Critical miss rules: what do you guys use?

[qwertyu63]

I know a lot of you guys don't like critical miss rules, but I think they can work if done well. So, what do you guys use?

My crit-miss rule of choice is as follows:
If you roll a natural 1 on a melee attack roll, you have missed and may have just exposed yourself to retribution. Roll to confirm the miss. If this second roll would have missed the target you were attacking, you have provoked an attack of opportunity from that target.

So, does anyone else have a good critical miss rule?

[Kerilstrasz]

well... lets see..

melee attacker rolls N1:

Roll 1d4
1: Weapon slip your grip and falls at your feet
2: Attacker got distracted by something (adjust to situation) and "hits" with the "side" of the weapon resulting on 10% of max hp subdual self inflicted dmg.
3: If weapon is not magic, weapons takes dmg and need to be repaired before be used again or else it is broken beyond repair. If weapon is magic, reroll.
4: Due to unbelievable luck/skill , attacker manages to recover and nothing happens(although still miss to hit).

Range attacker rolls N1:
1: Weapon slip your grip and falls at your feet
2: Due to haste actions or other distractions, string of bow(Xbow , etc), hits attacker's forearm and takes 5% of max hp lethal dmg.
3: Projectile "auto-hits" ally currently in melee with target. If more than one, roll for which. If none use chance 2.
4: Due to unbelievable luck/skill , attacker manages to recover and nothing happens(although still miss to hit).

The above is an approved by all players houserulle for easy,training & minor campaigns. For "elite" campaigns replace 4. with: " Flip a coin. Tails:weapon destroyed. Heads: Look chance 3"

well.. thats what we use.. and since all are ok with this..

[Gavinfoxx]

The one I would use, if pressed is something like:

"The first time you roll a 1 as an attack roll on your turn, roll to confirm vs the targeted AC. If you miss the target AC, you provoke an attack of opportunity from the enemy you were targeting, provided he threatens you."

[Rhynn]

My crit-miss rule of choice is as follows:
If you roll a natural 1 on a melee attack roll, you have missed and may have just exposed yourself to retribution. Roll to confirm the miss. If this second roll would have missed the target you were attacking, you have provoked an attack of opportunity from that target.

Wow, I like this. I don't think I've ever seen a "roll to confirm fumble" system for d20 before. Best idea for implementing them. I also like the AoO as a result of a fumble, it's sensible and simple.

And yet Gavinfoxx has the same one!

I never use fumbles/critical misses for D&D. Just doesn't seem to fit the system. They were an essential part of the old-school fun of RuneQuest, though...

[MrLemon]

While critical fumbles can be fun, D&D 3.X is not suited for it.
This is because the chance to fumble increases with the number of attacks, while the number of attacks increases with power. You get worse the better you get.

The chance to fumble with N attacks is 1-(19/20)^N
The chance to fumble with 1 attack is 1-19/20 = 5%
The chance to fumble with 4 attacks is 1-(19/20)^4 = 18,5%

Now, the argument can be made that fumble confirmation cancels this out. The math for this is much more complicated than the above. But I do think it won't compensate at all, especially when you are dealing with TWF or monks, whose attack bonuses are weak anyway

[Gavinfoxx]

mine isn't exactly the same. In mine, the whirling frenzy barbarian 16 with snap kick with 6 attacks a round and a whole mess of attacks of opportunities doesn't likely cause more attacks of opportunity to himself than a warrior 1. It's still a max of 1 a round. IE, 'you can never threaten to fumble more than 1 a round'.

So the first time you threaten, that's it.

[Asteron]

In the groups I play in, you are flat-footed when you critically fumble.

[ZamielVanWeber]

None. Fumbles hurt front line characters far more than they hurt casters and, let us be frank, casters do not need the help. Besides, auto-missing still sucks, especially when it happens as you burn x/day resources to increase your to hit/damage.

[JusticeZero]

On the first attack (and only the first attack), on a natural 1, if a natural 1 would have missed the target's touch AC, the target gets an attack of opportunity against the one rolling the 1 which can only be used for a combat maneuver, not a standard attack.

[Eldonauran]

I only use fumbles for melee attacks. Ranged attacks have a chance to hit other characters/targets. Just like critical hits, I make the player's confirm their fumbles. I make them use their weapon's crit range in reverse on the critical confirm. You role a 1, role to confirm: if you use a great axe, only another 1 will confirm the fumble. You use a great sword, a 1-2 will confirm. Rapier? 1-3. Keen or improved crit? Yes, your fumble range is extended.

I think it is to be expected. You want to use a weapon that is extremely likely to crit? There is a downside. Here is it.

Aside from that, once they confirm the fumble, I roll a table to see what happens. Results range across the board. Examples: You miss, nothing else happens (01-40). You drop the weapon (41-50). You provoke an attack from your target (51-60). You provoke an attack from a nearby opponent, or target if no others (61-70). Target gets a free disarm attack on you with a +4 bonus (71-80). Target rolls to confirm a critical hit on you (81-85). Roll to confirm a critical hit on yourself (86-90). Roll twice more, if you roll this again, stop rolling and nothing happens on that roll (91-100).

[JusticeZero]

How very predictable. :p Most fumble rules turn master warriors into bumbling idiots who outdo first level wizards swinging weapons nonproficiently with how well they maim themself.

The "only on the first attack" is important.

Also, it's ludicrous to harm yourself with your own weapon. A lot of them don't even have anything that is dangerous remotely near the user. How do you hurt yourself while stabbing with a spear?? You can't even REACH yourself with the pointy part! And how is it more likely that you will hurt yourself with a rapier, which only has the point on the tip far away from you, than it is to hurt yourself with say, a flail? I put an out in; at a certain point a warrior is good enough to be able to hit touch ACs with ease, and never has to worry about a slipup again. Further, the slipup isn't buffoonery, just an opportunity that the other side can take advantage of.

[soveliss24]

How very predictable. :p Most fumble rules turn master warriors into bumbling idiots who outdo first level wizards swinging weapons nonproficiently with how well they maim themself.

The "only on the first attack" is important.

Also, it's ludicrous to harm yourself with your own weapon. A lot of them don't even have anything that is dangerous remotely near the user. How do you hurt yourself while stabbing with a spear?? You can't even REACH yourself with the pointy part! And how is it more likely that you will hurt yourself with a rapier, which only has the point on the tip far away from you, than it is to hurt yourself with say, a flail? I put an out in; at a certain point a warrior is good enough to be able to hit touch ACs with ease, and never has to worry about a slipup again. Further, the slipup isn't buffoonery, just an opportunity that the other side can take advantage of.

Your signature continues to prove true. I personally hate fumbles and don't use them at all, but if I was going to adopt one... your rule is the only one that makes sense.

[purpenflurb]

I actually enjoy the rules for hitting oneself. It is funny remembering the time the beguiller hit herself with feeblemind, or when the wizard's artefact enhanced disentegrate backfired. And the time the enemy dragon crushed his skull on a last ditch charge? Priceless. It can be annoying sometimes, and this is coming from someone playing a character that routinely gets nine attacks a round. However those few crazy rolls can make the best stories.

[Eldonauran]

How very predictable. :p Most fumble rules turn master warriors into bumbling idiots who outdo first level wizards swinging weapons nonproficiently with how well they maim themself.

The odds of a 'master swordsman' turning himself into a 'bumbling idiot' with the system I use is extremely low and highly unlikely to happen, unless the character has a 15-20 crit range. Even then, he has a (these are rough estimates) 5% chance to roll a 1, a 25% to confirm the fumble and a 40% chance for something bad to happen. Thats roughly a 0.5% chance of triggering a weapon drop, an attack of opportunity against him, or his target or himself having a chance to critical hit him back.

I understand knee-jerk reactions, but the math doesn't lie.

[Barsoom]

I also dislike fumble rules. I mean, on a roll of '1', you hopelessly miss the troll, while it's getting ready to tear you from limb to limb. Plus your fellow players regard you with pity. That's already a sufficient punishment.

At my table, on a '1' we just like to describe something that's moderately embarrasing, yet ultimately has no ingame effect. Sometimes the DM will do it, sometimes the player will describe his own failure. And sometimes it's the first attack in a barrage of five, and we just want to get on with it, so we skip the descriptions.

[AugustNights]

My players are rather fond of fumbles, for one reason or another.
When a character rolls a 1 on any attack, they must roll a Fumble Check.
A fumble check is, essentially, their highest attack bonus with the weapon they are using. (Fighters, specifically, have a Weapon Focus skill that they also add).
There is no auto-failing a Fumble Check.
The table goes from 0 (or less) to 25 or more, or some odd nonsense.
The worst thing that can happen, on a 0, is the character spontaneously catches fire for what ever reason is possible.
All instances have a "If this can't happen, move down one" clause.
There is some "self-damaging" nonsense, but it's always 1/2 damage or minimum damage or so on.
Most of the things are minor -1 or -2 penalties to various things that only last for 1 round.
The character is *never* taken out of combat by a fumble. They can always continue on to the rest of their attacks or actions.

[Philistine]

Critical Fumble Rule:
If at any time a DM shall propose using a "critical failure" or "fumble" table of any sort in a 3.X game, the players are to beat the DM with folding chairs until each of them has accidentally struck himself with his chair at least once, while keeping a count of the number of strikes made before this happens. Then, the average rate of such "fumbles" as generated by a table full of nerds swinging improvised weapons will establish the maximum probability of a "fumble" within the game mechanics for a level 1 Commoner (note that this already will probably require rolling multiple Natural 1's in succession to confirm a fumble), with the probability dropping by at least an order of magnitude per point of BAB of the attacking character. Thus a full-BAB character at level 20 might have to roll 20+ Natural 1's in a row to before you even bother glancing at the Fumble Table.

I suppose I might consider using fumble rules if full spellcasters had to roll Concentration for every spell they cast ever, and a Natural 1 on that roll had comparable consequences to a Natural 1 on a mundane attack... but really, No. Just no. Not even then.

[Lord Haart]

1: Weapon slip your grip and falls at your feet

3: If weapon is not magic, weapons takes dmg and need to be repaired before be used again or else it is broken beyond repair. If weapon is magic, reroll.

3: Projectile "auto-hits" ally currently in melee with target. If more than one, roll for which. If none use chance 2.
And these reasons three are for playing double-barrel metabreath-stacking DFA.

Philistine's version is pretty good, though.

[eggynack]

I think it is to be expected. You want to use a weapon that is extremely likely to crit? There is a downside. Here is it.

This logic makes no sense to me at all. Weapons with a high crit range already have the downside of being inferior to lower crit ranged weapons in other ways. For example, a falchion has one more number that it crits on than a great sword, but it deals 2 less damage on a non-crit. I also don't see why you'd want to give horrible downsides to feats and weapon enhancements that rarely get used in the first place because they're not very good. You might as well say something like, "Toughness now gives you -3 HP instead of +3 HP every other day. You want your character to have more HP than average? There is a downside. This is it."

[CockroachTeaParty]

To add to the anti-crit-fumble arguments, I avoid crit. fumble rules not only because they wind up harming non-casters, but because they ultimately wind up hurting the party.

Which characters in any game are going to be rolling the most dice, period? The players. Over the course of an entire campaign, the players will be exposed to more critical fumbles than any enemies ever will.

If the fumble rules are largely weapon-focused, it's also much more common for enemies to fight with tooth and claw, and thus be safe from fumbles.

Note also that in many fights, the enemy will be outnumbered by the PCs. Again, the advantage of actions winds up biting the party in the rear when crit. fumble rules are in place, as they have a much greater collective risk of fumbling than one or two big bad-guys.

Introducing any new element of randomness almost always winds up favoring the enemy and harming the PCs. If you're trying to run a 'killer' game, then maybe it makes sense to use them, but I prefer giving the players the spotlight.

[Eldonauran]

This logic makes no sense to me at all. Weapons with a high crit range already have the downside of being inferior to lower crit ranged weapons in other ways. For example, a falchion has one more number that it crits on than a great sword, but it deals 2 less damage on a non-crit. I also don't see why you'd want to give horrible downsides to feats and weapon enhancements that rarely get used in the first place because they're not very good. You might as well say something like, "Toughness now gives you -3 HP instead of +3 HP every other day. You want your character to have more HP than average? There is a downside. This is it."

How do they say it? "Meh". Who says I used logic to make up some of the rules in the table? I use mechanics and fluff in equal porportion. If my players had a problem with it, they'd let me know. As it stands, I see keen weapon as 'sharper' and more prone to cause more damage with a mishap. So I wrote a rule for it.

I'm going to ignore the struck out part, because it has nothing to do with critical fumble rules that I use. It is also a tad extreme leap of 'logic', in any case. "Weapon rules don't make sense, so feats must be turned on their heads!" Having your character with more HP already has a big enough down side. You just wasted a feat on a very bad feat.


Which characters in any game are going to be rolling the most dice, period? The players. Over the course of an entire campaign, the players will be exposed to more critical fumbles than any enemies ever will.

I don't know about that. I roll a lot of dice for my NPCs and, yes, they tend to risk fumbles as much, if not more often, than the players. Its amazing how entertaining it is when the BBEG boasts to the players and then trips over his own greataxe.

[Namfuak]

The odds of a 'master swordsman' turning himself into a 'bumbling idiot' with the system I use is extremely low and highly unlikely to happen, unless the character has a 15-20 crit range. Even then, he has a (these are rough estimates) 5% chance to roll a 1, a 25% to confirm the fumble and a 40% chance for something bad to happen. Thats roughly a 0.5% chance of triggering a weapon drop, an attack of opportunity against him, or his target or himself having a chance to critical hit him back.

I understand knee-jerk reactions, but the math doesn't lie.

.5% is 5 times in 1000 swings, or 1 in 250. Fighter McAngryface, at perhaps 8 encounters per level up and an average of 2 full attacks and one regular attack per combat, will almost have made 250 attacks (240) by level 8. Thus, before level 10, according to these rules, the fighter will pretty much have tripped this, and most likely did it much earlier. Now, here's the fun part - After level 10, it only takes 6 levels for him to make 280 attacks, so he will have done it again in less time, despite having leveled up and supposedly becoming better trained. After 15, it takes 4 levels for him to make 288 attacks, so it takes half as much time for him to make the same mistakes at a later level that he was making at lower levels. Does that make sense to you?

[Amphetryon]

I don't know about that. I roll a lot of dice for my NPCs and, yes, they tend to risk fumbles as much, if not more often, than the players. Its amazing how entertaining it is when the BBEG boasts to the players and then trips over his own greataxe.How many of those NPCs are in every fight? I ask because it's normal for all of the PCs to be in every fight.

How many of those NPCs are theoretically supposed to win the encounters, or at least escape with their lives? I ask because - at most D&D tables I know of - it's normal for the expected outcome to be that the PCs win (or at least escape with their lives).

[CockroachTeaParty]

I don't know about that. I roll a lot of dice for my NPCs and, yes, they tend to risk fumbles as much, if not more often, than the players. Its amazing how entertaining it is when the BBEG boasts to the players and then trips over his own greataxe.

I didn't say the DM/GM rolls less dice than the players. They very well might. But the player characters will roll more dice than the BBEG ever will, let alone a goblin mook.

Basically, what Amphetryon said in the post above me.

[Barsoom]

The logic of "but it affects the monsters/npcs the same way" is flawed at its core. The NPCs, barring some special recurring enemy, are there to give a show exactly once and die. The PCs are there to persevere, to overcome, to advance, to survive to fight another day.

Besides, balance between PCs and NPCs wasn't the focus of the discussion for the fumble rules anyway. It's balance between warriors and spellcasters. Any fumble rules just make warriors even weaker than they already are compared to spellcasters.

[eggynack]

How do they say it? "Meh". Who says I used logic to make up some of the rules in the table? I use mechanics and fluff in equal porportion. If my players had a problem with it, they'd let me know. As it stands, I see keen weapon as 'sharper' and more prone to cause more damage with a mishap. So I wrote a rule for it.
Usually, when I want to make a major change to the way a game is played, I use logic to do it. This is especially true if the change I'm making imbalances the game further rather than fixing balance. Just as a bonus, weapons with high critical hit modifiers are the sharp ones, not ones with high chance of critting. Think weapons like the scythe, whose sharpness gives it a *4 multiplier on a crit. Weapons with broad crit ranges are more maneuverable, so you'd be less likely to fumble them. Why would you fumble a rapier a higher percentage of the time, for example?



