Critical misses [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Nexahs

2012-12-02, 06:11 PM

I think that you may find some of the posters on these boards have a mild dislike of critical fumble rules.

Anyway, here's mine: We're down in the crypts of some evil old wizard, and I'm playing a rogue. We get into a fight with some wraiths, and I'm on one end, the wraiths are in the middle, and the archer in the party is on the other end. The archer's bow applies a random magical effect to each arrow it fires. With one of these arrows, he rolls a nat 1. The DM rules it hits me instead of the wraiths. No problem, I've got 50% miss chance. I'm told it ignores that. No problem, I've got uncanny dodge. I'm told it also ignores that. No problem, I've got bracers of armor, and a ring of protection. I'm told it also ignores those. I'm a little irritated at this point, but I figure I can eat the damage. The arrow turns out to be dimension door, and I'm teleported to another room, where a Rakshasa steals my weapons. I do not like critical fumbles.

That just sounds like bad DMing to me... I have a hard time believing whatever spell was on the arrow ignored all of that.

Anybody else got stories, good or bad, regardless of opinion on the rule?

RagnaroksChosen

2012-12-02, 06:16 PM

We play with critical fumbles... the rule is you roll a 1 or have a weapon with an improved fumble rate and you roll that number you have to confirm it (like confirming a crit). Then something bad happens... not terrible though.

Some examples are, Loosing a weapon, having a spell hit you instead, falling, breaking a weapon, weapon explodes in the case of guns/alchemist weapons/certain magic weapons. I like to not use a table, as it allows me to not have anything to horrendus happen but just extremly annoying.

headwarpage

2012-12-02, 06:26 PM

nedz

2012-12-02, 07:38 PM

Amnestic

2012-12-02, 07:41 PM

I don't think Fumbles are any different to Criticals.
They both represent a 5% chance of some extreme event happening.
A Monster getting a lucky crit on a PC is pretty much the same as a PC fumbling.
YMMV

Players (and monsters) get more chances at criticals as they level up due to BAB increasing and more attack rolls being available per turn.

Adding fumbles to that means they have more chance of failing as they get stronger, which doesn't make much sense to me.

TuggyNE

2012-12-02, 11:18 PM

I don't think Fumbles are any different to Criticals.
They both represent a 5% chance of some extreme event happening.
A Monster getting a lucky crit on a PC is pretty much the same as a PC fumbling.
YMMV

You're ignoring confirmation, which is a very significant part of the issue. All criticals must be confirmed (except for rare spells that auto-confirm), while auto-misses never are, and most houseruled fumbles aren't either. If you do have confirmations on fumbles, nearly all the stupidity is gone. (It's still slightly harsher to PCs than to NPCs, given the nature of randomness with a power imbalance, but some people prefer that.)

To be precise, an auto-hit or auto-miss represents a flat 5% chance of something unusual happening, while a critical represents up to a 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% chance of doing considerably more damage than normal, with additional skill raising the chance closer to its cap (and therefore skill tending to significantly increase the number of criticals per round). A critical fumble system without confirmation, however, increases the odds of fumbling linearly with increasing BAB (from 5% at BAB 1 to 18.5% at BAB 20), which is counter-intuitive and unjustifiable. Adding confirmation to that keeps the number of critical fumbles per round roughly stable, or may decrease it overall with increased skill (from 2% at BAB 1 with 60% chance to hit to just under 2% at BAB 20 with 90% chance to hit), and since it's tied to opponent skill it makes more sense.

nedz

2012-12-02, 11:29 PM

Actually I was assuming confirmation in both cases — sorry.

Re-roll to hit AC 20+ and its just a miss for instance — though this is a bit harsh on iteratives.

I'm not sure I like either Criticals or Fumbles terribly; but both do have the effect of making the very unlikely somewhat more common. This does fit with some heroic orientated play-styles.

Artillery

2012-12-03, 06:31 AM

My DMs do Nat 1s as auto miss. You then roll a d6. A 6 gets you something bad, usually tripping but sometimes a person gets suplexed by a giant Ant. Same rule with critical. 6 on a d6 gets a cool effect.

Blue1005

2012-12-03, 06:37 AM

I use critical tables and my players really enjoy them. I dont thik it is "lazy" at all. People who say that perhaps have far too much free time to come up and describe the scenarios for the several that happen each session. That said, I think it adds a fun element to the game.

And, i think the dimension door story was a little far out there, if i were Dming i would have the chances to miss factored in before you were automatically teleported away.

Andreaz

2012-12-03, 06:37 AM

I don't think Fumbles are any different to Criticals.
They both represent a 5% chance of some extreme event happening.
A Monster getting a lucky crit on a PC is pretty much the same as a PC fumbling.
YMMVIf you use "critical misses", no army can ever exist. People would die by hitting training dummies.
Fighter types would get weaker as they level up.
As shown by one of the aforementioned examples, somehow such misses get to be even nastier than any normal attack you could ever be.

"Critical misses" are stupid, and they're not even an actual rule in most games. People somehow just seem to find it "interesting". It's interesting alright, to GLADOS.

My DMs do Nat 1s as auto miss. You then roll a d6. A 6 gets you something bad, usually tripping but sometimes a person gets suplexed by a giant Ant. Same rule with critical. 6 on a d6 gets a cool effect.Auto miss is an actual rule. "nat 1 = miss", and missing is bad enough, trust me.

Another similarly weird delusion is that skill rolls have special effects on nat1s and nat20s.
They don't.

-----------------------
Think about this: Put 2 men to train on straw dummies with training swords. If they attack once per round, in a minute one of them will break an arm or slap the other's face.
Now put 2 veteran warriors, guys legendary for slaying dragons and the like, to do the same thing.
In a minute they will cut off the other's arm.
Ugh.

navar100

2012-12-03, 09:08 AM

My group always plays that if you roll a natural 1, then "confirm" it by making another "missing" attack roll, you provoke an AoO. I kind of like it, actually; it doesn't screw with the rest of your actions (unless your enemy uses the AoO to trip/grapple/disarm you), it just balances out critical hits a little bit. I think the key is that it's resolved using the normal combat mechanics, so it doesn't feel like you're getting screwed over by DM fiat.

This. Though I hate critical fumbles, if there has to be such rules, this I like. It makes Combat Reflexes a bit more valuable as a feat for those characters who wouldn't take it anyway, but that's ok.

razorback

2012-12-03, 09:30 AM

I don't think it is unreasonable to have critical fumbles although there is a large majority who dislike or even hate them. Years ago, I was more of a Rolemaster than AD&D guy, which may be why.

I've been toying around with ideas to balance out the fact that a better fighter (not Fighter) should be more skilled at it. What I think I'm going to do is if you roll a natural 1 on d20, you roll % and subtract your BAB from 20 with a minimum of 1.
On a fumble threat, a 1st level fighter has 19% chance of fumbling while a 19+ fighter would have a 1% chance. Or, .0095% for a 1st level fighter or .0005% for a 19th+ level fighter per attack. In theory, I think this is very reasonable. I'm just waiting to see how it plays out now.
I have the PF fumble deck, having converted to PF recently, but I may take my old RM charts and modify them for both critical hits and fumbles.

Absol197

2012-12-03, 10:03 AM

The rule I use (my group uses the optional rule that a nat. 1 is a -10 and a nat 20 is a 30, instead of auto-hits and misses) is that if your total roll is negative, no matter what the actual die roll was, you fumble in some fashion. How severe the fumble is depends on how negative the roll.

This means that a 20th-level fighter rarely fumbles, because with his +7 or higher Strength modifier, his +4 weapon, bonuses like Weapon Focus and the weapon training class feature, even his worst attack has more than a +10 to hit, so he doesn't have to worry about a negative attack modifier.

But, if someone has a low bonus, and penalties are applied because of some spell or effect or whatnot, and they roll a 2, if everything adds up and they end up with a result of a -3, then they've fumbled. It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes funny things happen.

