[JadePhoenix]

I think you might be watching too many movies or something. Also, "realism" probably isn't the best term to be using in a Dungeons and Dragons argument. There's a better term - but I can seem to think of it at the moment.
Verossimilitude.

[Larkas]

I think you might be watching too many movies or something. Also, "realism" probably isn't the best term to be using in a Dungeons and Dragons argument. There's a better term - but I can seem to think of it at the moment.

"Verisimilitude"?

[Gavinfoxx]

Here's the ARMA link I was talking about...

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

These fumble rules are something like, "Roll a one, hit yourself" and such. It is the possibility of injuring yourself with your weapon in a way that the actual rolled damage, damages you or your adjacent ally which you have been drilling with and practicing with for weeks/months, that I am having a huuuge amount of concern over. That just doesn't make any sense, or no people would ever fight adjacent to one another. Really harming someone --especially someone trained-- with a melee weapon takes intent! Or otherwise the old fight masters wouldn't stress it so much...

I am fine with minor debuffs once in a while, but stupid mistakes like shooting your horse or your foot or killing the guy next to you which you have trained and drilled with FOREVER or whatever just don't happen the way most fumble rules say they do.

[Rallicus]

"Verisimilitude"?

Yes, thank you.



These fumble rules are something like, "Roll a one, hit yourself" and such. It is the possibility of injuring yourself with your weapon in a way that the actual rolled damage, damages you or your adjacent ally which you have been drilling with and practicing with for weeks/months, that I am having a huuuge amount of concern over. That just doesn't make any sense, or no people would ever fight adjacent to one another.

Again, why can't you suspend your disbelief for a moment and think of the world as a bizarre place with strange fumbles? Like, even if you trained every day and could do something in your sleep, something about the atmosphere combined with a curse from the deities causes extreme failures such as this?

He could easily come up with an IC reason and trump your argument entirely, provided he's a good DM.

[Gavinfoxx]

Because I'm supposed to be playing a hero who goes beyond what most people can do? By level like 3, I shouldn't be making mistakes that trained fighters in the real world didn't make?? By level 6, I should be capable of performing optimally in situations that the best historic fighters would have difficulty performing at their best? By level 7, I am most definitely superhuman, and it gets more incredible and powerful from there?

[Moginheden]

Yea, well. You all aren't as serious as the people who actually train the martial arts of this stuff. Look at the ARMA link I posted -- those people are seriously training in renaissance and medieval martial arts, with period weapons. RMA groups like ARMA are the closest modern thing to the sorts of training that really competent folk -- Knights and such -- had. Which is closest to the implied capability of D&D Heroes. And while injuries and such during training or bouts happen, and people make mistakes, they don't happen in the way most of these critical fumble tables often indicate. Really, the idea of 'making a mistake and your enemy taking advantage of that' is really perfectly contained within the "Armor Class" and "To-Hit" system. If you REALLY want to simulate that, use Tome of Battle Counters and such. You have to remember that D&D characters are supposed to be trained heroes, the elite of the elite, people who are better than everyone else around them... of course these people wouldn't make stupid mistakes as often -- or even MORE OFTEN -- than others!

"To err is human" you know that quote? It's quite true. The frequency of fumbles will go up with how often you are doing something. A data entry clerk might be able to enter 100 reports in the time a normal person would type out only one, but on average they'd get more than one of those reports wrong. (That's why it's normal to have a checking step on all large batches of anything in the real world. Mistakes happen.) edit: even to robotized manufacturing, (the real-world version of superhuman for specific tasks)

Even in your example of the ARMA people you admit they sometimes get injuries. That's a critical fumble.

I agree with you that the chance shouldn't be 1/20, but the exact chance it really is, is more than 0% too. In my group it's 1/20 with a confirm of 1-5/20 but 1/20 then a miss vs the same AC is another common rule that would work fine too. It sounds like your DM is 1/20 + <unknown>/100 and that might be fair, (but we can't tell because we don't know the math.)

[Gavinfoxx]

I am fine with an occasional injury but Harming yourself with your weapon if you are anything other than a Frenzied Berserker frenzying doesn't make sense to me. No one else is that reckless.

