broken foot.

[robertbevan]

my half orc tried to kick in a door in our last session. it was a DC5 check, and i rolled a 1. for my critical fumble check, i rolled a 2.

DM ruled that i broke my foot, and i'll now be hobbling about at half speed until i get it sorted out. pretty generous ruling for those rolls, in my opinion.

so... what are my options for sorting that out? it's not a normal sort of hit point damage that can be fixed with a cure light wounds. in fact, i think we're going off the grid for this one as far as the rules go. so... any ideas?


bonus fun... the door was unlocked.

[Malak'ai]

I'd say a Cure X Wounds spell would still do it, otherwise it'll be something like a DC15 or so Heal check to set the bone(s) and splinting them somehow, then you have like a 4 to 6 week wait while the bone(s) heal naturally.

If it were in my game, I'd allow the Cure X but say that your foot is still tender/sensetive for a few days so you'd be at a slight minus to speed, lifting things over the head, balance and jump checks and also anything things that might require putting serious pressure on that foot.

[blazinghand]

If CLW is explicitly off the table, this seems like something a Lesser Restoration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/restorationLesser.htm) would sort out if you have a level 3 Cleric in the group. Failing that, a Heal check and time will deal with it.

[Eugenides]

pretty generous ruling for those rolls, in my opinion.


I always sort of hated this whole idea. The fact that even the absolute best individual at any activity has a 5% chance of critically failing always bothered me.

On the other hand, I would say that magical healing can definitely be retooled to fix things up.

[Jeraa]

Regenerate specifically says it heals broken bones.

[TuggyNE]

my half orc tried to kick in a door in our last session. it was a DC5 check, and i rolled a 1. for my critical fumble check, i rolled a 2.

DM ruled that i broke my foot, and i'll now be hobbling about at half speed until i get it sorted out. pretty generous ruling for those rolls, in my opinion.

That's an ... interesting thing to say about a houserule that messes you up, no? (Skill checks do not fail on a natural 1 unless you houserule them to, nor do any critical failures have fumble tables attached unless you houserule that too. For the record, I do not support skilled warriors having a full 5% to fail trivially simple tasks and sustain lasting injuries. 0.5% perhaps, or less, but 5%?)

But if you're bound and determined to stick with this, a scroll of regenerate may be your fastest option. The Heal skill has no direct language to deal with this (yay more houserules!) but could be available at low levels. CxW or the vigor line almost certainly won't do the trick here though.

[Gavinfoxx]

Well at least your houserule skill check fumbles have houseruled fumble confirmations.

[blazinghand]

Well at least your houserule skill check fumbles have houseruled fumble confirmations.

I don't suppose I could sig this?

For what it's worth, it is kinda sucky that your DM's houserules allow for this kind of thing. If you go through a dungeon with 10 doors that need kicking in, and do a few of those per level-up, it's only a matter of time before your ankle gets broken again and becomes a major drain on your wealth-by-level

[Gavinfoxx]

I don't suppose I could sig this?

Go right ahead!

[karkus]

When I had royally screwed up at kicking down a door, all that my DM did was have my Animal Companion get embarrassed to be around me and pretended not to know me. :smallredface:

[dextercorvia]

my half orc tried to kick in a door in our last session. it was a DC5 check, and i rolled a 1. for my critical fumble check, i rolled a 2.


Wait. Why were you kicking down a door if you didn't at least have a Str bonus? If you rolled a 2 on your confirmation and had at least a 16 Str, then (if I am guessing correctly that a crit fumble confirmation mirrors critical hit confirmation) this shouldn't have confirmed. In fact, if you have an 18 strength, then the original roll should have succeeded.

[Urpriest]

Your DM's table will have an entry on how to "sort it out", that's a basic part of any fumble system with those sorts of entries. It was probably all included in the email your DM sent at the beginning of the campaign, but I imagine if you lost it he can show you the table.

[Namfuak]

Wait. Why were you kicking down a door if you didn't at least have a Str bonus? If you rolled a 2 on your confirmation and had at least a 16 Str, then (if I am guessing correctly that a crit fumble confirmation mirrors critical hit confirmation) this shouldn't have confirmed. In fact, if you have an 18 strength, then the original roll should have succeeded.

The real question is why he didn't take ten on a DC 5 check. Although to be fair, at least it is somewhat plausible that even a strong warrior could try to hit the door on the hinge side and accidentally hit it a bit sideways so he twists his ankle. Foot breaking might be a bit much (since it implies he hit the door with so much force he broke his foot, which would have happened either way due to the 2nd law of motion), but it's a houseruling so whatever.

As others have said, either a mundane heal check or lesser restoration should do the trick.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, why *didn't* you Take 10?

[TuggyNE]

Your DM's table will have an entry on how to "sort it out", that's a basic part of any fumble system with those sorts of entries. It was probably all included in the email your DM sent at the beginning of the campaign, but I imagine if you lost it he can show you the table.

I can't tell: is this written for humorous irony, or quite serious?


Yea, why *didn't* you Take 10?

Anybody knows you can't possibly take 10 on a check with consequences for failure!

[Gavinfoxx]

Anybody knows you can't possibly take 10 on a check with consequences for failure!

I know this is sarcasm, but to clarify for the OP, remember: the rules say you CAN take 10 when there is consequences for failure. You just can't Take *20* when there is a consequence for failure. You can Take 10 when not distracted (examples given are very heavy rain, combat, etc.)

[Knaight]

Regenerate is the obvious case. With that said, a few broken foot bones seems well within the purview of the Cure X wounds series, given that it can fully heal near killing damage received by things like maces, which have a tendency to break bones.

With that said, RAW isn't particularly relevant in this case anyways. There are already odd houserules in play, there may well be more of them.

[ericgrau]

A natural 1 is not an automatic failure on an ability check. If it weren't for the DM's house rules you would be able to take a 20 on this check too. The standard without being generous would be that you fail to break the door with no drawbacks. It's a terrible shame since many strength DCs are set quite high with the assumption of taking a 20. This looks like another failed fumble rule to me.