~Phoenix~

Blue1005

2012-12-04, 12:27 AM

If you use "critical misses", no army can ever exist. People would die by hitting training dummies.
Fighter types would get weaker as they level up.
As shown by one of the aforementioned examples, somehow such misses get to be even nastier than any normal attack you could ever be.

"Critical misses" are stupid, and they're not even an actual rule in most games. People somehow just seem to find it "interesting". It's interesting alright, to GLADOS.

Auto miss is an actual rule. "nat 1 = miss", and missing is bad enough, trust me.

Another similarly weird delusion is that skill rolls have special effects on nat1s and nat20s.
They don't.

-----------------------
Think about this: Put 2 men to train on straw dummies with training swords. If they attack once per round, in a minute one of them will break an arm or slap the other's face.
Now put 2 veteran warriors, guys legendary for slaying dragons and the like, to do the same thing.
In a minute they will cut off the other's arm.
Ugh.

Perhaps your anger stems from the fact that you think every critical miss leads to a hit ally. There are plenty of other options you can compose and put on a chart. You can use this table and think outside the box also.

Rhaegar14

2012-12-04, 01:08 AM

I use fumbles in one of two scenarios:

1) The PCs are losing the battle, and an enemy rolls a natural 1. So basically, as a convenient excuse to throw them a bone.

2) The PCs are winning so thoroughly that even the most far-fetched fumble couldn't possibly effect the outcome of the combat.

When I do the latter type of fumbles, they're usually completely absurd. I think we had a Barbarian cut off three of his toes with fumbles in an old game I DMed. He also lost his grip on his axe one time and then it went flying into the Rogue...

The last fumble I did was for a boss monster Saturday night that the party was having trouble with. The monster was a Large (because I'm DM and I can arbitrarily decide that) Dragonwrought Kobold Barbarian 2/Totemist 2, and pretty heavily optimized (one-shotted the Cleric on a crit, and I had to use fiat to keep her from straight-up dying). The Cleric also happened to be one of the two best-equipped to deal with him, as their Crusader couldn't reliably hit his AC.

At any rate, he rolled a natural 1 on an attack roll and embedded his falchion in the stone wall of the corridor, which cut off his iteratives (though he still got his tail attack in). Next turn it cost him a move action to pull it out from the wall.

TuggyNE

2012-12-04, 01:44 AM

Perhaps your anger stems from the fact that you think every critical miss leads to a hit ally. There are plenty of other options you can compose and put on a chart. You can use this table and think outside the box also.

Many (though by no means all) such tables include "strike ally", "strike self", "auto-crit ally", "auto-crit self", "kill self and opponent", and so forth. It's pretty fair to say that such foolishness is emblematic of the idea to a large extent, and it's also the cause of most of the raeg [sic]. (The remaining dislike is mostly directed toward stealth nerf-for-a-round-or-more entries, such as "drop weapon", "fling weapon 20 ft", and "bowstring snaps".)

Also, I suspect Andreaz was alluding to the fairly well-known proposal for judging critical fumble tables: "Have a group of 20 Warrior 1s attack adjacent straw dummies with swords for 1 minute. If by the end of that time any Warriors are dead, missing limbs, or otherwise seriously injured, the DM must butter his fumble rules and eat them." (If you like, you can repeat the experiment with 20 Fighter 20s, but this time butter is not allowed.)

Blue1005

2012-12-04, 04:45 AM

Many (though by no means all) such tables include "strike ally", "strike self", "auto-crit ally", "auto-crit self", "kill self and opponent", and so forth. It's pretty fair to say that such foolishness is emblematic of the idea to a large extent, and it's also the cause of most of the raeg [sic]. (The remaining dislike is mostly directed toward stealth nerf-for-a-round-or-more entries, such as "drop weapon", "fling weapon 20 ft", and "bowstring snaps".)

Also, I suspect Andreaz was alluding to the fairly well-known proposal for judging critical fumble tables: "Have a group of 20 Warrior 1s attack adjacent straw dummies with swords for 1 minute. If by the end of that time any Warriors are dead, missing limbs, or otherwise seriously injured, the DM must butter his fumble rules and eat them." (If you like, you can repeat the experiment with 20 Fighter 20s, but this time butter is not allowed.)

True, but if the DM cant have some logic he would be better as a fighter PC. And most tables do have the hit self and others , but if it is super ridiculous why not change it, you cant hit a party member that is 30 feet away with a sword. Also, if the fumble tables are the only issue someone has witht he game, that DM is doing and awesome job, and people should step back and realize that.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 05:40 AM

Perhaps your anger stems from the fact that you think every critical miss leads to a hit ally. There are plenty of other options you can compose and put on a chart. You can use this table and think outside the box also.Not "think", "Experienced".
True, but if the DM cant have some logic he would be better as a fighter PC. And most tables do have the hit self and others , but if it is super ridiculous why not change it, you cant hit a party member that is 30 feet away with a sword. Also, if the fumble tables are the only issue someone has witht he game, that DM is doing and awesome job, and people should step back and realize that.Rule of thumb, the game punishes you hard enough with the nat1 being an automatic miss. It gives every single enemy another chance to strike, buff, debuff, flee, kill your escorts, break your stuff, you name it.
Adding insult to injury is not going to help. The fact npcs can also commit these mistakes does not help balance things out. Every time I'm in a game that insists on using that crap, I play a full caster and perform no attack rolls without a reroll spell in the backburner, and even the most adamant defenders of that stuff in my tables find no joy in it, which leads me to think very lowly of whatever mental process makes them want those tables.

TheifofZ

2012-12-04, 05:54 AM

Personally, I see fumbles as the cruel hand of fate bringing about some whimsical come-uppance for all the unnecessary greed and cruelty exhibited by the PCs. So of course, I play them to the hilt.
The rules for critical fumbles that I use are as follows; and as I tend to be a bit less... nice to my players than is strictly required of a DM, they might be seen as harsh. Still, it livens up a campaign.
When a player rolls a critical fumble, I roll again (secretly) to confirm the fumble isn't just a slightly wider miss than normal, but is in fact the dread hand of doom. If it is a fumble, I then roll a % dice, taking the roll as the PCs fortune, with varying levels of very bad things that can happen. a 100% is... simply some truly humiliating whiff, but as the percent dips lower, the result gets progressively worse (Any effect that ends up targeting others is randomly determined as well). at about 80%, it might be that the fighter stumbles alittle and accidentally stabs the monk (1/2 normal damage). At 55% it might be full damage. At 20% it might be for critical damage instead. At the very worse, 001%, it deals damage as a coup de grace. (That is, crit damage and fort save against the damage to avoid instant death).
Though amusing and slight injuries crop up about as often as you'd expect, the 001 has shown up exactly twice. First, in a dungeon, the fighter lost his grip on a (just looted, and still slick with blood) nonmagical sword and threw it against a rock, shattering it. One of the pieces struck the wizard in the eye, and instantly killed him. Everyone was shocked.

The second time an orc was trying to stab the cleric, stumbled, fell backwards, and managed to impale itself on it's companion's spear.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 06:05 AM

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ThiagoMartell

2012-12-04, 06:05 AM

Well, if you don't want unnecessary greed and cruelty, I imagine you want the PCs to be heroes. If you have them die unheroic deaths randomly, they won't be heroes.

TuggyNE

2012-12-04, 06:09 AM

True, but if the DM cant have some logic he would be better as a fighter PC.

Sorry, can you rephrase? I seem to be missing something here.

And most tables do have the hit self and others , but if it is super ridiculous why not change it, you cant hit a party member that is 30 feet away with a sword.