[Rallicus]

Because I'm supposed to be playing a hero who goes beyond what most people can do? By level like 3, I shouldn't be making mistakes that trained fighters in the real world didn't make?? By level 6, I should be capable of performing optimally in situations that the best historic fighters would have difficulty performing at their best? By level 7, I am most definitely superhuman, and it gets more incredible and powerful from there?

Well you obviously didn't read my post and you obviously are still dead-set on this notion of "realism" and what your DnD games should and shouldn't be.

Good luck with everything, I guess. No point in playing devil's advocate if you're just going to ignore everything I've written.

[Gavinfoxx]

@Rallicus: I'll go back and see what I missed, sorry.

Alright. The thing is -- this DM is, in everything but those fumble rules, presenting a serious, straight faced, mostly mundane-focused world. Random spirits messing you up isn't a thing that is, you know... part of the feel he has established. I'm fine with silly fumbles that make you worse than normal folk in a silly game -- but that isn't what I have been playing, nor is it what I have signed up for, nor is it -- apart from those fumbles-- what he has described in his ad.

Its like... you don't want a magic fairy pulling down someone's pants causing them to impale themselves on their sword in Game of Thrones.

[Moginheden]

I am fine with an occasional injury but Harming yourself with your weapon if you are anything other than a Frenzied Berserker frenzying doesn't make sense to me. No one else is that reckless.

When you are dealing with a weapon more powerful than a chainsaw and swinging it in at least a 90 degree arc, if not more, more than once every 6 seconds? (how many attacks per round are you making?) Hell yes you are going to hit yourself with it occasionally. It takes your superhuman abilities to not decapitate yourself instantly with that kind of speed on a weapon that quickly approaches a lightsaber-level safety hazard.

[Deophaun]

I guess this is a different mindset. You are treating the player characters as epic untouchable heroes, destined to always win. Whereas the things they are fighting are just cardboard cutouts there to make the heroes look good.
That is a real stretch there. It's like saying that chess players are all delicate flowers because the game doesn't let them critical fumble moving a knight to make them accidentally capture their own queen.

[Gavinfoxx]

How does that have anything to do with how a Fighter 20 is Four times more likely to fumble than a Warrior 1, in a single full attack? A Fighter 20 is a god among men. Why is he more likely to hit himself with a sword than a guy who just barely picked up a weapon?

[Rallicus]

Alright. The thing is -- this DM is, in everything but those fumble rules, presenting a serious, straight faced, mostly mundane-focused world.


But see, you had a preconceived notion of what the game was supposed to be like even before you started. You said it yourself, that you had a "reading comprehension fail." Meaning this DM was honest and flat out about the rules from the get-go, and you signed up without reading everything properly.

And again, and I can't stress this enough: he's the DM! The DM is the storyteller, the one who brings the world to the players. The players interact with it. The players can drive a story, sure, and they can contribute to the world, but the DM is the creator. The world is his.

If George R. R. Martin wanted to add a magic fairy that pulled down peoples' pants and caused them to fall on their swords, he could! It's his world, his story. Yes, his readers would be confused as hell and yes, he'd lose probably all of his fan base, but you know what? It's his stuff, he can do whatever he wants with it (so long as he doesn't mind losing potential money).

[Moginheden]

@Rallicus: I'll go back and see what I missed, sorry.

Alright. The thing is -- this DM is, in everything but those fumble rules, presenting a serious, straight faced, mostly mundane-focused world. Random spirits messing you up isn't a thing that is, you know... part of the feel he has established. I'm fine with silly fumbles that make you worse than normal folk in a silly game -- but that isn't what I have been playing, nor is it what I have signed up for, nor is it -- apart from those fumbles-- what he has described in his ad.

Its like... you don't want a magic fairy pulling down someone's pants causing them to impale themselves on their sword in Game of Thrones.

Without seeing the exact results on his fumble table I can't really tell if this DM is screwing up power levels by making fumbles worse than they should be. If the most likely outcome when you roll a 1 is you hit yourself, (or an ally) then there is definitely a problem. But the problem is in power level, and possibly in frequency, not in having fumbles at all.

I know in my games there is no "you kill yourself" fumble in the deck. There are a few "you hit yourself for normal weapon damage", but they are rare. Most of the fumbles give you a temporary penalty that could turn the tide of a battle, but won't do you in on their own.

