Critical Failure! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Pex

2014-03-31, 06:07 PM

You just opened up a can of worms. While critical failures has its fans, there are many who advocate strongly against it.

1) It hurts warrior players who always roll to hit but never spellcasters who don't roll to hit. For those spells they need to roll, the player can easily just choose never to cast them and not be bothered or cast them rarely enough for that being the time to roll a 1 has minimal odds.

2) Two-weapon fighting becomes useless since you are now twice as likely to roll a 1. Similarly, high level warriors become incompetent boobs because when making a full attack at 20th level they are four times more likely to crit fail than a 1st level warrior.

3) It unfairly disadvantages players. When a player crit fails, it is devastating. He will crit fail a lot more often than any one particular NPC or monster because that NPC or monster only exists for that one combat where as the player is always on camera. For those occasions where that one particular NPC or monster crit fails, that NPC or monsters was supposed to die anyway so having it happen one round earlier due to crit fail shenanigans is irrelevant.

4) Players usually want to play heroes/anti-heroes, not Captain Klutz. That's what Paranoia or Toon is for.

Big Fau

2014-03-31, 06:17 PM

CritFails are already baked into D&D 3.5: Rolling a Natural 1 on a save, ability check, or attack roll means you fail, and that's it. There's no need to further penalize the PCs; if anything there's a great need to throw the Fighters a bone by removing the Nat 1 on attack rolls.

Thanatosia

2014-03-31, 06:44 PM

I can't stand 1 = Critical Failure rules. 5% is just an absurdly high chance to crit failure regaurdless of skill. Could you imagine if there was a 5% chance you crashed your car every time you drove to work? Yeah, it's stupid. I'ts really really stupid. It gets even more stupid when you start really looking into it and see things like lv20 fighters crit-failing 4x more often then a lv1 fighter (due to his itterative attacks). I don't think I'd have any respect for any DM who tried to impliment it.

HaikenEdge

2014-03-31, 06:49 PM

I generally dislike critical failure and fumble rules, because it ultimately punishes the players, who will, over the course of their career, roll the dice more than NPCs and monsters, who generally only exist for either one encounter, or a series of encounters, whereas the players exist all the time, and more often than NPCs and encounters.

Invader

2014-03-31, 06:50 PM

I used to be in favor of critical fails but since I became a member here and it was pointed out that they generally only hurt already weaker classes I've converted to no critical fails.

I've also adopted a less harsh critical success ruling as well.

GameSpawn

2014-03-31, 08:42 PM

In an earlier addition of D&D (not sure which, I was in maybe 4th grade and didn't really have a solid handle on the rules), we referred to a nat 1 as dropping your [whatever]. We never made anyone spend an action to pick it up though.

That's all I got, but I felt like you deserved some response besides people pointing out all the flaws with this variant.

Kazudo

2014-03-31, 08:47 PM

Humble Master

2014-03-31, 08:51 PM

From my experience, Critical Failures are generally not a good idea. Automatically failing a skill check/attack roll/whatever is bad enough. No need to tack on an additional penalty. Of course, it's fine to add some reason as to why the character failed.
"You try to Spot whatever is hiding in the bushes but the picturesque, snow capped mountains in the distance pull your attention."

GameSpawn

2014-03-31, 09:08 PM

It may also be noted, since it's been mentioned while I was on other parts of the forum.

Spells which cannot critically fail therefore cannot critically succeed.

The only time I ever argued the point with a DM, he argued that critical failure is the unfortunate counterpoint to critical success. Though he never used critical failure in positions where there IS no critical success (skills, saves, etc).

Thoughts on this?

Without knowing the exact details of what a critical failure entails, it's impossible to make an absolute statement, but generally a critical failure will be more harmful than a critical success will be helpful. If you use my example of dropping your weapon, you lose the ability to make further attacks that round (with that weapon), which is pretty terrible if you get it on your first iterative at higher levels, plus it will require you to burn a move action to get your weapon back, setting you back 3-6 attacks at 16 BAB or higher, plus denying you the option of making AoOs, plus limiting your actions in the next round. In comparison, a critical hit will generally only net you the equivalent of 1 extra hit. Now, obviously, you could come up with a less debilitating critical failure than the one I used (sort of), but in general missing with your attack is bad enough.