Amusingly, I wasn't actually thinking of the near-ubiquitous issues such tables have with terrible wording: I was thinking of the perfectly common and normal case of "hit adjacent ally" when an ally is actually adjacent. That's still pretty terrible, despite being technically possible, and should basically never come up. (If you want to be super-precise, you could try to calculate the odds of it actually happening, and then assign a generation system from there, but I'd bet the odds are several orders of magnitude lower than any fumble table could reasonably account for. So it's not really worth putting in there, any more than it's worth including tidal effects in a desert campaign.)

Also, I do consider it ridiculous, and I am suggesting changing it, just preemptively and for all cases. :smallwink:

Also, if the fumble tables are the only issue someone has witht he game, that DM is doing and awesome job, and people should step back and realize that.

That's true as far as it goes, but a game with only one flaw is still, er, a game with a flaw, so it doesn't go very far. Most fumble tables are deeply flawed, and merely noting that they're not the most important thing around, or that they're unable to utterly ruin a game on their own, or whatever, isn't actually a defense, it's an excuse that doesn't hold water. However awesome a job the DM is currently doing, removing any remaining flaws can hardly help but improve it still further, no?

I'm not suggesting that players overreact to the presence of a crit fumble table (the "buttering and eating" thing was meant as a sort of humorous challenge, not a mean-spirited and bitter piece of mischief). I do, however, think that crit fumbles are very rarely a good thing and quite often a bad thing, and as such should be quietly abandoned on the scrap-heap of "ideas that seemed good for a while, and then we actually thought them through".

Personally, I see fumbles as the cruel hand of fate bringing about some whimsical come-uppance for all the unnecessary greed and cruelty exhibited by the PCs.

As metaphysical explanations go, that's not a bad one, though it relies a bit on having nothing but Chaotic Greedy PCs. (Which, to be fair, match up far better with crit fumbles, and often go together.)

In a dungeon, the fighter lost his grip on a (just looted, and still slick with blood) nonmagical sword and threw it against a rock, shattering it. One of the pieces struck the wizard in the eye, and instantly killed him.

Pure essence of critical fumble, right there. You've got "lost grip on weapon and threw it", "hit ally with improbable attack roll", "weapon irreversibly destroyed", and even "allied insta-kill in bizarre way".

Everyone was shocked.

Now that I can't understand. :smalltongue:

Edit:
Well, if you don't want unnecessary greed and cruelty, I imagine you want the PCs to be heroes. If you have them die unheroic deaths randomly, they won't be heroes.

I think this actually strikes to the heart of it: it's a basic divide between old-school "the heroes are the ones randomly left after all the other guys died stupid deaths" and new-school "heroes don't die stupid deaths". To each his own.

TheifofZ

2012-12-04, 06:11 AM

Well, if you don't want unnecessary greed and cruelty, I imagine you want the PCs to be heroes. If you have them die unheroic deaths randomly, they won't be heroes.
... Your naivete is as charming as it is surprising.
PCs adventure as much for better gear as anything else (IE: greed) and I don't know about you, but some of the things I've seen players get up to when they think they can get away with it are downright brutish. As well, think of what it's like for the monster. Imagine; You're a dragon, just minding your own business, probably sleeping as dragons are wont to do, and suddenly this group lead by a paladin all of shining armor and soul and whatnot rushes into your lair, kills you in a drawn out and painful fight, probably desecrates your corpse for proof, and then loots your entire hoard. Doesn't seem quite just, does it? Seems maybe alittle cruel, even?

hymer

2012-12-04, 06:22 AM

Where did the dragon get that hoard, I wonder?

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 06:24 AM

Doesn't seem quite just, does it? Seems maybe alittle cruel, even?Of course not. The universe is not "just" and fumble tables are not the way to approach a morality game. If you want your players to feel the weight of their monstrous actions, teach them morality, not "how to spontaneously kill yourself for no sensible reason".
And hint: If your players do not care about a morality game, you teaching them morality will not make them happier.

Your table is yet another "unrealistic" one too, since one in every 2000 attacks outright kills you, bypassing every possible defense, probability and reasonability.

Seriously. You can't even have your own troops. Every 2 to 4 minutes one of them will get themselves killed during practice.

Blue1005

2012-12-04, 06:39 AM

If the DM is unable to use logic when he uses a fumble table, he would be better suited to be a Fighter and a PC, instead of the DM.

That said. everyone has an opinion about how terrible and unrealistic the fumble and crit tables are, how about someone formulate one that they think is more realistic.

And i think if you were in a true DnD style setting at LEAST 1 of every 2000 attacks would outright kill you. People that think a PC is godlike and should never be killed is doing a disservice to the game. Things have consequences.

ThiagoMartell

2012-12-04, 06:42 AM

That said. everyone has an opinion about how terrible and unrealistic the fumble and crit tables are, how about someone formulate one that they think is more realistic.
The point people are making is that those tables as a whole are a bad idea, so people won't be suggesting good ones.

And i think if you were in a true DnD style setting at LEAST 1 of every 2000 attacks would outright kill you. People that think a PC is godlike and should never be killed is doing a disservice to the game. Things have consequences.
So you think a warrior sparring with a training dummy for an hour should die? :smallconfused:

Blue1005

2012-12-04, 06:45 AM

The point people are making is that those tables as a whole are a bad idea, so people won't be suggesting good ones.

So you think a warrior sparring with a training dummy for an hour should die? :smallconfused:

Again, i dont think they are bad. And the 2000 i was referring to was in a real battle not a training dummy. Some people want to discredit the whole idea over a few key issues.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 06:48 AM

And i think if you were in a true DnD style setting at LEAST 1 of every 2000 attacks would outright kill you. People that think a PC is godlike and should never be killed is doing a disservice to the game. Things have consequences.Being attacked 2000 times may well kill you.
You, attacking 2000 times, killing yourself or your friends by virtue of some stupid happenstance very very very loosely linked to the fact you attacked, however, is not fine. I'm playing D&D, not Final Destination.

Blue1005

2012-12-04, 06:50 AM

Being attacked 2000 times may well kill you.
You, attacking 2000 times, killing yourself or your friends by virtue of some stupid happenstance very very very loosely linked to the fact you attacked, however, is not fine. I'm playing D&D, not Final Destination.

Final Destination DnD would be awesome. But have you never heard of friendly fire? Or people tripping in the forest of things like that? IF your table is all "Kill self or kill ally" then by all means, that is terrible. But some are quite interesting i think.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 06:57 AM

But have you never heard of friendly fire? Or people tripping in the forest of things like that? IF your table is all "Kill self or kill ally" then by all means, that is terrible. But some are quite interesting i think.Friendly Fire is perfectly possible and fine without such random factor. That's the entire point with the cover rules and area effects.
"Your sword slips from your grasp and ricochets on the enemy's shield, putting him off balance and leveraging himself on your ally, who dropped his shield arm and took a meteor to the face" is not.

If you want such happenstance around, just weave that into the normal hits and misses from everyone involved.

Final Destination DnD would be awesome.Get off my lawn ;_; D&D is lethal enough without adding a dumb and nonsensical system to it. There's enough nonsensical dumbness in the canonical system.

ThiagoMartell

2012-12-04, 06:57 AM

Again, i dont think they are bad.
So you should present a table that proves everyone wrong, then. What you were saying basically amounted to "you guys say this is bad, so why don't you prove it is not bad by making it better".

And the 2000 i was referring to was in a real battle not a training dummy. Some people want to discredit the whole idea over a few key issues.
Yes, there is a reason that is not part of the rules, after all.
Check any freshly trained soldier - they have performed a lot more than 2000 attacks and you rarely if ever see mention of people dying while training.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-04, 07:00 AM

^ Did the math. Attacking twice in one round, a low number, means, on average, 10 hours of rolling attack rolls until you do something stupid that kills you.
If you are going to have critical misses, there should there be a converse rule that a character rolling a 20 on a saving throw for magic has some kind of backlash on whoever instigated it or roll a 1 on beating spell resistance.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 07:04 AM

^ Did the math. Attacking twice in one round, a low number, means, on average, 10 hours of rolling attack rolls until you do something stupid that kills you.Yeah. Supposing a very light training regimen where you only spend two hours actually practicing with a weapon, most soldiers gets killed in his first week of work.
Without engaging in combat.
It's not even a case of dropping your weapon (which happens to nonproficients and people being directly disarmed), but outright killing yourself within the week by poking a sharp stick at a dummy.

nat20s are threats. nat1s are misses. saving-wise, nat20s save your skin, nat1s screw you godly. There's really no need for more as far as trained people are concerned.