[Gavinfoxx]

The thing is, with several character types, "you hit yourself with normal weapon damage" IS "you kill yourself". That is a major part of what I am complaining about!! I don't want to have to be arbitrarily restricted from being awesome by fumble rules like that! Where I, you know -- deal normal weapon damage to myself, my mount, or an ally near me. That is what I am complaining about, because I'll end up killing whatever of the above!

Also... DMs aren't gods of their game. The point of a game is to tell a story that stars the player characters. They are the heroes of the movie, and the point is to cooperatively tell a cohesive story, together!

[Moginheden]

That is a real stretch there. It's like saying that chess players are all delicate flowers because the game doesn't let them critical fumble moving a knight to make them accidentally capture their own queen.

No, it's like saying chess is just a game, and doesn't teach you how to really kill a king.

{Scrubbed}

[Lonely Tylenol]

I guess this is a different mindset. You are treating the player characters as epic untouchable heroes, destined to always win. Whereas the things they are fighting are just cardboard cutouts there to make the heroes look good.

If I may--and I think this is where the argument in this particular post breaks down--a well-trained fighter is going to injure themselves more often, and more grievously, against a cardboard cutout than an untrained, unproficient, anemic commoner lackey with -5 to-hit.

This isn't even a "duress of battle, heat of the moment" argument to be made here. A Ranger 20 shooting the broad side of a Gargantuan barn (AC 1, 10 - 5 for 0 DEX - 4 for size penalty) takes an arrow to the knee, shoots his eye out, or otherwise causes serious damage to life and limb four times as much as a Commoner 1 who doesn't even know how to wield a longbow--more if he uses Rapid Shot or other class features and abilities to increase the number of attacks--which is problematic if the OP wants to play a ranged attacker, which he does.

There is no reason this should ever be true.

[Gavinfoxx]

4e is a tactical miniatures combat game which lets people add whatever amounts of 'roleplay' in it as they want. It provides a set of rules for adjudicating combat encounters between fantasy superheroes and their foes, and leaves most of the roleplaying rules fairly limited, so people can choose the level they want.

[Moginheden]

If I may--and I think this is where the argument in this particular post breaks down--a well-trained fighter is going to injure themselves more often, and more grievously, against a cardboard cutout than an untrained, unproficient, anemic commoner lackey with -5 to-hit.

This isn't even a "duress of battle, heat of the moment" argument to be made here. A Ranger 20 shooting the broad side of a Gargantuan barn (AC 1, 10 - 5 for 0 DEX - 4 for size penalty) takes an arrow to the knee, shoots his eye out, or otherwise causes serious damage to life and limb four times as much as a Commoner 1 who doesn't even know how to wield a longbow--more if he uses Rapid Shot or other class features and abilities to increase the number of attacks--which is problematic if the OP wants to play a ranged attacker, which he does.

There is no reason this should ever be true.

Except the second you take out true melee, (by substituting a cardboard cutout or the broad side of a barn) you should be taking 10, not rolling.

Then the trained warrior never fails.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Except the second you take out true melee, (by substituting a cardboard cutout or the broad side of a barn) you should be taking 10, not rolling.

Then the trained warrior never fails.

You can't take 10 on an attack roll or saving throw, ever. You're justifying a bad houserule with more houserules.

[dragonsamurai77]

Except the second you take out true melee, (by substituting a cardboard cutout or the broad side of a barn) you should be taking 10, not rolling.

Then the trained warrior never fails.

Taking 10 only applies to skills.

EDIT: Swordsage'd.

[Deophaun]

No, it's like saying chess is just a game, and doesn't teach you how to really kill a king.
And what is D&D really teaching you to do? I don't understand the point of your statement, or how it applies to the discussion.

{Scrubbed}
Again, not seeing how this applies at all to the topic of critical fumbles. I'm also not seeing what your personal issues with 4th edition have to do with the conversation.

I will say that it's odd that you seem to be complaining about having the dice dictate what your character does, when you are defending a system that places more emphasis on random die rolls and less on the character.

[Moginheden]

Well I guess I'm going more by RAI not RAW by allowing the take 10 action on something that d&d never planned for. Taking 10 isn't mentioned on attacks or saves because you aren't supposed to ever roll attacks or saves in a situation where you can take 10.

The 3.5 attack and save rules are designed for combat, and the take 10 action is designed for "out of combat".

So by RAW you might be right on the cardboard cut outs, but the player isn't going to be fighting them. When it actually matters the chaos of a melee will apply.