As far as spells are concerned, a normal success is often all you need to take an opponent out of fight.

In general, I would be wary of any reasoning that relies on balancing things against some artificial external point (such as the reasoning the DM uses above). It's better to look at variant rules in terms of "how does this effect gameplay".

NoACWarrior

2014-03-31, 09:12 PM

If you want my experiences with crit failures, they aren't so bad. Its true that they hurt physical attack players more than casters, but there are instances where they are really funny.

With that said, fumble rules ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE, if a single player doesn't want to use them in a campaign there is a very large chance of resentment when a fumble royally screws with anything.

But back to the funny parts:
In my college group we frequently had a normal front line, ranged, backline casters formation. Two of the players were in a relationship (in fact they will soon be married). The guy always played a front line character who was always in melee. The girl loved playing ranged (didn't like taking damage at all) and a lot of the time prioritized what her boyfriend was hitting as the main threat (the guy attacked what was the main threat most of the time after we huddled and did our strategy analysis). Since this happened for what was 3 years, the natural 1 and fumbles were invariably going to happen. More than a dozen times the ranged player shot the front liner in the butt. Twice did such a roll actually make the front liner unconscious (not dead but in the negatives) one being a confirmed crit on a fumble.

Also there was talk of a crit on a fumble killing another PC, for which the party laughed it off saying it wouldn't happen. That same session we laughed I think I was playing a toucher DN (not a good idea but w/e) and the cleric fumbled a longsword swing - nat 1, nat 20, nat 20. I splatted. It was ok because after that the party ran away from the demigod they were supposed to run away from as a result of losing the only death warder in the party (I think without deathward it would have been impossible to clear the challenge).

eggynack

2014-03-31, 09:14 PM

It may also be noted, since it's been mentioned while I was on other parts of the forum.

Spells which cannot critically fail therefore cannot critically succeed.

The only time I ever argued the point with a DM, he argued that critical failure is the unfortunate counterpoint to critical success. Though he never used critical failure in positions where there IS no critical success (skills, saves, etc).

Thoughts on this?
Critical success is already a part of the game. Critical failure is not. Thus, introducing critical failure, and not increasing the value of critical success somehow, makes those attached to the critical system worse. If you were just saying, "Hey, look at this system lacking critical whatevers of any kind. I'll add critical everything," then sure, I guess that'd be fine, though I'm not the biggest fan. As is, you're just reducing the balance of the game. Meanwhile, casters don't care that much about critting or not-critting. Things that a caster does on a normal roll are better than the things a fighter does on a natural 20, as are the things a caster does with no roll. You're acting like you're starting with fighters and wizards at parity, and introducing two mechanics, one good and one bad, to the fighter, but you could just keep tossing good mechanics the fighter's way and he'd still be worse. You don't need unfortunate counterpoints.

Flickerdart

2014-03-31, 09:20 PM

I am a 20th level fighter - the pinnacle of man's unity with weapon. Wielding my two blades (one of which is a speed weapon) I cut a swath across the battlefield, leaving only bodies in my wake.

And I have a 71% chance every 3-round combat of dropping my sword like a green recruit (95% chance of not rolling a 1, to the power of 24 for 8 attacks every round for 3 rounds = ~0.29 chance of not rolling a 1).

This is bad for realism (the best warriors are the clumsiest). This is bad for balance (the worst fighting style is punished the most). This is bad for gameplay (extra rolls are added that annoy everybody). This is bad for DM-PC fairness (the DM controls monsters that attack with claws and special abilities which can't be dropped).

I've never understood why people want critical failure.

Mando Knight

2014-03-31, 09:22 PM

I can't stand 1 = Critical Failure rules. 5% is just an absurdly high chance to crit failure regaurdless of skill. Could you imagine if there was a 5% chance you crashed your car every time you drove to work?

That's a bad comparison.

It would be a 5% chance to crash your car every six seconds while you drive to work. If you use the excuse that you don't need a roll for something that simple, then it's still a 5% chance to crash your car every time you make a turn across a busy street. Or change lanes during rush hour.

Even if you roll to "confirm" a crit fail, the chance is still too high.

holywhippet

2014-03-31, 09:23 PM

I had one DM for a 3.0 game who house ruled a natural 1 on an attack roll would cause a fumble but you got a reflex save to try and recover from it.