Your foot needs a regenerate which you can get for 13*7*10=910 gp from a legendary NPC cleric in a very major city. Some high priest perhaps. But with all these house rules flying around a cure light wounds might do it. If not then you might want to read through your DM's house rules and roll up a class that doesn't have to put up with too much. If you can take care of it without huge problems then I'd just brush it off and put up with the wonky rules.

[TypoNinja]

I know this is sarcasm, but to clarify for the OP, remember: the rules say you CAN take 10 when there is consequences for failure. You just can't Take *20* when there is a consequence for failure. You can Take 10 when not distracted (examples given are very heavy rain, combat, etc.)


You know I've always thought fumble rules are terrible for a long list of reasons, but somehow until just now I'd missed that it makes taking a 20 impossible/far less useful.

[TuggyNE]

You know I've always thought fumble rules are terrible for a long list of reasons, but somehow until just now I'd missed that it makes taking a 20 impossible/far less useful.

Yeah, fumble rules are a case where a misunderstanding of the rules (or a deliberate decision to make things more "interesting") leads to a remarkable number of adjustments that need to be made, and then more adjustments that those reveal, and so on and so forth. Bad houserules: the gift that keeps on giving!

[Keld Denar]

Caltrops (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#caltrops) are an actual case of a food injury that results in a similar form of hobbling that CAN be cured by a Cure Light Wounds spell. If I did actually do something like this, I wouldn't make it any more severe or permanent than a caltrops injury. That's just poor taste, IMO.

[Agent 451]

Maug rollers. Never worry about breaking your feet again.

[willpell]

Next time, try breaking down the door with a hammer.

[Knaight]

Next time, try breaking down the door with a hammer.

At which point the critical failure could just become slipping the hammer and dropping it on your foot, which breaks it. The issue here is with the critical failure mechanic, and regardless of how good the door-opening procedure gets, there will always be something that can justify a critical failure.

[TuggyNE]

Next time, try breaking down the door with a hammer.

Player: I rolled a 1. Bah.
DM: Roll a d20 to see how bad it is.
Player: Another 1!
DM: OK, that's "hit self instead of target", let's roll a d100 to see exactly what happens.
DM: Hmm, a 37. The hammer bounces off the door and into your face. You die.

Epitaph: Killed by an unlocked door.

[Gwendol]

A successful heal check to reset the bones, then cure it with CLW, or similar.

[Killer Angel]

You have become enlightened.

The best thing about fumble rules, is that when you start using them, you immediately recognize them for the garbage they are.

[willpell]

Well I would say that with a proper set of fumble rules, using the right tool for the job should definitely reduce the odds for a crit-fail, though not to 0%. A 1-in-20 failure chance actually sounds about right to me for kicking down a door with your foot; people in IRL generally do not do that specifically because it's not a great idea. Policemen are generally in excellent physical shape, but they still use a Portable Ram on doors instead of their steel-toed jack-boots.

[Spiryt]

Policemen are generally in excellent physical shape, but they still use a Portable Ram on doors instead of their steel-toed jack-boots.

Eh, depends when, who and were, but policemen in general are in mostly passable physical shape, in no way 'excellent'.

I'm in rather lousy shape and I don't think I would fail physical test for Police if I really tried, it's not overly serious. Girls sometimes fail due to 3kg ball throwing.

[Slipperychicken]

The solution is to bludgeon your DM's head with a PHB until he takes it back and removes critical fumbles altogether.

[Person_Man]

Let this be a lesson to you. Always "Take 10" on any check that is not threatened or rushed.

[razorback]

it was a DC5 check, and i rolled a 1. for my critical fumble check, i rolled a 2

I do not support skilled warriors having a full 5% to fail trivially simple tasks and sustain lasting injuries. 0.5% perhaps, or less, but 5%?)

A 1-in-20 failure chance actually sounds about right to me for kicking down a door with your foot

It was a 1 in 20, or 5%, to see if he potentially failed.
There was a second roll, 1 in 10, that he did.
Maybe a math wiz can give the actual percentages, but that would seem to be .5% on the surface. Even if it was 5 or less on the second die (which is what I use for fumbles), that should be about 1.25% chance.
In a realistic, even for fantasy game, that seems to lean towards being generous even if it isn't RAW.

[ericgrau]

1 in 100 is still too often. If people injured themselves that often in any occupation they'd be out of a job in short order. You need osteoperosis for numbers like that. It's not a problem that a strong person should have to worry about.

Even considering a collegiate athlete with constant heavy violent activity the rate of injury is 3.2% per year. Per year. After thousands and thousands of actions.

This is why fumble rules tend to suck. They take a hero and turn him into a clumsy injure prone stooge. Pretty soon he spends much of the campaign in frustration. It seems fine for 1 roll but after 100 rolls it just isn't worth it and it's time to switch to whatever class doesn't have fumble rules. After all if this injury lasts 100 rolls then he might get another by the time it's up.

[Urpriest]

I can't tell: is this written for humorous irony, or quite serious?


3.5 has been out of print for a long time, I tend to assume that anyone DMing these days has ironed out the kinks in a sensible manner until proven otherwise. Sure I'm pretty often proven otherwise, but this seems a more charitable position.

[Axier]

The ONLY time I would use a fumble chart of any kind would be when using a Bell Curve roll style, when the chances of a critical failure are 0.5%, roughly 1 out of every 200 rolls.

As a side note, I also love the Bell Curve system for critical hit builds, because investing into critical hits offers a building increase in the probability of scoring a critical hit. You will score a critical hit MOST of the time if you can get your threat range anywhere near 10-14.

[Chess435]

Player: I rolled a 1. Bah.
DM: Roll a d20 to see how bad it is.
Player: Another 1!
DM: OK, that's "hit self instead of target", let's roll a d100 to see exactly what happens.
DM: Hmm, a 37. The hammer bounces off the door and into your face. You die.

Epitaph: Killed by an unlocked door.

I bet that exactly that has happened to someone playing Nethack. :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

Policemen are generally in excellent physical shape, but they still use a Portable Ram on doors instead of their steel-toed jack-boots.

This isn't because they are in any danger of breaking their foot, but because the ram simply opens the door better. Feet aren't that fragile.