[Alienist]

Threatening to quit a D&D game over one houserule is like threatening to quit a game of marbles because the chalk circle is not perfectly round, but slightly elliptical.

Threatening to quit a 3.5 D&D game over one houserule that is unfavourable to melee is like going to a restaurant, ordering the lasagna, and then sending it back because it had a single strand of spaghetti in it, and 'you don't like pasta'.

That said, I am currently considering quitting my current campaign because the DM was complaining about one of the players being a power gamer, so he made a restrictive set of character creation guidelines, which everyone else _except_ that one person followed. And he just lets him get away with flagrantly breaking the rules on allowed sourcebooks. Then there's the fluctuating AC - being female is worth about +4 to +5 to hit.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well I guess I'm going more by RAI not RAW by allowing the take 10 action on something that d&d never planned for. Taking 10 isn't mentioned on attacks or saves because you aren't supposed to ever roll attacks or saves in a situation where you can take 10.

So if I can suddenly take 10 on attack rolls, does that mean I can take 20 as well?

I ask because of the following, from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm):


Checks Without Rolls
Taking 20
Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

If I take 20 on punching the ground (or better yet for this argument, swatting a fly), do I automatically incur a critical fumble if I do so? And if so, and this critical fumble kills or otherwise incapacitates me, does that death, dismemberment, or incapacitation impede the automatic success from taking 20?

We all know a Commoner 1 can be defeated by a housecat, but can a Wizard 20, with the help of critical fumbles and poor judgment, be defeated by a horsefly?


The 3.5 attack and save rules are designed for combat, and the take 10 action is designed for "out of combat".

And what of "out of combat" scenarios? What if critical fumbles applied to skill and ability checks (another common houserule that I have personally witnessed at a table I was sitting at)? If I take 20 on a Search check, does this mean I automatically incur all risks of failure brought upon me by critical fumbles in the doing, as above? Can I die of a fatal aneurysm while looting the room?

Pardon the repeated use of reductio ad absurdum, but this is all very absurd, and that makes its occurrence no less likely!

[Moginheden]

And what is D&D really teaching you to do? I don't understand the point of your statement, or how it applies to the discussion.

What I'm saying by the bit you originally quoted is, in a role-playing game the fact that the players have more on screen failure chances than each enemy doesn't matter because the game is supposed to be a simulation of an entire world where those enemies would have had just as many failure chances each, you just didn't see them.

You then tried to argue that I was saying something about chess and I replied that chess isn't a role-playing game, so that logic didn't apply. You are comparing apples to oranges.


Again, not seeing how this applies at all to the topic of critical fumbles. I'm also not seeing what your personal issues with 4th edition have to do with the conversation.

I will say that it's odd that you seem to be complaining about having the dice dictate what your character does, when you are defending a system that places more emphasis on random die rolls and less on the character.

What I was saying by this section you quoted of mine was that I prefer to have the game be decided by a rich story rather than the same rules each time. By having critical fumbles in the game you get more immersion into what's going on in the world than "I hit" "you hit" "you sunk my battleship". You can get things like a character favoring a leg because they got hit there. or missing a line of conversation because something happened to their ear.

One of the biggest problems 3.5 has is combat takes a long time. My group is really immersed into the game until people start rolling attack dice. Then other conversations start up while people are waiting for their turn. If you have something more happen than just hit point numbers on a spreadsheet changing then people get more involved. Critical hits and fumbles can add that extra intrigue that reminds you it's not just a game of battleship.

All of my references to different D&D versions are just to give examples from my experience of people reacting to situations relevant to the conversation, not attempt to start discussing the pros and cons of each system.

[Moginheden]

So if I can suddenly take 10 on attack rolls, does that mean I can take 20 as well?

Yes you can take 20, (Presuming your target doesn't do anything during the 20 attempts it takes.) You don't incur the critical fail OR critical successes for doing so though. You have failed 19 times, but you never critically failed because you never rolled a 1, you got a "I fail" that is not the same thing.

You also didn't ever roll a 20. You got a 20 modifier but you aren't going to get any of the bonuses a critical success would give because you never rolled a 20 nor did you confirm it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

4e is a tactical miniatures combat game which lets people add whatever amounts of 'roleplay' in it as they want. It provides a set of rules for adjudicating combat encounters between fantasy superheroes and their foes, and leaves most of the roleplaying rules fairly limited, so people can choose the level they want.