I had another DM in a 2nd edition game who liked making bad things happen on a natural 1. Thing was, he got a bit carried away when he decided my ranger had his bowstring snap when I rolled a failure. At one point he asked me about buying new bowstrings so I checked the book and, sure enough, bowstrings didn't have a price because having them snap was no an in game rule.

One argument I've seen against critical fumbles is that they penalise high level fighters too much. At level 16 a fighter has four attacks per round assuming you aren't using a trick to get even more attacks. So on any given attack you have a 4 in 20 chance of rolling a natural 1. If that happens, and you lose your weapon, you arguably lose any attacks you haven't made yet unless you attack unarmed and you have to waste your next turn to pick your weapon back up or draw a new one. Spellcasters don't have any equivalent failure so why penalise fighters even further?

Seerow

2014-03-31, 09:29 PM

It may also be noted, since it's been mentioned while I was on other parts of the forum.

Spells which cannot critically fail therefore cannot critically succeed.

The only time I ever argued the point with a DM, he argued that critical failure is the unfortunate counterpoint to critical success. Though he never used critical failure in positions where there IS no critical success (skills, saves, etc).

Thoughts on this?

Critical Success = double damage

If you want a counterpoint to that, then critical failure should be half damage.

Luckily for us, a miss is already 0 damage. Half of 0 is still 0, so congratulations, you have your critical failure without needing to penalize anybody further.

But seriously, critical fumble rules suck. And the examples given in the original post are some of the worst types of things you can do. Slip and Fall on solid ground? Throw your sword across the room? Stab your ally? When's the last time you saw a trained warrior do any of these things?

General rule of thumb: If your critical fumble rule can't hold up to the stress test of "Is this going to look like a three stooges skit if I have a line of guys hitting training dummies?", it shouldn't be used.

In personal experience, I had a DM who used critical fumble rules where you'd damage yourself if you rolled a 1. That went on for a few months until we had a duel come up between a character and an NPC who could literally hit each other only on a natural 20. That fight went on with neither party injuring the other, only ending when the NPC rolled enough natural 1s to literally stab himself to death to let the fight finally end. After that we decided that it was time for critical fumbles to go.

GameSpawn

2014-03-31, 09:31 PM

Kazudo

2014-03-31, 09:36 PM

eggynack

2014-03-31, 09:38 PM

Of course, there is always the solution I end up proposing in these threads, when I remember to do so. Have critical fumbles occur, and have them cause ridiculous things to happen, but grant those ridiculous things zero mechanical impact. Just cause the player to miss in ridiculous, absurd, and occasionally magical ways.

So, "Your character takes a lunge at Captain Lungehammer, but accidentally steps on a banana peel, and does a flip in mid-air, awesomely landing on his feet."

Or, "As your sword approaches the goblin, you are struck for a moment by your weapon's supreme beauty, its delicate form, the way its surface reflects the sunlight. By the time you've overcome your odd infatuation, the time for this iterative has passed."

Or even, "With your axe about to be land in the dragon, you let out a quick retort, 'How do ya like them eggs?' In a moment of embarrassment at your lousy quipping skill, you decide to halt your attack until you can come up with something better."

You get all the wacky and zany fun of critical failure, except even more so, and you don't have to screw with the game's balance to do so.

GameSpawn

2014-03-31, 09:45 PM

You could do something like "every time someone attacks, full attacks, casts a spell, or takes some other aggressive action there is a flat 5% chance that they get a critical failure, causing them to fail at their action and not take any other actions that turn". Let any casting out of combat ignore this rule. I still wouldn't want to play with this rule, but it's much more balanced. Eggynack's suggestion is probably far better anyways.

Seerow

2014-03-31, 09:52 PM

It has been an interesting thread's worth of discussions, without a single ad hominem against me! Well done, playground!

Since the playground seems (with the understandable amounts of variance) unified on this, what changes to Critical Success would balance the notion of critical failure, and what restrictions of what "Critical Failure" and "Critical Success" entailed would you put on it?

Critical Success = Chance at 200% damage
Success = 100% damage
Failure = 50% damage
Critical Failure = Chance at 25% damage

Would be the simplest/most fair way, though it would make some people scream about melee attacks dealing damage on a miss.

