Bad Nat 1's & Petty DM on DM Revenge

[Darth Grall]

Gonna be a long one.

So one of my 3.5 DMs likes to make nat 1's something flavorful, but typically harmful. He doesn't use a crit fumble deck or anything, but typically they've been tastful... till game today.

I'm playing a level 8 monk with 29 AC(26 flat). I was tailing a rogue/shadowdancer whom had tried to kill me and steal a scroll from a temple I was visiting. I chased him down and it was just me & a samurai NPC who had caught up vs him. I don't have an AoMF, so my to hit sucks with my fists, but that's okay this isn't a game I care for optimizing in.

But I get him a few times and he's still yet to hit me(full HP). I flurry another time and I roll a 1(auto-miss, stopping me from making my other attacks).

Like usual, I expected the miss to knock me prone, cut myself on his blade, or something else. Bad but workable. Instead, apparently the Rogue took my mistep and found his way to holding an arm behind my back with a knife to my throat, in a "helpless" position without me getting a roll or him rolling additionally. He then begins interogating me and the samurai, with me at knife point. Eventually though I get get fed up with being threatened and try to strike at him, figuring I could Wholeness of Body out the worst of the damage since I wasn't hit yet at all. However instead I simply died, the guy simply takes his readied CdG on me giving him sneak attack damage since I'm "helpless" and killed me on the spot.

Now, sure I probably shouldn't have resisted. I realize a large portion of the blame is my own. On the otherhand though, I felt that a nat 1 shouldn't ever result in a character being considered helpless; and to that end I'm a little ticked at the DM. Falling down, cutting myself on armor or weapons are things I'm okay with. Getting CdG'd after never getting hit for a 1 is not acceptable in my opinion.

So question 1: Has a nat 1 ever so completely screwed over your character? Having never played with a crit fumble deck in any of my games, I've only heard stories about 1's killing people. Am I wrong for being upset with the way things turned out? Is this more common than I think?

And to question 2: Tomorrow, I'm DMing my pathfinder game... where the previously mentioned DM is a player in. Mostly I'm concerned about unjustly taking out my frustration on him. But would it be unjust? Would it be petty? Especially if he's the one who rolls a 1... Should I do something equally compromising? Does anyone have some tips for seperating themselves from their own anger at a player?

Thanks for any and all replies. Hopefully this will help me vent in anycase :smallfrown:

[Cranthis]

Answer to the first: You should be only a little upset. However. He had a readied action, a knife at your throat, and you were flat footed. Now, depending on the rogue guy's level, the sneak attack damage may or may not have been enough to kill you. You technically weren't helpless. You weren't helpless as far as actions, so there should have been no CdG.

[Cranthis]

Answer to second: No. Do not take revenge because of this.

[GolemsVoice]

Well, in the first case: Once you were at knifepoint, it's not unreasonably to kill you instantly, even if I as a DM would not do so. However, as you said, the natural 1 that GOT you into that situation is, frankly, ridicilous. If I had to fear that such things could happen again, I'd likely stay out of the game, or at least play somebody who has as little attack rolls as possible, like casters. After all, everytime you're attacking, you're potentially opening yourself up for such DM surprises!

Answer to the second qeustion: tempting as it may seem, don't. Talk to the DM, tell him that you think the penalty for the nat 1 was a bit harsh, and hopefully he'll understand. Seperating yourself from your anger can be achieved by doing what you're doing now, namely, remembering how you yourself felt in that situation, and then pondering whether you'd wish another person to feel that way.

[Cranthis]

Well, in the first case: Once you were at knifepoint, it's not unreasonably to kill you instantly, even if I as a DM would not do so. However, as you said, the natural 1 that GOT you into that situation is, frankly, ridicilous. If I had to fear that such things could happen again, I'd likely stay out of the game, or at least play somebody who has as little attack rolls as possible, like casters. After all, everytime you're attacking, you're potentially opening yourself up for such DM surprises!