Thomasinx

2012-12-04, 07:04 AM

So you think a warrior sparring with a training dummy for an hour should die? :smallconfused:

One thing that isn't really brought up is the fact that mistakes *do* happen in combat. In a stressful environment where life is at risk, people shoot allies by mistake, weapons jam or break, and things can go wrong.

One problem with emulating this in a 3.5 game is that a d20 system isn't very good at this. Picking something via dice-roll is a bit arbitrary. Most fumbles are situationally dependent (dropping a wet sword in the rain, bowstring snapping while fighting an acid-breathing dragon, turning too fast when flying and giving yourself whiplash... etc). In a stress-filled environment, things can and will go wrong. Deciding just *how* wrong things can go is a difficult process, and usually more work than a lot of DM's are willing to take (usually they'll just find a fumble table and use that).

One reason some players don't like fumbles is because they want to have a level of certainty with their actions, without risking hurting themselves on their own turn. Other players like fumbles because it adds a level of risk in their own actions (which they enjoy). It entirely depends on the players.

As for the training dummy situation, I personally feel that it is a bad example.
A group of fighters attacking a training dummy aren't exactly in a stress-filled environment where they are fighting for their lives. In all likelihood, this would fit under the 'taking-10' type of situation. Although, that said, it's still possible to do things like snap a bowstring, have the sword stuck in the dummy because it dug too deep, etc... The problem is picking which fumbles to use on what situation.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 07:10 AM

[good sense about stressful situations and mistakes happening]They do, you are correct, and mostly the game emulates that with the natural 1s being automatic misses and failed saves.
The main reasons for that are fun-related: Mistakes tend to be bad enough on the player and on the character. Making things worse...don't help. Parallel to that, fumble tables take time. Judging fumbles on the spot also may take time. It's rubbing salt on the wound.

I really really mean this: If people want to play a game where mistakes are more accurately portrayed, they should not play d&d. They can try gurps, rolemaster and their ilk. Even Call of Chtulhu and Paranoia are more friendly to that, as in those you are expected to get bent over by cosmic nastiness anyway.
Fumble tables are not "accurate portrayals", much less fun.

SowZ

2012-12-04, 07:12 AM

If you use "critical misses", no army can ever exist. People would die by hitting training dummies.
Fighter types would get weaker as they level up.
As shown by one of the aforementioned examples, somehow such misses get to be even nastier than any normal attack you could ever be.

"Critical misses" are stupid, and they're not even an actual rule in most games. People somehow just seem to find it "interesting". It's interesting alright, to GLADOS.

Auto miss is an actual rule. "nat 1 = miss", and missing is bad enough, trust me.

Another similarly weird delusion is that skill rolls have special effects on nat1s and nat20s.
They don't.

-----------------------
Think about this: Put 2 men to train on straw dummies with training swords. If they attack once per round, in a minute one of them will break an arm or slap the other's face.
Now put 2 veteran warriors, guys legendary for slaying dragons and the like, to do the same thing.
In a minute they will cut off the other's arm.
Ugh.

Friendly fire is an extraordinarily dangerous thing on a battlefield, especially a medieval battlefield. It is easy enough to take out the training dummy scenario by only allowing critical misses when threatened/you couldn't take ten on a skill check. But yeah, in a melee with a bunch of guys swinging swords or a battlefield with a bunch of guys shooting guns, the odds of one of your attacks getting closer to or hitting your ally than an enemy are going to be higher than 5%. Confirmation rolls on fumbles are a must, though.

I don't usually use very bad 'fumbles,' though. In fact, I think falling prone, dropping a weapon, and gun jams are all I have used as a GM.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 07:19 AM

Confirmation rolls on fumbles are a must, though.These tend to be a good compromise, provided the fumbles don't break any rule. Auto-hits caused by an auto-miss are out of question.
I don't usually use very bad 'fumbles,' though. In fact, I think falling prone, dropping a weapon, and gun jams are all I have used as a GM.Pretty much.

I agree with everyone on the friendly fire thing, but the game doesn't even try to model that in melee. Ranged gets the cover rules (if you miss an enemy because of cover, you hit the cover, namely your friend fighter) and area effects almost never distinguish friend and foe. I'd rather keep it that way and use some other system if I really want melee friendly fire.

Blue1005

2012-12-04, 10:46 AM

Check any freshly trained soldier - they have performed a lot more than 2000 attacks and you rarely if ever see mention of people dying while training.

You do in fact hear of some dying in training. But that is not combat stress, that is please dont yell at me stress.

And if we are talking about DnD, these people train with weapons like swords and the like, cuts can happen, broken and sprained ankles. Again, i feel like people are stuck on the insta-death for self of ally thing.

Oscredwin

2012-12-04, 12:51 PM

I was in a 3.0 game where the DM decided that all magic items had to come from him. I had just started a level 7 Barbarian and after begging and pleading got a magic sword (we were regularly encountering enemies with DR and I wanted a shot to hurt them). On my first attack with this character, I rolled a 1, I rolled to confirm and got a 1, I rolled to confirm and got a 2.

The DM ruled that I banged my sword on the ground and it shattered (something that would have been impossible for me to do on purpose). I was then a weaponless barbarian for the rest of the adventure. My item in the next split of the loot was a magic mirror (the 200k one, wasn't useful due to total lack of any type of magic mart).

There's a problem when critical fumbles are more powerful than anything you can possibly do. Insta-kills, auto hitting another target, auto critting, auto sundering are all things that shouldn't be possible by accident.

Zherog

2012-12-04, 12:59 PM

I'm not a fan of critical fumbles, because of the whole, "highly trained and skilled warrior is more likely to fumble than the neophyte wizard" thing. But, if I were going to be forced to play with such a rule, headwarpag's method - roll to confirm, "successful" confirmation means you provoke an AoO - isn't too bad at all. Two things I like here: first is the confirmation roll, just like on a critical hit; second is that it uses existing rules to "punish" the fumbler.

Big Fau

2012-12-04, 01:19 PM

Just to chime in and say this: I've never heard of someone practicing swordsmanship decapitating himself.

ahenobarbi

2012-12-04, 01:26 PM

In my group if there is a friendly character between ranged attacker and target the friend is hit on natural 1-4. No need to confirm/ match AC. As the result archer (with low attack bonus) does more damage to friends than to foes. Even though we try hard not to get in the line of fire.

Andreaz

2012-12-04, 01:44 PM

Bypassing rules that way always sucks.

killem2

2012-12-04, 01:45 PM

I think that you may find some of the posters on these boards have a mild dislike of critical fumble rules.

/off topic on
Yeah, well, those people need to suck it up and get over it. :smallcool:

Honestly 3.5 players are god-like in comparison to the general CR ratings. This is almost common knowledge now. Having players experience slight flaw to their combat is not the end of the world.

I use the fumble deck from Paizo, group loves it, just absolutely love it. I didn't force it on them, I asked them if they wanted to use not only it, but fumbles.

Which I asked every time I show them a new chart. I will say I won't be surprised if most of the online community here reel back like a vampire in a cheesy movie being present a crucifix.