I'm going to ignore the struck out part, because it has nothing to do with critical fumble rules that I use. It is also a tad extreme leap of 'logic', in any case. "Weapon rules don't make sense, so feats must be turned on their heads!" It actually has a lot to do with the critical fumble rules that you use, but it lacks a fancy crazy explanation. Let's go with dodge instead, so that the reversal has more logic. "I interpret dodge to mean that you're focusing all of your energy into dodging the enemy that you select. This means that other enemies that you're not focusing as much on should get a +1 to hit you. You want to have a higher chance of dodging a single opponent? There is a downside. Here it is." There ya go. Now it fits into your logical structure much better.



Having your character with more HP already has a big enough down side. You just wasted a feat on a very bad feat.

Yes. This exactly. Having a higher crit range is already a big enough downside. If you pick up improved critical, then you just wasted a feat on a very bad feat. That's the point I was trying to make in the first place. You're giving downsides to things that have downsides already build into them.

[Eldonauran]

I haven't the time nor the patience to respond to a barrage of counter arguments that are being thrown my way. However, I will attempt it.


**snip**
Your argument appears to be saying that the fighter is going to fumble at least once in his career. Using the worst case scenario, he has a 1/250 chance for something 'bad' to happen before or on level 8. He is more likely to trip it several more times before 20th level.

My response is, so what? Most games don't last that long and if they do, the fighter has accidently dropped his weapon 25% of the time he's triggered something bad, or had a free swing at him 25% of the time. Or worst, he was at risk of a critical hit, though there is no guarantee it would actually connect. Also, a fighter shouldn't even have improved crit or keen until at least level 8. So his risk of tripping a 'fumble' is reduced to 3/1000 rolls.

There are ways to reroll checks, and I'm sure characters will have means to do so a few times a week, which is about how often this will happen. Regardless, out of every 250 swings, statistically he will roll poorly but that is in no way guaranteed. He might roll 700 times before he drops his weapon.


**snip
Does it matter how many of those NPCs are in every fight? They have the same odds to roll as the characters. Adventuring is a risky business. Bad stuff will happen and is more likely to happen the longer you adventure.

Again, the risk is minor with my system.


**snip**
I didnt bring in the NPC/enemies comparison, only commented on it when someone else mentioned it. As for making warriors weaker than spellcasters, so what? The power gap is already big enough and if my players enjoy it, who am I to say no to their fun?


**snip**
Major change? Hardly. Please double check the math again. Between a 1/1000 to a 1/250 chance of something 'bad' happening.

Weapons with higher critical multipliers are less prone to crits but do more damage on one, rather than weapons with large crit ranges. Wider crit ranges make them deadlier because they hit crits more often DESPITE lower critical multiplers. This is why a greatsword outperforms a great axe given time.


EDIT: I do want to add that what I use isn't likely to change. I posted here to give my optional fumble table, as the OP asked. Not to defend it to the death.

[eggynack]

Major change? Hardly. Please double check the math again. Between a 1/1000 to a 1/250 chance of something 'bad' happening.

Weapons with higher critical multipliers are less prone to crits but do more damage on one, rather than weapons with large crit ranges. Wider crit ranges make them deadlier because they hit crits more often DESPITE lower critical multiplers. This is why a greatsword outperforms a great axe given time.
Characters make a lot of attacks over the course of the game, and they have a higher and higher chance of stabbing themself in the face the more powerful they are. I don't know what the second thing you're saying means at all, so I don't have much of a response to it. Wider crit ranges don't actually make weapons that powerful at all. There's a low chance of a crit happening, and the damage on a crit isn't so significant that it warps numbers towards high crit range weapons.

Basically, the way it works is this. Pretty much all critical fumble rules are stupid, just as a rule. The level of stupidity is directly proportional to the impact of the rule on the game, so a critical fumble rule with no impact on the game state at all has zero stupidity, and a critical fumble rule with a small impact on the game is a little stupid. It's just the way of the world.

[Namfuak]

*Counter to my post*

So your point is that your system is so unlikely to actually come up that it is inconsequential? What is the point of having it then?

[Eldonauran]

Characters make a lot of attacks over the course of the game, and they have a higher and higher chance of stabbing themself in the face the more powerful they are. I don't know what the second thing you're saying means at all, so I don't have much of a response to it. Wider crit ranges don't actually make weapons that powerful at all. There's a low chance of a crit happening, and the damage on a crit isn't so significant that it warps numbers towards high crit range weapons.

Having a large crit range (18-20 for example), means that the character is 3x more likely to land a critical hit than with a weapon with a natural 20 crit range. Scimitar vs battleaxe (one hand weapons). Despite the axe's x3 crit mod, by the time it has critical-ed twice (and done weapon x6 damage), the scimitar has critted SIX times (and thus done weapon x12 damage).

The math speaks for itself.


Basically, the way it works is this. Pretty much all critical fumble rules are stupid, just as a rule. The level of stupidity is directly proportional to the impact of the rule on the game, so a critical fumble rule with no impact on the game state at all has zero stupidity, and a critical fumble rule with a small impact on the game is a little stupid. It's just the way of the world.

That is your opinion. I think otherwise. Glad we had this chat.


So your point is that your system is so unlikely to actually come up that it is inconsequential? What is the point of having it then?

I think I mentioned that .. twice now? MY PLAYERS LIKE IT. So I made rules for it.

[Amphetryon]

Does it matter how many of those NPCs are in every fight? They have the same odds to roll as the characters. Adventuring is a risky business. Bad stuff will happen and is more likely to happen the longer you adventure.

Again, the risk is minor with my system. Yes, it matters. They don't have the same odds, because they don't encounter those odds over multiple encounters, so their odds of having a critical fumble happen do not continue to get worse in every fight; they CAN'T get worse for the NPC in the first fight because that NPC isn't around for any more fights. It's not a matter of which PLAYER is getting hit with the critical fumbles, but a matter of which CHARACTER (PC or NPC) is getting hit with them, and Characters that roll the most will, merely as a function of statistics, be hit with the most fumbles.

Your system provides further disincentive to play a melee, particularly one built on multiple attacks, because the PC is at risk in every fight of accidentally disemboweling himself, in addition to the risk of being disemboweled by the opponents he's fighting. If the NPC suffers this fate, that's not a big issue in most games because the NPC is expected to lose, and is not expected to survive the entire story arc; that's simply not the intended function of most NPCs in a D&D campaign.

[Siosilvar]

Having a large crit range (18-20 for example), means that the character is 3x more likely to land a critical hit than with a weapon with a natural 20 crit range. Scimitar vs battleaxe (one hand weapons). Despite the axe's x3 crit mod, by the time it has critical-ed twice (and done weapon x6 damage), the scimitar has critted SIX times (and thus done weapon x12 damage).

The math speaks for itself.

Except that you have to compare a 18-20 to a x4 weapon, or a 19-20 to a x3 weapon.

For every x3 crit you get, dealing 200% damage on top of the normal hits, you get two x2 crits with a 19-20 weapon, dealing 100% extra damage each (200%).

For each x4 crit you get, dealing an extra 300% weapon damage, you get three crits with an 18-20 weapon, also dealing an extra 300% weapon damage.

So yes, the math does speak for itself, and it says that they're the same.

[eggynack]

I think I mentioned that .. twice now? MY PLAYERS LIKE IT. So I made rules for it.
Good for them, I guess. That doesn't make it less stupid. For a quick primer course on why they're stupid, there are a couple of reasons. The first is that it makes wizards even more powerful compared to mundane guys, which isn't a good thing. The second, is that they tend to cause level 20 mundane guys to fling their weapon around ridiculously more often than level 1 mundane guys. This is also not a good thing.

Also, let's look at some real critical hit statistics. For these purposes, the fighter will be hitting someone who he hits half the time. I'm going to compare the guisarme to the falchion, because they're the same type of weapon and thus are more comparable than your statistics. The guisarme hits 45% of the time for 5 damage, and 5% of the time for 15 damage. The guisarme deals an average of three damage per attack. The falchion hits 35% of the time for 5 damage, and 15% of the time for 10 damage. That weapon is dealing 3.25 damage. Oh my word, truly this beast of a weapon will be the death of us all. In exchange for an average of .25 damage per hit, you gain reach and the ability to make trip attacks. I believe I speak for everyone when I say that the guisarme is therefore significantly more powerful than the falchion.

[TypoNinja]

We don't use em.

They make melee weaker, which is bad. They happen more often as the characters level up and are supposed to be getting better, which is silly. They affect melee more than casters, which is unfair. And the represent a level of assumed incompetence that is staggering. Imagine a gun that misfired and hurt the user at the same odds of your critical fumble rules. It'd probably be recalled.

I've never, not once, seen anyone suggest some way to have casters suffer downsides at roughly the same frequency as melee from their critical fumble rules, until that happens any suggestion of them is to be discarded out of hand simply on the basis of fairness.

[Eldonauran]

I'm done debating the 'stupidity' of fumble rules. You don't like them, don't use them. I only posted here because the OP asked for rules to use. Rather than trying to tell him those rules "ARE STUPID!!!" I offered my own ruleset. I am going to continue to use them regards of how YOU feel about them.

I'm not going to debate the efficiency of weapons. Some are simply better than others. A wider crit range IS better than a high critical multiplier BECAUSE it is more reliable.


**snip**
The odds of a player rolling a "harmful' fumble do not increase with time. They remain the same. The number of times he might experience a fumble increases, sure, but its always the same number, regardless of how many times you have rolled.


I've never, not once, seen anyone suggest some way to have casters suffer downsides at roughly the same frequency as melee from their critical fumble rules, until that happens any suggestion of them is to be discarded out of hand simply on the basis of fairness.

I have rules for spellcaster fumbles. Its more of a guideline, since spells can do so many different things, but i have rules for them. If it has an attack roll, i use a modified ranged fumble chart. It if is a save only type of spell, it depends on what the spell does.

[Amphetryon]

No? I'll just go with "no."

[Eldonauran]

No? I'll just go with "no."

No? Pity. Just a question from left field. If a character you spent hours building and developing found a deck of many things, at say, level 4; would you draw?

:smallamused:

[chainer1216]

our group uses a crit fumble (also a crit hit) deck of cards that has a bunch of effects depending on the type of attack that fumbled, melee, ranged, natural or spell. we don't generally play with many spell casters so that's not an issue, but the deck makes things more interesting, while there's never been a time where the deck screwed us over, there was one memorable moment where we had mostly killed a sorcerer who turned invisible to run away, one of his minions, a lava drake, attacked our warblade, rolled a 1 and then failed the confirmation roll, it ended up biting the nose off the sorcerer who died from the bleed damage a few rounds later.

[iDesu]

I have rules for spellcaster fumbles. Its more of a guideline, since spells can do so many different things, but i have rules for them. If it has an attack roll, i use a modified ranged fumble chart. It if is a save only type of spell, it depends on what the spell does.

I'm curious to hear the save only fumbles. Many of those don't involve a die roll for the caster so how do you go about working those fumbles?

[John Campbell]

Critical Fumble Rule:
If at any time a DM shall propose using a "critical failure" or "fumble" table of any sort in a 3.X game, the players are to beat the DM with folding chairs until each of them has accidentally struck himself with his chair at least once, while keeping a count of the number of strikes made before this happens. Then, the average rate of such "fumbles" as generated by a table full of nerds swinging improvised weapons will establish the maximum probability of a "fumble" within the game mechanics for a level 1 Commoner (note that this already will probably require rolling multiple Natural 1's in succession to confirm a fumble), with the probability dropping by at least an order of magnitude per point of BAB of the attacking character. Thus a full-BAB character at level 20 might have to roll 20+ Natural 1's in a row to before you even bother glancing at the Fumble Table.

I think these may be the only critical fumble rules I've ever seen that I liked.

[dascarletm]

I use critical fumbles, on pretty much every roll possible, but the penalties are mostly fluff/minor.

For skills:
I don't confirm, and don't necessarily say a 1=failure. 1 is more like you botched the attempt fluff wise. Example: Jump you stumble as you go to jump, if you have +20 to jump, and 21 makes it across you still make it, it's all just fluff

For saves:
Just autofails.

Attacks:
If you confirm the critical miss something can happen based off my judgement. Basically I just look at the situation and see what is appropriate story wise. At low levels maybe they lose the grip on their sword if it is rainy or the weapon is slick. Higherlevels they perhaps get over-zealous and leave themselves open = -2AC for 1 round. Most of the time I just say you whiff, and the enemy doesn't even need to dodge your attack. Only in story-appropriate times does something unusual happen.

Once I had a fighter critical miss to hit a nearby enemy NPC, who what actually a doppelganger. Said it insta killed him, so it isn't always bad.

[soveliss24]

I think these may be the only critical fumble rules I've ever seen that I liked.

Seconded. Adopted on the spot for my table.

[Eldonauran]

I'm curious to hear the save only fumbles. Many of those don't involve a die roll for the caster so how do you go about working those fumbles?

Save vs effects are usually the hardest ones to write something for but my general rule of thumb is:

A critical fumble for a spell save vs effect is threatened when the target creature rolls a natural 20 on its saving throw. The caster must then make the same save versus the same DC. Should the caster fail that check, he must then make a concentration check equal to 15 + the spell level + the amount he failed the save. If the concentration check fails, the spell has fumbled. Roll percentage dice: (consult table)

If the spell deals damage but allows a save for half, the fumble check is similar but the caster runs the danger of taking the half spell damage that the creature shook off.

[Vizzerdrix]

I refuse to play with any group that won't use my rule. Nat 1 on any D20 roll is auto death.Is that the right color? :smalltongue:

But honestly, Critical fumble rules are why I only play casters. Melee gets punished enough.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Honestly, I can see where Eldon is coming from. For a more Benny Hill style experience, crit fumbles could be hilarious. For a serious game they have no place.

[eggynack]

I refuse to play with any group that won't use my rule. Nat 1 on any D20 roll is auto death.Is that the right color? :smalltongue:

But honestly, Critical fumble rules are why I only play casters. Melee gets punished enough.
I believe that the actual color is this one. Blue, rather than DeepSkyBlue.

[TuggyNE]

While critical fumbles can be fun, D&D 3.X is not suited for it.
This is because the chance to fumble increases with the number of attacks, while the number of attacks increases with power. You get worse the better you get.

The chance to fumble with N attacks is 1-(19/20)^N
The chance to fumble with 1 attack is 1-19/20 = 5%
The chance to fumble with 4 attacks is 1-(19/20)^4 = 18,5%

Now, the argument can be made that fumble confirmation cancels this out. The math for this is much more complicated than the above. But I do think it won't compensate at all, especially when you are dealing with TWF or monks, whose attack bonuses are weak anyway

Let me see if I can dig out the post where I ran through some crit fumble confirmation numbers. The result was that there was a roughly constant (2%) rate of fumbling/round that decreased slightly with higher BAB. Limiting it to 1/round, of course, does help, and limiting it to only the first swing helps even more.


I only use fumbles for melee attacks. Ranged attacks have a chance to hit other characters/targets. Just like critical hits, I make the player's confirm their fumbles. I make them use their weapon's crit range in reverse on the critical confirm. You role a 1, role to confirm: if you use a great axe, only another 1 will confirm the fumble. You use a great sword, a 1-2 will confirm. Rapier? 1-3. Keen or improved crit? Yes, your fumble range is extended.

I think it is to be expected. You want to use a weapon that is extremely likely to crit? There is a downside. Here is it.

Aside from that, once they confirm the fumble, I roll a table to see what happens. Results range across the board. Examples: You miss, nothing else happens (01-40). You drop the weapon (41-50). You provoke an attack from your target (51-60). You provoke an attack from a nearby opponent, or target if no others (61-70). Target gets a free disarm attack on you with a +4 bonus (71-80). Target rolls to confirm a critical hit on you (81-85). Roll to confirm a critical hit on yourself (86-90). Roll twice more, if you roll this again, stop rolling and nothing happens on that roll (91-100).