Answer to the second qeustion: tempting as it may seem, don't. Talk to the DM, tell him that you think the penalty for the nat 1 was a bit harsh, and hopefully he'll understand. Seperating yourself from your anger can be achieved by doing what you're doing now, namely, remembering how you yourself felt in that situation, and then pondering whether you'd wish another person to feel that way.

Exactly what Golem said. Its much better than my post.

[JellyPooga]

The first guy to GM a 3.X D&D I played in appeared to have the belief that any natural 1 rolled by a PC was licence for him to royally bone that character. Nat-1 on Attack? Your attack hits a friend or yourself. Nat-1 on a climb check? You automatically fall. Nat-1 on a Reflex check to avoid falling into a pit-trap? You not only fall into the pit, but manage to impale yourself on your own (mundane) quarterstaff at the bottom, instantaneously killing you.

No, I'm not kidding. That last actually happened. It was so incredibly out of the blue (it's not like the player was being a douche-bag or powergaming, or the game was tongue-in-cheek or anything) that all we could do was sit stunned for a while and carry on gaming for the rest of the evening. Needless to say, we didn't turn up to the next session.

[Eugenides]

Honestly, I have always hated the natural 1 rule. Why? Because it basically says "Hey, you, I don't care if you have +500 to a check that only needs a 5, you still have a flat 5% chance to fail it. I don't care if, in-game, you are literally THE BEST person at what you're trying to do in the world, you still fail 5% of the time."

So yeah, there's that. Then there's saying that your character has a 5% chance to end up in a position where they can be CdG'd after ANY attack? yeah, **** that. I would argue against that, or call shenanigans. I don't care if I get it too, I'm rolling a lot more attack rolls in the long run. I will, by sheer probability, end up killing myself multiple times.

I wouldn't say take revenge, no. That's just petty, and will be very obvious. However, I would talk to your DM OOC, and basically say "Hey, this bothers me." Point out that your character now has a 5% chance to kill themself on any attack roll they make, which makes the game un-fun.

[Cranthis]

We use the variant roll that natural 20's are auto-success (actually that they are treated as a 30) and that nat 1's fail. Generally though, the dms give the player a sort of save. Say you make an attack roll. You roll a natural 1. You lose the attack (as normal) and you go flat footed or drop your weapon. However, if you drop your weapon, you make a reflex save to keep it.

A better example is that you are walking towards an unseen bottomless pit, and fail the spot check with a 1. You fall in, but the dm allows a reflex save for nearby players to catch your arm and such.

Nat 1's can still screw you over, but there is a small chance to get out of it.

[ThiagoMartell]

+1 to GolemsVoice and Cranthis. Get your revenge by showing how much better you are at DMing. :smallamused:

[Spuddles]

I hate penalizing characters for rolling dice. The game is about rolling dice, not the DM arbitrarily making **** up when people fail.

Don't want the rogue taking 20? Put monsters in the room with traps. Fumble rules are a sign of lazy DMing, imo. There's plenty of pain you can inflict on characters without resorting to arbitrarily penalizing players for using characters that make skill checks or attack rolls.

Your DM is bad and you should tell him for me that I think he's bad. It doesn't make sense that a level 8 monk is more likely to accidentally hurt his friends than a level 1 monk.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is why fumble rules are worthless. Most DM's that are bad enough to use them at least give you a confirmation roll, for pete's sake.

Btw, you weren't helpless. The helpless condition requires you to be unconcious or paralyzed. You were only pinned in a grapple, at best. Sneak attack, yes (grudgingly*); CDG, no.

You really shouldn't seek revenge, but if you must just open the session with <dm's character> is hit by an asteroid, everyone else is miraculously unharmed. You can point out in the ensuing...... let's call it a disagreement, that it's basically the same thing he did to your character just a bit less subtle.

Also, discard those stupid fumble houserules immediately. They add nothing to your game. I don't normally tell people what to do like this, but this one's too much to only make a suggestion.

*I don't think even that much is legal. I don't have the rules right in front of me, but I don't think a grappler who's holding someone in a pin can make regular attacks against the pinned enemy.

[Cranthis]

This is why fumble rules are worthless. Most DM's that are bad enough to use them at least give you a confirmation roll, for pete's sake.