Other alternative: Natural 1 is no longer an automatic failure. Instead a 1 counts as a -5. (So with a +10 on your roll a 2 results in 12, and a 1 results in 5.)

Other more complex alternative: I've been working on and off on a system of Stagger/Stability. Where characters generate stagger on targets they attack, in addition to dealing damage. Stagger gets reduced by stability. Most powerful finishing moves (stuff that's traditionally the save or die sort of thing that makes the game into rocket tag) require the target to have a certain amount of stagger to use. With such a system, a critical fumble could give a moderate increase to stagger, representing the character getting knocked off balance without any immediate mechanical reprecussion (such as losing a weapon or taking damage). A character could then spend an action to center themselves, and a higher level character can probably just ignore it, but it gives people that something that they apparently feel is absolutely necessary to penalize someone for rolling poorly beyond the fact that they just wasted their action.

What you initially asked for, a way to boost crit success to make up for crit fumbles, isn't possible. I mean, sure it's probably possible to make it work out statistically, but unless you make fumbles something very low key and unnoticeable, you're not going to avoid the three stooges problem. Or the problem that high level fighters fumble more often than low level fighters. Or the fact that most fumble rules are dumb when you consider real life normal people, much less heroes out of myth and legend. And if you can't resolve those problems, there is no need for a fumble system.

Mando Knight

2014-03-31, 10:01 PM

Keneth

2014-03-31, 10:07 PM

When's the last time you saw a trained warrior do any of these things?

Friday. :smallbiggrin:

Accidents are actually quite common, even for trained professionals. Not once every 20 swings common, but common enough that they deserve a place in settings where heroes are organic people, not cartoon superheroes.

Obviously, automatic critical fumbles on a natural 1 is a horrible idea, especially if the consequences are dire, but there are ways to make the system fun.

My groups use both critical hits and critical fumbles, with these rules being most notable:

Both have to be confirmed.
Both have special effects (flat damage is so boring).
Same rules apply to everyone in the game (monsters tend to fumble more often, which leads to much hilarity).
You can only fumble once in a round (I've never seen it happen twice anyway).
We roll DC vs Saves in most cases, instead of the other way around, forcing spellcasters to be subject to the same rules.

We don't use any special rules for natural successes and failures outside of attack/DC rolls.

eggynack

2014-03-31, 10:11 PM

Not once every 20 swings common, but common enough that they deserve a place in settings where heroes are organic people, not cartoon superheroes.

I think the problem here is that they should be cartoon superheroes rather than organic people. It doesn't sound as good, but that's the sort of system this is. You have one guy flying through the air, shooting lasers at people, and shaping the earth itself, and another guy who trips over himself and arbitrarily stabs an ally every so often. In other words, you've got superman on one side, and on the other, you have someone who doesn't even get to lay claim to the power level of batman.

Seerow

2014-03-31, 10:15 PM

Friday. :smallbiggrin:

Accidents are actually quite common, even for trained professionals. Not once every 20 swings common, but common enough that they deserve a place in settings where heroes are organic people, not cartoon superheroes.

[Citation Needed]

Because I'm with Mando here. Anything more common than 1 in 8000 in really pressing believability for me. If an average fighter is going to fumble on average once every 2 minutes (or even once every 5 minutes with a confirmation roll), that's way too much. If a high level fighter is fumbling once every 30 seconds (or once a minute with a confirmation roll), that's also way too much.

My groups use both critical hits and critical fumbles, with these rules being most notable:

Both have to be confirmed.
Both have special effects (flat damage is so boring).
Same rules apply to everyone in the game (monsters tend to fumble more often, which leads to much hilarity).
You can only fumble once in a round (I've never seen it happen twice anyway).
We roll DC vs Saves in most cases, instead of the other way around, forcing spellcasters to be subject to the same rules.

We don't use any special rules for natural successes and failures outside of attack/DC rolls.

Fumbling only once per turn doesn't change anything. As you note, it's very rare even a character with a ton of attacks rolls two natural 1s in a round. The problem with characters with more attacks is their chance of rolling a 1 in any given round is much higher (Example: A high level fighter with 8 attacks per round has a 33% chance of fumbling on any given round. The Wizard rolls his spell once per round, and has a 5% chance of fumbling).