Wow. That's pretty impressive. :smalleek:


Critical Fumble Rule:
If at any time a DM shall propose using a "critical failure" or "fumble" table of any sort in a 3.X game, the players are to beat the DM with folding chairs until each of them has accidentally struck himself with his chair at least once, while keeping a count of the number of strikes made before this happens. Then, the average rate of such "fumbles" as generated by a table full of nerds swinging improvised weapons will establish the maximum probability of a "fumble" within the game mechanics for a level 1 Commoner (note that this already will probably require rolling multiple Natural 1's in succession to confirm a fumble), with the probability dropping by at least an order of magnitude per point of BAB of the attacking character. Thus a full-BAB character at level 20 might have to roll 20+ Natural 1's in a row to before you even bother glancing at the Fumble Table.

Oh my, this is wonderful. I am tremendously amused.


Usually, when I want to make a major change to the way a game is played, I use logic to do it. This is especially true if the change I'm making imbalances the game further rather than fixing balance.

In or out of context, I'm not sure it's possible to win more thoroughly than with this post. :smallamused:


No? Pity. Just a question from left field. If a character you spent hours building and developing found a deck of many things, at say, level 4; would you draw?

It occurs to me it might be instructive as well to inquire after various posters' preferred techniques for betting on, say, roulette.

Because, for what it's worth, some people really do enjoy losses they could have reasonably avoided. *shrug*

[Amphetryon]

A Deck of Many Things is a TPK disguised as treasure. I will not have a Character draw from it at any level of play unless there is compelling reason to do so within the plot to that point. The reason may be Character ignorance of the artifact, DM chicanery to disguise what the artifact actually is, the strongly held desire by most Characters present to die by that means rather than the available known options, or something not specified above. The reason would not be "I rolled a d20 and got a 1" unless that 1 represented a failed WILL save against a Compulsion effect to draw (which I would ordinarily lump in the "DM chicanery" category in most circumstances).

[Sylthia]

I add flavor as a DM for natural 1s, but I never penalize the player more than the actual miss.

[13_CBS]

My group uses fumble rules--as far as I can tell, it's "Roll a Natural 1 = you drop your weapon and provoke an AoO". If you fumbled with a Natural Weapon or with an Unarmed Strike (or some other weapon where it wouldn't make sense to drop it), then it's just AoO provoking. So far, we've been okay with it, since for us fumbles end up being more funny than frustrating.

That said, if anything my group is more the exception that proves the rule. Here is how my group works:

1) Aside from me, my group isn't too big on approaching D&D 3.5 from a game designer's perspective. That is, it doesn't bother them overmuch that Mundanes Don't Get Nice Things, balance isn't that big of a deal, etc.

2) My group treats our D&D sessions more as "get together with some buddies and play Grand Theft Dungeons", so for the most part no one (aside from me) puts in a terrible amount of effort in optimizing characters. (A side effect of this is that, while Mundanes Don't Get Nice Things in our games, it rarely matters because almost no one plays full casters.)

The end result is that melee fumbles seem less like yet another thing to put the mundanes down, and more of a random chance that something amusing will happen.

Again, this is a product of the particular way my group happens to play D&D. I can definitely see how, from a game design perspective, melee fumbles can be incredibly frustrating when spellcasters don't have to deal with similar issues.

[Eldonauran]

A Deck of Many Things is a TPK disguised as treasure. I will not have a Character draw from it at any level of play unless there is compelling reason to do so within the plot to that point.

I see. Well, to each his own, I guess.

I once ran a somewhat suicidal goblin (alchemist, rogue, barbarian) that thought drawing 12 cards in a row was the height of hilarity. Survived it and then challenged one of his party mates to a game of 'Russian roulette' with the deck. Party member refused, goblin drew a card, challenged him again. Refuse, goblin drew again. It went on for about a dozen one card draws until the goblin gave up and walk away from the group with his massive wealth. His alignment had changed half a dozen times since they got the deck, but it could have been worse.

Good times, good times. He even took the deck with him. Probably my most memorable character retirement ever.

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm a proponent of fumble rules.
My fumble rules are mild. There is no instant death. They are mostly just small effects that spice up the combat with small surprises, such as tripping & falling over, dropping your weapon etc.

We've been using my fumble tables since 2009 for 90+ sessions and there have been only two really bad fumbles. Other than that, they just bring up surprises and change balance. They make combat more interesting.

[Maginomicon]

I use a combination of the Bell Curve Rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm) rules (reducing the chance of a fumble to 1 in 216 instead of 1 in 20) and the fumble table from Dragon Compendium.

If the fumble rolled can’t happen because the fumbler doesn’t meet the prerequisite (such as not having a shield to tangle), reroll on this table.

D% Roll
Example Summary
Effect

01-19
Slipped
DC 20 DEX check or fall prone

20-33
Slipped, banged head
DC 20 DEX check or fall prone, dazed 1d4 rounds

34-39
Slipped, banged head hard
DC 20 DEX check or fall prone, stunned 1d4 rounds

40-44
Slipped, dizzy
DC 20 DEX check or lose next standard action

45-49
Lost weapon grip
DC 20 STR check or drop weapon

50-54
Lost weapon grip
DC 20 STR check or accidentally fling weapon 2d6 feet away

55-59
Lost weapon grip
DC 20 STR check or accidentally fling weapon 3d6 feet away

60-61
Shield tangled with opponent
Reroll if no shield, otherwise DC 20 DEX check or drop shield

62-63
Shield tangled with opponent, jostled armor loose
Reroll if no shield, otherwise DC 20 DEX check or drop shield, -4 AC next round

64-65
Dizzy
Lose next standard action

66-69
Weapon knocked away
Weapon lands 3d4 squares away from you

70-74
Weapon possibly breaks
Roll damage as normal but apply to weapon

75-76
Hit yourself lightly
Deal half damage to self

77-78
Hit yourself
Deal normal damage to self

79-80
Hit yourself hard
Deal critical damage to self

81-82
Hit friend lightly or yourself lightly
Deal half damage to friend if in threatened area (if melee) or range increment (if ranged), otherwise deal half damage to self

83-84
Hit friend or yourself
Deal normal damage to friend if in threatened area (if melee) or range increment (if ranged), otherwise deal normal damage to self

85-86
Hit friend hard or yourself hard
Deal critical damage to friend if in threatened area (if melee) or range increment (if ranged), otherwise deal critical damage to self

87-88
Hit yourself brutally
Deal critical damage to self, roll on Table: Critical Hit Effects to self

89-90
Hit friend brutally
Deal critical damage to friend if in threatened area (if melee) or range increment (if ranged) and roll on Table: Critical Hit Effects to friend, otherwise deal critical damage to self and roll on Table: Critical Hit Effects to self

91-98
Twist ankle
Half speed for 10 minutes, DC 20 DEX check each round begun not prone or fall prone

99
Seriously FUBARed
Roll twice (both effects happen) rerolling rolls of 99 or 100

100
Absurdly FUBARed
Roll three times (all three effects happen) rerolling rolls of 99 or 100

[prufock]

Not in D&D. I use crit miss rules in other systems sometimes. Paranoia, for example, but that's kind of built into the system. Mutants and Masterminds is loose enough to allow you to apply a negative condition on a natural 1 in exchange for a Hero Point. But never in D&D, the chance of a fumble killing a character is just too high for my taste.

[Chronos]

Were it up to me personally, I wouldn't use critical fumbles at all, except possibly as a fluff description of "you miss". The group I currently play with, though, does, although it's a minor version. If you roll a natural 1, then you roll to confirm, and if the confirm roll is also a miss, then something happens that costs you an action. For weapon-wielders, this is typically a dropped weapon; for natural weapons, it can be falling prone, or stunning, or something along those lines, depending on the situation and the whim of the DM/players. Typically, whoever rolled the fumble decides the exact effect, and everyone else just goes along with it.

[Trebloc]

So for those advocating critical fumbles on attack rolls, what additional critical fumble rules do you apply to those already powerful casters who hardly every make an attack roll? I mean, those casters are missing out on the Benny Hill funtime of dropping their fireball at their own feet and accidentally Disjuncting the party cleric. And what happens if they have a critical fumble when trying to do a wish or Shapechange?!

[Eldonauran]

So for those advocating critical fumbles on attack rolls, what additional critical fumble rules do you apply to those already powerful casters who hardly every make an attack roll? I mean, those casters are missing out on the Benny Hill funtime of dropping their fireball at their own feet and accidentally Disjuncting the party cleric. And what happens if they have a critical fumble when trying to do a wish or Shapechange?!

Ehem...


Save vs effects are usually the hardest ones to write something for but my general rule of thumb is:

A critical fumble for a spell save vs effect is threatened when the target creature rolls a natural 20 on its saving throw. The caster must then make the same save versus the same DC. Should the caster fail that check, he must then make a concentration check equal to 15 + the spell level + the amount he failed the save. If the concentration check fails, the spell has fumbled. Roll percentage dice: (consult table)

If the spell deals damage but allows a save for half, the fumble check is similar but the caster runs the danger of taking the half spell damage that the creature shook off.

I have rules for that.

Spells that use an attack roll or a check vs spell resistance have a similar fumble table that melee/ranged attacks get. The odds are about 1/200 of a fumble happening, something 'bad' happening during a fumble is 40% of that 1/200.

[Propagandalf]

In the game I'm playing, we use the following:

Fumble Rule:
If you roll a natural 1 on an attack/full attack, you must immediately make a Dex Check with a DC of 10.

Succeed; You continue normally (the attack was just a miss).
Fail; You fumble, losing all your remaining attacks for that turn and must spend the next turn regaining your composure (So you basically lose your next turn).

The rule means that higher level characters are less likely to fumble, since their Dex scores should be higher. For example my lvl 13 swordsage can no longer fumble at all with his dex modifier of +9.

[Trebloc]

Ehem...



I have rules for that.


Save vs effects are usually the hardest ones to write something for but my general rule of thumb is:

A critical fumble for a spell save vs effect is threatened when the target creature rolls a natural 20 on its saving throw. The caster must then make the same save versus the same DC. Should the caster fail that check, he must then make a concentration check equal to 15 + the spell level + the amount he failed the save. If the concentration check fails, the spell has fumbled. Roll percentage dice: (consult table)

If the spell deals damage but allows a save for half, the fumble check is similar but the caster runs the danger of taking the half spell damage that the creature shook off.



Spells that use an attack roll or a check vs spell resistance have a similar fumble table that melee/ranged attacks get. The odds are about 1/200 of a fumble happening, something 'bad' happening during a fumble is 40% of that 1/200.

So if a caster fireballs 10 guys who are 1000 feet away, he has a 50% chance of fumbling the fireball, but if he casts fly on himself, there is zero chance of anything bad happening?

[Fibinachi]

We use a barter system. It's divorced from mechanics, as such. Dice wise, rolling a 1, on the first attack, you still might miss and can decide to roll a percentile dice to get a random list of tiny little fluff, debuff or random things. (Sword gets stuck, str check to pull out, you miss and light the local area on fire, your spell acts erratically and leaves a smell of rotten eggs)

Nothing severe, but just stuff that adds flavour. Same goes for ranged attack rolls, albeit on a different table, and spells that require targetting. Why would you do that? Well, it's fun. The players seem to like it. And you also get a point of "fortune", that adds a +1 to any one thing, up to a max of having cl / 4 at any one time.

Other than that, people can barter, as mentioned. If they want to do something not covered by traditional mechanics:

"I bet I can kick the orc back a square against leaving myself open to an attack of oppertunity"
or
"I bet I can jab the mage in the throat to penalize his casting versus overextending and being flatfooted for a round"
or
"I bet I can focus and add twice my str, but take equal nl damage from exertion"

so on. It works for our games, and it allows people to do still that get that... feeling? I guess? Of things being able to go wrong, but still not being screwed over by it. I've played too many rogue likes to be too fond of statistically significant odds of inflicting damage to yourself as a DM. It doesn't seem fair, for the reason mentioned already since, since a strict rule of 1 = fumle means anyone with more than 1 attack has a higher and higher chance of fumbling.

[Barsoom]

Other than that, people can barter, as mentioned. If they want to do something not covered by traditional mechanics:

"I bet I can kick the orc back a square against leaving myself open to an attack of oppertunity"
or
"I bet I can jab the mage in the throat to penalize his casting versus overextending and being flatfooted for a round"
or
"I bet I can focus and add twice my str, but take equal nl damage from exertion"Interestingly enough, those things are covered by traditional mechanics.

#1 is just a Bull Rush attempt. That's exactly what it is. Push someone back, provoke an AoO
#2 can be achieved by grappling and pinning the wizard. Interetingly enough, you lose your DEX bonus in a grapple, so the penalty is exactly the same.
#3 ... okay, actually this is the odd one out. No rule for that. It's like a variant on Power Attack. I kind of like it.

[Fibinachi]

It's not quite a grapple, though. That would be directly pinning the caster in question. This is more of a "We're in melee range, and we'll get swamped, so I'm going to try and crush his larynx before we get swamped".

But yeah. Most of it can be handled by standard mechanics, but sometimes it's fun to do it the other way, since the standard execution can be a little pass / fail. That's fine for 99 % of cases, but sometimes, you want to try and disarm someone and risk being hit in return by all the other guards because that's just more heroic.

You could probably find a feat for 3# in somewhere, if you tried, too, but I like my version (Who doesn't like their own version...)

[Eldonauran]

So if a caster fireballs 10 guys who are 1000 feet away, he has a 50% chance of fumbling the fireball, but if he casts fly on himself, there is zero chance of anything bad happening?

No, he'll still have to fail his counter save and then a concentration check. Even then, only 40% of that time will something bad happen. Only one fumble check for any one spell. I flavor my spell fumbles along the lines of, the character is the focus that brings the spell effect into being. Should the spell fail to 'effect' the creature completely (which I call a natural 20), the spell attempts to vent the remainder of its energy on the focus (spellcaster). Should the caster not be able to avoid (DC) or redirect (concentration check) the energy back to where it came, he runs the risk of a mishap.

Its fluff. Use as you want or disregard.

As for casting fly on himself, why would the spell fail? It isn't dealing damage or causing an unwanted effect. I only use fumble checks for things that require an attack roll, saving throw vs unwanted effect (Su or Sp, never Ex) or check vs spell resistance.

[eggynack]

As for casting fly on himself, why would the spell fail? It isn't dealing damage or causing an unwanted effect. I only use fumble checks for things that require an attack roll, saving throw vs unwanted effect (Su or Sp, never Ex) or check vs spell resistance.
That's a big problem though. Even if you manage to come up with a ridiculous way for spells to backfire, wizards still lose far less than fighters to the fumble rules. Wizards can cast a ton of spells that never even touch the enemy's saves or touch AC. There are also cases which do involve saves which make no sense in your rules. Stinking cloud, for example is utterly detatched from the caster once cast. If you cast a stinking cloud, and then an enemy walks into it and makes the save critically, could the wizard get sick? If yes, then that makes no sense. If no, then it's just another thing you're giving wizards over fighters.

[PersonMan]

(Sword gets stuck, str check to pull out, you miss and light the local area on fire, your spell acts erratically and leaves a smell of rotten eggs)

I love how, grammatically, this statement could be read to mean "you miss [your sword/dagger attack] and set the local area on fire".

That is the kind of fumble rule I could get behind!

[eggynack]

I love how, grammatically, this statement could be read to mean "you miss [your sword/dagger attack] and set the local area on fire".

That is the kind of fumble rule I could get behind!
That does sound amazing. Presumably, the gods have a random chance to produce arbitrary magical effects based on the melee guy's critical misses. "You attempt to stab your opponent, but mid swing a chicken appears in your stab path, blocking the blow. Then, the chicken runs away with your weapon imbedded inside it." "You miss with your arrow shot. The area localized around where your arrow struck spontaneously turns into rubber, and the arrow flies back into your face." "You hit your enemy just fine, dealing a ton of damage. Then you spontaneously combust." "You raise your sword into the air to strike your enemy, but at that exact moment a bolt of lightning strikes your blade. Unfortunately for you, the bolt is magical, and polymorphs you into a duck which can sometimes turn into a ballerina." Anything's possible.

[JusticeZero]

How about this:

When making a save versus a spell attack, a natural 20 receives no damage on a save for half effect, as if they had Evasion or equivalent. Alternately, the caster is considered to be flat-footed to the one making the natural 20 saving throw until the beginning of their next turn. Target's choice.