Btw, you weren't helpless. The helpless condition requires you to be unconcious or paralyzed. You were only pinned in a grapple, at best. Sneak attack, yes (grudgingly*); CDG, no.

You really shouldn't seek revenge, but if you must just open the session with <dm's character> is hit by an asteroid, everyone else is miraculously unharmed. You can point out in the ensuing...... let's call it a disagreement, that it's basically the same thing he did to your character just a bit less subtle.

Also, discard those stupid fumble houserules immediately. They add nothing to your game. I don't normally tell people what to do like this, but this one's too much to only make a suggestion.

*I don't think even that much is legal. I don't have the rules right in front of me, but I don't think a grappler who's holding someone in a pin can make regular attacks against the pinned enemy.

I agree. With all of it. I dislike the fumble rules, but at least my dms give us at least a chance to live. And again yes, grapplers can't make normal attacks, however, the knife was at his throat. That's kind of not covered, so is up to dm discretion.

[ThiagoMartell]

I agree. With all of it. I dislike the fumble rules, but at least my dms give us at least a chance to live. And again yes, grapplers can't make normal attacks, however, the knife was at his throat. That's kind of not covered, so is up to dm discretion.

Actually, grapplers explicitly can make attacks, but this wasn't handled as a grapple anyway (or the monk would have had a big advantage).

[Cranthis]

Actually, grapplers explicitly can make attacks, but this wasn't handled as a grapple anyway (or the monk would have had a big advantage).

I believe this only applies to touch attacks though?

[only1doug]

I'd personally have problems playing with someone who pulled something like that on me, revenge in kind is not worth considering, you need to decide on a course of action and stick to it. Either refuse to GM for that person ("i'm sorry I don't feel i can be fair to your characters right now so it's better that you sit this session out") or set aside your frustration and be a fair GM for him.

[ThiagoMartell]

I believe this only applies to touch attacks though?
Not really, no.

If You’re Grappling(...)
You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks.
In PF it's even more permissive.

[Cranthis]

Not really, no.

Excellent. I've played for a few months now, but I have had no reason to grapple anything, except to get out of one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Excellent. I've played for a few months now, but I have had no reason to grapple anything, except to get out of one.

my comment about not being able to make a normal attack wasn't for grappling in general, but for when you're maintaining a pin. In a normal grapple (neither participant is pinned) you can make normal melee attacks at a -4 penalty as long as you're using a light or natural weapon.

[MrLemon]

Just to add two more cents (you should consider a savings account here :smallsmile:)

That DM is an a******.
Straight up a******.

He basically took your 1 as a way to do 2 rounds of actions (grapple+pin), skipping all three grapple-checks (which you would likely have won), to screw you without rule-backing in an immediate action. That alone would have me protesting furiously.

Then he simply killed you with no real chance to resist.
:smalleek: :smallfrown: :smallmad: :smallfurious: :furious:


For your next character, you should create a character that does a minimum of die-rolling, to the point of ridiculousness.
I'm pretty sure someone here can help with that :smallamused:


Also, please hit that guy with a book. Not a rulebook though, hit him with a Math book. Somewhere around 8th grade, or any math book with probability calculations in it.

[Mystral]

Character with minimum die rolling is easy to do. Just make a wizard/sorcerer/oracle/whatever focused on buffing. Not even the enemies get to roll!

Or, you could haste your opponents to make them have more attacks, so have a higher chance to roll a one.

I agree, that fumble got very much out of hand. A few minor effects here and there are fine if everyone is okay with them, but that.. oh my.

[Firechanter]

Please give that DM my regards and congratulations on winning the **** Of The Year Award.

I wouldn't take revenge on his character, but I would leave the game he DMs. Losing a character now and then is something that can happen (although I suppose you could get Raised), but not as a result of deliberately ignoring and abusing the rules to the explicit purpose of ****ing a player over. If you keep playing with this guy, crap like that will keep happening again and again.

