working around a house-rule

[Essence_of_War]

Our DM has (IMHO) a really bad houserule for "critical failures".

If you roll a 1 on an attack roll, you auto-miss, then you re-roll, and if your re-roll would hit anyone's AC near you (including yourself) you hit them. Worse, if your re-roll is a natural 20, you actually critically hit them.

Also, I think that the DM cheats monster/enemy saves, skill checks, and AC. A lot.

Knowing these things, if I built a battlefield-control wizard who employed as many no-save, no-attack roll effects as possible, would it be mean-spirited, or just practical optimization?

Or would it just be better to address the issue directly rather than negotiate around it? :smallfrown:

[Fax Celestis]

Address it directly.

[Lanson]

You should just talk it over with your DM, critical fumble systems are always terrible. Auto-missing is as far as it needs to go.

Somebody once modeled a test where a group of level one fighters all attacked training dummies that did not strike back, and after an hour, all the fighters were dead using a failure system like that. And the odds of you rolling a critical failure only increase as you gain in levels and get more iterative attacks. Someone will probably post the math a little later, it's been addressed in many threads, and the general consensus is that since you're an adventurer who's trained all your life you're not gonna do something that horrifically bad. Besides, who's ever heard of someone who gets WORSE with more experience. (referencing the more attacks, more chances to fail)

But Yeah, Fax Celestis hit the nail on the head, just talk it over with him. If he won't relent at all, then either find a new DM, or make a character that doesn't need attack rolls to do his thing. You know... once your character inevitably eviscerates himself. :smallfrown:

[Vizzerdrix]

If talking fails to get rid of this nasty pet house rule, I have a decent build for casters centered around Fell Drain + magic missile. :smallwink:

[Equinox]

Your DM is clearly power-tripping. Cheating on monster's rolls and implementing critical failure house rules both serve the same purpose - to put the PCs down and to make himself (via his self-insert monsters) look good. You could talk to him, but I wouldn't expect a positive result. Such an ailment is difficult to heal in a simple conversation, unless you're a professional therapist.

If you want to stay with that DM (and that's a big IF), just build a character that works around those drawbacks and keep playing as if nothing bad is happening.

[herrhauptmann]

Do the monsters also have a chance to kill allies with a fumble?

When I've been in games with that sort of fumble rule, I push for an extra rule. When you would accidentally attack an ally or drop your weapon, make a save to not do so. But the save got easier as your BAB went up. Say DC=21-BAB.
In my games, fumbles are a chance to drop your weapon. That's more than bad enough. But I mitigate it with the above rule.

[JusticeZero]

Somebody once modeled a test where a group of level one fighters all attacked training dummies that did not strike back, and after an hour, all the fighters were dead using a failure system like that.
It's actually worse. I once modeled a house fumble rule that was so bad that a single farmer shooting a sling at crows would, before the end of the afternoon, cause the destruction of the planet.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

It's actually worse. I once modeled a house fumble rule that was so bad that a single farmer shooting a sling at crows would, before the end of the afternoon, cause the destruction of the planet.

Please provide the rule in question if you have it! I'm incredibly intrigued. :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

I would start by talking to him. Use your heart words to tell him not to use this rule, perhaps with a note about how illogical it is, and a second one about how it ruins the balance of the game. You might want to do the same with the cheating. If he doesn't concede the critical fumble point, and maybe if he doesn't stop with the cheating, then you can do the unconditional wizard thing. Try not to make a big thing about it, or declare all out war, but don't subject yourself to the rule either. Actually, based on the things you say, I'm inclined to think that you should play a caster no matter what. You need some adaptability and flexibility in case things go horribly wrong. I tend to prefer druids for that purpose, because they also handle problems involving limited magic shop access and changing book quantities really well, but a wizard should be fine.

[JusticeZero]

Please provide the rule in question if you have it! I'm incredibly intrigued. :smallbiggrin:
It was a fumble rule where a natural 1 would incur a roll on 1d1000 and consult a chart. Some of the results on that chart were kind've... uhhh... insane. 1000+ was this ridiculous effect that invoked some absurd divine wrath effect that was utterly destructive on an inappropriate target. If you were using a ranged weapon, and you were alone, then you would probably hit the ground, because there weren't any allies nearby. Which would trigger a worldshattering nuclear holocaust.
It got worse though, since there were a number of results scattered through the table that were "Bad thing X happens, then roll again at +y". So it was entirely possible for a cascade of errors to happen, followed by rerolling at a substantial bonus that would make the apocalypse happen 30+% of the time.

[TuggyNE]

It was a fumble rule where a natural 1 would incur a roll on 1d1000 and consult a chart. Some of the results on that chart were kind've... uhhh... insane. 1000+ was this ridiculous effect that invoked some absurd divine wrath effect that was utterly destructive on an inappropriate target. If you were using a ranged weapon, and you were alone, then you would probably hit the ground, because there weren't any allies nearby. Which would trigger a worldshattering nuclear holocaust.
It got worse though, since there were a number of results scattered through the table that were "Bad thing X happens, then roll again at +y". So it was entirely possible for a cascade of errors to happen, followed by rerolling at a substantial bonus that would make the apocalypse happen 30+% of the time.

deadEarth radiation chart meets critical fumble rules! 5/5, would laugh at again.

[Invader]

Also, I think that the DM cheats monster/enemy saves, skill checks, . A lot.



Does he do this so the monsters win all the time or is it more to make battle/encounter interesting? Personally I do this to but it's generally not screw my players.