I don't really see how 3.5 is any different from that. 3.5 mechanics are focused on combat, with a handful of rules for non-combat situations and some fluff text. 4e is the same. I don't see where 4e encourages RP less. In fact, 4e's default setting has more information, including actual history.

[Deophaun]

What I'm saying by the bit you originally quoted is, in a role-playing game the fact that the players have more on screen failure chances than each enemy doesn't matter because the game is supposed to be a simulation of an entire world where those enemies would have had just as many failure chances each, you just didn't see them.

You then tried to argue that I was saying something about chess and I replied that chess isn't a role-playing game, so that logic didn't apply. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Um, read my post. You were saying that not wanting critical fumbles is wanting to have nothing bad happen to the characters, ever. I cited chess because it is a hard case: it is a game where there is no randomness whatsoever. And yet, even without randomness, bad things happen. People actually lose chess. And there's no critical fumble system! Shocking I know.

So, whether or not you are simulating a world doesn't enter into it: bad things happen in games without randomness. In order for your statement to be true, critical fumbles must be the only means for bad things to happen to players (or, if I'm being generous, the dominant means for bad things to happen). This is not true in D&D, which is why your statement was just as ridiculous as saying that people play chess because they can't handle losing.

What I was saying by this section you quoted of mine was that I prefer to have the game be decided by a rich story rather than the same rules each time. By having critical fumbles in the game you get more immersion into what's going on in the world than "I hit" "you hit" "you sunk my battleship". You can get things like a character favoring a leg because they got hit there. or missing a line of conversation because something happened to their ear.
And you can do that without critical fumbles as well. You can do that without rolling a die. That's why I find it so ironic that you're citing critical fumble rules as something that mitigates against roll-playing: If you need a die to tell you to favor your leg, then you're roll-playing.

One of the biggest problems 3.5 has is combat takes a long time. My group is really immersed into the game until people start rolling attack dice. Then other conversations start up while people are waiting for their turn. If you have something more happen than just hit point numbers on a spreadsheet changing then people get more involved. Critical hits and fumbles can add that extra intrigue that reminds you it's not just a game of battleship.
Or you could actually have plot happen in combat. It also seems odd that we're going to speed up combat by making something new to roll dice for (a critical fumble chart).

All of my references to different D&D versions are just to give examples from my experience of people reacting to situations relevant to the conversation, not attempt to start discussing the pros and cons of each system.
I've had games of 3.5 that were all roll-play (perhaps not coincidentally, critical hit and fumble charts featured prominently in them). I've had games of 4e where I never touched a die. All of those experiences are irrelevant to the discussion.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes you can take 20, (Presuming your target doesn't do anything during the 20 attempts it takes.) You don't incur the critical fail OR critical successes for doing so though. You have failed 19 times, but you never critically failed because you never rolled a 1, you got a "I fail" that is not the same thing.

Actually, it is. You can't successfully take 20 on Use Magic Device for exactly this reason--if you roll a natural 1 on a Use Magic Device check, you can't make the check again for 24 hours, and written into the rules for taking 20 is the line that says you incur any penalties for failure in attempting the act, of which this is one (and it stops you from completing the check)!

Even if this weren't true, if you were attempting to activate a magic device blindly by taking 20, you would automatically suffer the mishap which is the penalty for failing by 10 or more, which can deal damage to you or even destroy the magic item you're trying to activate blindly!

Critical fumble rules are essentially penalties for failure. I'm sorry, not "essentially"--that is all that they are. That should mean that the penalty for failure should apply to take 20 checks for things that have penalties for failure, which includes attack rolls against horseflies.


You also didn't ever roll a 20. You got a 20 modifier but you aren't going to get any of the bonuses a critical success would give because you never rolled a 20 nor did you confirm it.

Also in the "Taking 20" rules (this is the first paragraph from the same section of the same page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm)):


Checks without Rolls
Taking 20
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. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

This doesn't incur critical successes normally, but only, one can easily argue, because skills don't normally incur critical successes (in fact, they only ever do with critical success houserules). Attack rolls, however, do--you can critical hit normally with a spear, which means you should just as easily be able to critical success with a spear while taking 20.