FWIW, I also played in a game once where the DM mandated "Fumble" rules, and he just wouldn't see reason that this unilaterally shafted combat classes, but things never got out of hand so badly. Usually a nat 1 on an attack meant that you'd strike an adjacent ally, but this ally got a Ref save to avoid getting hit, and if no ally was adjacent you'd drop your weapon instead. It was stupid, but it wasn't life-threatening.

[Laserlight]

So question 1: Has a nat 1 ever so completely screwed over your character?

No, but I wouldn't have put up with the "nat1 gets you grappled, pinned, and knife at your throat, no chance to resist" in the first place.

I'd first ask whether he's doing this for a plot reason, or is this villain a lot better than he appears, or is this just for the Nat1? Because if it's just the Nat1, nobody would ever make it to first level.

You don't get a crit on a nat20, you have to confirm it; so why not confirm a fumble as well? The chance of rolling 1 twice in a row is 1:400, which is a lot more plausible rate of fumbling than 1:20.

And when you do fumble, the penalty shouldn't be stupidly harsh. "Drop your weapon" or "break your bowstring", not "impale yourself and die".

Now, once you are grappled, pinned, knife at your throat...yeah, then you're in trouble, but after the rogue has held you like that, he's not actively attacking you--he has to make a decision to try to stab you. If he gets distracted, you ought to have a chance to get out of it before he can react. And if he's fast enough to stab you anyway, it still shouldn't be CdG, IMHO.

[Allanimal]

Everyone has made good points about the fact that the DM was playing fast & loose with the grapple rules as well as turning the "1 on an attack roll is a miss" rule into "1 on an attack roll is a license to ruin your fun". But one thing you said stuck out and I am surprised nobody else has mentioned it.



the guy simply takes his readied CdG on me giving him sneak attack damage since I'm "helpless" and killed me on the spot.


What do the rules say about a Coup de Grace?


As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent.

You can only ready a standard action.

Just another case where this DM is breaking the rules to ruin your fun. (I am all for the DM bending the rules to improve everyone's enjoyment - that's just rule 0, but blatant rules manipulation to screw someone isn't cool.)

[hymer]

A lot of bad stuff has been (rightly) said about the DM and his decision in this regard. And let me agree with this being a bad move on his part, almost as bad as if you took revenge when you are DM.

That said, maybe a quiet talk with the DM in question would be a good idea? Maybe he realizes now that he was in the wrong? Maybe he'd like to apologize? Who knows.
I don't know what he was thinking, but could it be that he grabbed the opportunity (however clumsily) to let the rest of the party catch up? Or he was doing some exposition in the hostage situation? Or that he'd made a mistake, and had planned with said rogue getting away?

Or, you know, he was being human, got carried away and made a mistake?

[Darth Grall]

First, thanks for all the advice. After sleeping on it, I'm significantly less likely to worry about me being petty and just continue on with normal game.

Secondly, I obviously agree he cocked up and it's reassuring that I'm not crazy to think so. In terms of mechanics & fairness. I don't want to leave the game however. We've been playing for nearly 2 years(we recently came back from a 6 month hiatus), the dm's a good friend, and now that I've vented I will definitely talk to him to see if we can tone down the kill yourself 1's. Before the end of the game, things were in motion to revive me, though it will completely eat away at my AoMF fund.

Thirdly, I believe someone mentioned the possibility that this was meant to help set up/build the threat of the villian, if so I just feel he went around it the wrong way. I mean, he could have just as easily slipped into the shadows and escaped(Being a shadow dancer and all). And no one else was comming/catching up to us, everyone else in the party was elsewhere doing other things, so that was moot point.

[ravagerofworlds]

I completely disagree with using the natural 1 to put your character/toon in a "helpless position."

Unless your group is using specialized houserules on natural 1s or CdGs, then what should have happened was...

1) Natural 1 means an automatic miss.


Automatic Misses and Hits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm)
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

And that's it. Some GMs like to add some flavor for descriptive purposes about how terrible the attack was simply for humor's sake (you slipped and swing wide... you pull the trigger as you're loading and your arrow sails high in the sky... you ready your scorching ray and it strikes the town's water tower, which is now leaking) But this sort of thing should never have gone into mechanics.