[Studoku]

If talking to the DM doesn't work, there are two ways to deal with stupid fumble rules.

The first is to play a Wizard, Sorcerer or other caster who never has to make an attack roll.
The second is to play a monk, get as many attacks as possible and enjoy the silliness.

[Harrow]

This is certainly something you should first talk to your DM about. Proactive, ya know? tell him it unfairly disadvantages the PCs, especially martial characters who already have it bad.

If he he disagrees on the first point you can pretty easily prove him wrong by comparing the odds of a 1st level and 18th level fighter/barbarian/rogue hurting themselves on a full attack.

If he disagrees on the second, try to introduce him to the concept of the tier system and point out all of the things that, even in core, a caster can do to outshine a non-caster in just about any circumstance.

If he just says he's running a 'realistic' game, go back to the 18th level characters critting themselves.

If he says it's a 'gritty' game where PC death is more expectation than threat, well, that's something that should have been brought up earlier.

If, after all of this, the DM refuses to relent, the healthy thing to do would be to find another gaming group. However, this can be difficult. If you can't manage it, but can manage being a bit petty and passive-aggressive, build something that doesn't rely on attack rolls. You don't even have to make it broken, a lot of builds that don't rely on attack rolls already outshine and overshadow mundanes. Force missile mage, a summoning druid, a dragonfire adept. You could do something like Bard and buff your party members, but even good DMs tend to just passively raise monster stats to counter that, with a mentality along the lines of "Wow, this level 7 party just blew through this CR 9 encounter. It must have been over-CR'd, I'll have to balance that out"

[Prince Raven]

If the DM doesn't relent on this houserule there's always this option:
http://cdn.meme.li/i/om17u.jpg

[Mnemnosyne]

Yeah, I'd address it first, then if that doesn't work, build a UPS Man or something similarly dice non-dependent, assuming you want to continue playing with this DM. Recommend that all party members do the same, put together some solid builds, and you'll soon have a party that never rolls the dice.

Actually, that would be an interesting project; put together a team of characters that are capable of meeting any reasonable challenge from 1-20 without ever rolling dice...

[Rubik]

Yeah, I'd address it first, then if that doesn't work, build a UPS Man or something similarly dice non-dependent, assuming you want to continue playing with this DM. Recommend that all party members do the same, put together some solid builds, and you'll soon have a party that never rolls the dice.

Actually, that would be an interesting project; put together a team of characters that are capable of meeting any reasonable challenge from 1-20 without ever rolling dice...Well, you would have to make the occasional saving throw and skill check, and you'd roll initiative every battle, at least during early levels.

I assume you mean attack rolls?

Also, I'd invest in lots of rerolls for saves and skills. You know, just in case.

[Mnemnosyne]

True, you'd have to roll initiative and saves. But I mostly meant rolling the dice to affect the enemy, I suppose. No attack rolls, no enemy saving throws allowed...basically take the UPS Man idea of 'you declare it and it happens', and apply it to an entire party.

[Just to Browse]

If you're not going to talk to him, the best way to not have 1/20 rolls be terrible is to play a support/BFC. Your party will love you, your DM won't be allowed to hate you, and you'll still be doing interesting things.

[eggynack]

True, you'd have to roll initiative and saves. But I mostly meant rolling the dice to affect the enemy, I suppose. No attack rolls, no enemy saving throws allowed...basically take the UPS Man idea of 'you declare it and it happens', and apply it to an entire party.
Well, the real problem with that is that I don't think there's a mailman style murder spell that is guaranteed to never roll any dice. Most builds use an orb of fire, but that has a ranged touch attack roll, and magic missile could theoretically roll dice against spell resistance. I'm not sure if damage counts for this, but I'm assuming it doesn't. The one spell that comes closest to what you're looking for is something like a freezing or acidic fog. You trap all of your enemies inside of a mighty pile of BFC's until they inevitably die of acid damage/boredom. The freezing fog has some rolls for the falling over part, but it's an unnecessary side effect. I'm further assuming that "save and lose" spells are alright, though I'm not sure on that count. Good wizards tend to be nearly unconditional, rather than purely unconditional, so this is somewhat interesting.

[Essence_of_War]

Thanks folks...I think I'm going to try to talk to him directly outside of our game this week. :smallfrown:

Invader,
It's not clear. Sometimes it seems to be buffed HP to make encounters longer (which is usually fine, I think) but it also seems like we're failing will/fort saves at about the rate you'd expect, but whenever monsters save against something we do, they seem to succeed a staggering percentage of the time. To give a recent example: a PC hit a guy on a low tree branch for a ton of damage, suddenly there was a ruling that "you hit him, but the guy in the tree doesn't take full damage because you don't have good leverage (???)".

[Logic]

Suggest the following as an alternative house rule:

A critical failure in melee only provokes an attack of opportunity. This is the house rule I have been using for the last few years, and as far as I know, none of my players have a problem with it.

The only way for opponents to really take advantage of this situation is to have Combat Reflexes, and most enemies will want to use that feat slot for something else.

[Tim Proctor]

To give a recent example: a PC hit a guy on a low tree branch for a ton of damage, suddenly there was a ruling that "you hit him, but the guy in the tree doesn't take full damage because you don't have good leverage (???)".

If someone was in a tree, they have cover so +4 to AC and higher ground to +1 to attack people below him. Other than that there isn't a rule on leverage for people being in trees.