Its not a RAW to be locked to, so any slight offense to the world of pure optimization can cause quite a stink. :smallbiggrin:

/off topic off

Anyway to the topic at hand, the worst I can recall, in 3.5 is rolling a 1, the dm using some three page sheet of percentages, and after the rolling was done, I broke my leg and my weapon went flying into a nearby ally and it was a critical hit. :smallsigh::smallsigh:

Deophaun

2012-12-04, 04:06 PM

The only reason I'm dead set against critical fumbles in 3.5 is because it punishes classes that are by no means overpowered and leaves the broken classes ::cough::wizard::cough:: alone. Melee's power comes from multiple attacks, be they iterative or natural. The confirmation rolls really screw with melee on their latter attacks, where they're already penalized for crit confirmation.

That said, as long as I know critical fumbles are in a 3.5 game before I join, I'll play. Just don't be surprised if I never make a single attack roll. Introducing critical fumbles after I've built my character that runs off of 10 attacks in a round will get you bludgeoned with my adamantium PHB.

GeriSch

2012-12-04, 04:50 PM

Just to chime in and say this: I've never heard of someone practicing swordsmanship decapitating himself.

I've heard of a martial artist which showed his swordfighting skills in an exhibition and due to a lapse of concentration he cut off his own hand (!) - not as bad as decapitating, but serious stuff can happen when fighting with deadly weapons. Personally i like the critical fumbles because i like a little bit of drama :D

gr,
Geri

killem2

2012-12-04, 05:03 PM

What I think is funny is the down right refusal to accept that there can be a natural miss, (1) and that it might cause damage to your self, (fumbles)but it is perfectly logical to accept that every once and a while someone will hit even the most unlikely of targets (20), and some how manage to hit the target in just the right spot (vital organ with critical hit).

I know there is a place somewhere in one of the dang books, that basically says no person is actually standing still or facing one directly in combat, it is assumed everyone is moving around, and is aware of their surroundings for the most part and are actively fighting and defending themselves.

By logic of it all, how someone can pinpoint a perfect hit in the heat of battle like that, makes ALMOST as much sense as a trained warrior fumbling. However, to me, I can actually believe a fumble, (light fumbles mind you, not the example that happened to me) more than I can a precise strike in combat.

Nor could I believe that just because the roll says 20, that a Goliath Psychic Warrior, who has expanded himself to huge and is using a Gargantuan greatsword automatically hits a petal psion who has gotten compression and made them selves diminutive.

I suppose the caveat to that is, you do have to confirm, so it makes it fair on both ends. YMMV.

White_Drake

2012-12-04, 05:17 PM

Remember, I'm against crit fumbles, so don't get on my back, but what if you put in the optional rule for rolling spell save DCs, and on a nat 1 a magical mishaps occurred? In addition to confirmation and limiting critical failures to reasonable things, such as provoking attacks of opportunity. This would give wizards just as bad a weakness as fighters.

Deophaun

2012-12-04, 05:28 PM

Remember, I'm against crit fumbles, so don't get on my back, but what if you put in the optional rule for rolling spell save DCs, and on a nat 1 a magical mishaps occurred?
Fighter types still get worse as they supposedly get better. No good. If you limited critical fumbles to the first attack/spell in the round only, you could at least balance it. It would still be terrible, but it would be a balanced terrible.

Ryulin18

2012-12-04, 06:16 PM

My party ruled critical misses as this

Automatically ends turn - Any attacks before count. Doesn't ruin full round attacks.
If this was a save, your equipment now affects too
If this was a skill check, roll again. Roll under the DC and the worst happens. Roll over the DC and you don't screw up to hard (situational)
If this is ranged, you have a chance of hitting the first person in the way. Roll again against their AC.

Works pretty well, so far.

Psyren

2012-12-04, 06:20 PM

I forget where this came from but it's a good rule of thumb:

"Have ten fighters attack practice dummies for an hour. If any of them are crippled or in negatives at the end of the hour, the DM must butter and eat his own fumble rules."

/off topic on
Yeah, well, those people need to suck it up and get over it. :smallcool:

Honestly 3.5 players are god-like in comparison to the general CR ratings. This is almost common knowledge now. Having players experience slight flaw to their combat is not the end of the world.

The funniest part of this is that the real "god-like" players are playing casters, so once again melee can't have nice things through no fault of its own.

Gavinfoxx

2012-12-04, 06:20 PM

... Your naivete is as charming as it is surprising.
PCs adventure as much for better gear as anything else (IE: greed) and I don't know about you, but some of the things I've seen players get up to when they think they can get away with it are downright brutish. As well, think of what it's like for the monster. Imagine; You're a dragon, just minding your own business, probably sleeping as dragons are wont to do, and suddenly this group lead by a paladin all of shining armor and soul and whatnot rushes into your lair, kills you in a drawn out and painful fight, probably desecrates your corpse for proof, and then loots your entire hoard. Doesn't seem quite just, does it? Seems maybe alittle cruel, even?

No, your PC's might adventure for greed, but most of the PC's in the games I have played in are nothing of the sort.

Dusk Eclipse

2012-12-04, 06:21 PM

Critical fumbles sucks, they don't really add anything to the game and unjoustly punish some playstyles (multiple attacks mostly). I also hate them on skill checks.

Dissonance

2012-12-04, 06:48 PM

My gnome wizard once rolled a nat 1 on the check to get us in a town.

The summary of the night was:
- one gnome fueled riot
- hundreds of (ghost sounded) gnome insurgents
- the (ghost sounded) gnome army invading
- a massive blow to the (ghost sounded) gnome army
- a human raid on nearby gnome town
- the PCs rescueing captured gnomes with the help of (ghost sounded) gnome army
- being hailed as heros in the gnome town

There is more that is just impossible to explain with just words on a board. Needless to say that night was by far the best game I have ever played.

Sewercop

2012-12-05, 04:38 AM

TuggyNE

2012-12-05, 06:38 AM

If you are going to have critical misses, there should there be a converse rule that a character rolling a 20 on a saving throw for magic has some kind of backlash on whoever instigated it or roll a 1 on beating spell resistance.

For consistency, yes. However, it's even harder to make that make sense: some spells allow saving throws at intervals during their duration (dominate person), some allow a saving throw long after they're cast (fire trap), and, of course, some don't allow saving throws at all. Does it really make sense for a cleric to suddenly take 1d6 backlash damage from some random rogue sneaking through their fire trapped area and getting a natural 20?

One thing that isn't really brought up is the fact that mistakes *do* happen in combat. In a stressful environment where life is at risk, people shoot allies by mistake, weapons jam or break, and things can go wrong.

One problem with emulating this in a 3.5 game is that a d20 system isn't very good at this. Picking something via dice-roll is a bit arbitrary. Most fumbles are situationally dependent (dropping a wet sword in the rain, bowstring snapping while fighting an acid-breathing dragon, turning too fast when flying and giving yourself whiplash... etc). In a stress-filled environment, things can and will go wrong. Deciding just *how* wrong things can go is a difficult process, and usually more work than a lot of DM's are willing to take (usually they'll just find a fumble table and use that).

Yeah, this is true; the problem I have with using fumble tables is twofold: they have extremely dubious assumptions about probability, and they tend to take longer, especially if they're more "realistic".

The problem is picking which fumbles to use on what situation.

Yes. Hardly any fumble tables actually differentiate (and by RAW, I'm fairly sure you can't ever take 10 on attack rolls without a special ability), so this requires continued DM adjudication, and more time. :smalltongue:

Honestly 3.5 players are god-like in comparison to the general CR ratings. This is almost common knowledge now. Having players experience slight flaw to their combat is not the end of the world.

Very much not the point. You can easily use higher-CR encounters if you want real challenge.

[SIZE="2"]What I think is funny is the down right refusal to accept that there can be a natural miss, (1) and that it might cause damage to your self, (fumbles)but it is perfectly logical to accept that every once and a while someone will hit even the most unlikely of targets (20), and some how manage to hit the target in just the right spot (vital organ with critical hit).