[Eldonauran]

That's a big problem though. Even if you manage to come up with a ridiculous way for spells to backfire, wizards still lose far less than fighters to the fumble rules. Wizards can cast a ton of spells that never even touch the enemy's saves or touch AC. There are also cases which do involve saves which make no sense in your rules. Stinking cloud, for example is utterly detatched from the caster once cast. If you cast a stinking cloud, and then an enemy walks into it and makes the save critically, could the wizard get sick? If yes, then that makes no sense. If no, then it's just another thing you're giving wizards over fighters.

I did say originally that spells that requires only saves are difficult to make rules for. Maybe I should spell it out in plain english? The rules that I have offered in this thread thus far, are in no way, specific enough to cover every contingency and are not meant to.

As for your example with stinking cloud, I would not allow fumbles for that instance, simply because it doesn't affect anyone directly (not an instantaneous duration, no specific target, etc). Use your imagination. Within the guidelines I have listed, does a wizard getting sickened by a spell he cast a few rounds ago make sense? Obviously not. Don't use the fumble rules.

In addition, I am not here to defend my fumble rules. I am here to offer information on what I use, as requested by the OP and certain others that seem interested in hearing my rules.


When making a save versus a spell attack, a natural 20 receives no damage on a save for half effect, as if they had Evasion or equivalent. Furthermore, the caster is considered to be flat-footed to the one making the natural 20 saving throw until the beginning of their next turn.


I ... would not advise that. You could add it to a list of possible effects from my fumble rules but should never have it as part of the confirmation process.

[eggynack]

I did say originally that spells that requires only saves are difficult to make rules for. Maybe I should spell it out in plain english? The rules that I have offered in this thread thus far, are in no way, specific enough to cover every contingency and are not meant to.

As for your example with stinking cloud, I would not allow fumbles for that instance, simply because it doesn't affect anyone directly (not an instantaneous duration). Use your imagination. Within the guidelines I have listed, does a wizard getting sickened by a spell he cast a few rounds ago make sense? Obviously not. Don't use the fumble rules.
I'm aware that they're difficult, and I'm aware that you're aware that they're difficult. What my point is, is that just about any set of fumble rules is going to favor spellcasters. They just have more ways to get around that kind of rule, no matter how comprehensive the rule is. What you've done, is effectively created a rule that makes casters even more powerful than melee, and that's not the kind of change I can ever get behind. Casters are already much more powerful than fighters. They don't need help getting there. For example, you've decided that fumble rules don't apply to sickening cloud. Now, the wizard has at least one somewhat offensive action he can take in combat, without ever touching the fumble rules. I can start naming others if you want. Fighters don't have that option, because just about everything they do requires a roll of some kind. You're further imbalancing the game, and that's just a bad thing to do.

[dascarletm]

To jump in with my 2cents

That's a big problem though. Even if you manage to come up with a ridiculous way for spells to backfire, wizards still lose far less than fighters to the fumble rules. Wizards can cast a ton of spells that never even touch the enemy's saves or touch AC.
Well if he is buffing people, then that benefits allies equally and really isn't a balance issue anyway.


There are also cases which do involve saves which make no sense in your rules. Stinking cloud, for example is utterly detatched from the caster once cast. If you cast a stinking cloud, and then an enemy walks into it and makes the save critically, could the wizard get sick? If yes, then that makes no sense. If no, then it's just another thing you're giving wizards over fighters.
I think you can come up with reasons for any spell, or at least I can. It is
magic after all.
Stinking Cloud: The reason said character was unaffected was because your conjuration of noxious gas flow was interrupted in the arcane summoning matrix. This allowed the fresh air by your face to be displaced by (creature that saved)'s stinky air stuff.
I can do these all day!
It's just the fluff for that guy's game. If he and his characters like it what is the harm?:smallwink:

[Amphetryon]

In addition, I am not here to defend my fumble rules. I am here to offer information on what I use, as requested by the OP and certain others that seem interested in hearing my rules.From my vantage point, it would appear you are expending considerable energy on something you're repeatedly claiming you're not here to do. Food for thought.

[Eldonauran]

I'm aware that they're difficult, and I'm aware that you're aware that they're difficult. What my point is, is that just about any set of fumble rules is going to favor spellcasters. They just have more ways to get around that kind of rule, no matter how comprehensive the rule is. What you've done, is effectively created a rule that makes casters even more powerful than melee, and that's not the kind of change I can ever get behind. Casters are already much more powerful than fighters. They don't need help getting there. For example, you've decided that fumble rules don't apply to sickening cloud. Now, the wizard has at least one somewhat offensive action he can take in combat, without ever touching the fumble rules. I can start naming others if you want. Fighters don't have that option, because just about everything they do requires a roll of some kind. You're further imbalancing the game, and that's just a bad thing to do.

I can see your point. I don't share your opinion on class balance. I am aware of the power balance being in the spellcaster's favor but I don't think its a bad thing. The wizard having one (or multiple) spells that don't risk a fumble doesn't worry me. When the players make their characters act as a team, the game is balanced the way it should be; the players vs the monsters.


From my vantage point, it would appear you are expending considerable energy on something you're repeatedly claiming you're not here to do. Food for thought.

Meh. Just because I am not here to defend my rules doesn't mean that I won't respond to legitimate questions or concerns about the rules. I'm more than happy to explain them and why I chose to make them, but discussing their effectiveness or how they 'unbalance the game' isn't my main concern. I have defended them previously. I have recently (the last post for example) decided to stop and will be ignoring posts that attempt to restart that discussion. Though, should my arguments be misinterpreted or misconstrued, I might find myself jumping back in briefly to correct the matter.

My rules are my rules and are not subject to change by anyone save my players and I.

[Bakkan]

If you roll a natural 1, you miss. If the DM is in the mood, he calls for a confirmation. If the roll is low, you suffer an embarassing misfortune with no mechanical impact.

[eggynack]

I can see your point. I don't share your opinion on class balance. I am aware of the power balance being in the spellcaster's favor but I don't think its a bad thing. The wizard having one (or multiple) spells that don't risk a fumble doesn't worry me. When the players make their characters act as a team, the game is balanced the way it should be; the players vs the monsters.


That's a different argument then. Wizards are far more powerful than fighters are, just as a general rule. They can do things that completely invalidate anything that the fighter could ever do. If you don't think that wizards are crazy powerful compared to fighters then you A) wouldn't see a balance problem with fumble, and B) are very much incorrect. The fact of the matter is, that this isn't some obscure subset of spells that wouldn't have your fumble rules apply. The spells which just bypass defenses are some of the best in the game. Think about something like black tentacles. It's crazy powerful, and never even touches fumble rules. It just is what it is. Summoning spells do get hit by fumble rules, but summoned creatures are intrinsically disposable compared to fighters who have to move into harm's way to engage the enemy, and for whom dropping a weapon could be a death sentence.

If you want to have the crazy long twenty page balance argument, then I suppose you can. It's the kind of thing that's happened before though, so you can probably just search threads for the word "Tiers" and just read those. The summary of it is that imbalance creates massive problems, even if the players never fight each other. Fights that would challenge the wizard are things that fighters don't even make a dent against, and fights that would be a doable challenge to the fighter are pointlessly easy to the wizard. Having a party that acts as a cohesive unit doesn't solve the problem, and is in fact an assumed premise of the tier system.

[killem2]

Paizo fumble deck, and we never looked back :)

[mangosta71]

Weapons with higher critical multipliers are less prone to crits but do more damage on one, rather than weapons with large crit ranges. Wider crit ranges make them deadlier because they hit crits more often DESPITE lower critical multiplers. This is why a greatsword outperforms a great axe given time.
The argument isn't that weapons with larger crit ranges have smaller multiplies - it's that they do less damage on non-crits. The expanded crit range was intended to give them equivalent damage output over time.

Let's look at some math. Suppose we have 2 characters; one has a longsword, the other has a rapier. Attacking a target against which they have a 50% chance of hitting, each of them makes 20 attacks, hitting 10 times. The guy with the longsword crits twice; the guy with the scimitar crits 3 times.

Longsword damage: 12d8 = 54 on average
Rapier damage: 13d6 = 45.5 on average

The longsword outperforms the rapier until the bonuses included in the multiplier (strength and weapon enhancement) add up to 9. Against a target that the characters are more likely to hit, the longsword surges even farther ahead - the deficit to overcome increases by 1 for each roll that results in a hit.

This is before we even start to consider that the classes most likely to pick up weapons with large crit ranges typically have both lower BAB and lower strength scores.

[The Trickster]

Paizo fumble deck, and we never looked back :)

We use this;

http://paizo.com/products/btpy89mn/discuss?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck

There is also one for critical hits, if you want to get a little crazy. :smalltongue:

[Gavinfoxx]

Looking at those sample stuff for the Paizo... that is hideously bad for a high-op game. I mean... WOW. The Magic will never get used, and if it is, you are taken below -10 from full in an instant... O,o

[Eldonauran]

That's a different argument then. **snip**

If you want to have the crazy long twenty page balance argument, then I suppose you can. **snip**

I think you misunderstood me. I know of the huge power gap, I know what a wizard (spellcaster) can do compared to a fighter. In the simplist of terms, I don't care. I don't have a reason or interest into getting into an argument about that. If you want to get into my reasoning for not caring, it has to do with how D&D isn't meant to be a PvP game and no matter of tweaking it will resolve that issue. You have to build a game from the ground up in order to pull that off. Aside from that, I have nothing else to say on the matter of 'power gaps' or how fumble rules 'gimp the non-casters'. Feel free to quote the 'I don't care' part and say something entertaining to get the last word in edgewise.

The players choose what classes they want to play. I enable them to do so while still being effective, as a group. That, along with making sure they have fun, is my job as a DM. How I choose to do that and how I reflect my success in doing so, rests solely in the opinions of my players.

[eggynack]

I think you misunderstood me. I know of the huge power gap, I know what a wizard (spellcaster) can do compared to a fighter. In the simplist of terms, I don't care. I don't have a reason or interest into getting into an argument about that. If you want to get into my reasoning for not caring, it has to do with how D&D isn't meant to be a PvP game and no matter of tweaking it will resolve that issue. You have to build a game from the ground up in order to pull that off. Aside from that, I have nothing else to say on the matter of 'power gaps' or how fumble rules 'gimp the non-casters'. Feel free to quote the 'I don't care' part and say something entertaining to get the last word in edgewise.

The players choose what classes they want to play. I enable them to do so while still being effective, as a group. That, along with making sure they have fun, is my job as a DM. How I choose to do that and how I reflect my success in doing so, rests solely in the opinions of my players.
Then there is a third, separate, argument, which is whether imbalance can be crippling to a game. I contend that it can. As I mentioned in that post, the problem with imbalance has absolutely nothing at all to do with PvP. Issues with imbalance are entirely rooted in regular games in which the players are fighting as a team against the DM's encounters.

At least at mid to high levels, it's pretty much impossible to create an encounter which makes both the party fighter and wizard happy. The encounter will necessarily either be entirely inaccessible to the fighter's tactics, or the encounter will be entirely trivial against the wizard's tactics. The wizard is obviously going to magic the fighter to death in an arena, but that has nothing to do with the tier system. As a bonus, the non-wizard casters tend to be better at fighting than fighters as a general rule, so the fighter is even obsolete in his core proficiency.

[Eldonauran]

Then there is a third, separate, argument, which is whether imbalance can be crippling to a game. I contend that it can. **snipp**
Sure, I have no disagreement there. However, my fumble rules should, in no way, amount to a significant increase in imbalance, when the characters might experience a fumble 6 times in their entire career from levels 1 -20.


At least at mid to high levels, it's pretty much impossible to create an encounter which makes both the party fighter and wizard happy. The encounter will necessarily either be entirely inaccessible to the fighter's tactics, or the encounter will be entirely trivial against the wizard's tactics...
Yes, though different players play different ways and don't always use the same tactics, or even the 'optimal' tactics most of us on the board agree with. Sometimes it because they didn't have enough prep time, or they prefer to play a different way.

No single monster encounter is going to challenge the two characters the same way, whether fighter or wizard. I have no trouble, at all, designing encounters that challenge my players on a constant basis. Monster stats and abilities only make up a small amount of the creature's potential. My players encounter intelligent and intelligently played creatures on a constant basis.


... The wizard is obviously going to magic the fighter to death in an arena, but that has nothing to do with the tier system. As a bonus, the non-wizard casters tend to be better at fighting than fighters as a general rule, so the fighter is even obsolete in his core proficiency.

Back to PvP examples again? Moving on ... I don't care.

[JusticeZero]

Weapons with higher critical multipliers are less prone to crits but do more damage on one, rather than weapons with large crit ranges. Wider crit ranges make them deadlier because they hit crits more often DESPITE lower critical multiplers. This is why a greatsword outperforms a great axe given time....actually, a greatsword outperforms a greataxe because a greatsword does 7.14% more damage than a greataxe.

Greatsword has a mean damage of 7, versus a greataxe's 6.5. Furthermore, a greatsword has a more even distribution of damage, and doesn't roll minimum damage as often (and has a higher minimum); this is important when tearing through low CR trash minions that you can kill in a single hit. Greataxe damage is spikier, but the spikes on the damage rolls aren't large enough to matter in most cases.

That sentence was just bugging the heck out of me.

[eggynack]

Sure, I have no disagreement there. However, my fumble rules should, in no way, amount to a significant increase in imbalance, when the characters might experience a fumble 6 times in their entire career from levels 1 -20.


Yes, though different players play different ways and don't always use the same tactics, or even the 'optimal' tactics most of us on the board agree with. Sometimes it because they didn't have enough prep time, or they prefer to play a different way.

No single monster encounter is going to challenge the two characters the same way, whether fighter or wizard. I have no trouble, at all, designing encounters that challenge my players on a constant basis. Monster stats and abilities only make up a small amount of the creature's potential. My players encounter intelligent and intelligently played creatures on a constant basis.



Back to PvP examples again? Moving on ... I don't care.
Any change to the game, no matter how small, shouldn't be made to push the game further from balance. What you're doing is diminishing the little that the fighter is capable of doing. Moreover, your rules, unlike the more reasonable rules posted before, cause fighters to get an average higher number of fumbles per round. Why would that be? In any case, any encounter that challenges two players of highly divergent tiers would basically require two separate encounters. Wizards are the class most capable of beating intelligent and intelligently played monsters.

Finally, I clearly wasn't using PvP as an example. That should have been obvious by the end of the sentence in which I brought it up. The point I was making by bringing up clerics and druids was that the party just doesn't need a fighter in it. They can basically just fill in that role with little to no effort. That point also has nothing to do with PvP.

[killem2]

We use this;

http://paizo.com/products/btpy89mn/discuss?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck

There is also one for critical hits, if you want to get a little crazy. :smalltongue:

aye we use that too :)


Looking at those sample stuff for the Paizo... that is hideously bad for a high-op game. I mean... WOW. The Magic will never get used, and if it is, you are taken below -10 from full in an instant... O,o

So?

You prefer a melee loses half his limbs and bleeds for 4 days?

[Gavinfoxx]

aye we use that too :)
So?

You prefer a melee loses half his limbs and bleeds for 4 days?

...No? Where did you get that idea? I am honestly confused?

[Eldonauran]

Any change to the game, no matter how small, shouldn't be made to push the game further from balance. What you're doing is diminishing the little that the fighter is capable of doing. Moreover, your rules, unlike the more reasonable rules posted before, cause fighters to get an average higher number of fumbles per round. Why would that be?
Obviously, because they attack more often. What's your point? You already think fumble rules are unreasonable. Why continue to argue about it? I've already admitted I understand the imbalance they bring and that I am not likely to change my opinion on it. Leave the horse alone. Its dead already.


In any case, any encounter that challenges two players of highly divergent tiers would basically require two separate encounters. Wizards are the class most capable of beating intelligent and intelligently played monsters.
It would not require two different encounters. Or it might, depending on how you define a single encounter. I define an encounter as everything that happens within one initiative count, ie a single battle.