It was a 1 in 20, or 5%, to see if he potentially failed.
There was a second roll, 1 in 10, that he did.
Maybe a math wiz can give the actual percentages, but that would seem to be .5% on the surface. Even if it was 5 or less on the second die (which is what I
Putting aside how we don't know what the actual second minimum was, though 5 seems more likely than 2 given the DC of the door, .5% is the absolute lowest, with 1.25% being probable. Now, lets say that one kicks a door once per day for a year. That creates a 84% chance of breaking one's foot at least once at the .5% level, and a 99% chance of breaking one's foot at least once at the 1.25% level. This is with deliberate kicking of a door, in which one's foot is placed in much better position to not get injured than when, say, stubbing a toe. This is wearing shoes at the very least, and quite possibly wearing armored boots. The rates over one year are completely absurd.

[dextercorvia]

I'm guessing this fails the critical failure test. I forget who came up with it, but it goes something like: Line up 10 1st level Warriors next to 10 training dummies. Have them train for 1 minute. If anyone is maimed, unconscious, or dead at the end of that time, the DM has to eat a copy of the critical failure rules.

[hennasmith]

The way we play with my group, something similar would have happened with rolls like that. Probably not broken bones though. More like, foot slipped as you were kicking and you fell face first against the door, or fell on your butt. Something embarassing perhaps, but a bit more realistic.

Generally, with us at least, the only time crit fails for stuff like this result in injuries is if you're using a weapon, or doing something dangerous (like running naked through a thicket of thorns :smallwink:).

[HunterColt22]

The way we play with my group, something similar would have happened with rolls like that. Probably not broken bones though. More like, foot slipped as you were kicking and you fell face first against the door, or fell on your butt. Something embarassing perhaps, but a bit more realistic.

Generally, with us at least, the only time crit fails for stuff like this result in injuries is if you're using a weapon, or doing something dangerous (like running naked through a thicket of thorns :smallwink:).

:smalleek: Instant catheter. On subject though I agree crit fails apply in combat due to the fact that is far more common place, and when you botch, someone or something is going to break. Things like kicking a door in... Eh it should be more you get demoted to tired, or strength of a sponge status for that try.

[Lord Tyger]

I'm guessing this fails the critical failure test. I forget who came up with it, but it goes something like: Line up 10 1st level Warriors next to 10 training dummies. Have them train for 1 minute. If anyone is maimed, unconscious, or dead at the end of that time, the DM has to eat a copy of the critical failure rules.

Let's see. We know that his rolls were a 1 and a 2. To start with the 1, there's a five percent chance of that happening on any roll, or, one might expect it to happen once every twenty rolls. Level 1 warriors will presumably be making one attack a turn each, each turn, assuming they're not also practicing full defense or anything like that. One minute is six rounds, so that's a total of sixty rolls, and three expected critical failures. But we don't know the actual table to determine what happens, so it's hard to say.

[Keld Denar]

One minute is 10 rounds, or 100 man-rounds, so statistically, there would be 5 fumbles. If there is a 20% chance to confirm (a roll of 1-4), then only one of those fumbles would confirm. A common human soldier with 10-11 str and con deals 1d8 with a long sword and has 8 hp. That's only a 1-8 chance that he will stagger himself and be in danger of bleeding out. He would have to hit himself more than once to knock himself out, unless he could fruit himself, which would be even less likely.

No, it would take a bit more than 10 guys and a minute, depending on the exact nature of the rules. Or it could happen to all 10 guys in the first round. Dice are funny like that.

[blazinghand]

One minute is 10 rounds, our 100 man-rounds, so statistically, there would be 5 fumbles. If there is a 20% chance to confirm (a roll of 1-4), then only one of those fumbles would confirm. A common human soldier with 10-11 str and con deals 1d8 with a long sword and has 8 hp. That's only a 1-8 chance that he will stagger himself and be in danger of bleeding out. He would have to hit himself more than once to knock himself out, unless he could fruit himself, which would be even less likely.

No, it would take a bit more than 10 guys and a minute, depending on the exact nature of the rules. Or it could happen to all 10 guys in the first round. Dice are funny like that.

The idea of 10 swordsmen all striking themselves with their weapons in the first 6 seconds of sparring with scarecrows is hilarious.

Either way, critical fumble rules hurt some characters a lot more than others. If you're playing a high-dexterity rogue with two-weapon fighting, you might be pumping out 4 attacks per round (when you can full attack) at level 10, 5 if the party mage casts haste on you. In a 4-5 round combat, you're likely roll a 1, though you probably won't "confirm" by missing the target's AC. If you're up against a high-AC enemy and are spamming attacks in hopes of rolling a natural 20 and getting through to his juicy HP, though, you might end up confirming a high percentage of your attacks and punching yourself with a dagger for 1d4 damage, or stabbing yourself in the foot, or whatever the rules entail.

In terms of fumbling house rules, they should be designed to be fun and sensible. If we're talking about making an ability or skill check in a situation where you can't take 10, like trying to swim away from a horrible monstrous octopus while wearing breastplate armor, the consequences of failure should already be dire enough. No need for a critical fumble, failing your check IS a fumble.

If we're taking about a situation that would otherwise be harmless ("I search the bookshelf"), I don't think adding a critical fumble where you fall and the shelf falls on you, brutally rushing your arm 0.5% of the time... I don't think a 1 out of 200 chance to get maimed when performing a mundane task adds anything in terms of fun. If you enjoy the house rule and your DM does as well, that's fine, but fumbles typically increase the odds for random badness to happen.

[Kantolin]

I've found that critical fumble tables greatly encourage people to avoid them as much as possible.

If 'attacking more often' tends to result in a fumble, people tend to avoid making characters who swing a bunch of times, avoid taking more swings, and in the case of mostly casters, tend to avoid that nasty kills-you d20 as much as possible.

So the wizard will cast fireball (Or hold person, or glitterdust, or wall of whatzit) as much as possible and let the mundanes be the ones who trip into their faces and stab themselves every few minutes.

Otherwise you get random time outs. Although to be fair, I have played in games where the death count was ludicrously high, and they dealt with it the same way I've dealt with critical fumbles: By losing 99% of the interest in my character. I mean meh, you can just make a new character.