Because it's the fun kind of ridiculous for nearly anyone. Especially since there's a fairly simple set of rules that don't generally require a great deal of ad-hoc rationalizing, are intuitively close enough to what one expects to not cause trouble, and the exceptions are generally clear and fairly reasonable.

I know there is a place somewhere in one of the dang books, that basically says no person is actually standing still or facing one directly in combat, it is assumed everyone is moving around, and is aware of their surroundings for the most part and are actively fighting and defending themselves.

Yes. That's how things like mirror image work, that's why there's no facing, that's how Dex bonuses to armor work, and so on.

By logic of it all, how someone can pinpoint a perfect hit in the heat of battle like that, makes ALMOST as much sense as a trained warrior fumbling. However, to me, I can actually believe a fumble, (light fumbles mind you, not the example that happened to me) more than I can a precise strike in combat.

Nor could I believe that just because the roll says 20, that a Goliath Psychic Warrior, who has expanded himself to huge and is using a Gargantuan greatsword automatically hits a petal psion who has gotten compression and made them selves diminutive.

Auto-hits have their weak points, but they don't show up as often with PCs, since generally PCs are assumed to have some vague chance of hitting enemies, and similarly some vague chance of being hit. (Also, your example seems to assume a creature with at least 22-26 Str and BAB +6 or more trying to hit a creature with an AC of maybe 10+4 size+7 dex+6 armor+4 shield=31. Really, they'd have about a 25% chance base, since size increases compensate for attack penalties with more Str.)

NPCs, however... the fact that 1 out of every 20 Commoner 1s who snaps off a quick crossbow shot at a storm giant is going to hit it is kind of funky. It's never really bothered me enough to write a replacement, however. (Unlike, say, my annoyance with Knowledge rules, or concealment, or any of the dozens of other things I've posted about in the past.)

Remember, I'm against crit fumbles, so don't get on my back, but what if you put in the optional rule for rolling spell save DCs, and on a nat 1 a magical mishaps occurred? In addition to confirmation and limiting critical failures to reasonable things, such as provoking attacks of opportunity. This would give wizards just as bad a weakness as fighters.

Heh. The main problem is getting a magical mishaps table that doesn't look like a bad April Fool's joke by TSR. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry

2012-12-05, 06:50 AM

For consistency, yes. However, it's even harder to make that make sense: some spells allow saving throws at intervals during their duration (dominate person), some allow a saving throw long after they're cast (fire trap), and, of course, some don't allow saving throws at all. Does it really make sense for a cleric to suddenly take 1d6 backlash damage from some random rogue sneaking through their fire trapped area and getting a natural 20?

Personally, I can easily imagine a continuous connection between magic that isn't instantaneous in duration and the caster, and there is fictional precedent for massive surge of resistance (something a 20 represents) creating a backlash; more so, in fact, than the probabilities so far described for mundane's fumbles.

Azoth

2012-12-05, 08:54 AM

I use critical fumbles every now and again.

For the "hit adjacent ally" fun, I make the player roll another attack roll at the player's AC using the original modifiers. That way it isn't an auto stab to your buddy.

Other "fumbles" have included over extending the swing granting an AoO, hitting an adjacent enemy (other than the one targeted), losing your gripping giving you negative modifier to resisting a disarm attempt until the the next initiative pass, (in the case of a power attack) putting too much power behind the swing and losing your footing either making you flat footed until next initiative or making you unbalanced and giving a minus to resist bull rush attempts until next initiative pass, embedding your weapon in the terrain...ect.

All of these are REAL things that can easily happen in close quarters combat. Even to experienced and veteran combatants. They can be minor or disastrous if you opponent can recognize what has happened and counter it.

Hell, not even as a fumble, I have had a player get smacked because of some RL issues he didn't remember. They were fighting in an arctic area, he killed something and then instantly sheathed his blade without wiping the blood from it. Fastforward two hours, another fight broke out and I rolled % to see if his blade would be frozen in the sheath. Sure enough it was and it took him a second attempt to draw it. No one complained, no one threw RAW quotes at me, the action continued to flow freely and epicly I might add.

hymer

2012-12-05, 11:01 AM

For the "hit adjacent ally" fun, I make the player roll another attack roll at the player's AC using the original modifiers. That way it isn't an auto stab to your buddy.

That still means that the better you are at fighting, the more likely you are to hit your ally.

Back when I used critical misses (in a sort of 2.5 edition), you did the weapon damage, and only if this made sense in the situation. Not strength, not specialization, not magic. This meant that critical misses meant still less and less as the PCs advanced in level. Some of my players still argue we should use critical failures (not just on attack rolls), because they thought they were amusing/interesting.

Andreaz

2012-12-05, 11:05 AM

That still means that the better you are at fighting, the more likely you are to hit your ally.This is the worst problem with the whole idea, mechanics-wise. The already weaker options become even weaker...and they only get worse with time, when it should easily be the opposite.

Trebloc

2012-12-05, 12:01 PM

We do not use critical fumbles in our games. But D&D being D&D, as long as everyone is having fun at their respective tables, I'm ok with that. However...

I guess what I don't understand from the pro-fumblers is, doesn't this affect game balance at all? For instance:

You have a wizard and a fighter in the party. Who is more likely to be cause a fumble? To me, the answer is the fighter. But wait, fighters are already less powerful than wizards, aren't fumbles just another slap to the face? Heaven help the already down on his luck monk using flurry of fumbles! Or how about the poor sap paying feat after feat to be able to duel weild so that he can fumble twice as often! And that Haste spell, no thanks, just another chance for me to fumble and do something outrageously lethal to myself or a teammate.

Also this:
1 level 0 child swinging a stick at a dragon in combat (and surviving!) over the course of 20 rounds will perform 20 attacks and likely have 1 fumble.

1 level 20 fighter swinging a greatsword of awesomeness +5 at a dragon in combat (and surviving!) over the course of 20 rounds will perform 80 attacks and likely have 4 chances to fumble.

Man, to me it sucks to be a fighter cause they're getting more and more chances to have fumbles. And you know, as fighters get additional attacks as they level up, their 3rd and 4th attacks are much less likely to cause a critical hit due to needing to be confirmed.

Deophaun

2012-12-05, 04:08 PM

For consistency, yes. However, it's even harder to make that make sense: some spells allow saving throws at intervals during their duration (dominate person), some allow a saving throw long after they're cast (fire trap), and, of course, some don't allow saving throws at all. Does it really make sense for a cleric to suddenly take 1d6 backlash damage from some random rogue sneaking through their fire trapped area and getting a natural 20?
I don't think that's what he's talking about. Normally, a save DC is 10 + spell level + ability modifier. I think what he's talking about is an alternate rule where the save DC is d20 + spell level + ability modifier. In this case, if the wizard rolls a 1 to set the DC, it would create a backlash, not if the target rolled a 20.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-05, 04:11 PM

I don't think that's what he's talking about. Normally, a save DC is 10 + spell level + ability modifier. I think what he's talking about is an alternate rule where the save DC is d20 + spell level + ability modifier. In this case, if the wizard rolls a 1 to set the DC, it would create a backlash, not if the target rolled a 20.
Actually, tuggyne got what I was getting at.

Gerrtt

2012-12-05, 04:15 PM

My favorite critical miss went something like:

Player rolls a 1. His character (a level 2 warrior with a rapier) misses hitting a troll. He misses so wildly that his rapier manages to pierce through a tree branch, which then falls on and kills the troll (which had not been previously wounded) instantly.

Now, while I am opposed to critical failures in general, this is ridiculous. Not only is the player rewarded for having a critical failure, but it defies all game logic and rules.

Me thinks the DM put a troll in the game and then later decided it was a bad idea so the real killer was Deus ex DM.

Deophaun

2012-12-05, 04:22 PM

Actually, tuggyne got what I was getting at.
Sorry. Confused you with White Drake's post.