Finally, I clearly wasn't using PvP as an example. That should have been obvious by the end of the sentence in which I brought it up. The point I was making by bringing up clerics and druids was that the party just doesn't need a fighter in it. They can basically just fill in that role with little to no effort. That point also has nothing to do with PvP.

It wasn't obvious. Your 'PvP' comment was tacked onto the paragraph when you mentioned the 'arena' and a wizard magick-ing a fighter within it. That little section had really nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, in which you again brought up the power difference between the classes. PvP and 'powergaps' again, two things I do not care about.

[Deophaun]

I loathe fumbles, mainly because I've built characters that, on average, get a nat 1 every other turn (or more frequently) on a full attack. Even with fumble confirmation, it's more likely that higher level fighters will fumble, because they take -5, -10, and -15 to their attack rolls, on top of things like Power Attack penalties. Fighting defensively? You've just opened yourself up to fumbling and an AoO somehow. So, yeah, the math does lie.

The only good critical fumble rule I've seen is actually in 4th edition, and it was a class feature for a wild sorcerer. On a nat 1, push everything within so many squares 5 feet. It wasn't necessarily bad... although there were times...

[Piggy Knowles]

I think this is one of my favorite responses to fumble rules:



Run a combat of 10 level 1 Warriors against 10 straw dummies (Medium inanimate object, AC 5). For 2 minutes (20 rounds) each Warrior makes 1 attack per round against the dummies; the dummies do not attack back.

If (at the end of 20 rounds) any of the Warriors are dead or dying then the DM must butter his fumble rules and eat them.

[The Trickster]

I think this is one of my favorite responses to fumble rules:



Originally Posted by hewhosaysfish
Run a combat of 10 level 1 Warriors against 10 straw dummies (Medium inanimate object, AC 5). For 2 minutes (20 rounds) each Warrior makes 1 attack per round against the dummies; the dummies do not attack back.

If (at the end of 20 rounds) any of the Warriors are dead or dying then the DM must butter his fumble rules and eat them.

I kinda want to sig this. :smalltongue:

[Setra]

If you roll two Nat 1s in a row, you drop your weapon.

If you're using something that can't be dropped (Unarmed Strike, Natural Weapons, Gauntlets) then you become flatfooted.

If you roll a nat 20 on your 'confirmation', you can try to attack again as if you didn't roll a nat 1 in the first place.

[Feint's End]

...actually, a greatsword outperforms a greataxe because a greatsword does 7.14% more damage than a greataxe.

Greatsword has a mean damage of 7, versus a greataxe's 6.5. Furthermore, a greatsword has a more even distribution of damage, and doesn't roll minimum damage as often (and has a higher minimum); this is important when tearing through low CR trash minions that you can kill in a single hit. Greataxe damage is spikier, but the spikes on the damage rolls aren't large enough to matter in most cases.

That sentence was just bugging the heck out of me.

Aye seconding this. Additionally you have to consider that while a Greatssword crits double as often that doesn't mean the greataxe doesn't hit on the same frequency (So in the end 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3 damagewise unless the monsters have ridiculous high ac and you rule a crit always hits in which case the weapon with the higher crit range is better). Example:

Lets assume you attack 20 times and roll every possible number once (1-20) ... You hit on an 11 or higher:
greatsword: 8xdamage 2xcrit for 4xdamage = 12xdamage
greataxe: 9xdamage 1xcrit for 3xdamage = 12xdamage

In the end it's exactly like JusticeZero said. The reason why an Greatsword outperforms the Greataxe is because of the slightly higher average dmg and the more constant dmg.

Your calculation on the first page was therefor wrong. Your Scimitar vs Battleaxe example. First it should be 10xdamage (from Battleaxe because you hit on a 18 and 19 too) and second their crit ranges aren't "equal". If you compare a scimitar to a Scythe on the other hand it will sum up to 12xdamage with both weapons if you wait until you crit twice with the scythe (a x4 weapon).

Just wanted to clarify that. A lot of people seem to forget that while a higher crit range weapon crits more often and seemingly deals more damage you have more non-critical hits with the lower crit range weapons.

[eggynack]

in the end 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3 damagewise unless the monsters have ridiculous high ac and you rule a crit always hits in which case the weapon with the higher crit range is better.
Actually, I think you got it backwards. Any rule that made a weapon always hit on a critical hit threat would be a house rule, because weapons only always hit on a 20. Therefore, the weapon with the higher critical hit multiplier would deal more damage if the enemy had an arbitrarily large AC. This is for the obvious reason that with an arbitrarily large AC, you're changing the comparison from 19-20 *2 vs 20* *3, to 20 *2 vs. 20 *3.

[Feint's End]

Actually, I think you got it backwards. Any rule that made a weapon always hit on a critical hit threat would be a house rule, because weapons only always hit on a 20. Therefore, the weapon with the higher critical hit multiplier would deal more damage if the enemy had an arbitrarily large AC. This is for the obvious reason that with an arbitrarily large AC, you're changing the comparison from 19-20 *2 vs 20* *3, to 20 *2 vs. 20 *3.

Yeah you are right. Thanks for correcting me.

So the sentence should actually be: So in the end 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3 damagewise unless the monsters have ridiculous high ac and you always hit on a 20 in which case the weapon with the higher crit multiplier is better

[TypoNinja]

I'm noticing a pattern here, either fumble rules are terrible because they either happen too often, and/or impact melee far more than casters so present a fairness issue.

Or, they DM has gone to the trouble of coming up with convoluted confirmation rules and/or tables to draw from in an attempt to make them fair.

In the later case we end up with a lot more rolls, which is also bad in my opinion.

[eggynack]

Yeah you are right. Thanks for correcting me.

So the sentence should actually be: So in the end 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3 damagewise unless the monsters have ridiculous high ac and you always hit on a 20 in which case the weapon with the higher crit multiplier is better
Ludicrously high AC enemies are a bit of a corner case, I must admit. This is especially true for any character with either a great axe or a great sword. I'd generally just say that great swords are universally better, because they deal slightly higher base damage, and critical hit stuff generally makes very little difference on damage. An arbitrarily high AC also means that the guy will have to hit a 20 on the confirmation roll if he wants to get the critical. Thus, the great sword does an average of 7*.0475+ 7*.0025 damage. That come out to .35 damage. The axe does 6.5*.0475+ 13*.0025. That comes out to .34125. This means, that even in the ludicrously narrow case where the expanded critical hit range makes a difference, the great sword's higher base damage still wins the day. Hoorah for the great sword.

Edit: Eh, the numbers are actually close enough that the advantage would probably be tipped to the axe at certain strength bonuses. By a cursory calculation, I'd suspect that the required strength modifier would be 3.5. You have to be pretty focused on strength to pick up the advantage with a great axe, though you probably have that much strength if you're holding either weapon.

[Feint's End]

Ludicrously high AC enemies are a bit of a corner case, I must admit. This is especially true for any character with either a great axe or a great sword. I'd generally just say that great swords are universally better, because they deal slightly higher base damage, and critical hit stuff generally makes very little difference on damage. An arbitrarily high AC also means that the guy will have to hit a 20 on the confirmation roll if he wants to get the critical. Thus, the great sword does an average of 7*.0475+ 7*.0025 damage. That come out to .35 damage. The axe does 6.5*.0475+ 13*.0025. That comes out to .34125. This means, that even in the ludicrously narrow case where the expanded critical hit range makes a difference, the great sword's higher base damage still wins the day. Hoorah for the great sword.

Edit: Eh, the numbers are actually close enough that the advantage would probably be tipped to the axe at certain strength bonuses. By a cursory calculation, I'd suspect that the required strength modifier would be 3.5. You have to be pretty focused on strength to pick up the advantage with a great axe, though you probably have that much strength if you're holding either weapon.

It actually is 3.5 for x whereas x is the bonusdamage you get on top of your normal weapon damage (weapon enhancement, strength etc etc) so in the case where you only hit on a 20 the greataxe will come out ahead most of the time. After all it's quite easy for a Fighter kind of guy to reach the +3.5 damage (str 14 and +1 weapon).

But I agree that the Greatsword is better in general. I mean how often you meet a monster with an Ac so high you can only beat it with natural 20. In the rare case it should happen .... well .... frankly something went terribly wrong. Be it either the optimization Level of your Fighter, the out-of-the-line EL, a boss who you shouldn't kill by normal means or a sadistic Dm who thinks Fighters are op :smallamused:


I'm noticing a pattern here, either fumble rules are terrible because they either happen too often, and/or impact melee far more than casters so present a fairness issue.

Or, they DM has gone to the trouble of coming up with convoluted confirmation rules and/or tables to draw from in an attempt to make them fair.

In the later case we end up with a lot more rolls, which is also bad in my opinion.

Yeah that is the main problem. Most of them are not only bad written but bad thought through. As before mentioned any systems that gimps characters more the more powerful they get is pretty bad. (Aside from the Fighter gimp ofc)
It might be a great idea if somebody could come up with a reasonable fumble system that adds flavour to a campaign instead of gimping certain classes.

Had requirements somewhere along those lines
-every class had to be equally affected by fumbles
-higher level characters are less likely to fumble
-and/or change the way higher level characters fumble
-nothing to crazy or chance to avoid "crazy" fumbles such as polymorphing oneself into a frog or shooting your friend with a disintegration ray
-low chance for "lucky" fumbles

Doesn't seem to hard to me. :smallwink:

[eggynack]

It actually is 3.5 for x whereas x is the bonusdamage you get on top of your normal weapon damage (weapon enhancement, strength etc etc) so in the case where you only hit on a 20 the greataxe will come out ahead most of the time. After all it's quite easy for a Fighter kind of guy to reach the +3.5 damage (str 14 and +1 weapon).

But I agree that the Greatsword is better in general. I mean how often you meet a monster with an Ac so high you can only beat it with natural 20. In the rare case it should happen .... well .... frankly something went terribly wrong. Be it either the optimization Level of your Fighter, the out-of-the-line EL, a boss who you shouldn't kill by normal means or a sadistic Dm who thinks Fighters are op :smallamused:
Yeah, I forgot that we're dealing with two handed weapons, and that additional damage bonuses can come from other places. Still, I think that the great axe deserves a win if the corner case is that far in the corner.

[soveliss24]

*snip* or a sadistic Dm who thinks Fighters are op :smallamused:

:smalleek: Such DMs exist? Dear gods, I hope I never meet one. It's hard enough to be a Fighter-lover when everyone knows they suck!

[Feint's End]

Yeah, I forgot that we're dealing with two handed weapons, and that additional damage bonuses can come from other places. Still, I think that the great axe deserves a win if the corner case is that far in the corner.

Haha yeah definitely. Give the Greataxe more attention I demand. This thread should be a wake up call to all this axe loving barbarians out there.


:smalleek: Such DMs exist? Dear gods, I hope I never meet one. It's hard enough to be a Fighter-lover when everyone knows they suck!


Dude did you just see this Fighter dealing 25 Damage with a single hit? Power Attack op! My Magic Missile just deals a few lousy d4.

[soveliss24]

Dude did you just see this Fighter dealing 25 Damage with a single hit? Power Attack op! My Magic Missile just deals a few lousy d4.

And his AC is like, twice mine! Totally not fair!

What? Mage Armor? No, of course I didn't prepare it, it doesn't do damage. Lamest spell ever.

[Chronos]

Fundamentally, the primary reason that the greatsword is better than the greataxe is that it's more consistent, and consistency favors the PCs. The vast majority of encounters the PCs will face, they're the heavy favorites by the odds. The monsters defeating the PCs is a rare fluke occurrence. Therefore, the PCs want to minimize the incidence of rare fluke occurrences. So I'd prefer for my fighter to use a sword instead of an axe... But I'd also prefer for the orc I'm fighting to use a sword instead of an axe. If the orc uses an axe, then that single unlikely crit, if it happens, just might one-shot me, and I don't want there to be a chance of that happening.

All that said, though, there isn't that much difference between swords and axes, so if a player decides for some reason that an axe better suits his character concept, he's really not giving himself a significant handicap.

[Piggy Knowles]

We've gone far afield, but my main thoughts on greatsword versus greataxe:

At low levels, when an extra point of damage can consistently actually make a difference, I prefer the greatsword for its better distribution and slightly larger damage per attack.

At higher levels, when a minuscule amount of damage really doesn't make much of a difference, I prefer the greataxe, because it feels really cool to roll max damage, and rolling 12 on a greataxe is significantly more likely than rolling 12 on a greatsword.

(Also, that small damage boost dealing slightly more damage over time is nice at the levels when HP is fairly low. But you're probably only going to be making four or five swings at any given enemy, and dead is a lot more important than slightly more wounded, since there are no penalties for amount of damage accrued. So the small lapse in average damage is actually less useful for a melee character, in my opinion, than the superior spike damage of the greataxe.)

[John Campbell]

We use this;

http://paizo.com/products/btpy89mn/discuss?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck

There is also one for critical hits, if you want to get a little crazy. :smalltongue:

My group used those for about half of one session, and then the DM, to general acclaim, threw them in the trash, and retconned all of their effects.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Here are my critical fumble rules:

If you want critical fumbles, your character has them. Everyone else does not.

There is no "good way" to use them. They are inherently stupid, completely unrealistic, *and* f*** over the already weakest characters (like TWF, monks, and archers) while doing nothing to the spellcasters, breaking game balance further.

If a DM tries to force fumble rules on me, I reroll a caster that makes no attack rolls, or more likely, I leave the game.

[Shpadoinkle]

I don't use critical fumble rules. If you roll a 1 you roll a 1 and add modifiers from there, same as if you'd rolled a 2 or a 10 or a 17. Melee struggles enough as it is; they do NOT need the added risk of the ONE thing they've trained to be good at every day of their lives blowing up catastrophically in their faces every time they try to do it.

[Black Jester]

We don't go any further on natural ones than the automatic failure, but sometimes, the GM adds a small description in there which has no game effect but makes the situation look hilarious ("even the troll looks surprised that you missed with that hit") The worst that happened to a fighter was a torn seam in his pants, but that actually made sense as the characters wore hilariously impracticable court outfits at the time.

Otherwise, under the rules we use, checks for spell failure are relatively common and occur from several sources (any effect that enforces a concentration check also carries a minor chance for spell failure. It adds up). A natural one on those rolls are not that funny (for the caster; for the rest of the group, they are hilarious). It fits a concept that magic is a volatile and not always controllable art. But even then, truly lethal effects are rare. The worst thing I can remember was a wizard who botched on a Fly spell, shoot straight in the air and took falling damage when he hit the ceiling, knocked himself out by rolling abysmally and then died when falling back down hitting the ground. The miraculous rubber ball wizard has become a standard anectdote in that group, and in my opinion that is the best way to handle fumbles like that: create memorable scenes the player's will not forget.

[Felandria]

I make them roll to confirm a Nat 1.

If they roll a 20 the 1 never happened.

If they roll another 1, bad things happen.

Otherwise, standard rule applies.

[HurinTheCursed]

If a group DM + other players enjoys fumble rules, they should have some, people play RPG to have fun.

Personnaly, I find it destroys credibility of PC, BBEG and so on. It breaks immersion and roleplay, so when I DM something happens if you're bad at something and rolled bad (difference with DC/AC rather than plain roll). If you try somehting at which you're bad, you know it's risky and you should be ready for consequences.
A fumble every 30 seconds (at most) for an epic legendary fighter doesn't fit.

In my D&D group, we tried to decrease the impact of fumbles but it's still pretty bad. After a 1, you may be allowed a dex check but since melee guys have 10 dex anyway, it doesn't improve with levels.
For rays and arrows, you hit a PC, if possible in the same direction, otherwise, it could be anywhere with a line of sight. Melee fighters are prime victims.
For melee fighters, you either lose your weapon nearby (losing remaining attacks and next round's full attack) or you make an attack against another PC. The victim is usually a nearby melee PC but can also the non-melee PC hidden behind his friend. Seeing the high BAB and higher damage compared to monsters, it is pretty bad in terms of damage.
For skills, it's not that bad, +10/-10 on natural critical so a high level PC can still success.

[Big Fau]

Fumble rules, IMO, should only be used in a Commoner-only game. PC classes are too well-trained to do stupid things like drop their weapon (outside of being stunned or disarmed) or hit each other on accident (especially given how much damage a non-caster can do with a single hit).