Aaaanyway! I believe a heal check should work - that's the kind of thing you'd presume the skill is for. :smallsmile: So check to see if that's sufficient.

[Kantolin]

A common human soldier with 10-11 str and con deals 1d8 with a long sword and has 8 hp.

Actually, don't NPCs have half max for first level, thus the common soldiers would have 4hp and thus a ~50% chance of becoming unconscious if they did strike themselves?

Not to mention taking 1~3 damage when you have 4hp is pretty serious. Nobody likes losing 1/4 of their hp in one action.

[robertbevan]

wow. i'm shocked at the amount of attention this has received.

yes, we're probably doing things wrong. our group consists of me and one other guy (the DM) who just picked up 3.5 again after not having played it for over a decade, and two more guys who hadn't played it at all before. since then, we've been playing for a couple of years, but still haven't gotten all the rules ironed out in our heads.

we drink when we play, and a lot of times we just make stuff up on the fly to keep the game rolling along.

someone above asked me why i didn't take 10 to kick the door in. that would be for the same reason i didn't try the knob first. my half-orc barbarian tends to be kind of impulsive. i rolled a one. i think at some point in the past, we figured out that critical fumbles don't happen on skill checks, but then we forgot again. it's more fun for us.

but that confirmation roll, now that i think back about it, shouldn't have confirmed. i have a +3 modifier to strength. i'll bring that up with the DM, and probably get it retconned. after all, breaking my foot came pretty close to the end of the session.

thank you all for your contributions.

[Keld Denar]

There is no such thing as"doing it wrong" if you are having fun. I personally don't think cut fumbles are fun, but if you do, awesome. Sometimes they can make for memorable stories like this one, and sometimes they don't.

[Gavinfoxx]

wow. i'm shocked at the amount of attention this has received.

Just remember: there aren't fumbles in this game. They were removed for this edition. Therefore, all fumbles are house rules.

A roll of a 1 on an attack is NOT a fumble. It is a miss. A roll on a 1 of a save is NOT a fumble. It is a failure to save.

[Knaight]

One minute is 10 rounds, or 100 man-rounds, so statistically, there would be 5 fumbles. If there is a 20% chance to confirm (a roll of 1-4), then only one of those fumbles would confirm.
A better way to look at it: Every person-round there is a 1% chance to fumble, assuming a 20% confirming check. The chance of absolutely no fumbles after 100 rounds is .99^100, or 36.6%. By five minutes, the chance has dropped to 0.66%. This means a 63.4% or 99.54% chance of at least one fumble, respectively. Even with the .5% chance minimum, there is a 40% chance of at least one injury in 1 minute, and a 92% chance of at least one injury in five minutes.

[Keld Denar]

Never said it wasn't possible, just that the odds of one guy in 10 killing himself in a minute is low. dextercorvia's example was a little bit of an exaggeration.

[robertbevan]

just ran it by the DM.

he said it wasn't a critical fumble. he said my first roll of 1 meant that i hit the door at such an awkward angle that i had to make a saving throw (an item saving throw on my foot), which i failed with my roll of 2.

the DC check to kick the door open was 5.
the AC of the door was 10.

i don't know. it's starting to sound a little wonky to me.

[Urpriest]

he said it wasn't a critical fumble. he said my first roll of 1 meant that i hit the door at such an awkward angle that i had to make a saving throw (an item saving throw on my foot), which i failed with my roll of 2.


That's the definition of a critical fumble.

[Keld Denar]

There are two different mechanics here that he is confuzzling.

Breaking the door is a straight Str check. You roll. You add Str. If your roll + Str is higher, you win, and the door opens.

Attacking the door is different. You don't make an attack roll (you can't miss, and even if you could, it would only have an AC of 5 (no dex)). You just roll damage. You subtract hardness (if any). You compare your damage to the HP of the door. If the damage is higher, you bust up the door in some significant way so that it isn't a door. If the damage is lower, you hit it again, subtract hardness, and total the damage together.

It sounds to me like you were trying to burst the door with a Str check. You failed, and your DM treated it as a "crit fail". You rolled again to confirm, which should be against the same DC of 5. You succeeded. That should be the end of the story.

Generally, significant failures with skill/ability checks are only when you fail by 5 or more. Like, for climbing. If the DC is 10, and you get a 7 total, you fail, but you don't fall. If you get a 3, you fall. If the DC is 5, then you'd have to roll a total of 0 to result in a significant failure. 1 isn't an auto fail for skill/ability checks.

[AlchemicalMyst]

i don't know. it's starting to sound a little wonky to me.
That's because it is haha.

I had a DM just like this once. I rolled a 1 on an attack and suddenly my heavily enchanted mercurial greatsword flew out of my hands and across the room impaling our cleric and nearly killing him. Some GMs just like causing players trouble :smallfrown:

[Kantolin]

yes, we're probably doing things wrong.

Can't be if everyone's having fun. ^_^

If everyone is having fun, then you are doing it correctly. You are playing the game to have fun, after all - and this is true even if 'fun' for you implies being heroic, running from eldritch horrors, dying every two seconds from overpowered encounters, curbstomping all enemies in underpowered encounters, or indeed having your character break his ankle for kicking a door. I mean... however you play is absolutely great if you are having fun doing it.


and a lot of times we just make stuff up on the fly to keep the game rolling along.

This is also what most people do. Generally in my group when a rule question comes up, it.... okay generally it ends up annoyingly bogging things down, but in /theory/ it gets a quick reasonable-sounding ruling and then we proceed, and look at it in detail when we're not mid game.

That said, however, you may want to look at this rule. "I kick the door" => "You break your ankle for the forseeable future" doesn't sound like it particularly enhances the fun.

...I guess it means now your character has incentive to open doors rather than kick them open? I guess?

[Slipperychicken]

No, it would take a bit more than 10 guys and a minute, depending on the exact nature of the rules. Or it could happen to all 10 guys in the first round. Dice are funny like that.

I thought the original test was 50 level 1 Warriors lined up, attacking dummies for an hour.