White_Drake

2012-12-05, 04:34 PM

What I think is funny is the down right refusal to accept that there can be a natural miss, (1) and that it might cause damage to your self, (fumbles)but it is perfectly logical to accept that every once and a while someone will hit even the most unlikely of targets (20), and some how manage to hit the target in just the right spot (vital organ with critical hit).

Assuming both are caused by mostly luck, which the mechanics reflect, I find it much more plausible that you (assuming a creature fairly similar to the real world, obviously this doesn't hold up against aberrations and such) managed to hit an organ in the center mass of the creature you're stabbing at, seeing as the middle of humans is just a big squishy bag of important guts, than a seasoned warrior somehow losing control of his sword and gutting himself or his ally. I'll admit, friendly fire does happen, with ranged weapons. Swords are superior to axes because they are much quicker and more precise. I find it inconceivable that a trained warrior could kill himself with his own blade by accident, and seriously injuring an ally is stretching the bounds of credulity.

I'm referring purely to the critical hit/fumble rules, not the auto-hit/miss rules, because I don't see the value in defending those, so bear that in mind here. I imagine (this is has nothing more than wild speculation to back it up) that the auto-hit rules were a holdover from when AC was not astronomically high for powerful creatures like it is in 3.5, and armor, which has chinks, was a bigger part of AC.

Sewercop

2012-12-06, 09:50 AM

Zherog

2012-12-06, 10:24 AM

How is this funny?

I can see it being an amusing moment in some styles of game. I've played in silly one-offs at GenCon, for example, where this would be acceptable.

killem2

2012-12-06, 11:35 AM

I have died becasue of critcal fumbles in multiple games. Mostly due to moronic gamemasters.

I have killed other players due to critical fumbles in multiple games. Mostly due to moronic gamemasters.

For those of you defending a fumble table in 3.5, please post it so i can get annoyed and pick it apart. I bet some others would like to do the same.

I see some of the exsamples listed and all I wanna do is to throw my laptop into the wall and scream Hell No! Do 50% damage on your teammate? Seriously?
Break your sword? Its not fun, its douchebaggery.

All it makes me want do to are to circumvent the need to roll.

I respect the fact that other people may have a different opinion.
That does not mean that i respect that opinion.

As far as your aggressive challenge, the fumble deck from Paizo. we've been using it for about 6 months now, and its never really came up much.

Maybe if you had been so outspoken to your DM as you are clearly able to flex your internet muscles here, maybe you wouldn't have had such a bad experience with fumbles.

I have players that chose flaws that give them critical failures on SKILL checks. Some players like the uncertainty.

I don't know what to say.

mishka_shaw

2012-12-06, 12:00 PM

I have died becasue of critcal fumbles in multiple games. Mostly due to moronic gamemasters.

I have killed other players due to critical fumbles in multiple games. Mostly due to moronic gamemasters.

For those of you defending a fumble table in 3.5, please post it so i can get annoyed and pick it apart. I bet some others would like to do the same.

I see some of the exsamples listed and all I wanna do is to throw my laptop into the wall and scream Hell No! Do 50% damage on your teammate? Seriously?
Break your sword? Its not fun, its douchebaggery.

All it makes me want do to are to circumvent the need to roll.

I respect the fact that other people may have a different opinion.
That does not mean that i respect that opinion.

I don't do fumbles in my game but than all the players collectivly asked for it, I said the monsters will not have it...and they agreed with it and asked only for themselves to be subject to the natural 1 damage thingy.

They use that deck thing for it and have often thrown/damaged/died from the cards. Yet they do not want them removed (I do not understand it but hey).

Than again my players aren't a bunch of carebears.

Andreaz

2012-12-06, 12:44 PM

Than again my players aren't a bunch of carebears.That's an incomplete set of players who hate, despise, loathe and abhor fumbles.

DeltaEmil

2012-12-06, 12:53 PM

Critical misses are only okay if spellcasters or manifester or whatever that is practically magic must roll a 1d6 every time they cast a spell or use a spell-like ability. On a roll of 1-5, they critically fumble with their spell, and take 10 damage per caster level, no saving throw allowed, no way to mitigate the damage or redirect it to somebody else, no way to reduce your caster level. If the caster health is reduced to 0 hp or less from that critical fumble damage, the caster is turned to ashes and destroyed, and only a Wish or Miracle spell cast by a deity with caster level 20 minimum and a divine rank of 20+ can ressurect the dead caster (these gods also might critically fumble, which makes it very rare that a god would be willing to ressurect anyone - or cast any spell in the first place). On a roll of 6, the spell works normally. The die roll might not be modified in any manner at all. There are no rerolls for the d6-roll. There is no way to increase or decrease the result. There is no way to change the die to something else. This critical fumble counts for every spellcaster, be they bard, wizard, cleric, psion, favored soul, shadowcaster, or whatever that exists.

Only then are critical fumbles okay for mundanes whacking with sharp metal sticks.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-06, 02:04 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-12-06, 02:44 PM

A wise man once said that if a bunch of soldiers (I think it was 20) hit straw dummies for an hour, and by the end of it, they were all injured or dead (or had their weapons destroyed) thanks to fumbles, then the GM had to butter his fumble rules and eat them.

I think that if you want to run the type of game where improbable bad luck happens, then play Toon, where death doesn't matter, not D&D, where the level progression is more suited to shonen manga than anything.

Even in "you are exceptionally skilled, but mortal" games, you don't really see this. If your gun jams in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., it's because it's worn down (and you can check its quality whenever you're not in immediate danger), not because the guy rolled a 1.

Sgtpepper

2012-12-06, 04:01 PM

A critical miss is there to add a certain sense of suspense when you roll. Without it rolls can get boring.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-06, 04:05 PM

A critical miss is there to add a certain sense of suspense when you roll. Without it rolls can get boring.
We already have that. It's called a 1. No reason to make it worse than that.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-12-06, 04:18 PM

We already have that. It's called automatic miss on a 1. No reason to make it worse than that.

I feel the addition in bold makes it a little clearer.

Twilightwyrm

2012-12-06, 04:36 PM

Seeing as how random monsters are by and large the most common propagators of critical fumbles in the campaign, most of the more hilarious ones have not happened to the PCs. (Suffice it so say, arming low HD skeletons with Morningstars can spectacularly backfire)
I remember one of the PCs, however, rolling multiple 1s on Gather Information Checks (I know it isn't an automatic failure, but he had no ranks, and a minor Cha bonus, so in effect it was), and ended up inadvertently insulting (you know how it is when you cut in on the wrong part of the conversation, and just happen to say exactly the wrong thing) the mothers/wives of a few members of the half-elf district and getting attempted slaps for his efforts. It was just minor non-lethal damage, but he was feeling particularly unlucky after that. A day or so later, he got a 1 on his balance check, slipped, failed his Ref save to catch himself, made his save to plunge his dagger into the ground in an attempt to hang on, then got a 1 on the Str check to do so and climb back up. He slipped on some rocks and was pulled by the sudden gust of wind into an underground river, and could only float for a few miles, before finally getting out. So maybe he was right.
Another time, my party had just all successfully navigated a burning hands trap on the ground, getting to the corner at the end of the hallway on the other side. Every single one of us got a natural 1 on our Spot checks (low level, so not enough ranks to mitigate this), so we were apparently so busy congratulating ourselves that we never actually *looked* down the next hallway, and therefore never saw the rather unamused hostile cleric and his wizard friend until they brought themselves to our attention.

Big Fau

2012-12-06, 04:58 PM

Seeing as how random monsters are by and large the most common propagators of critical fumbles in the campaign, most of the more hilarious ones have not happened to the PCs.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it doesn't bring the whole thing into perspective: A crit fumble from Team Monster (which results in the death of the fumbler) has no impact on the DM. It means the encounter ends faster, but it does not actually affect the plot (unless the DM was using a custom-made enemy, in which case he really needs to work his plot around that happenstance). When a PC fumbles and gets killed (or worse, kills someone else in the party) the plot gets thrown for a loop. Worse, it could potentially result in a TPK.

