Stupid PC tricks, or Oh Crap! Now what?

[McClintock]

for all you Bob & Tom fans out there.... Long time reader, first time poster:

I've seen these threads before, but this is the first time I truly have a story that's worth posting, minor spoilers ahead:

Setting: Age of Worms, Arena Fight

After 2 real life weeks of prep time for this fight, and an additional hour of coordinating spells with all of our casters, we were finally ready to do battle. I have a decent amount of spells cast on me, including: (cleric 5/ordained champ 3)

Divine Power, Divine Favor, Haste, Mass Shield of Faith, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vest (x2), Bears Endurance, Status (1/2 the party), Heroism, and Hold Person (Channeled into sword)

As the group we have decided to attack starts moving towards us I get into position, they advance until 10 feet out and ready to attack if we close the gap (they have halberds and are waiting for us.) From the angle I am at I can 5' step and get a full attack, I swing... die rolls: 16, 1, 18 (here comes the Oh Crap!) We use crit hit/crit fumble rules (goose/gander ya know), I roll to confirm a hit (only need a 5 or higher and I am good) and roll another 1. Crit Fumble, no biggie I'll just take my medicine and be done with it, nope I roll a 95 (one from the top). I get stunned for 2 rounds, lose my third attack, and am completely out of the first fight. Our Barbarian slays all but one of the enemies in the second round of my stun, I come out of it in time to tell the rest of the party that the bard is only faking it after taking 48/51 hp in the same round I was stunned.

We finish off the other group by getting them all to surrender, without much bloodshed. Long story short: My Ultimate Warrior-Cleric was a complete let down in the first fight. Hopefully that gets reflected in our ranking next round, and I get to make up for it next fight.

Oh yeah, we are almost level 9, so if we can get that before the next fight I get ordained champ lvl 4 and holy warrior feat.... damage galore (maybe).

[Xervous]

I don't see too much out of the ordinary here. This is just another example of critical fumbles generally being a detriment to the game.

[eggynack]

I don't see too much out of the ordinary here. This is just another example of critical fumbles generally being a detriment to the game.
Agreed. When your mighty melee guy can spontaneously be taken out of a fight for several rounds for no reason, that's really the core issue with the situation. Making that not be the case is probably a good idea.

[Xervous]

Agreed. When your mighty melee guy can spontaneously be taken out of a fight for several rounds for no reason, that's really the core issue with the situation. Making that not be the case is probably a good idea.

Of course, what is the one definite solution to this for 99% of crit fumble rulesets?

Not attacking...

Which of course means that you'll just be another caster.

[killem2]

I don't see too much out of the ordinary here. This is just another example of critical fumbles generally being a detriment to the game.

Paizo fumble/critical deck is an excellent product, whatever the OP is using is ridiculous.

[Xervous]

Paizo fumble/critical deck is an excellent product, whatever the OP is using is ridiculous.

Could you elaborate on the first statement? Does it adversely affect casters who don't use attack roll based spells?

[killem2]

Could you elaborate on the first statement? Does it do anything to detriment of casters using spells with no attack rolls?

Nope. But the crit deck allows you to save those cards to counter a fumble, where melee are easily more likely to crit than a caster.


In addition, it would take three or four cards to equal the devastation in the OP story.

Here are some of the important notes about the fumble deck. Since I presume you assume it was roll a 1, lose you head like most ridiculous fumble lists. :smallbiggrin:

The save dc against fumbles is equal to the armor class of the person you are fumbling against.

If you have weapon focus for the chosen weapon, draw two cards and the player chooses. Great weapon focus can draw three and choose.

Players cannot fumble more than once in any combat. Treat any other 1’s as straight misses.

If player is not proficient with the weapon, can fumble on natural 1 or 2.

[eggynack]

Of course, what is the one definite solution to this for 99% of crit fumble rulesets?

Not attacking...

Which of course means that you'll just be another caster.
Quite so. Fortunately, the OP is already a cleric, so things may proceed as is without issue.

Paizo fumble/critical deck is an excellent product, whatever the OP is using is ridiculous.
I don't have the whole set in front of me, because I can only see the stuff listed here (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8x9g?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck), but from that level of understanding the deck seems to have a lot of the problems that plague normal critical fumble rules, like magic preference, and an unalterable 1/400 base chance of fumble no matter what. That's using the most non-fumble option too. The deck is likely a superior rule set, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an excellent one, assuming that my statements hold true for the system as a whole.

Edit:
Here are some of the important notes about the fumble deck. Since I presume you assume it was roll a 1, lose you head like most ridiculous fumble lists. :smallbiggrin:
Actually, I usually assume that a given system is roll a one, roll to confirm, problematic negative effects ensue. That's a system that I have a problem with, especially if some of those negative effects have an actual impact on combat. Some of the things you noted are certainly helpful, particularly the once/combat thing, but the core issues are still there.

[killem2]

I don't have the whole set in front of me, because I can only see the stuff listed here (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8x9g?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck), but from that level of understanding the deck seems to have a lot of the problems that plague normal critical fumble rules, like magic preference, and an unalterable 1/400 base chance of fumble no matter what. That's using the most non-fumble option too. The deck is likely a superior rule set, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an excellent one, assuming that my statements hold true for the system as a whole.

You posted a bit quick for me, but i posted some of the rules that go with it.

Also, if you want fumbles (and by want I mean the players) it's a fair fair way to do it.

[eggynack]

Also, if you want fumbles (and by want I mean the players) it's a fair fair way to do it.
Seems like a reasonable claim, that if fumble rules must be a component of a given game, then this is a decent way to add them. My general issue is with fumbles as a whole, with the caveat that they must have some actual impact on combat to be problematic.