You're taking creative license with the rules when you say that taking 20 with a combat action in a non-combat situation doesn't incur critical successes or critical fumbles for the 1s or 20s that are assumed to occur with skill checks, which is fallacious, because this is only known to be true for skill checks because skill checks don't normally incur automatic successes or failures anyway, and even if they did, there'd be no RAW for crit fumbles or crit successes, because that isn't a thing. Which I guess is understandable, of course, because it's...


something that d&d never planned for.

Because...


The 3.5 attack and save rules are designed for combat, and the take 10 action is designed for "out of combat".

The problem that we now have is, regardless of whether your houserules make more sense, in-world, than the absurd extremes that RAW clearly allows as a direct consequence of not having them (and instead using the rules), you still need houserules to fix houserules designed to fix houserules, which is a bad precedent to be setting for houserules anyway.

[Worira]

What I'm saying by the bit you originally quoted is, in a role-playing game the fact that the players have more on screen failure chances than each enemy doesn't matter because the game is supposed to be a simulation of an entire world where those enemies would have had just as many failure chances each, you just didn't see them.


Do you ever have the BBEG die in a wacky sparring accident offscreen, by any chance? Or perhaps slip on an inconveniently-positioned twig and decapitate himself in the middle of slaughtering helpless villagers?

[Doug Lampert]

Do you ever have the BBEG die in a wacky sparring accident offscreen, by any chance? Or perhaps slip on an inconveniently-positioned twig and decapitate himself in the middle of slaughtering helpless villagers?

I actually have had multiple BBEGs killed offscreen by NPCs. That's the sort of thing that can happen in a realistic world and it adds versimilitude.

I've never had one fumble himself to death in an amusing accident involving a bannanna peal, because that sort of thing doesn't add to versimiltude, and a fumble table that allows such is bad in every way.

Seriously, in the game as a game it's bad, it adds an element of randomness that the game doesn't need and that has nothing to do with skill (other than the skill to build a character that never actually rolls dice).

In the game as simulation it's bad. Skilled people don't screw up 5% of the time, or even 0.25% of the time. I make dozens of skilled decisions on my drive to work each day, my insurance company would be rather upset if I screwed up even 0.0125% of the time. Combat and real life involve unlikely accidents, but a d20 based resolution mechanism doesn't have any way to represent something that unlikely, when you chose a d20 mechanism you basically decided to round all PC involved probabilities to the nearest 2.5%. At those odds there is no chance of an unlikley accident.

In the game as a story it's DISASTEROUS! The story is about the PCs as heroes. Not incompetent comic relief. PC fumbles are all about the PCs being incompetent comic relief.

Nor do you need it to represent luck breaks. A bed-ridden crippled grandmother one day away from death has a -5 to strength (at worst), the strongest man alive probably has a +4 to strength. The grandmother wins a arm-wrestling match with the strong man 13.75% of the time with the rules as written (if the strongman takes 10 this drops to 5%). YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE THE GAME MORE RANDOM THAN THAT!

If you want to play with mere mortals who fail often and can die anytime they enter combat, allow me to introduce you to a shocking concept known as low level play. A kobold crits you for 12 damage and takes down your fighter, congradulations, you must have left yourself wide open for that to happen. Random bad stuff. It's what you might want from a fumble table, and the game already gives it to you.

[The Underlord]

I don't really see how 3.5 is any different from that. 3.5 mechanics are focused on combat, with a handful of rules for non-combat situations and some fluff text. 4e is the same. I don't see where 4e encourages RP less. In fact, 4e's default setting has more information, including actual history.

You are my hero now.

[animewatcha]

Personally, I prefer to let them realize how bad the Fail Rules are. Force the NPCs to roll as many dice as possible and watch them kill themselves.

Like getting a high AC and walking around provoking AoO. Or put yourself in position to cause accidental harm to everything around you (like using alchemist fire, or fight in cities to cause massive collateral damage accidentally)

When the BBEG kills itself through the Fail Rules, the DM will come around themself, no need to talk.

If you could, just play it for LOLZ and cause massive mayhem. Cause, the DM said it's Fun right?

And play your real char (that you are attached to) in another game.


Yeah, I've done this. I've hired hirelings(dirt cheap), to make ridiculous quantities of throwing attacks with rocks when crazy crit rules were in place. I could basically guarantee an auto-kill on things. With rocks.

If in an exceptionally bad game that you won't quit, playing for humor value is a legitimate outcome.