The DM deals with a dead minion by sifting through the MM or module and finding something new within minutes. A PC has to sit out of the game for half an hour or longer, and his new character has next to no direct connection to the plot. Even worse in the event of a TPK, as the entire campaign would be derailed. Mind you this assumes Raise Dead and it's ilk are not an option for various reasons, and even if they are an option it still means the player is sitting out of the game long enough for the party to raise him.

Fumbles are not a good idea if your campaign cares even the smallest bit about the plot.

navar100

2012-12-06, 07:28 PM

The comparison with Critical Hits is no terribly valid. After all, critical hits affect NPC and PC alike, and they are quick to adjudicate. They provide their own 'bad thing' as a balance for a 'good thing'.
I'm playing a role playing game, not Duck Amuck.:smallannoyed:

The NPC is supposed to die anyway. He's only "on camera" that one combat. If he's killed off one round earlier because of a critical fumble hampering him, it's no big deal. For a PC it becomes a major deal. He's always on camera. He's rolling the die over and over and over. He will accumulate a lot more critical fumbles than any one NPC who was supposed to die anyway. Critical fumbles adversely affects PCs more than NPCs. It's not "fair".

Sgtpepper

2012-12-06, 09:08 PM

I know rolling a 1 is bad but later on at high levels it doesn't effect much. Therefore the fumble rule gives high level characters that sense of suspense when rolling the dice.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-12-06, 09:15 PM

I know rolling a 1 is bad but later on at high levels it doesn't effect much. Therefore the fumble rule gives high level characters that sense of suspense when rolling the dice.

Screw it, I'm playing a wizard. No attack rolls for me.

Acanous

2012-12-06, 09:20 PM

Just to put this out there:

My gaming group used Critical Fumble rules for a long time. If you rolled a 1, your turn ends and you provoke an AoO from all enemies who threaten you.
It was done for players and enemies, and I railed against it for years.

So eventually, I take the DM seat, and try running it without critical fumble rules.

well, at first the PCs are miffed. That Golem rolled a 1! His turn should be over and we should all get free attacks on him!

But then they got iterative attacks, and decided that critical fumble rules are silly.

Further, if fok want to play with critical hits and fumbles, I advise them to drop the "Confirm" entirely and use the Paizo decks. Much faster, player gets some input on what happens, and you (usually) don't get hosed too bad.

Big Fau

2012-12-06, 09:23 PM

I know rolling a 1 is bad but later on at high levels it doesn't effect much. Therefore the fumble rule gives high level characters that sense of suspense when rolling the dice.

Actually it does. At the higher levels the noncasters are playing with shotguns to the spellcaster's rocket launchers, and despite the clear difference in power the noncasters are still very much capable of one-shot-kills on any attack. Fumbles mean those attacks are redirected to the party, and since high-level noncasters have a large number of attacks/round it means those fumbles are more likely to hurt the party.

While rezzing someone at the higher levels can be trivial, it's still a huge pain in the neck. And just think about how the character who got rezzed feels. We in the real world may find the fumble funny as hell because this is a game, from from an in-game perspective I'm fairly sure most characters would be furious about it to the point of causing an in-party fight.

Fumbles do not add anything to the game unless the party does not care about RPing their characters. Should this be the case, I'd say the party would be better off playing Dokapon Kingdom than D&D.

Sgtpepper

2012-12-06, 09:27 PM

Fumbling could be the basis of a character. Increase the fumble range and you have a always makes mistakes spell caster.

pHalcyon

2012-12-06, 09:34 PM

I know rolling a 1 is bad but later on at high levels it doesn't effect much. Therefore the fumble rule gives high level characters that sense of suspense when rolling the dice.

I don't like that. High level characters are superhuman; they shouldn't really have to worry about slipping, tripping, misjudging a swing, ect. because they've made it so far. They know they're good, and they're good in part because they can handle things like that.

You can have someone skillful enough to be practically impervious to things like trip or disarm, but wait! He rolled a one! He loses his grip. Or his footing. He makes an action by accident that likely couldn't have happened if someone was trying to force him to do it on purpose. :smallyuk:

I'm all for randomness, but it's a bit silly, really.

Sgtpepper

2012-12-06, 09:35 PM

Other then that silliness though even the best of the best screw up from time to time.

Gavinfoxx

2012-12-06, 09:43 PM

Other then that silliness though even the best of the best screw up from time to time.

Except not in any way that any set of fumble rules for a d20 game I have ever seen ever describes. And certainly in the heroic media that 3.5e purports to represent, no fumble rules describes this. Fumble rules are not realistic.

Sgtpepper

2012-12-06, 09:47 PM

Dungeons and Dragons itself isn't realistic.

Andreaz

2012-12-06, 09:52 PM

Mr Belkster, you are trying to twist the game around accepting and enjoying fumbles...when we complain precisely that fumbles suck. Twisting the rules to make fumbles enjoyable just means you are twisting the game to gravitate around something that sucks.

It's like using perfume sprays on bathrooms. It'll not smell like rainforests, it'll smell like someone shat in the rainforest.

D&D is not designed around or to support fumbles, and they affect characters in very bad and badly scaling ways.

Sgtpepper

2012-12-06, 09:54 PM

I see your reasoning and accept it. I had not thought of it like that, thank you

ManInOrange

2012-12-07, 05:04 AM

I also dislike fumble charts. I have one clear memory...:

My character was a gnome: a 2.5-foot tall (short, even for a gnome - he was young) bundle of trickery.

Draws Bow
Attack Roll
...Rolls a 1.

The DM ruled that the arrow had slipped and had fallen onto my foot, dealing 1d6 damage. This was made very clear when I asked how my gnome managed to point his bow 90 degrees in the wrong direction in a fashion which must have been uncomfortable. Nope... the arrow simply slipped, fell onto my foot. 1d6 damage. Arrow. Less than 2.5 feet. 1d6. That's more damage than I actually did with the bow.

The arbitrary nature by which these fumble were justified took the "cool" out of the cool stuff. If things happen which simply don't make sense, particularly on as large of a 1/20 chance for a person who clearly has training, the fact that I tricked a guard into thinking it was actually his horse which had insulted him seems much less satisfying

I, myself, have implemented a fumble chart, not as a default combat factor, but as a part of an item cursed with bad luck. It causes attack rolls of nat 1 within 50' to fumble, producing many of this hilarious and awesome effects mentioned previously, but never auto-hitting allies or insta-kills. I also have:

2d6 + STR damage to own weapon, subtracting hardness
Sudden bathroom urge
If ranged, change aim by 1d20 degrees and hit the first obstacle.
...on the list. There are also negative effects for saves, skill checks and, (Drumroll) teleportation.

Being attacked 2000 times may well kill you.
You, attacking 2000 times, killing yourself or your friends by virtue of some stupid happenstance very very very loosely linked to the fact you attacked, however, is not fine. I'm playing D&D, not Final Destination.

A hilarious and very well-illustrated of the ridiculousness of any fumble which does more than 8 damage. Think about it: an average warrior 1, being average, will have a Constitution of ~10. If he "confirms" a fumble even only on another nat 1, there's a 1/400 chance that he fumbles, probably causing himself to fatally wound himself. What kind of police force is that??

In my group if there is a friendly character between ranged attacker and target the friend is hit on natural 1-4. No need to confirm/ match AC. As the result archer (with low attack bonus) does more damage to friends than to foes. Even though we try hard not to get in the line of fire.

He should stand such that his enemies are between him and one ally, and he should proceed to attack the ally. When your DM makes rules, you must follow them; that does not mean you may not exploit them to demonstrate their stupidity.