The "special effects" go back to the three stooges problem. Literally you are making your game into a slapstick comedy skit by having "funny" things happen whenever you roll a one. What I find incredulous is you are literally trying to make the game into a silly cartoon, while saying that not having fumbles makes characters cartoon superheroes. You know who fumbles a lot in "funny and interesting ways" when he tries to make an attack?

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110827193619/looneytunes/images/thumb/e/e5/Gunfade.gif/250px-Gunfade.gif

Keneth

2014-03-31, 10:42 PM

I think the problem here is that they should be cartoon superheroes rather than organic people.

That's an opinion. If people like running settings like that, it's fine. I respect that. But it's not the kind of world I want to run.

Fighters will occasionally swing too wide and hit an unintended target. Wizards will sometimes screw up the incantation and accidentally buff the enemies instead of crippling them.

In the same fashion, the fighter might succeed in cutting of an opponent's hand, preventing them from wielding that giant two-handed axe. A wizard might open a rift in space and send a bad guy into the abyss.

It makes the fights less monotone. I also give the players ways of avoiding really bad situations. The characters are heroes after all.

[Citation Needed]

Personal experience. I've been practicing martial arts for decades, and in a chaotic situations, even the most experienced people mess up, especially when weapons are involved.

Of course, that makes the evidence purely anecdotal, but I doubt there's been any studies done on the matter, except maybe the frequency of injuries in particular martial arts.

If a high level fighter is fumbling once every 30 seconds (or once a minute with a confirmation roll), that's also way too much.

High-level fighters are flailing around their weapons at the speed of 1 attack per second, usually more. Try doing that in real life and see what happens. As in real life, attacking more is not always better.

Plus I don't see how a confirmation roll would merely double the time required to fumble, unless you're assuming a 50/50 miss chance for some reason.

A high level fighter with 8 attacks per round has a 33% chance of fumbling on any given round. The Wizard rolls his spell once per round, and has a 5% chance of fumbling.

Possibly, but the rule was simplified for brevity. In actual gameplay, the supplementary rules for the system I use ensure that mundanes confirm their fumbles a lot less often than spellcasters.

Literally you are making your game into a slapstick comedy skit by having "funny" things happen whenever you roll a one. What I find incredulous is you are literally trying to make the game into a silly cartoon, while saying that not having fumbles makes characters cartoon superheroes.

Funny things do not happen whenever you roll a one, they happen in rare cases when an NPC or monster fumbles horribly. And they're funny in the same sense as watching a person fall off a bike is funny.

I'm not trying to turn anything into a slapstick comedy, but hilarity does ensue when a goblin jump attacks a PC from the roof and accidentally stabs a kinsman in the face.

eggynack

2014-03-31, 10:47 PM

That's an opinion. If people like running settings like that, it's fine. I respect that. But it's not the kind of world I want to run.

In that case, to be perfectly honest, you should play a different game. 3.5 is best at modelling superheroes. That's where all of the mechanical complexity and good design is. Allowing wizards to run rampant in superman mode, and stepping on the face of fighters in the name of "organic characters" makes no sense. Besides that, organic characters aren't defined by how often they stab their allies. It's defined by who the characters are, and how they're played.

Edit: As for other houserules, impacting the balance in other ways, I'd have to know what they actually entail to judge them. Applying critical failure rules to wizards is challenging.

Seerow

2014-03-31, 10:49 PM

Personal experience. I've been practicing martial arts for decades, and in a chaotic situations, even the most experienced people mess up, especially when weapons are involved.

Sure you mess up. But do you mess up to the degree that you literally throw away your weapon on any regular basis? Do you regularly go to attack the enemy in front of you, miss them and smack your friend sitting on the sidelines with the backswing? This is probably a once a month of constant practice occurrence, not a once a fight occurrence.

And if that is something that happens to you literally every time you fight, then seriously you need to get out of martial arts entirely. Because that's ridiculous.

High-level fighters are flailing around their weapons at the speed of 1 attack per second, usually more. Try doing that in real life and see what happens. As in real life, attacking more is not always better.

High level fighters aren't normal people. D&D is not real life. You want a real person look at levels 1-6, where you're getting 1-2 attacks in 6 seconds. And a normal human being actually attacks much faster than that. The actual attacks you roll for are an abstraction for you attacking far more often.

Plus I don't see how a confirmation roll would merely double the time required to fumble, unless you're assuming a 50/50 miss chance for some reason.