Any chance that the OP can 'stay' in the game, but get a retrain of sorts on the character? Then the OP works with folks on this forum to MAXIMIZE, the number of times that the DM has to go to his chart of fumbles '90% of the time' versus the story itself? Be it class features, luck feats, etc. Whatever it takes to get the DM to consider the fumble system as if it were the antichrist?

Heck, level 20 archer fighter with multiple dancing-splitting bows ( you can stick both onto the infamous seeker's bow from the WOTC website ). By round 4 or so, 24+ attack rolls having to be made each round ( just to be annoying ).

[Ceaon]

I guess this is a different mindset. You are treating the player characters as epic untouchable heroes, destined to always win. Whereas the things they are fighting are just cardboard cutouts there to make the heroes look good.

I tend to think of the player characters more as people in a world who are attempting a heroic task. They don't have a destiny to always win, and that makes their victories all the more sweet because they earned them.

Each monster might only roll a couple of failure chances in game, but they represent the enemies who have overcome the same odds as the player throughout their "lives" even if most of that time is off screen and they were made up on the fly by the DM.

I am not treating the PCs as anything. For me, it's not about realism. I think fumble rules are not fun, which IS something I look for in my games. Above that, they are unnecessary, can ruin dramatic tension, slow down game play and are often implemented because of 'realism', while the oft-mentioned thought example of soldiers maiming or killing themselves while fighting dummies should prove that without more houserules, fumble rules do not increase the realism of a game.

@OP: have you made a decision yet?

[Acanous]

I've played a couple games with crit-fail rules, once as a Wizard and the other as a Cleric. The Wizard never rolled a D20, opting to take a 1 on initiative (And then upping it to "I go first" with Celerity once it hit mid-level play) and the Cleric had the Luck Domain, loaded up on nothing but luck feats, and got herself a luckblade at the first opportunity.

With the Cleric, there was also a spell that allowed me to call any roll a "Natural Twenty" before seeing the result. I abused that spell. A Lot.
With the luck feat that lets you treat nat 1's as 20's by spending from the luck pool, and the luck feat that lets you take another reroll, AND the domain power...

I threatened to triple-nat-twenty five times that campaign. Triple-Nat-Twenty was considered "Instant kill". One of the threats was against a god, another against a dragon.

Your DM will either stop applying fumble rules to you, or YOU will stop applying fumble rules to you. The option is there.

[2xMachina]

BBEG: Nat 1, Nat 1, Nat 1, stabs himself in the gut and dies.
Party: What.
PCs: *Facepalm*
DM: NOOO! My BBEG! He killed himself with a fumble before doing anything.

Great way to end a campaign.

Fail rules are fail.

If you're not using Crit tables (and you shouldn't in a serious game, cause everyone will be chopping their limb off every day or so), crit fail rules shouldn't be there.

You say crit fail fules balance crits? Why? If you roll a 20, you auto hit (+100% damage). If you roll a 1, you auto miss (-100% damage).

20+confirm =200% damage
20+no confirm =100% damage
1=0% damage

[eggynack]

You say crit fail fules balance crits? Why? If you roll a 20, you auto hit (+100% damage). If you roll a 1, you auto miss (-100% damage).

20+confirm =200% damage
20+no confirm =100% damage
1=0% damage
I believe the numbers were intended to come out like this: Given that a warrior strikes an enemy on a given value x,
20+confirm=200%damage
hit>=x =100% damage
hit<x=0%damage
1+confirm=-100%damage.
While this has some mathematical viability, it isn't an identical system to the one the op's dm is proposing, unless only 5% of the fumble rolls have a negative effect.
Moreover, a critical fumble system depowers a section of the game (direct attacks) that seriously doesn't need depowering. If the dm were proposing something like the ability to fumble spells, then it could make a bit of sense because magic is overpowered, and is further removed from reality than melee, deftly avoiding the realism issues that have been brought up. He could theoretically have some short fumble charts for each school of magic, and make casters roll a d20 for each spell. A miscast summoning spell could grant a different creature than intended, be completely pointless, or attack the caster depending on the rolls. I wouldn't enjoy a system like that, because I like my spells doing what I want them to do, but at least it wouldn't imbalance the game more than it's already imbalanced.

[Tyndmyr]

Can you please link or quote the relevant section? I didn't see it.