[Xervous]

The main things I take issue with for most fumble rules are as follows.

The more you roll, the higher your chance for fumbling is. The first differentiation we observe here is casters and mundanes. Typically a caster will be forcing a roll if any are involved while the mundane is almost always rolling the d20 themselves. Obviously this favors casters over mundanes, something the game does not need.

Now compare fighting styles, THF typically makes the fewest attacks, thus it has the lowest chance of provoking a fumble compared to most other styles. Of course, THF is likely the strongest weapon style and critical fumbles will reinforce that.

And onto a comparison of team monster vs. team PC. Most monsters aren't around for very long. Unless it occurs at a momentous plot occasion, most crit fumbles for team monster will be little more than blips on the radar. However, for team PC, they have to deal with the lasting consequences of everything that happens in every battle. If it doesn't lead to their immediate demise, a crit fumble may impose a penalty upon a PC that has a greater impact than it would on a monster simply because the PC is around a lot longer.
TLDR: crit fumbles generally hurt PCs more than they help them because PCs usually roll more attack rolls than team monster.

[icefractal]

As mentioned, even limiting fumbles to 1/combat still makes them more likely for TWF types. Which, aside from balance issues, is conceptually odd. The graceful thief-acrobat fumbles more often than the insane berserker swinging around a tree trunk?

One solution for that is to make only the first attack a round possible to fumble on. It's a little clumsy, but fairly straightforward and gets rid of most odd results.

The second thing is that if fumbles are the opposite of crits, they shouldn't do crazy stuff like "stab your friend" or "stun yourself". A crit is equal to an extra hit (with a x2 weapon, and nobody's going to make an "extra-fumbly" weapon). So a fumble should be equal to a negative hit. And require confirmation.


Therefore, the fumble rule I would use, if people wanted them:
* If you roll a natural '1' on your first attack of the round, you can fumble. Roll another attack, and if it also misses, you fumble.
* The result of a fumble is being Off-Balance. Off-Balance will cause your next attack to automatically miss, after which it goes away. Or you can remove it by spending a standard action (just so that if it happens at the end of combat, you don't have to swing at a rock or something).
* If you like, you can make a d100 chart for what exact reason you're Off-Balance. Just don't actually have it result in stabbing yourself.


That said, there is one way I could see "ridiculous" fumbles working, and that's FATE style. If you're using Action Points / Hero Points, then on a '1', the DM could offer you one in exchange for taking a fumble. In that case, depending on how good the points are, you could have pretty nasty fumble results and still have people take you up on it.

The benefit of this is that it's self-adjusting. People who like the craziness of fumbles can always choose to take them, and be the guy who blunders around but is also super-lucky when it counts. People who don't like them can turn down the offer, and just stay reasonably competent.

[TuggyNE]

Players cannot fumble more than once in any combat. Treat any other 1’s as straight misses.
The more you roll, the higher your chance for fumbling is.
As mentioned, even limiting fumbles to 1/combat still makes them more likely for TWF types. Which, aside from balance issues, is conceptually odd. The graceful thief-acrobat fumbles more often than the insane berserker swinging around a tree trunk?

One solution for that is to make only the first attack a round possible to fumble on. It's a little clumsy, but fairly straightforward and gets rid of most odd results.

I feel like expanding on this a bit, just in case. Even if you cap the number of actual fumbles to 1/combat or 1/round, those with more attacks have increasingly higher chances to hit that single fumble every time. Compare a TWFer at level 15 (seven attacks per round, with haste; seven to twenty-eight per combat) to a spellcaster (0 or 1 attacks per round; 0 to 4 per combat) or THFer (four attacks per round, and four to sixteen per combat), and consider that if any one of those attacks fumble, then the fumble cap was reached.

[eggynack]

I like the wacky fumble solution, where fumbling just causes random stuff with no bearing on combat to occur. For example, "You miss your opponent by so much that you fall over, but the ground spontaneously became bouncy during your fall, so you bounced back up to standing," or, "Right before your dagger would otherwise hit the opponent, right in the jugular in this case, a chicken flew in between him and your blade, killing the chicken instantly," or perhaps, " You miss the opponent completely, and then he laughs at you, and calls you, 'The Missinator.' The rest of the enemies all join in in calling you names, and your sword itself begins to cry." Stuff like that.

[GreenETC]

Stuff like that.
This is the best way to do it, in my opinion. It makes missing FUN, unlike fumbles.

"As you charge your enemy, your last step gets caught on your lion cloth, which snaps up and hits you in the face."

[eggynack]

"As your sword approaches the enemy, you just stop. You've recognized, only in this instant, the futility of violence. The meaninglessness of your quest. What is this road you're travelling down? Is it the same road you thought you'd be taking when you began to master the art of swordplay? You begin to question these aspects of your life, but just as quickly, those thoughts fade away. You recognize the meaning behind your actions, and progress with the same surety you once had. Then, you attempt another attack."

[Necroticplague]

I like the wacky fumble solution, where fumbling just causes random stuff with no bearing on combat to occur. For example, "You miss your opponent by so much that you fall over, but the ground spontaneously became bouncy during your fall, so you bounced back up to standing," or, "Right before your dagger would otherwise hit the opponent, right in the jugular in this case, a chicken flew in between him and your blade, killing the chicken instantly," or perhaps, " You miss the opponent completely, and then he laughs at you, and calls you, 'The Missinator.' The rest of the enemies all join in in calling you names, and your sword itself begins to cry." Stuff like that.

Sounds like some stuff straight out of Kingdom of Loathing.