It makes more sense that way. Then you can show your DM "Dude. Your fumble rules are so f***ing stupid that every basic training session would leave X people dead, Y people wounded, and Z people with broken limbs."

[dextercorvia]

dextercorvia's example was a little bit of an exaggeration.

Most likely. I remembered the idea, not the details. My Prob-fu is strong enough that I could have figured out the numbers to make it work in this case, but just picked numbers that sounded good instead.

Slipperychicken may have the right of it.

[TuggyNE]

just ran it by the DM.

he said it wasn't a critical fumble. he said my first roll of 1 meant that i hit the door at such an awkward angle that i had to make a saving throw (an item saving throw on my foot), which i failed with my roll of 2.

the DC check to kick the door open was 5.
the AC of the door was 10.

i don't know. it's starting to sound a little wonky to me.

It is wonky; as mentioned, the door's AC is not 10 at all (10 -5 Dex +0 size = 5 for Medium immobile door), and given that the only way you could fail a DC 5 check with a +3 modifier is by rolling a 1, there's no particularly obvious reason for making unusually horrible things happen on failure (which, also as mentioned, is the definition of a critical fumble, which this was). That is, if you have a task that is so easy you can do it 95% of the time with no difficulty, why would you suddenly have a substantial chance to injure yourself the other 5% of the time? It would be vastly more reasonable to assume that your foot just glanced off, you slipped and caught yourself, or something similar; even a 1 in 10 chance of actually injuring yourself on failure is high (i.e. 0.5% overall, my initial ballparked high end), but a saving throw implies maybe a 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 chance (or 2.5%), which is just not so.

And that's for relatively minor injuries like stubbing a toe or spraining your ankle. Actually breaking your foot on a door that easy is probably almost impossible; if you had anywhere near enough force to break your foot, it would have popped the latch first unless you were amazingly unlucky — we're talking maybe 1 in 10000, 1 in 100000 now. (Who seriously tries to kick a door open at the hinges?)


My Prob-fu is strong enough that I could have figured out the numbers to make it work in this case, but just picked numbers that sounded good instead.

Edit: My own and dextercorvia's initial mistaken estimates actually demonstrate an important reality: even someone decently good at probability is likely to mess up with random ballparked numbers unless they take the time to think things out. :smallredface: And someone who really isn't too solid at it? They're highly likely to pick random "plausible" numbers, and end up with something that doesn't make much sense at all. E.g., breaking your foot every 40th time you kick something. :smallsigh:

[Dirka]

I am the DM in question. Generally the players have been able to kick open doors willy-nilly because they don't need to roll to hit; rolling to hit a door is pretty silly. However I purposely and pointedly stated that this door looked solid and sturdy. Said player decided to kick it instead of trying the handle ;-)

So I opted, due to the incredibly strong condition of the door, to have him, in this particular case, roll a DC check. He rolled a 1. If he hadn't rolled a 1 nothing would have happened. But okay, I decided that his foot should make an item saving throw DC 5. So the second roll was his item saving throw DC 5 (DC 2 +3 because of the extra force of his STR behind his foot). He failed by 3. So I made the DM judgement that he broke his foot.

I see that ericgrau is essentially enraged by my decision, so I must admit to 1) being confused since this is a game and 2) being glad that he is not in my group. And I want to address the rules rules rules talk on this page by asking why you play pad and paper instead of console or PC. Computer games are absolute sticklers for rules :-)

Anyways that's the story. If it is that horrible I suppose I'll just have to stick to the rules and never ever allow anybody to get hurt again. :-D

[Slipperychicken]

I am the DM in question. Generally the players have been able to kick open doors willy-nilly because they don't need to roll to hit; rolling to hit a door is pretty silly. However I purposely and pointedly stated that this door looked solid and sturdy. Said player decided to kick it instead of trying the handle ;-)

Busting doors open is actually a Strength check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#doors) with a DC based on the door's quality. So they should have been rolling, but for a pretty high Str check, not an attack roll (unless they wanted to attack the doors, in which case they would have Hardness to overcome, and many attack/damage rolls to make).

[Dirka]

It wasn't an attack roll.

Basically it boils down to a strength check which, if he had rolled anything reasonable, I would have allowed to break down the door. When he rolled a 1 I decided that I would make him make a saving throw on his foot. I took the blessing of his STR and made it into a curse because, in my mind's eye, he just jump slammed the door with a STR bonus of +3 and his foot hit at such a turned, awkward angle that he had a chance of snapping it. So I estimated a DC 2 (10% chance) and added a +3 because of all of that extra half-orc force and weight. Now this was all on the fly. If I had to do it again (and maybe I will) I'd give his foot a piece of his CON bonus.

But as a former 2nd ed. DM I am fast and furious with the rules because nobody likes to be bogged down while someone consults a book and someone else consults their iphone. So that is part of the debate here too. I made a snap decision and I stand by its integrity. 1 second bam done instead of 10 minutes and, probably, a smoke break, to figure out the action of breaking down a door. Huzzah!!! :-D

[blazinghand]

I am the DM in question. Generally the players have been able to kick open doors willy-nilly because they don't need to roll to hit; rolling to hit a door is pretty silly. However I purposely and pointedly stated that this door looked solid and sturdy. Said player decided to kick it instead of trying the handle ;-)

So I opted, due to the incredibly strong condition of the door, to have him, in this particular case, roll a DC check. He rolled a 1. If he hadn't rolled a 1 nothing would have happened. But okay, I decided that his foot should make an item saving throw DC 5. So the second roll was his item saving throw DC 5 (DC 2 +3 because of the extra force of his STR behind his foot). He failed by 3. So I made the DM judgement that he broke his foot.

I see that ericgrau is essentially enraged by my decision, so I must admit to 1) being confused since this is a game and 2) being glad that he is not in my group. And I want to address the rules rules rules talk on this page by asking why you play pad and paper instead of console or PC. Computer games are absolute sticklers for rules :-)

Anyways that's the story. If it is that horrible I suppose I'll just have to stick to the rules and never ever allow anybody to get hurt again. :-D

In terms of your statements about the rules talk and why we play pad and paper games, I will note that, in fact, the 3.5e rules are not perfect. Many people have house-rules to improve upon some of the glaring problems with the ruleset. The purpose of rules, though (and house rules are part of this) is to provide a framework to play in that is enjoyable for the player. If you decide that players need to make saving throws whenever they roll a 1 on a "DC Check", and everyone has fun, go ahead.