Wait so you're not making the fumble roll a set number, but instead against the intended target's AC? And this is better?

Funny things do not happen whenever you roll a one, they happen in rare cases when an NPC or monster fumbles horribly. And they're funny in the same sense as watching a person fall off a bike is funny.

Do you actually know what slapstick comedy is? Here's a hint: It's literally exactly what you just described.

I'm not trying to turn anything into a slapstick comedy, but hilarity does ensue when a goblin jump attacks a PC from the roof and accidentally stabs a kinsman in the face.

I really don't get why people try to argue my point by proving me right in the exact same sentence.

Flickerdart

2014-03-31, 10:52 PM

Saying that critical fumbles are fine because most of the time you will make the confirmation roll/Reflex save/voodoo dance not to turn a natural 1 into a fumble is not actually a defense of the rule. It's saying "I will add one or more rolls to the game for absolutely no payoff because the likelihood of the roll mattering is intentionally negligible."

"Critical fumbles should exist" is as of yet an unsubstantiated statement, yet one that many posts in this thread rely on. We should not be discussing how to make them bearable. We should be discussing why we need them, and from the fruits of that discussion, determine how they should function with an actual goal in mind.

Keneth

2014-03-31, 10:55 PM

In that case, to be perfectly honest, you should play a different game. 3.5 is best at modelling superheroes.

Whoever said I'm playing 3.5? We play a heavily houseruled version of Pathfinder. It's a thread about a houserule in an undefined system and setting. It's always portrayed in the worst possible light, but the simple fact is, if you're already houseruling, there are ways of making it (more) viable.

Besides that, organic characters aren't defined by how often they stab their allies. It's defined by who the characters are, and how they're played.

Combat is part of the system. An enormously large part in most cases (D&D is poorly designed for just about everything else). How you fight defines your character just as much as your 10 page background.

Flickerdart

2014-03-31, 11:00 PM

Whoever said I'm playing 3.5?
3.5 is one of the thread's tags. One would consider it common courtesy to mention if you are talking about a different system.

eggynack

2014-03-31, 11:00 PM

Whoever said I'm playing 3.5? We play a heavily houseruled version of Pathfinder. It's a thread about a houserule in an undefined system and setting. It's always portrayed in the worst possible light, but the simple fact is, if you're already houseruling, there are ways of making it (more) viable.

Well, the fact that you're in a thread that's ostensibly about adding critical fumble rules to standard 3.5 certainly heavily implied it. Sure, in a different game, things could be different. That's always going to be reasonably true. The fact is, however, that most fumble rules I see do not assume a game that's house ruled to the point where there is a neutral or positive impact on balance as a result of those rules. If you managed such a thing, then that's a nifty thingamajig, I suppose.

Seerow

2014-03-31, 11:07 PM

Well, the fact that you're in a thread that's ostensibly about adding critical fumble rules to standard 3.5 certainly heavily implied it. Sure, in a different game, things could be different. That's always going to be reasonably true. The fact is, however, that most fumble rules I see do not assume a game that's house ruled to the point where there is a neutral or positive impact on balance as a result of those rules. If you managed such a thing, then that's a nifty thingamajig, I suppose.

Pathfinder is similar enough to 3.5 it doesn't change any of the arguments. And from the sounds of the houserules he's specified, they boil down to "After you roll a 1, make another roll at the same target number, if you fail the GM makes up something negative that happens to you". And the converse side seems to be "When you roll a crit, the GM makes up something negative that you do to your enemy". And given the example of chopping off the enemy's hand so he can't use a two-handed weapon, it seems to me the only way a PC fighter lives to high enough level to get access to regeneration is by the GM being nicer in what he adjudicates happens to the PCs than happens to the enemies.

Basically the whole thing boils down to GM fiat in the name of "spicing up the game". It's not so much a rule as random wacky stuff happens when you roll high or low. It's quite literally something out of a saturday morning cartoon, in the name of realism.

eggynack

2014-03-31, 11:16 PM

Pathfinder is similar enough to 3.5 it doesn't change any of the arguments.
I was referring more to the "heavily house ruled" half than the "Pathfinder" half, though the latter might occasionally prove relevant.