[Feint's End]

Fundamentally, the primary reason that the greatsword is better than the greataxe is that it's more consistent, and consistency favors the PCs. The vast majority of encounters the PCs will face, they're the heavy favorites by the odds. The monsters defeating the PCs is a rare fluke occurrence. Therefore, the PCs want to minimize the incidence of rare fluke occurrences. So I'd prefer for my fighter to use a sword instead of an axe... But I'd also prefer for the orc I'm fighting to use a sword instead of an axe. If the orc uses an axe, then that single unlikely crit, if it happens, just might one-shot me, and I don't want there to be a chance of that happening.

All that said, though, there isn't that much difference between swords and axes, so if a player decides for some reason that an axe better suits his character concept, he's really not giving himself a significant handicap.

Yes I totally agree. The discussion above was just about the case when you only hit on a 20 and the math behind both of the weapons :smallwink:

There is also a big point in Greatsword consistency over Greataxe aside from the saver damage roles. Namely it's better to crit more often than a few times powerful. Sure ... in theory the damage multipliers come to the same amount but it's more likely that a x3 multiplier is an overkill (and therefor lost damage) than a x2 with 19-20 range. You might argue that it's more likely for a 19-20 weapon while the enemy is low life and you would be right but I still argue that more damage is lost when using a higher multiplier weapon.

Sorry btw for going so far aboard the op's original question. I just got bothered by the math behind some posts and interested into coming up with the right answers.

[Big Fau]

Be honest: The size of the dice used doesn't matter past 6th level. As long as the weapon is compatible with Power Attack or Sneak Attack, the difference is negligible (and a critical is just overkill, no matter the multiplier).

[fryplink]

I've used this in the past: Risk v. Reward. On a roll of Nat 1 (you decide before second roll, if applicable) you make a choice. You can decide to leave it at that, and miss, or you can roll again. If you roll again, and miss the opponent's AC, you lose your next standard action (or lose 5% of total health, it varies between campaign), but if you hit the AC, hit your opponent and roll (a thrid time) to confirm a Critical Hit (as if you had rolled a Nat 20). Basically, it's a "I screwed up, lets see what something weird will do for me" moment.

[mangosta71]

Yeah you are right. Thanks for correcting me.

So the sentence should actually be: So in the end 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3 damagewise unless the monsters have ridiculous high ac and you always hit on a 20 in which case the weapon with the higher crit multiplier is better
Actually, given that you have to roll to confirm crits in 3.x, if you only hit on a 20 (and thus only confirm a crit on a 20) the greatsword is still superior - 20 hits with a single crit comes out to 42d6 = 147 vs 22d12 = 143.

[dascarletm]

Actually, given that you have to roll to confirm crits in 3.x, if you only hit on a 20 (and thus only confirm a crit on a 20) the greatsword is still superior - 20 hits with a single crit comes out to 42d6 = 147 vs 22d12 = 143.

That is because it has a higher base damage than a greataxe, but if you had two weapons with the same damage dice (lets say 1d6). It would be

x3: 22d6
19-20x2: 21d6

A difference of 3.5 damage (not including strength modifiers or power attack)

[winter92]

My group uses a pretty simple "drop your weapon if you confirm the fumble" except in extreme cases. Double 1s (or possibly just a very bad miss the second time, I'm forgetting) leave you rolling 1d100 on a table ranging from a mere fumble to weapon damage to a single attack against yourself.

A friend of mind followed up that last result with a critical hit to kill (not down) himself in one round, at something worse than 2000:1 odds. Was a hell of a day.

[Gavinfoxx]

My group uses a pretty simple "drop your weapon if you confirm the fumble" except in extreme cases. Double 1s (or possibly just a very bad miss the second time, I'm forgetting) leave you rolling 1d100 on a table ranging from a mere fumble to weapon damage to a single attack against yourself.

A friend of mind followed up that last result with a critical hit to kill (not down) himself in one round, at something worse than 2000:1 odds. Was a hell of a day.

Yea, I hate those sorts of rules. It means you can't make characters that make lots of attacks, or characters that can deal more damage than they have hitpoints in a single attack.

[Philistine]

My group uses a pretty simple "drop your weapon if you confirm the fumble" except in extreme cases. Double 1s (or possibly just a very bad miss the second time, I'm forgetting) leave you rolling 1d100 on a table ranging from a mere fumble to weapon damage to a single attack against yourself.

A friend of mind followed up that last result with a critical hit to kill (not down) himself in one round, at something worse than 2000:1 odds. Was a hell of a day.

Hence the aforementioned Fumble Rules To End All Fumble Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15203540&postcount=17).

[Feint's End]

Actually, given that you have to roll to confirm crits in 3.x, if you only hit on a 20 (and thus only confirm a crit on a 20) the greatsword is still superior - 20 hits with a single crit comes out to 42d6 = 147 vs 22d12 = 143.

Look at the math we already did. As soon as you have a damage boost of 3.5 the Greataxe is superior.

[Daeric]

Fumbles only really come up in our group if we are trying to do something silly like throw big rocks/fire into a combat where we have a friendly and none of us have the feats to nullify the penalties.

At that point its more down to us understanding the risks and going through with it anyway then the dice deciding to tear us a new one for have the tenacity to be a melee combatant.

[limejuicepowder]

Fumble rules suck for all of the reasons people already mentioned. What I don't understand is why the people who like to use fumble rules never find it necessary to inflict that pain on casters.

IMO, if a fighter with weapon skill that exceeds every human who ever lived, and he still has a 1/20 chance to stab himself with each attack he makes, then at the very least ANY time a target rolls a 20 on a saving throw against a spell the spell should reflect on the caster to full effect. This would get awful really fast with spells like fireball and glitterdust, as several enemies would be making saves.

No this makes no sense at all...but it still makes more sense than a fighter stabbing themselves.

[Keneth]

We use Paizo's GameMastery Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks, with slightly modified rules.

A lot of people don't like fumble rules, but our group gets a sadistic pleasure in watching both monsters and other players make a fool of themselves.

And yes, we hate non-spellcasters.

[13_CBS]

What I don't understand is why the people who like to use fumble rules never find it necessary to inflict that pain on casters.


In my group...

1) We're low op.

2) No one really plays casters anyway.

3) We find Fumbles more funny than annoying.

That's my group's explanation, anyway.

[Juntao112]

If I ever played in a game with severe penalties for fumbles, I would make an absurdly tanky character and watch my enemies disembowel themselves.

[Keneth]

If I ever played in a game with severe penalties for fumbles, I would make an absurdly tanky character and watch my enemies disembowel themselves.

People seem to overreact when they hear the word "critical fumble." It's like everyone automatically assumes you cut your legs in half, lengthwise. They read too many anecdotes. While there is the occasional "you hit yourself instead", most fumbles generally feature a small penalty, a dropped weapon, or an inconvenient condition for a few rounds. Plus the whole system should be counterbalanced with critical hit effects which actually do result in hands being cut off, Constitution bleed, massive damage, etc. In our games, enemies use both as well, so those kobolds can wreak some serious havoc on the party with a few lucky shots. In a recent game, a child with a sling hit one of our players with a crit and dealt him 7 points of Intelligence drain. It was hilarious, even if it did cost us pretty penny to get him a restoration spell.

But yes, being a tanky character is pretty awesome in games with fumbles. Take fortification with your high AC, and you can both deny crits and cause fumbles for your enemies.

[Amphetryon]

People seem to overreact when they hear the word "critical fumble." It's like everyone automatically assumes you cut your legs in half, lengthwise. They read too many anecdotes. While there is the occasional "you hit yourself instead", most fumbles generally feature a small penalty, a dropped weapon, or an inconvenient condition for a few rounds. Plus the whole system should be counterbalanced with critical hit effects which actually do result in hands being cut off, Constitution bleed, massive damage, etc. In our games, enemies use both as well, so those kobolds can wreak some serious havoc on the party with a few lucky shots. In a recent game, a child with a sling hit one of our players with a crit and dealt him 7 points of Intelligence drain. It was hilarious, even if it did cost us pretty penny to get him a restoration spell.

But yes, being a tanky character is pretty awesome in games with fumbles. Take fortification with your high AC, and you can both deny crits and cause fumbles for your enemies.
In most games as discussed on the forums, "a few rounds" constitutes the entirety of the battle. That means that limiting a condition to "a few rounds" is tantamount to limiting a condition to "the rest of the current battle." That's often worse than what would happen to the PC when he's being attacked by an enemy, which is a problem, to my way of thinking.

Let's say that the critical fumble condition is "Shaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#shaken)" for 3 rounds, as a fairly minor condition with a relatively brief (arbitrarily derived) duration within your apparent parameters. Under these rules, a Character would be better off being targeted by an unoptimized Cause Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/causeFear.htm) spell in most circumstances, because the condition imposed by the enemy on a successful save is less harmful than the one the Character is statistically going to impose upon himself with more frequency than any given opponent would in most campaign conditions.

If you're fine with those odds, enjoy your game. To me, that's like running around in a thunderstorm with a giant metal rod.

[eggynack]

Fumble rules suck for all of the reasons people already mentioned. What I don't understand is why the people who like to use fumble rules never find it necessary to inflict that pain on casters.

IMO, if a fighter with weapon skill that exceeds every human who ever lived, and he still has a 1/20 chance to stab himself with each attack he makes, then at the very least ANY time a target rolls a 20 on a saving throw against a spell the spell should reflect on the caster to full effect. This would get awful really fast with spells like fireball and glitterdust, as several enemies would be making saves.

No this makes no sense at all...but it still makes more sense than a fighter stabbing themselves.
As I've noted previously, this does little to rectify the additional imbalance that critical fumbles cause. If you wanted to actually balance things out across melee and magic along this spectrum, you'd need to have every single spellcasting accompanied about two critical fumble rolls. Then you'd need to come up with individualized pains to accompany every spell, ranging from losing fly midflight, to placing the wall of stone based on the enemy's specifications. It would take quite a bit of work to figure out the negative side of every spell, and I just don't see it being worth it for the sole end of adding variance to a variance filled game.

As is, your saving throw based fumble rules don't effect wizards nearly as much as the stabbing ones effect fighters. There are tons and tons of spells out there that never require a roll from anyone involved, and many of them are very powerful.

[dascarletm]

As I've noted previously, this does little to rectify the additional imbalance that critical fumbles cause. If you wanted to actually balance things out across melee and magic along this spectrum, you'd need to have every single spellcasting accompanied about two critical fumble rolls. Then you'd need to come up with individualized pains to accompany every spell, ranging from losing fly midflight, to placing the wall of stone based on the enemy's specifications. It would take quite a bit of work to figure out the negative side of every spell, and I just don't see it being worth it for the sole end of adding variance to a variance filled game.

As is, your saving throw based fumble rules don't effect wizards nearly as much as the stabbing ones effect fighters. There are tons and tons of spells out there that never require a roll from anyone involved, and many of them are very powerful.

Instead we use "Warp Phenomenon" from Warhammer 40k RPG (Like Dark Heresy) whenever a wizard casts a spell from his highest level unless he succeeds a concentration check, which fails on a 1. :smallwink:

[Keneth]

If you're fine with those odds, enjoy your game. To me, that's like running around in a thunderstorm with a giant metal rod.

Except you have to roll a natural 1, then miss again completely to confirm the fumble, and on top of that decide not to use any number of abilities that can prevent the fumble, like hero points. So it's more like running around in a thunderstorm with a keychain and the ability to change fate. If your DM makes you stab yourself after rolling a single natural 1, then get a new DM. It's got nothing to do with the fumble system, which works just fine in practice and provides an additional challenge for both sides.

Also, our combats usually last at least 5 rounds, and closer to 20 rounds in larger fights (which are not uncommon). And since each character is in a party, not in a vacuum, getting hit with a condition, even if it's daze, is not a big deal. If you're not prepared to deal with all kinds of conditions and effects, then it's your own fault really.

[Amphetryon]

Except you have to roll a natural 1, then miss again completely to confirm the fumble, and on top of that decide not to use any number of abilities that can prevent the fumble, like hero points. So it's more like running around in a thunderstorm with a keychain and the ability to change fate. If your DM makes you stab yourself after rolling a single natural 1, then get a new DM. It's got nothing to do with the fumble system, which works just fine in practice and provides an additional challenge for both sides.

Also, our combats usually last at least 5 rounds, and closer to 20 rounds in larger fights (which are not uncommon). And since each character is in a party, not in a vacuum, getting hit with a condition, even if it's daze, is not a big deal. If you're not prepared to deal with all kinds of conditions and effects, then it's your own fault really.

I never assumed or stated that fumbles would be automatic on a Nat 1, merely that they'd be statistically as likely as critical hits from a majority of weapons (given how many opponents typically use natural weapons or attack with weapon-like spells). If you're using abilities that negate your fumbles, I'd assume the opponents are using abilities to similarly negate your crits, else I'd be assuming a slant in your favor that was indicated nowhere in the post.

If your argument is that combat conditions caused by fumbles aren't bad because you can have a teammate help you be rid of them, you're arguing that a critical fumble is okay because it ties up actions of MULTIPLE CHARACTERS for at least a round - something precious few critical hits can match for tying up resources. That's not okay in my book; I'm glad you enjoy it.

[Keneth]

I never assumed or stated that fumbles would be automatic on a Nat 1, merely that they'd be statistically as likely as critical hits from a majority of weapons

Actually, you clearly stated, that you're more likely to inflict the conditions on yourself, than your enemies. Which is just not true, even if you make 8 attacks per round, it's more likely that the enemies will crit you, or that you'll roll a natural 1 on a save. Even so, the fumbles are very rarely more severe than what an enemy can inflict on you, especially at higher levels. Which is not to say fumbles don't happen, but they're actually far more likely to happen to your enemies, as most won't be nearly as optimized as your characters. BBEGs may be the odd exception.


If you're using abilities that negate your fumbles, I'd assume the opponents are using abilities to similarly negate your crits, else I'd be assuming a slant in your favor that was indicated nowhere in the post.

Extremely unlikely. There are very few abilities that can negate a crit, other than fortification or flat out immunity. At least in Pathfinder, not to mention many enemies actually lost their crit immunity in the transition. So the odds are in the players' favor the vast majority of time.


If your argument is that combat conditions caused by fumbles aren't bad because you can have a teammate help you be rid of them, you're arguing that a critical fumble is okay because it ties up actions of MULTIPLE CHARACTERS for at least a round - something precious few critical hits can match for tying up resources. That's not okay in my book; I'm glad you enjoy it.

Actually, I'm arguing fumbles are fine because all the bad things that can happen are standard fare in a D&D game and because they happen at least as often to your enemies. And critical hits are just as dangerous in our games as fumbles are (or more so, in fact). Clearly I'm not suggesting that fumbles should cost you an arm, but critical hits should just be double damage. As mentioned before, we use both the Critical Hit Deck and the Critical Fumble Deck. Both can change the course of a battle, but overall the system is entirely functional and fun in practice.

[Philistine]

Except you have to roll a natural 1,
Not only is this a houserule, because Critical Fumbles in any form are a houserule, but...

then miss again completely to confirm the fumble,
This is a houseruled variant of that houserule, which cannot be assumed to be in play merely because a DM has decided to implement critical fumbles. And then on top of that...

and on top of that decide not to use any number of abilities that can prevent the fumble, like hero points.
This is another, entirely independent houserule which has exactly no connection to fumble rules whatsoever. (It's also one I personally have never actually seen in the wild - not in D&D 3.X, at least. By "Hero Points," do you mean Eberron-style Action Points? I didn't think this was one of the things they could do... but see above re: "never seen in play," even in Eberron.) Seems like a lot of extra work - including adding a whole new subsystem! - just to try to cover up the foul stench of fumble rules.

So it's more like running around in a thunderstorm with a keychain and the ability to change fate. If your DM makes you stab yourself after rolling a single natural 1, then get a new DM. It's got nothing to do with the fumble system, which works just fine in practice and provides an additional challenge for both sides.
If they don't come up in practice, they're obviously not adding to the challenge - they're just adding complexity for its own sake. If they do come up in practice, they should immediately result in folding-chair beatings as previously described.