The only rule that matters is that everyone has fun. Fumble tables and the like (or saving throws for failed checks) are for many people, myself included, not fun. If you and your player enjoy using these rules, you should continue to use them-- that's basically all there is to it. As a general word of advice, fumble tables sort of "take me out of the game" because of what they do. They lead to wacky hijinks sometimes, but usually just make mundane tasks dangerous or add on extra randomness to the game.

If ericgrau and other players seem concerned for your game, it's because they want you and your player(s) to have as much fun as possible, and in their experiences, fumble tables are simply not fun. People can disagree reasonably.

EDIT

It wasn't an attack roll.

Basically it boils down to a strength check which, if he had rolled anything reasonable, I would have allowed to break down the door. When he rolled a 1 I decided that I would make him make a saving throw on his foot. I took the blessing of his STR and made it into a curse because, in my mind's eye, he just jump slammed the door with a STR bonus of +3 and his foot hit at such a turned, awkward angle that he had a chance of snapping it. So I estimated a DC 2 (10% chance) and added a +3 because of all of that extra half-orc force and weight. Now this was all on the fly. If I had to do it again (and maybe I will) I'd give his foot a piece of his CON bonus.

But as a former 2nd ed. DM I am fast and furious with the rules because nobody likes to be bogged down while someone consults a book and someone else consults their iphone. So that is part of the debate here too. I made a snap decision and I stand by its integrity. 1 second bam done instead of 10 minutes and, probably, a smoke break, to figure out the action of breaking down a door. Huzzah!!! :-D

Barring the issue of making it more likely for a stronger character to hurt himself by doing a strength-based task, it should be A) fairly quick to look up the rules for how ability score checks and doors work and B) not be necessary, as doors are highly common and as a DM with a great deal of experience you probably ought to know how they work.

If it would take you 10 minutes to find Doors and look up and/or remember how a strength check, it's probably better to ad-hoc it though.

[Dirka]

Good thing I don't have a fumble table then. :-)

[robertbevan]

at the end of the day, it was a house rule, made up on the fly, which i accepted happily. i started this thread to see if there were any spells or skills out there which would speed up the process of healing this particular kind of damage.

if not, my character is content to hobble out of this keep and sip mojitos for a month or two while his foot heals.

[blazinghand]

Good thing I don't have a fumble table then. :-)

Ah, well the issue isn't fumble tables per se, it's fumbles in general. If you lack a systematic way of implementing fumbles and do them entirely via DM fiat, all the previous problems apply, but added onto that is confusion on players' part on how to avoid fumbles.

EDIT


at the end of the day, it was a house rule, made up on the fly, which i accepted happily. i started this thread to see if there were any spells or skills out there which would speed up the process of healing this particular kind of damage.

if not, my character is content to hobble out of this keep and sip mojitos for a month or two while his foot heals.

If all parties are happy, then it's fine-- a good ruling and a solid game.

[TypoNinja]

I am the DM in question. Generally the players have been able to kick open doors willy-nilly because they don't need to roll to hit; rolling to hit a door is pretty silly. However I purposely and pointedly stated that this door looked solid and sturdy. Said player decided to kick it instead of trying the handle ;-)

So I opted, due to the incredibly strong condition of the door, to have him, in this particular case, roll a DC check. He rolled a 1. If he hadn't rolled a 1 nothing would have happened. But okay, I decided that his foot should make an item saving throw DC 5. So the second roll was his item saving throw DC 5 (DC 2 +3 because of the extra force of his STR behind his foot). He failed by 3. So I made the DM judgement that he broke his foot.

I see that ericgrau is essentially enraged by my decision, so I must admit to 1) being confused since this is a game and 2) being glad that he is not in my group. And I want to address the rules rules rules talk on this page by asking why you play pad and paper instead of console or PC. Computer games are absolute sticklers for rules :-)

Anyways that's the story. If it is that horrible I suppose I'll just have to stick to the rules and never ever allow anybody to get hurt again. :-D

Critical fumble rules are a particularly sore spot because they aren't just considered bad, they are objectively bad, but for some reason also quite common.

A 20th level fighter with four attacks a round is more likely to injure himself than a first level conscript with one attack a round. This is, obviously silly.

It penalizes physical attackers more than spell casters, spell casters roll a lot less d20's, indeed its possible to design a caster that never rolls a d20. This means its a rule that punishes some players more than others. Obviously bad.

People using critical fumble rules tend to then also ignore the rules saying you can't critically fail some actions. This seriously undermines the 'heroicness' of PC's as suddenly you spectacularly fail relatively mundane tasks every so often. Whens the last time you accidentally broke a finger while tying your shoes? Under critical fumble rules you should do it about once a month. Olympic class fencers can expect to stab themselves about once every minute or so.

This also makes some rules unusable. Taking a 20 represents trying over and over again until you get something right. It also cannot be used whenever there is a penalty for failure, critical fumble rules means there's always a penalty for failure.

Rules, and not just rules, good rules, are important because it allows everyone to know what to expect, how they are playing. D&D is a wonderful game that can be played countless ways, and there is no right or wrong way to do it. As long as everybody wants to do it that way.

I prefer pen and paper games (with a DM instead of an AI) because they allow for the creative solutions that a computer can never be programed for. I was once stuck in a large room with a hovering dragon and no ranged weapons. My solution was to run and jump at one wall near the corner, launch off it at an angle to the other close wall, launch off that one and then strike the dragon in mid air. Two jump checks, three tumble checks and an attack roll later the dragon decided anyone with that much crazy in one place wasn't worth the risk and flew off.

Good, well understood rules let me plan a character capable of doing that, and gave the DM the framework needed to decide what I needed to do to succeed once I told him what I wanted to do. That's why we like "Rules rules rules" on a pen an paper game.