And from the sounds of the houserules he's specified, they boil down to "After you roll a 1, make another roll at the same target number, if you fail the GM makes up something negative that happens to you". And the converse side seems to be "When you roll a crit, the GM makes up something negative that you do to your enemy". And given the example of chopping off the enemy's hand so he can't use a two-handed weapon, it seems to me the only way a PC fighter lives to high enough level to get access to regeneration is by the GM being nicer in what he adjudicates happens to the PCs than happens to the enemies.
Sounds about right, though there's a lot I don't know about this, and from what I understand, this system suffers from a lot of the same balance problems as any critical fumble system. Primarily, the issue is that casters can do more without touching the system than melee guys can. Some clarification on what actually happens could probably help as well, particularly as the outcome of a fumbled enervation presumably does something different than the outcome of a fumbled stinking cloud. I don't even know how a fumbled stinking cloud works exactly. That's another big problem with trying to apply fumble rules uniformly.

Seerow

2014-03-31, 11:22 PM

I was referring more to the "heavily house ruled" half than the "Pathfinder" half, though the latter might occasionally prove relevant.

Sounds about right, though there's a lot I don't know about this, and from what I understand, this system suffers from a lot of the same balance problems as any critical fumble system. Primarily, the issue is that casters can do more without touching the system than melee guys can. Some clarification on what actually happens could probably help as well, particularly as the outcome of a fumbled enervation presumably does something different than the outcome of a fumbled stinking cloud. I don't even know how a fumbled stinking cloud works exactly. That's another big problem with trying to apply fumble rules uniformly.

He specified that the wizard might buff a bunch of enemies instead of debuffing them on a fumble. So a fumbled stinking cloud would miraculously turn into haste on all enemies targetted, or a cloud of fast healing, or something silly like that. Similarly a wizard who rolls a crit on an attack can just spontaneously open a rift to another dimension that the BBEG gets sucked through.

Like he's actually given us a lot of information on what crits/fumbles do, it's just so much of it is so unbelievable that your mind tries to forget it immediately after reading.

eggynack

2014-03-31, 11:25 PM

Like he's actually given us a lot of information on what crits/fumbles do, it's just so much of it is so unbelievable that your mind tries to forget it immediately after reading.
I think my issue is that I don't know what it all means. Like, maybe stinking cloud extrapolates out in one of the ways you've indicated, or maybe it works in an entirely separate way. There's lots of information, but working out the underlying rule set, if one exists, is next to impossible from where I stand.

Keneth

2014-03-31, 11:36 PM

Sure you mess up. But do you mess up to the degree that you literally throw away your weapon on any regular basis? Do you regularly go to attack the enemy in front of you, miss them and smack your friend sitting on the sidelines with the backswing? This is probably a once a month of constant practice occurrence, not a once a fight occurrence.

Why would you assume that those are the only two options? I don't flip a coin, I literally have hundreds of different occurrences, ranging anywhere from a slap on the wrist, to severely crippling effects which almost always have a saving throw for yet another chance to avoid them.

And if that is something that happens to you literally every time you fight, then seriously you need to get out of martial arts entirely. Because that's ridiculous.

It doesn't happen in every fight in real life and it doesn't happen in every fight during gameplay.

High level fighters aren't normal people. D&D is not real life.

Granted. And like I said, if you want to run your games like that, that's perfectly fine. I respect that entirely. In my games everyone is fallible, whether they're 1st level warriors, or 20th level wizards with mythic tiers.

Wait so you're not making the fumble roll a set number, but instead against the intended target's AC? And this is better?

I never said that anywhere. I am merely surprised that you would assume a 50/50 miss chance while simultaneously accusing me of shafting mundanes.

Do you actually know what slapstick comedy is? Here's a hint: It's literally exactly what you just described.

The point was that I am not actively trying to evoke these situations, but they do happen on rare occasions. Especially for fodder monsters which are supposed to be that way.

Saying that critical fumbles are fine because most of the time you will make the confirmation roll/Reflex save/voodoo dance not to turn a natural 1 into a fumble is not actually a defense of the rule. It's saying "I will add one or more rolls to the game for absolutely no payoff because the likelihood of the roll mattering is intentionally negligible."

So what you're saying is that if the rules don't benefit players, they should not exist? Because fumbles do benefit gameplay, at least in our case.