Also, our combats usually last at least 5 rounds, and closer to 20 rounds in larger fights (which are not uncommon). And since each character is in a party, not in a vacuum, getting hit with a condition, even if it's daze, is not a big deal. If you're not prepared to deal with all kinds of conditions and effects, then it's your own fault really.
20 rounds? What, are the party casters preparing Dancing Lights in every spell slot?

Regardless, "being prepared to deal with effects" has nothing to do with "every party member who makes attacks is statistically certain to inflict said effects on themselves, in addition to whatever their opponents might do, in most/all combat encounters." Meanwhile the spellcasters are entirely unimpeded, because they're so clearly underpowered compared to muggles. Or something.

[Juntao112]

People seem to overreact when they hear the word "critical fumble." It's like everyone automatically assumes you cut your legs in half, lengthwise.

I did say severe penalties, did I not?

[Keneth]

This is a houseruled variant of that houserule, which cannot be assumed to be in play merely because a DM has decided to implement critical fumbles.

That's true, but any good DM should include confirmation rolls, and that's also how the Critical Fumble Deck works, which I'm using as a baseline for my argument. If we're gonna be arguing about what the best implementation of a house rule is, I think it should be given a fair chance and not just say "don't use it ever because it can be bad in some anecdotal variants of old."


By "Hero Points," do you mean Eberron-style Action Points? I didn't think this was one of the things they could do... but see above re: "never seen in play," even in Eberron.) Seems like a lot of extra work - including adding a whole new subsystem! - just to try to cover up the foul stench of fumble rules.

Hero Points are an optional (and pretty common) rule in Pathfinder. They are indeed similar to Action Points from Eberron, but a lot more flexible. Among other things, they allow you to reroll any d20 roll. Even so, they are rarely used to smooth over fumbles, as it's simply more effective to deal with the consequences most of the time, and there are way better uses for Hero Points. And that's just one of many ways that allow players to deal with bad rolls. I'm not saying everyone has access to these abilities, I'm just saying there are ways to mitigate fumbles if you really want to.


If they don't come up in practice, they're obviously not adding to the challenge - they're just adding complexity for its own sake. If they do come up in practice, they should immediately result in folding-chair beatings as previously described.

They do come up in practice, just far less often than some would have you believe. And it's fine that they do, no one has ever reached for a chair in our group. :smalltongue:


20 rounds? What, are the party casters preparing Dancing Lights in every spell slot?

Amusingly enough, there are very few straight casters in our groups, even though we use fumble rules. Imagine that. :smallbiggrin:

But honestly, our fights are generally massive. Almost every encounter is an epic challenge or above (i.e. at least average party level +3), featuring a large number of intelligent creatures that won't easily fall prey to standard tactics, and complex terrain that can be a nightmare for spellcasters as well as mundanes. Larger encounters sometimes even include chases, duels, and all kinds of shenanigans that draw a combat out. I actually find it bizarre how some groups seem to have 5 encounters daily that last about 2 or 3 rounds. It feels entirely unnatural to me, and sounds more than a little boring.


Regardless, "being prepared to deal with effects" has nothing to do with "every party member who makes attacks is statistically certain to inflict said effects on themselves, in addition to whatever their opponents might do, in most/all combat encounters."

But that also includes enemies, so why is that bad? It seems pretty balanced to me, and the odds are even in your favor.


Meanwhile the spellcasters are entirely unimpeded, because they're so clearly underpowered compared to muggles. Or something.

I should probably mention that casters don't get a free pass in our games. Any time you roll a natural 1 on a Concentration check, you are at risk of fumbling. And Pathfinder made Concentration checks quite a bit harder to succeed on. That's in addition to any attack rolls made. Obviously, in ideal situations, a spellcaster won't have to make any Concentration checks. But there's no such thing as an ideal situation on a battlefield, and so Concentration checks should be reasonably common. Not to mention the effects of magical fumbling, especially on AoE spells, can be devastating. All enemies accidentally get 1d4+2 mirror images? Oops. :smallbiggrin:

[mangosta71]

Even assuming that the caster is being forced to make a concentration check for every single spell, that's still one chance per round to fumble. The full-attacking high-level fighter has, say, half a dozen attack rolls per round, meaning he's 6 times as likely to fumble. Which means he has penalties inflicted 6 times as often as the wizard. If he drops his weapon (one of the most common fumble effects) he not only loses the rest of his action in this round, he loses his action next round while he picks it up. And that's assuming that his opponent doesn't take advantage of him being unarmed to push him away and/or grab the weapon (you claimed that your party was fighting intelligent enemies, after all).

And we're still left with the basic problem; namely, as a melee combatant gains power and skill (represented by increasing BAB which results in more attacks per round), he fumbles MORE OFTEN. The inverse should be true from a logic standpoint because he's getting better at handling his weapons.

[dascarletm]

Even assuming that the caster is being forced to make a concentration check for every single spell, that's still one chance per round to fumble. The full-attacking high-level fighter has, say, half a dozen attack rolls per round, meaning he's 6 times as likely to fumble. Which means he has penalties inflicted 6 times as often as the wizard. If he drops his weapon (one of the most common fumble effects) he not only loses the rest of his action in this round, he loses his action next round while he picks it up. And that's assuming that his opponent doesn't take advantage of him being unarmed to push him away and/or grab the weapon (you claimed that your party was fighting intelligent enemies, after all).

And we're still left with the basic problem; namely, as a melee combatant gains power and skill (represented by increasing BAB which results in more attacks per round), he fumbles MORE OFTEN. The inverse should be true from a logic standpoint because he's getting better at handling his weapons.

Then we make the penalties for a wizard 6x worse! Or 20x, because why not? :smallamused:

[gooddragon1]

None. Fumbles hurt front line characters far more than they hurt casters and, let us be frank, casters do not need the help. Besides, auto-missing still sucks, especially when it happens as you burn x/day resources to increase your to hit/damage.

Same, for me if you roll a 1 you miss, that's it. I don't want to ruin the fun of someone by blowing up their gear or harming them more.

[Keneth]

Even assuming that the caster is being forced to make a concentration check for every single spell, that's still one chance per round to fumble. Which means he has penalties inflicted 6 times as often as the wizard.

I agree, but they're more likely to confirm the fumble and the effects are generally more severe. I'm not saying it's balanced, I'm just saying they don't get a free pass. Besides, it's not mundanes vs. casters, for the most part we're talking about characters in the same party. You should be glad the casters don't fumble as often. The difference in consequences between a fighter being slightly inconvenienced, and the caster failing to immobilize the large group that's gonna shred the party on their turn, is usually significant. Especially if he accidentally gives all of them a +8 bonus to Strength instead. :smallbiggrin:


as a melee combatant gains power and skill, he fumbles MORE OFTEN.

Incorrect. As things stand, AC should become more and more trivial for melee classes as they gain levels, and therefore even though they critically miss more often per round, they're less likely to fumble on those misses. And yes, the "per round" part is important because they don't roll natural 1s more often, they simply roll more dice in a shorter time period. So this argument is invalid from the get go. :smalltongue:

[Amphetryon]

Incorrect. As things stand, AC should become more and more trivial for melee classes as they gain levels, and therefore even though they critically miss more often per round, they're less likely to fumble on those misses. And yes, the "per round" part is important because they don't roll natural 1s more often, they simply roll more dice in a shorter time period. So this argument is invalid from the get go.I'm going to have to ask you to explain how you think this math works again, because I cannot parse how having 6x more chances to roll a 1 means that they will fumble less often per round.

[Juntao112]

So they're not worse than they were at the beginning of their careers, they're just as bad as they were at the beginning of their careers.

Crisis averted!

[13_CBS]

I'm going to have to ask you to explain how you think this math works again, because I cannot parse how having 6x more chances to roll a 1 means that they will fumble less often per round.

I think his argument is:

a) It's true that higher level melees will attack more often, thereby increasing their change of rolling a natural 1. However,

b) Because of the way FUMBLES (not just natural 1s) work, melees will roll more natural 1s, but will fumble less often. (Remember, fumbles work when you roll a natural 1, then on the confirm roll too low to hit the opponent's AC. As a high level melee, your bonus to attack should be sufficiently high that you shouldn't be missing very often.)

[Keneth]

So they're not worse than they were at the beginning of their careers, they're just as bad as they were at the beginning of their careers.

Well the 1 in 20 miss chance has nothing to do with mundanes, it's just a constant in the system. Ignoring the other 19 attacks in an effort to be witty is poor form. :smalltongue:


I'm going to have to ask you to explain how you think this math works again, because I cannot parse how having 6x more chances to roll a 1 means that they will fumble less often per round.

No, it means they will miss more often. If fumbling is given a confirmation roll, like critical hits, then the chances of fumbling drop drastically as you approach higher levels. Why? Because your attack bonus increases much faster than AC for the great majority of opponents. While you may have a 50% chance to fumble against a guy in full plate at 1st level, it's unlikely it'll pose much of a problem at 20th level. If you do happen to roll unfortunately, there's always the myriad abilities that you're gonna have at 20th level, that can prevent something disastrous from happening. You're gonna have spare weapons if you happen to lose one, immunity to many effects, ability to reroll dice, contingent spells, etc.

I've never seen a high-level character fumble more often than lower-level ones. And when it does happen, it's usually more amusing than debilitating.

[Gavinfoxx]

Still, if you want to make sure, you should have it be done as, 'for the first attack roll you make a round', so the actual chance of possibly fumbling remains the same, given the same difficulty in hitting an enemy (and enemy's AC does vary...)

[Talakeal]

I use: If you miss by 20 or more (nat 1s are roll again and subtract the result rather than auto fail) you fumble.

On a fumble on a roll to hit you accidently strike an ally.
On a fumbled roll for damage you drop your weapon.

[Gavinfoxx]

What if there aren't any allies anywhere near you? Again, anything where it is possible to deal full damage to yourself or others, means that it is suicidally stupid to play characters that deal, say, more than the tank's hit points in damage on a single hit... and those characters are supposed to be badass and superhuman because they can do that. Why limit the sorts of characters that can be made?? And how can you fumble damage? It's not a D20 roll... and what if you are attacking with a natural weapon, or one you can't drop?

[Amphetryon]

I think his argument is:

a) It's true that higher level melees will attack more often, thereby increasing their change of rolling a natural 1. However,

b) Because of the way FUMBLES (not just natural 1s) work, melees will roll more natural 1s, but will fumble less often. (Remember, fumbles work when you roll a natural 1, then on the confirm roll too low to hit the opponent's AC. As a high level melee, your bonus to attack should be sufficiently high that you shouldn't be missing very often.)
B doesn't make sense to me, as I understand probability. Let's say that - due to the way the Character is made and the way the DM creates encounters - a critical fumble only happens on a roll of 3 or less for the confirmation, after the natural 1 (it is not unreasonable for attack bonuses to scale to roughly model this, IME, particularly if the example is a competent melee Character). Character A has 10 chances in 1 minute of combat (10 rounds, which could be spread over multiple combats) in which to roll this combination. Character B has 60 chances in that same 1 minute for that combination of rolls to come up.

Which is more likely?

[Arbane]

In one campaign, I came up with the motto "If I have to roll dice, I have already failed".

Yes, the GM used fumble rules, why do you ask?

[mangosta71]

Unless all rolls to confirm a fumble use the character's highest attack bonus, each attack in a round becomes iteratively more likely to result in a fumble. Often the penalty near the end of a melee combatant's routine is so high that the last attack is almost an auto-miss anyway, especially when Power Attack is in play.

And even if all fumble confirmation rolls use the highest attack bonus, the melee combatant will still confirm the fumble more often because he's rolling more often.

[Bakkan]

B doesn't make sense to me, as I understand probability. Let's say that - due to the way the Character is made and the way the DM creates encounters - a critical fumble only happens on a roll of 3 or less for the confirmation, after the natural 1 (it is not unreasonable for attack bonuses to scale to roughly model this, IME, particularly if the example is a competent melee Character). Character A has 10 chances in 1 minute of combat (10 rounds, which could be spread over multiple combats) in which to roll this combination. Character B has 60 chances in that same 1 minute for that combination of rolls to come up.

Which is more likely?

I think what he's suggesting is that what will happen is that Character A has 10 chances and will miss on a 9 or less (for example) and that Character B has 60 chances but will only miss on a 3 or less because of his increased attack bonus relative to his opponent's AC. So Character B will only confirm the fumble a third as often as character A (but is attacking 6 times as often, so I still don't think the math is in favor of the experienced character).

[Keneth]

And even if all fumble confirmation rolls use the highest attack bonus, the melee combatant will still confirm the fumble more often because he's rolling more often.

Yes, in a vacuum where his chances of hitting are equal to that of the character with fewer attacks.

Like I said, I've never seen a high-level character fumble more often. The probability formula taking into account iterative attacks, average hit rates per level, and external factors, is long and boring. But whether you choose to believe me or not, the system on average doesn't punish high-level characters for making more attacks per encounter.

Anyway, if fumbling rubs you the wrong way because no one ever makes mistakes in your world, there's nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise. But there are plenty of people who do use fumble rules and enjoy using them, so the system is not inherently bad, even if you don't like it.

Bored now. We'll continue this when the next fumble thread pops up. :smalltongue:

[Juntao112]

Anyway, if fumbling rubs you the wrong way because no one ever makes mistakes in your world, there's nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise.
I don't believe that anyone has argued that no one ever makes mistakes in their games, but the kind of failures that fumbling entails are often either unrealistic or too frequent. And rules that reduce the frequency by having, say, a check to avoid fumbling the introduce more dice rolling onto a game with a lot of rolls already, so having an elegant fumble system with good verisimilitude is rather challenging.

[Gavinfoxx]

My issue is that fumbling in several of these charts -- drop your weapon? Injure yourself? Hit an ally? is hideously unrealistic. Once you've built up muscle memory (ie, gotten a point of BAB or gotten proficiency in your weapon or whatever), it is hideously difficult to make those sorts of mistakes! That isn't how people fight. The sorts of mistakes you can make are more along the lines of 'leaving yourself open for an enemy to exploit.'

[eggynack]

Yes, in a vacuum where his chances of hitting are equal to that of the character with fewer attacks.

Like I said, I've never seen a high-level character fumble more often. The probability formula taking into account iterative attacks, average hit rates per level, and external factors, is long and boring. But whether you choose to believe me or not, the system on average doesn't punish high-level characters for making more attacks per encounter.

Anyway, if fumbling rubs you the wrong way because no one ever makes mistakes in your world, there's nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise. But there are plenty of people who do use fumble rules and enjoy using them, so the system is not inherently bad, even if you don't like it.

Bored now. We'll continue this when the next fumble thread pops up. :smalltongue:

I'm pretty sure that high level characters consistently get the short end of the stick. Let's assume that the fumble rules work thusly: If you roll a one, then you roll to confirm. If that roll misses, then something bad happens. If that's not the rule that you're supporting, just say so, but that seems to be the way to get results where high level melee characters fumble less often per attack. If it's just a one in 400 chance to fumble, that's just crazy because it means that a first level commoner and a 20th level fighter have the same per attack critical fumble chance.

Anyway, you're high level, and you roll a one. If the attack on which you rolled that one is the first one, then you're likely to not fumble. A low level character is stuck with his lower attack bonus, and thus is likely to fumble more often. Hooray for verisimilitude, for it is sustained a little in this outcome. However, what if the iterative that the fighter used was his last? Assuming the fighter is at level 16, his base attack bonus is only providing a +1 on this roll, and the enemy has higher AC than before. If the first level fighter and the 16th level fighter have the same strength, the 16th level fighter is more likely to fumble on this individual roll, because this iterative is at such a low attack bonus. You can boost your strength up quite a bit compared to that first level character, but you've gotta that monster AC is also increasing to some extent.

The way this all works out is that the 16th level fighter is quite a bit more likely to fumble. He has the one in 400 on the first attack, and then the somewhat higher chance of fumbling on the other three attacks. This method of fumbling also manages to make two weapon fighting quite a bit worse in comparison to two handed fighting, both on the low attack bonus causing more confirmed fumbles metric, and on the many attacks causing more fumbles per round metric. You are thus giving casters more of an advantage over melee, and two handed more of an advantage over two weapon. This does nothing but further stratify the tiers, if the rules have any effect at all. Moreover, standard fighter optimization tends to involve pumping damage as much as possible, which makes a fighter attacking against himself highly likely to kill the fighter.