Long story short, it increases randomness. Regardless of the specifics of crit and fumble rules, they make the random roll of the die a larger input into the success of the fight.

The majority of fights in most campaigns(and by CR balance by strict RAW) are designed such that the PCs have an advantage. The PCs are expected to win the majority of fights they face...and survive nearly all of them. All of this advantage is given in differing stats. For instance, a normal encounter of CR = party level is one level 7 char vs four level 7 players. Obviously, the players are favored to win this matchup easily.

In a completely random outcome, you would expect players to win approximately 50% of the time. Therefore, as you increase the level of randomness, player skill and player stats matter proportionately less.

Obviously, this means that adding crit and fumble rules will increase player loss over the status quo.

In short, going from X/4 = Y to (XZ)/4 = YZ is mathematically not valid.

On a more realistic level, I've done a significant amount of archery. Some of this was real world target archery, and much of it was dagorhir archery. I can't think of a reasonable outcome that would represent a fumble above and beyond a pure miss. Sure, everyone chokes sometimes and blows a shot. But things like just dropping my bow? Shooting myself? Breaking a bowstring? Those things literally don't happen. I mean, you'd have to seriously work at it to shoot yourself with a longbow. And I've never broken a string in combat. There simply is no way to represent the rarity of these things that's worth rolling.

Worse, in the real world, the VAST majority of silly mistakes are made by novices. The more skill someone has, the less likely they are to fumble. In D&D, as you gain skill, you gain iterative attacks. This makes you MORE likely to fumble. So, you get an effect that's exactly opposite of realistic.

And I'm sure that if shooting things with a bow was literally my career, instead of a hobby I participate in occasionally, I'd be much better at it, and even more unlikely to fumble in this manner.

So, really, there is no equality in fumble rules, and they lack realism as well. I've heard humor given as a reason, but not everyone seeks silliness in games. So, malfunctions may be perfectly appropriate for humor reasons in paranoia, where humor is sort of the point of it all, but injecting humor isn't a good idea for all games. The earlier mentioned game of thrones is a setting in which this sort of humor is definitely not appropriate.

[Gavinfoxx]

I'm going to keep playing the game for now... but I got some pretty major concessions from the DM involving changes to his fumble rules. Including confirmation rolls vs AC during combat, and changing the charts so that there is nothing that deals hit point damage to self or allies, and an indication that fumbles on skill checks are more 'interesting' than 'harmful', a response that there isn't fumbling on knowledge checks for Knowledge Devotion, even if I roll a 1, and confirmation that he will let us Take 10 quite often, as the normal rules suggest. So I suppose we will see... I did remind him that we may have to revisit this when Iterative attacks and such start happening...

[Lonely Tylenol]

I would ask if passive checks in general could be immune to the fumble rule, as common sense dictates. For example, all Knowledge checks, including those NOT covered by Knowledge Devotion, as these checks represent knowledge known, and reflect a state of being. You never DO knowledge; you simply either ARE knowledgable, or you AREN'T. The closest thing to a fumble you should ever encounter are misremembering facts, like confusing the resistances and immunities (or even the classification) of a devil with that of a demon, and only then if the Knowledge check itself is failed. Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive checks should similarly not incur a critical fumble; the closest thing I can think of to an outright failure is that the sun catches your eye, or you are looking the other way, when that arrow from the far-off assassin catches you in the chest (or back), which are simply ways of fluffing a normal failure of a Spot check; nothing extraordinarily bad (like a sudden eye strain causing migraines and WIS damage, or something equally stupid) is happening, because, again, it's a passive check; you either ARE aware or you aren't.

[Gavinfoxx]

I just plan on using Take 10 as often as possible, mostly... and making as few skill checks in combat situations as I can manage.

[Answerer]

Oooh, I seem to recall a thread on this forums about some kind of challenge where a Wizard had to beat a Fighter, where the Wizard always rolled a 1 and the Fighter always rolled the maximum on any die he rolled. I don't recall how that went, but there were a lot of ideas for how to build characters that don't roll dice.

[Killer Angel]

Look! an interesting thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243106)... :smallamused:

[Rubik]

Take levels in changeling ACF rogue and exemplar on an Int-build ASAP to take 10 on EVERY SKILL CHECK, ALL THE TIME. And then find ways to substitute saves and attack rolls for more skill checks.