Edit:



If it would take you 10 minutes to find Doors and look up and/or remember how a strength check, it's probably better to ad-hoc it though.

This thing (http://dndsrd.net/toolsScreen.html) is freaking awesome for all that random crap.

[Dirka]

Ultimately this whole thing has me tired. I just read two pages of people trolling my decision and, since you are all strangers, I shouldn't care. But unfortunately what it does do, since I am a very busy person, is make me want to put the campaign on hold and take a break for a while. Congrats. I suppose I better, as one person suggested, go get force-fed a player's handbook now. I miss 2ed.

[blazinghand]

Ultimately this whole thing has me tired. I just read two pages of people trolling my decision and, since you are all strangers, I shouldn't care. But unfortunately what it does do, since I am a very busy person, is make me want to put the campaign on hold and take a break for a while. Congrats. I suppose I better, as one person suggested, go get force-fed a player's handbook now. I miss 2ed.

I would try not to take things personally, if I were you. Any personal insults or upset-ness aside, you certainly can understand how in some people's experiences, fumble rules are frustrating and annoying. If you and your PCs are happy with how things are now, keep on playing that way; don't let some criticism on the internet make you angry/upset. As reasonable adults we can discuss and disagree, and even encounter heated criticism, without getting emotionally overstimulated.

And, for what it's worth, if you're playing 3.5e, you certainly don't feel a need to keep up to date with the most recent D&D. There are lots of people who still play AD&D, and it's a great system. If you ever want to go back to that, if you're in a metropolitan area I'm sure there are other players near you you can find.

Don't let criticism here get you down; have it make you stronger. People disagreeing with you should let you add new ideas to your mind, and refine existing ones. An open-minded person strives to find other points of view and either acquire them or learn how they are different and why you disagree.



This thing (http://dndsrd.net/toolsScreen.html) is freaking awesome for all that random crap.

Oh, that's a nice one. I use http://www.d20srd.org/ usually, but I'll give that a try as well.

[dascarletm]

Ultimately this whole thing has me tired. I just read two pages of people trolling my decision and, since you are all strangers, I shouldn't care. But unfortunately what it does do, since I am a very busy person, is make me want to put the campaign on hold and take a break for a while. Congrats. I suppose I better, as one person suggested, go get force-fed a player's handbook now. I miss 2ed.

Don't get discouraged! I back your decision 100% It's your game, and you can play it how you want to!

You are all having fun, and that is all that matters.:smallbiggrin:

[robertbevan]

I would try not to take things personally, if I were you. Any personal insults or upset-ness aside, you certainly can understand how in some people's experiences, fumble rules are frustrating and annoying. If you and your PCs are happy with how things are now, keep on playing that way; don't let some criticism on the internet make you angry/upset. As reasonable adults we can discuss and disagree, and even encounter heated criticism, without getting emotionally overstimulated.

And, for what it's worth, if you're playing 3.5e, you certainly don't feel a need to keep up to date with the most recent D&D. There are lots of people who still play AD&D, and it's a great system. If you ever want to go back to that, if you're in a metropolitan area I'm sure there are other players near you you can find.

Don't let criticism here get you down; have it make you stronger. People disagreeing with you should let you add new ideas to your mind, and refine existing ones. An open-minded person strives to find other points of view and either acquire them or learn how they are different and why you disagree.



Oh, that's a nice one. I use http://www.d20srd.org/ usually, but I'll give that a try as well.

that was a hell of a nice response, blazinghand.

[Dirka]

:-) Thanks for that. I've run a ton of adventures over the years and in my experience players generally enjoy the random quirks that can occur from critical fumbles and successes. When the foot-break happened during the adventure everybody laughed, so that is a good sign. Yeah. I'm just bummed about the trolling; my group is great. And heck, I'm running a 1ed adventure that I am constantly adding to and converting on the fly as a mostly 2ed experience DM know-it-all with a gradually strengthening knowledge of 3.5 . So I should be proud of myself :-D

[Dirka]

Anyways off to work (again). I'm glad to be on this site. It sounds like everyone can give me some help with any future dilemmas I may run into.

[TypoNinja]

Oh, that's a nice one. I use http://www.d20srd.org/ usually, but I'll give that a try as well.

The Breaking and Entering section is my favorite. So nice to have a table of everything right there. :D

[ericgrau]

I'll clarify that I tend to tolerate quirky add on rules as long as they don't have serious consequences. Trouble in combat for next 7 fights until regenerate => "enraged" :smalltongue:, cure light wounds fixes it => whatever, who cares <shrug> (or something in between). I'm more ticked off at fumble rules in general because I've seen them go very wrong so many times before. I wouldn't take it personally. Looking at it statistically, it's a common mistake to believe that 1% or 5% is nothing, but when you make 100 rolls and there is a lasting effect to even 1 failure then that's a serious nerf to that action. A smart player will learn to never ever attempt it again.

The key is that quirky house rules are great as long as you didn't go too crazy. Better to fudge it and keep playing than to waste time looking it up. If a particular house rule or ruling is causing a huge problem then you tone back the house rule or it's now worth the time to look up the rule. I also have cheat sheets in my sig to make it faster and easier to look something up when you must. And yes it has a breaking and entering section in the DM screen inserts.

Whatever you do 2e style adventures and dungeons are a lost art. Don't forget them for the sake of 3.5e meticulousness. Having a rule for everything is a nice tool to have when you need one for X, but getting bogged down with rules lawyering stifles creative fudging.

[Killer Angel]

Ultimately this whole thing has me tired. I just read two pages of people trolling my decision and, since you are all strangers, I shouldn't care.

People don't like crit. fumbles for excellent reasons, based on statistic.
People also say that, when all of you are having fun, you're not doing it wrong... but certainly our idea of fun, usually don't involve fumble rules.

[TuggyNE]

Maths:

So I opted, due to the incredibly strong condition of the door, to have him, in this particular case, roll a DC check. He rolled a 1. If he hadn't rolled a 1 nothing would have happened. But okay, I decided that his foot should make an item saving throw DC 5. So the second roll was his item saving throw DC 5 (DC 2 +3 because of the extra force of his STR behind his foot). He failed by 3. So I made the DM judgement that he broke his foot.