Finally, I don't even see what benefits critical fumble rules bring. They don't increase realism, because the heroes that these characters are modeled after at high levels never do the things that the fumble rules cause. At twentieth level, the fighter is supposed to be significantly stronger than Hercules, and I don't think he ever randomly stabbed himself while beating up the hydra. Critical fumbles don't increase game balance, because it makes characters that were strong before, stronger, and characters that were weak before, weaker. It doesn't really do anything to help gameplay, because you're just adding even more randomness to a game that's full of randomness. There's plenty of variance in the game already without having fighters slip on their own sword every so often. There are many ways that fumble rules are bad, but how are they good?

[TuggyNE]

Yes, in a vacuum where his chances of hitting are equal to that of the character with fewer attacks.

Like I said, I've never seen a high-level character fumble more often. The probability formula taking into account iterative attacks, average hit rates per level, and external factors, is long and boring. But whether you choose to believe me or not, the system on average doesn't punish high-level characters for making more attacks per encounter.

I don't believe you, because I don't believe anyone (not even myself) :smalltongue:. So I'll rerun the numbers, hopefully using baselines everyone can agree are reasonable. Gonna use average and maximum AC values for MMI monsters (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=3472.msg44888#msg44888) at level 2 and level 16. Level 2 Fighter with 16 Str and a MW weapon, level 16 Fighter enlarged with (Greater) Weapon Focus, a +5 weapon, haste, and 28 net Str. Both will be calculated with and without optimum power attack (as determined by this handy calculator (http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/power/)).

Here's the result (http://anydice.com/program/22db). Allow me to say: ouch. Going from a 2.25% chance to a 7.08% chance over the course of those levels? Uncool. Worse, against the highest AC opponents overall chance rises from 4.00% to 15.42% chance of fumbling once, and a further 1.15% chance of fumbling twice or even three times.

This looks a lot worse than my previous eyeballed figures in other threads were. However, gavinfoxx's proposed solution of only allowing the first roll to trigger a fumble seems quite effective; at worst, the chance at high level against maximum AC enemies is the same as at low level against average AC enemies. Most of the time it's floored at 0.25%.

Fakeedit regarding eggynack's point on THF vs TWF: this isn't even dealing with TWF, flurry, or natural weapon fighters, but those numbers would look even more horrendous.

[JusticeZero]

Honestly, the only reason I was plotting the fumble rules I put down was to make it so that the maneuvers would be used more often to make the battlefield itself a little bit more variable. People forget to use maneuvers.

The only way to do that is to bake a trigger to make maneuvers happen into the rules somewhere, that doesn't worsen with level. I don't like buffoonery in my top notch fighters, and I can't use any simple ways to encourage maneuvers and the like regarding someone standing 40' away, because there aren't a lot of things you can do on the spur of the moment to someone halfway across a parking lot. I wish there was.

[Talakeal]

My issue is that fumbling in several of these charts -- drop your weapon? Injure yourself? Hit an ally? is hideously unrealistic. Once you've built up muscle memory (ie, gotten a point of BAB or gotten proficiency in your weapon or whatever), it is hideously difficult to make those sorts of mistakes! That isn't how people fight. The sorts of mistakes you can make are more along the lines of 'leaving yourself open for an enemy to exploit.'

Athletes injure themselves in competitions all the time, and a casual search shows that most real world military conflicts report that between 1% and 10% of all casualties are caused by friendly fire.

And if Hollywood is to be believed it seems as if more combats end with dropped weapons than kills.

I can't imagine that the concept of fumbles is "hideosly unrealistic", although the specific application might be.

[JusticeZero]

Athletes have a vastly higher rate of injury than martial artists do, interestingly enough. And friendly fire is communication issues, not stabbing yourself in the foot with a pike.

[eggynack]

Also, athletes are way lower level than 20. Instead of an athlete, imagine some crazy heroic figure of yore. I mentioned Hercules, cause he works. One of his big tasks was slaying a hydra, and the CR on regular hydras tops out at CR 11. By level 20, the fighter should be much more powerful than that by several degrees. I figure that superman levels of strength and dexterity would be reasonable to assume, and that seems like a baseline. Now, imagine superman with a sword. Now, imagine superman accidentally stabbing himself with that sword at least 1/400th of the time that he tries to stab someone else. That seems unrealistic to me.

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, modern friendly fire incidents in a war have basically nothing to do with how D&D parties fight, which is a small commando squad... and 'pulling a muscle' is also completely different than 'hitting yourself or an ally with your weapon'!

[Talakeal]

What if there aren't any allies anywhere near you? Again, anything where it is possible to deal full damage to yourself or others, means that it is suicidally stupid to play characters that deal, say, more than the tank's hit points in damage on a single hit... and those characters are supposed to be badass and superhuman because they can do that. Why limit the sorts of characters that can be made?? And how can you fumble damage? It's not a D20 roll... and what if you are attacking with a natural weapon, or one you can't drop?

Sorry, I didn't notice this was in the 3.5 specific forum. I am playing with a set of house rules and I use an AC as DR variant, if a damage roll inflicts negative 20 or more damage it is considered a fumble.

If there aren't any allies (or bystanders) around I would probably have the creature hurt itself, although I have never been in a situation where it didn't make sense for this to happen. If I was in a position where I had to rule a character stabbed them self in the chest or something I would probably instead so they trip and lose their next turn, fall prone, or provoke an AoO.

As for fumbling damage, if using an unarmed attack you suffer a minor injury to the body part used, just like if you punch a brick wall there is a good chance you will hurt your hand.


Also, I don't really understand your point about min maxxed characters. Maybe it is because I play in a low op game, but a character who is so one sided towards damage is in far far greater danger of being one shot by the enemy than hitting himself or an ally, and their bonus damage is far more likely to save themselves or an ally from such a hit than to cause a friendly casualty unless they are doing something stupid like shooting into a grapple.

Also, I agree that in standard 3.5 rules adding fumbles would really screw melee. I don't use them on iterative attacks and I do have methods for casters to fumble their spells, which evens it up a lot.


Yea, modern friendly fire incidents in a war have basically nothing to do with how D&D parties fight, which is a small commando squad... and 'pulling a muscle' is also completely different than 'hitting yourself or an ally with your weapon'!

As to pulling a muscle being different than hitting yourself with a sword, it is all in how you flavor it. Net results are the same, you mean to accomplish a feat of physical prowess and instead wind up injured.

My party typically has characters shooting into crowded melees and hidden or invisible characters sneaking in and out of said melee.

Also, you can't tell me that a PC who is flanked by two bruisers dodging out of the way at the last second and having them attack one another doesn't make for a good scene, atleast as far as narrative goes.

[TuggyNE]

As to pulling a muscle being different than hitting yourself with a sword, it is all in how you flavor it. Net results are the same, you mean to accomplish a feat of physical prowess and instead wind up injured.

Uhhhh, there's a really substantial difference between "you pulled a muscle" (which likely has a fairly low, perhaps non-lethal, damage range) and "you hit yourself with a sword" (which likely has a very high damage range). They might be off by a factor of 10 to 100.

[Gavinfoxx]

3.5e specific:

"Pull a muscle, you take d4 damage, -2 to your armor class until you have magical healing or wait an hour"

"You hit yourself with a weapon, you take full damage" (Which might be several times over the amount needed to put you to -10 from full hit points, even if you have high constitution)

And as far as weighted towards the offensive... you know the numbers chargers or mailmen can get in 3.5e, right? It goes to the hundreds pretty quickly, and gets into the thousands? And of course they're targeted by npc's, it's just that they take down enemies quickly enough that enemies don't get attacks off, ie, 'I will kill them before they kill me.' is how it goes.

[Tvtyrant]

I would just make it a 1/200 chances. If you roll two 1s in a row you miss no matter what. Maybe take a -1 or -2 to AC until your next turn.

[eggynack]

I would just make it a 1/200 chances. If you roll two 1s in a row you miss no matter what. Maybe take a -1 or -2 to AC until your next turn.
You already miss on a single one no matter what, and the odds of rolling two ones in a row are 1/400. What we're talking about are only the penalty you mentioned in the second part, and the odds you've listed create equal odds of a first level commoner and a 20th level fighter fumbling on a per hit basis, which makes approximately zero sense.

[Talakeal]

3.5e specific:

"Pull a muscle, you take d4 damage, -2 to your armor class until you have magical healing or wait an hour"

"You hit yourself with a weapon, you take full damage" (Which might be several times over the amount needed to put you to -10 from full hit points, even if you have high constitution)

And as far as weighted towards the offensive... you know the numbers chargers or mailmen can get in 3.5e, right? It goes to the hundreds pretty quickly, and gets into the thousands? And of course they're targeted by npc's, it's just that they take down enemies quickly enough that enemies don't get attacks off, ie, 'I will kill them before they kill me.' is how it goes.

My point is if you are in an environment where people are doing hundreds or thousands of damage with an attack you are going to be one shot by any attack, either through friendly fire or enemy action. The odds of fumbling are, however, significantly smaller than simply missing and dying to your opponents return attack. I can't imagine a situation where maximiZing yourself for high damage is made suicidal because of fumbles. Now, making a character who is all physical offense instead of someone who can survive a hit or avoid combat all together is of course suicidal, but it is that way regardless of fumbles.

[White_Drake]

What if you had a set of fumble rules such as: if you roll a natural one, roll to confirm the fumble. If you roll high enough to hit the enemy's AC, then nothing happens, but if you miss, then you provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent you attempted to strike. If you roll a natural one on the confirmation roll, you are considered flat-footed against the attack of opportunity. You may only fumble once per round, regardless of how many attacks you make.

This would still screw over martial types, but balancing martial v. magic is a much larger problem, which needs to be addressed separately before any fumble rules can be applied.

[eggynack]

What if you had a set of fumble rules such as: if you roll a natural one, roll to confirm the fumble. If you roll high enough to hit the enemy's AC, then nothing happens, but if you miss, then you provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent you attempted to strike. If you roll a natural one on the confirmation roll, you are considered flat-footed against the attack of opportunity. You may only fumble once per round, regardless of how many attacks you make.

This would still screw over martial types, but balancing martial v. magic is a much larger problem, which needs to be addressed separately before any fumble rules can be applied.
Separate from the base problems of fumbling, you should probably only be able to fumble on the first attack in a round, not once per round in general. Basically, I'd like to avoid any situation in which a first level commoner is fumbling less per round than a 16th level fighter, and I'm pretty sure that the rules you've constructed cause that outcome.

[TuggyNE]

My point is if you are in an environment where people are doing hundreds or thousands of damage with an attack you are going to be one shot by any attack, either through friendly fire or enemy action. The odds of fumbling are, however, significantly smaller than simply missing and dying to your opponents return attack. I can't imagine a situation where maximiZing yourself for high damage is made suicidal because of fumbles. Now, making a character who is all physical offense instead of someone who can survive a hit or avoid combat all together is of course suicidal, but it is that way regardless of fumbles.

OK, but it's not especially impractical to create a character with good defenses that can do 50-100+ damage per attack at high levels*. Those defenses, however, tend to do little or nothing against houseruled fumbles. So a) it's still possible to do vastly more damage to yourself than you reasonably should by mistake, even if you built for defense and b) building for defense does not help against fumbles. An interesting corollary, if NPCs can also suffer fumbles, is the idea that was mentioned earlier in this thread I think: make an entire party that never attempts to attack, but simply waits for NPCs to kill themselves by flailing against the party's high AC.

*For example, using Deep Impact or wraithstrike to be able to pull off full Power Attack on every hit, combining that with Leap Attack or Battle Jump or other charge multipliers, and then putting in some sort of pounce.


What if you had a set of fumble rules such as: if you roll a natural one, roll to confirm the fumble. If you roll high enough to hit the enemy's AC, then nothing happens, but if you miss, then you provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent you attempted to strike. If you roll a natural one on the confirmation roll, you are considered flat-footed against the attack of opportunity. You may only fumble once per round, regardless of how many attacks you make.

Capping the number of fumbles/round doesn't help much; even when you have a >15% chance of fumbling at least once (BAB +16, high Str, high AC enemy, haste), you still have a <2% chance of fumbling twice or more, so that doesn't make much of a difference. As eggynack said, though, allowing fumbles only on the first attack helps a lot more.

[Gavinfoxx]

Uh, in D&D 3.5e, the fact that you can do hundreds or thousands of damage on an attack, doesn't generally mean your enemies can. It requires very specific, narrow strategies to do that, and there are lots of defenses that will prevent such an attack from landing on an individual. The problem is, if you just arbitrarily say, 'you hit yourself' or 'you hit an ally', than none (or extremely few!) of those defenses matter.

[Jay R]

Critical Fumble Rule:
If at any time a DM shall propose using a "critical failure" or "fumble" table of any sort in a 3.X game, the players are to beat the DM with folding chairs until each of them has accidentally struck himself with his chair at least once, while keeping a count of the number of strikes made before this happens. Then, the average rate of such "fumbles" as generated by a table full of nerds swinging improvised weapons will establish the maximum probability of a "fumble" within the game mechanics for a level 1 Commoner (note that this already will probably require rolling multiple Natural 1's in succession to confirm a fumble), with the probability dropping by at least an order of magnitude per point of BAB of the attacking character. Thus a full-BAB character at level 20 might have to roll 20+ Natural 1's in a row to before you even bother glancing at the Fumble Table.


Does it have to be chairs? I've fought with members of my D&D group in the SCA for years. Based on that experience, I conclude that the problem with most Critical Failure tables is that they over-emphasize the unlikely failures and under-emphasize the likely ones. All of the following are reasonable possibilities:

Common Critical Failures:
Foot slips: roll DEX or lose balance for a round.
Foot slips: If opponent hits this round, damage is maxed.
Grip slips: roll DEX or lose control of weapon.
Armor strap breaks: One piece of armor doesn't work for the rest of the encounter.
Distracted by some other action: Shield doesn't block the next shot.
Shield strap breaks. Shield loses half its benefit, your "To hit" roll is at -2 until you toss the shield.
Drop Arrow: Lose shot this round.
Miscalled opponent's move: Automatic hit.
Pole arm tangled by nearby ally. Both lose attack this round.
Weapon tangle with opponent's weapon. Both lose action, both at -4 defense from any other opponent.

Uncommon Critical Failures:
Drop sword.
Fall, no saving throw.
Bowstring breaks.
Tumble backwards. Lose action this round. Opponent misses this round. Acrobatics skill check to do back roll and come back up ready next round.
Backed into nearby tree, person or other obstruction: Lose DEX plusses to defense this round.

Extremely Rare Critical Failures:
Lose shield.
Damage self.
Damage ally
Weapon breaks.
Muscle cramp. All actions with that muscle are at STR -4.

All of these have happened to me in SCA combat.

[Philistine]

I feel that the folding-chair beatdown conveys the appropriate sense of absurdity. YMMV.

The point about having a roomful of nerds swing away in order to establish the maximum frequency of of fumbles stands, though, even if you elect to conduct said beating with rolled-up character sheets. My suspicion is that it will be substantially lower than one in twenty, though: the idea that an expert swordsman drops his weapon, falls on his keister, or stabs himself or an ally once every 30 seconds (on average) in combat is simply not credible.

[Terazul]

I feel that the folding-chair beatdown conveys the appropriate sense of absurdity. YMMV.

The point about having a roomful of nerds swing away in order to establish the maximum frequency of of fumbles stands, though, even if you elect to conduct said beating with rolled-up character sheets. My suspicion is that it will be substantially lower than one in twenty, though: the idea that an expert swordsman drops his weapon, falls on his keister, or stabs himself or an ally once every 30 seconds (on average) in combat is simply not credible.

Yeah. We don't use fumble rules at all at the tables I frequent. Especially when you consider the fact that they automatically miss anyway, they've practically already wasted their turns, any x/day "on next attack" abilities, item charges, etc. What's the point in penalizing the guy for a poor roll he had no control over by breaking his weapon, knocking him down (so he loses two turns, and thus probably 2/3rds of the combat), or having him give himself a penalty to the rest of the skirmish? Or worse yet, inhibit his friends who had nothing to do with it. I hear some people find this stuff amusing, I can only see it as frustrating.