The ninja in question should have... initiated a grapple check, won the grapple check (and armed to boot), all of which still would not make your character helpless. Your monk was not tied to a chair, strapped to railroad tracks or otherwise impeded in any way except for the grapple. Which the ninja would have to win every single round.


Helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm)
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.

People always get caught up on the "at the enemy's mercy." Most people who want to abuse CdG are willfully misinterpreting this catchall to apply to their specific situation and goal- to ignore the rules to kill an enemy.

Getting out a hold, even with a knife to the throat, is one of several scenarios that self defense classes teach (http://www.ehow.com/video_2356899_escape-knife-throat-chin-drop.html).
And here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EEU63g8rW8) is one with a knife to the throat in a grapple where the victim is pinned.

[LTwerewolf]

First, thanks for all the advice. After sleeping on it, I'm significantly less likely to worry about me being petty and just continue on with normal game.

Secondly, I obviously agree he cocked up and it's reassuring that I'm not crazy to think so. In terms of mechanics & fairness. I don't want to leave the game however. We've been playing for nearly 2 years(we recently came back from a 6 month hiatus), the dm's a good friend, and now that I've vented I will definitely talk to him to see if we can tone down the kill yourself 1's. Before the end of the game, things were in motion to revive me, though it will completely eat away at my AoMF fund.



It's good that it cuts into your AOMF fund, since the amulet of natural attacks is far, far better.

[White_Drake]

Have you considered implementing the Wandering Damage Table (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0524.html) in the game you're DMing? :smallbiggrin:

(look under the comic)

[demigodus]

So question 1: Has a nat 1 ever so completely screwed over your character? Having never played with a crit fumble deck in any of my games, I've only heard stories about 1's killing people. Am I wrong for being upset with the way things turned out? Is this more common than I think?

Nope. Had a DM just straight up rewritten the rules like that on the fly with me, I wouldn't have waited until the end of that session. I would have corrected him on the rules, and if that didn't change things, left then and there without further arguing. Because at this point, the DM either hates me, doesn't have a clue what the rules are, or has obsessive compulsive rail roading disorder without the balls to tell me when he is rail roading and a tendency to kill my character on the spot if I make an action that doesn't match his rail roading plans. So incompatible personalities, incompetence without owning up to his mistakes, or dishonesty due to cowardice. Any of those 3 traits in a DM ruins the game for me. I play DnD to have fun. If I can't do that, I have better things to do with my time.

[ThiagoMartell]

First, thanks for all the advice. After sleeping on it, I'm significantly less likely to worry about me being petty and just continue on with normal game.

Secondly, I obviously agree he cocked up and it's reassuring that I'm not crazy to think so. In terms of mechanics & fairness. I don't want to leave the game however. We've been playing for nearly 2 years(we recently came back from a 6 month hiatus), the dm's a good friend, and now that I've vented I will definitely talk to him to see if we can tone down the kill yourself 1's. Before the end of the game, things were in motion to revive me, though it will completely eat away at my AoMF fund.

Thirdly, I believe someone mentioned the possibility that this was meant to help set up/build the threat of the villian, if so I just feel he went around it the wrong way. I mean, he could have just as easily slipped into the shadows and escaped(Being a shadow dancer and all). And no one else was comming/catching up to us, everyone else in the party was elsewhere doing other things, so that was moot point.

*slow clap*
You, sir, are a fine example of player. Congrats!

[mishka_shaw]

Whow yeah that is pretty heavy.
I told my friends that a natural 1 will only result in a single point in damage but they all actually wanted to use the criticle fumble deck...I guess they like punishment.
Either way we use the houserule that comes with it that says if you are weapon focus'd than you draw two and pick which one you want (if you area fighter and have specialisation than you draw none). For your friend though I do agree that flavourful failure are kind of funny especially with spells, although it should never result in a cdg..unless he gives you the true-resurrect for free after ofc.