So, he made a saving throw at a net penalty of -3 from +3 Str? :smallconfused: Normally, a saving throw would have a bonus of some kind, and normally, strength brings with it a certain amount of extra bone/ligament infrastructure to handle the extra forces.

I'm not sure whether the chance of bad things was based on failure to pop the door or rolling a natural 1; however, the initial kneejerk was probably because it's extremely common for various DM's to look at natural 1s as an opportunity to inject extravagant consequences. (Pinning it to failure would be at once better, from a consistency perspective, and worse, from a probability perspective.)

But, let's see. Let's do a post-mortem of exactly what the odds are for kicking open extremely strong latched doors. First, you effectively ruled that the Strength DC for a "stuck" door was 5, which is unusually low*; a simple wooden door, the weakest listed in the DMG, has a stuck DC of 13. Assuming DC 5 and bad things happening whenever a natural 1 fails (with a saving throw at a penalty equal to Str bonus against DC 2), here's the likelihood of getting the door open vs. having something go wrong.
{table=head]Str mod | % open (no auto-fail) | % injury (no auto-fail) | % open (natural 1 auto-fails) | % injury (natural 1 auto-fails)
-5 | 55% | 0.25% | 55% | 0.25%
-4 | 60% | 0.25% | 60% | 0.25%
-3 | 65% | 0.25% | 65% | 0.25%
-2 | 70% | 0.25% | 70% | 0.25%
-1 | 75% | 0.25% | 75% | 0.25%
0 | 80% | 0.25% | 80% | 0.25%
+1 | 85% | 0.5% | 85% | 0.5%
+2 | 90% | 0.75% | 90% | 0.75%
+3 | 95% | 1% | 95% | 1%
+4 | 100% | 0% | 95%| 1.25%
+5 | 100% | 0% | 95% | 1.5%
+6 | 100% | 0% | 95% | 1.75%
[/table]

The main thing to take away is that, if a natural 1 on the Str check auto-fails and with the given saving throw setup, the tarrasque is more likely to break its ankle popping open a simple wooden door than a 2 Str cripple is. Good times!

*That is, it puzzled us that a door that looked so easy (DC 5) to open had such horrible consequences for mistakes (broken ankles).


And I want to address the rules rules rules talk on this page by asking why you play pad and paper instead of console or PC. Computer games are absolute sticklers for rules :-)

Well, in my opinion, the main advantage of having a DM is not in the ability to ignore rules, it's in the ability to recombine or create completely new rules based on existing precedent or careful consideration. It's certainly possible to override the existing rules (and sometimes even necessary, when they're stupid), but it's best if you can avoid houseruling something you didn't know was already in the rules and more thoroughly thought out. After all, which is more likely to be better: a 15-second snap ruling, or 5 hours of thinking out possible interactions?

Lots of examples of unintended consequences that fumble rules tend to bring have already been presented, so I won't belabor that point.

However, I would like to point out that computer games are absolute sticklers for often-stupid rules. That's not what's desired here, by anyone; the goal is correctness and fun, not adherence to rules.


But as a former 2nd ed. DM I am fast and furious with the rules because nobody likes to be bogged down while someone consults a book and someone else consults their iphone. So that is part of the debate here too. I made a snap decision and I stand by its integrity. 1 second bam done instead of 10 minutes and, probably, a smoke break, to figure out the action of breaking down a door. Huzzah!!! :-D

A snap decision isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if it turns out to be wrong (i.e., contrary to both rules and common sense as carefully estimated later). However, once you have a bit of leisure, reexamining your snap decisions for future consideration can be quite helpful.


If I had to do it again (and maybe I will) I'd give his foot a piece of his CON bonus.

Like that.

[only1doug]

I made a snap decision and I stand by its integrity. 1 second bam done instead of 10 minutes and, probably, a smoke break, to figure out the action of breaking down a door. Huzzah!!! :-D

Whish is good, as you said, spending forever on each decision is a bad thing (TM).


Ultimately this whole thing has me tired. I just read two pages of people trolling my decision and, since you are all strangers, I shouldn't care. But unfortunately what it does do, since I am a very busy person, is make me want to put the campaign on hold and take a break for a while. Congrats. I suppose I better, as one person suggested, go get force-fed a player's handbook now. I miss 2ed.

Don't stop your campaign because of bad press, your player wasn't complaining about the ruling, he was seeking advice on how to speed up the healing process.


:-) Thanks for that. I've run a ton of adventures over the years and in my experience players generally enjoy the random quirks that can occur from critical fumbles and successes. When the foot-break happened during the adventure everybody laughed, so that is a good sign. Yeah. I'm just bummed about the trolling; my group is great. And heck, I'm running a 1ed adventure that I am constantly adding to and converting on the fly as a mostly 2ed experience DM know-it-all with a gradually strengthening knowledge of 3.5 . So I should be proud of myself :-D

Enjoy your gaming, sounds fun.
The last time I played with a 2nd Ed GM using 3.5 he hadn't made the conversion very well.

I was playing a Monk (which is admittidly a bad start) and the GM didn't really understand skills...

GM: "Make a balance check to cross the unstable boards"
Cleric: "12-4, 8 total"
GM: "Ok, you are across"
Monk: "4+8, 12 total"
GM: "you fall over"
...
...
GM made his decision because I had rolled a 4 and the other player had rolled a 12, 12 passed, 4 failed and that was the end of it.


What Can you (Dirka) take from this Thread?

Perhaps some advice on how to handle the healing of the injured foot, the overwhelming majority of advice is that a Heal skill check followed by a cure light wounds ought to heal it.

If you decide not to allow this to function as the healing required then you should probably decide how it can be healed and let your player know, so that he can work that in.

[dextercorvia]

as one person suggested, go get force-fed a player's handbook now. I miss 2ed.

I actually suggested a copy of your fumble rules. It was a joke, but the concept behind it is solid. If a group of trained warriors would kill themselves training for any length of time using your rules, then they probably aren't fair to the players (who will be making more rolls than any other creature in your universe).

The exact gastronomics of the solution, I leave to you.