Eitherway anyone that thinks about harsh penalties for rolling a 1 needs to think about future characters.
A fighter that takes whirlwind attack and a 10ft reach weapon would invoke so many possible 1's that you undo his skill in combat. The same thing goes for just casting haste, you are increasing the chance of failure.
Than again I never got the whole 20 thing. So if I fired 20 arrows 900ft away, untrained, to strike the wings off a butterfly...the odds are in my favour :smallconfused:

[ThiagoMartell]

Than again I never got the whole 20 thing. So if I fired 20 arrows 900ft away, untrainted, to strike the wings off a butterfly...the odds are in my favour :smallconfused:
Erm... no, they are not. :smallconfused:

[LordBlades]

Erm... no, they are not. :smallconfused:

I think that what mishka_shaw is trying to say is that if you put a bow in the hands of somebody who has never seen one before and have him shoot at butterflies 1000 ft. away, he would still hit 1 arrow in 20 on average(since nat. 20 is autohit) which is a bit counter-intuitive (most RL rookie archers probably can't get a 1 in 20 percentage at 1000 ft. vs. a 1m wide target).

[GnomeGninjas]

It's good that it cuts into your AOMF fund, since the amulet of natural attacks is far, far better.

I don't understand what you mean. The part you bolded has nothing to do with your post (I'm fairly tired so I might just not be seeing the relation).

[ThiagoMartell]

I think that what mishka_shaw is trying to say is that if you put a bow in the hands of somebody who has never seen one before and have him shoot at butterflies 1000 ft. away, he would still hit 1 arrow in 20 on average(since nat. 20 is autohit) which is a bit counter-intuitive (most RL rookie archers probably can't get a 1 in 20 percentage at 1000 ft. vs. a 1m wide target).

Oh, know I understand what he meant, then. But that does not mean the odds are in your favor. A 1 in 20 odd is very much against you.

[hymer]

Mishka_shaw also mentioned having 20 arrows to try with, at which point the odds are in favour of hitting.

[dungeonnerd]

Mishka_shaw also mentioned having 20 arrows to try with, at which point the odds are in favour of hitting.

No, because each arrow has a 1/20. It's not "oh, i haven't hit yet, so my 20th arrow automatically hits".

[hymer]

I understand that, nerd, but if you have twenty arrows to try and hit with, and your hit chance is 5%, the chances at least one will hit is about 64%. There's more then 50% chance that you'll hit, i.e. the odds are in favour.

[ThiagoMartell]

I tried to run this on AnyDice to get a nice table to show for it, but it looks like it's too much dice for AnyDice.

[LTwerewolf]

I don't understand what you mean. The part you bolded has nothing to do with your post (I'm fairly tired so I might just not be seeing the relation).

That was bolded by the op, not me, I left it as is.

[Darius Kane]

I rolled 5 times. Here are the rolls:
http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3779834/ Two 20s.
http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3779838/ Three 20s.
http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3779840/ One 20.
http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3779841/ No 20s.
http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3779846/ One 20.

[Amphetryon]

I hate penalizing characters for rolling dice. The game is about rolling dice, not the DM arbitrarily making **** up when people fail.

The game is about rolling dice? I thought that game was called "Yahtzee." D&D is about roleplaying a Character concept in a setting (rolling dice is one way to interact with that setting).

[Dusk Eclipse]

The game is about rolling dice? I thought that game was called "Yahtzee." D&D is about roleplaying a Character concept in a setting (rolling dice is one way to interact with that setting).

While the wording could have been better, I have to agree with the general sentiment of the post. Yes the game is about telling a cooperative story and roleplaying; but the die are there for a reason and things such as extreme fumbles penalize people who make the rolls, further enhancing the imbalance between casters and non-casters as the former don't roll as much as the latter.

I am ok with an automatic miss (heck those are the actual rules); but attacking my buddy*? dropping my weapon? That is too harsh and not needed for the game

On the if I shoot 20 arrows at a butterfly I have the odds in my favour to hit the wing. You can't as 3e doesn't have called shot rules (save very few exceptions such as a hydra or giant octopus).

*Interestingly enough in most cases of a "you auto-hit someone other than your target" fumble it almost never has a chance to attack another enemy, in almost every case you will hit your ally.

[Flickerdart]

You can't ready a coup de grace. It's a full-round action, and you can only ready a move or standard.

[nedz]

I tried to run this on AnyDice to get a nice table to show for it, but it looks like it's too much dice for AnyDice.

You don't need to simulate this, you can calculate it. (The problem is called Euler's Birthday problem.)
The probability is given by 1-pn where p is the individual probability and n is the number of iterations.
In this case we have 1-0.0520


I understand that, nerd, but if you have twenty arrows to try and hit with, and your hit chance is 5%, the chances at least one will hit is about 64%. There's more then 50% chance that you'll hit, i.e. the odds are in favour.

64.151407759145776564258955955505 :smallsmile:
You obviously know how to do this.:smallcool:

[lunar2]

wow, my old group just played with "if you roll a natural one on an attack roll, your turn is over". the dms also liked using melee monsters, so it worked out fine.

[Starbuck_II]

What do the rules say about a Coup de Grace?



You can only ready a standard action.

Just another case where this DM is breaking the rules to ruin your fun. (I am all for the DM bending the rules to improve everyone's enjoyment - that's just rule 0, but blatant rules manipulation to screw someone isn't cool.)
Whoa, you forget the rules say you can do a full round action as two standard actions. You do first this round then next the next round.

So he completes first standard then readies second?

[Flickerdart]

Whoa, you forget the rules say you can do a full round action as two standard actions. You do first this round then next the next round.

So he completes first standard then readies second?
That is only true for casting 1-round spells if you only have 1 action available, isn't it?

[Kelb_Panthera]

You don't need to simulate this, you can calculate it. (The problem is called Euler's Birthday problem.)
The probability is given by 1-pn where p is the individual probability and n is the number of iterations.
In this case we have 1-0.0520



64.151407759145776564258955955505 :smallsmile:
You obviously know how to do this.:smallcool:
Shouldn't that be 1-(1-P)n

That is only true for casting 1-round spells if you only have 1 action available, isn't it?No, it's any full-round action, but I don't think you can delay the back half like that. You have to take the two halves of the full-round on consecutive turns.

[nedz]

That is only true for casting 1-round spells if you only have 1 action available, isn't it?

This is mainly used when you are Slowed, and need to take some full round action. e.g. You are Slowed and Nauseous and wish to move.


Shouldn't that be 1-(1-P)n


Yes, I worked it out correctly, just mistyped the formulae :smallredface:

[hymer]

That's why I didn't even try. :)

[Acanous]

Well, don't know if it's applicable, but for my group, all we needed to get the DM to drop his critical fumble rules, was have him be a player in the next campaign where we used those same rules.

He played a fighter, and yeah. Now we don't have crit fumble rules anymore. It's just an auto-miss :p

[Deophaun]

Yeah, the main problem with critical fumble rules is that the better you get, the worse you are. A fighter with four attacks a round is going to stab himself more than a wet-behind-the-ears rookie who never held a blade before in his life.

That said, whenever a DM says "I use critical fumbles" I hear "You should play a Dragonfire Adept." It's strange, I know.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, the main problem with critical fumble rules is that the better you get, the worse you are. A fighter with four attacks a round is going to stab himself more than a wet-behind-the-ears rookie who never held a blade before in his life.

That said, whenever a DM says "I use critical fumbles" I hear "You should play a Dragonfire Adept." It's strange, I know.

Huh. When someone says to me "we use critical fumbles," I hear "my name is steve. What's the steel chair for?" :smallwink:

[Hyde]

we have a fumble deck from pathfinder, it requires a confirmation roll like a critical hit does (in this case, you have to miss the creature at your full attack bonus). It works pretty well, but there was this one time with my twinned overchanneled psionic disintegrate...

[juicycaboose]

In my current group we play with a fumble deck, though you have to confirm the fumble by missing the target's AC on the second roll. So far we've had quite a few fumbles, but none of them have been particularly harsh, the worst one (and only permanent one) happened to my character, in which he lost two fingers I've just realised that this was actually a critical from a boss enemy (we use a critical hit deck as well).

[LTwerewolf]

We use fumble rules, but again you have to confirm the fumble, which is unlikely.

[killem2]

I love fumble rules, but I use the deck from paizo. My group loves it, my monsters use them.

[Ghostly Spider]

I've only ever DMed 1e games, and in the spirit of that sad broken little system, or lack thereof, I used an often cruel fumble table. However, my players and I all expected high PC mortality rates, so it was okay. My table had several nat 1 penalties for attacks, including a penalty to ac or attack, dropping your weapon, or hitting yourself or a friend. Worst thing that ever happened was a thief in a confined space decapitating himself with his own vorpal weapon. (1/20 chance of fumble, 1/4 chance of self hit, 3/20 chance of decapitation on hit, so if he stuck with that weapon, he would've killed himself about one in every 533 attacks) We all laughed about it, and his friends paid an arm and a leg to revive him. Best thing that ever happened was the very first boss of the first adventure I did finishing himself off after all of the capable players dropped their weapons.

More on topic, I did once make a call on an instant kill against a PC that everyone found objectionable, they voiced their concerns, and I saw the error of my way and sloppily retconned it. I recommend just confronting him/her. One mistake doesn't necessarily make a bad DM.

[Nabirius]

No, because each arrow has a 1/20. It's not "oh, i haven't hit yet, so my 20th arrow automatically hits".

You're quoting the gambler's fallacy, but remember that only applies after you have attempted the odds of rolling a 20 if you roll 10 times is infact greater than rolling a 20 on your first dice roll. But if on you stop on the 5th out of the 10 and say 'since I haven't hit any yet then my next shots are that much more likely to succeed' then you are committing the fallacy. Mishka is right if you are going to roll the dice 20 times, and you want to roll a 20 the odds are in your favor, well technically the probability is in your favor, but hey who's counting?

Did you point out to him the math on a monk w/ Flurry of Blows means that you basically have a 1/4 chance of 'fumbling' every time you attack? I have to continually tell and explain to my DM the math behind things sometimes, its frustrating, but sometimes you gotta do it.

[razorback]

You can't ready a coup de grace. It's a full-round action, and you can only ready a move or standard.

Definitely not advocating the screwiness of the DM in question but the Death Blow feat from Complete Adventurer turns CdG into a standard action but it does provoke AoO.

I completely disagree with the way the DM handled it but this could have been a case of railroading the party to something he needed for this plot/arc to work but this is definitely weak and he should have come up with something more imaginative if this is the case.

[Firechanter]

Well, to be precise, the odds of rolling at least one 20 over the course of 20 rolls is about 65% (1 - 0,95^20), provided you have a perfect d20. So the odds are in your favour indeed.

Of course, the same applies for rolling 1s. Which is why Fumble rules are a very bad idea.

The lesson is that every mechanism that features extreme consequences for extreme results penalized the players, and only the players in the long run. Simply because any NPC is likely to be in the game only for a handful of rounds, whereas the PCs have to endure hundreds or thousands of rounds during their career.

Suppose that rolling two natural 1s in a row in combat - i.e. Fumble and Confirmation Roll - means you lose a limb. The odds for that are 1:400.
Even if you roll only five times per encounter, and have 13 encounters between levels, that means that by level 10 you'll have rolled 650 times. This is an _80%_ chance that you will have lost a limb before you get to level 11.
Obviously, the risk will be much lower for a caster who doesn't do attack rolls, and much higher for a TWFer.

The DM simply doesn't need to care. He has as many NPCs at his disposition as he bloody likes. Even if once every 5 sessions an NPC loses a leg that way, so what, he'll be out of the game a minute later and then the next batch comes in.

Which is _exactly_ the reason why D&D has _no_ extreme consequences for either Criticals (beyond HP damage) or Natural 1s.

[hymer]

Well, to be precise


64.151407759145776564258955955505

Let's be precise abut the definition of 'precise', eh? ;)