"Critical fumbles should exist" is as of yet an unsubstantiated statement, yet one that many posts in this thread rely on. We should not be discussing how to make them bearable. We should be discussing why we need them, and from the fruits of that discussion, determine how they should function with an actual goal in mind.

You don't need them. You don't need wizards either. Or that horrible D&D weapon system. Or level adjustments. Or experience points. There's a lot of barely functional rules in D&D.

In fact, you need an extremely small amount of rules to actually play a roleplaying game. But there are always reasons to use more.

3.5 is one of the thread's tags. One would consider it common courtesy to mention if you are talking about a different system.

Ugh, tags. They hover down at the bottom of the thread, mocking me. They need to be added to the thread list next to the title or something. I just figured this was a discussion about fumble rules in general.

Edit: Huh, they actually are next to the title. You just gotta hover over the tag icon. That's a lot of unnecessary work...

Still, it is a discussion about house rules. Assuming a core 3.5 system is kinda pointless since it's got enough problems without adding a more mess to it. Like I said, if you're gonna house rule, go all the way.

And from the sounds of the houserules he's specified, they boil down to "After you roll a 1, make another roll at the same target number, if you fail the GM makes up something negative that happens to you". And the converse side seems to be "When you roll a crit, the GM makes up something negative that you do to your enemy". And given the example of chopping off the enemy's hand so he can't use a two-handed weapon, it seems to me the only way a PC fighter lives to high enough level to get access to regeneration is by the GM being nicer in what he adjudicates happens to the PCs than happens to the enemies.

I don't make up anything. I wouldn't presume to do so in the middle of combat, even though I am a very objective person. It's a preexisting set of effects that was agreed upon.

And the cutting off a hand thing is an extreme case (as is sending enemies to the abyss). It's usually a small bonus or penalty for flavor, like +2 to attacks (besides double damage), or an extra 1d4 Str damage.

Funnily enough, I've been using these rules for years now, and not a single mundane has died as a result of a fumble. It's the critical hits that tend to make or break a battle at our table. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry

2014-03-31, 11:38 PM

Uh, my group insists on using a -10 on a 1, +10 on a 20 system. In itself fair enough, and, in fact, more forgiving than a flat fail success but they got this idea ingrained that it should *also* apply to skill checks, which I abhor.

AugustNights

2014-03-31, 11:41 PM

In theory I don't hold with Fumbles; I'm largely opposed to the myriad of negative effects that often debilitate a character for any amount of time greater than the action it took to make the attack, such as "Stunned 1d4 Rounds" or "Disarmed" and the like.

In practice, my players *love* fumbles. They don't get much into the philosophy of game, or mechanics as I do, and they feel cheated when their characters aren't doing fantastically absurd things on natural 1s. I also like rolling on random effect tables, so I've got a person fumble system for when my players want to use it.
It *is* a bunch of extra rolling and book-work, but it works for my crew.
It also is *not* a bunch of debilitating effects, they are mostly minor penalties that last until the beginning of their next turn.
Dedicated fighters are less likely to roll the worse effects.
And I have a spell-failure system as well (also a bunch of extra rolling and book-work).

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Fumbles aren't for everyone, but they can be fun. If they are going to be used, you should use them carefully and watch out for a number of the traps that many have already mentioned (adding unnecessary rolling, punishing twf, punishing fighters, creating absurd situations where trained warriors become slapstick buffoons).

Flickerdart

2014-03-31, 11:46 PM

So what you're saying is that if the rules don't benefit players, they should not exist? Because fumbles do benefit gameplay, at least in our case.

You don't need them. You don't need wizards either. Or that horrible D&D weapon system. Or level adjustments. Or experience points. There's a lot of barely functional rules in D&D.

In fact, you need an extremely small amount of rules to actually play a roleplaying game. But there are always reasons to use more.

Rules for the sake of rules. Fun.

Keneth

2014-03-31, 11:53 PM

Rules for the sake of rules. Fun.

Maybe, but there's a reason why we still play 3rd edition. We like rules. :smalltongue:

Big Fau

2014-03-31, 11:59 PM

So what you're saying is that if the rules don't benefit players, they should not exist? Because fumbles do benefit gameplay, at least in our case.

Rules that don't benefit the players are fine. Rules that actively punish half the table while simultaneously rewarding a playstyle that's widely agreed to be the second-most-powerful tactic available to a little under 1/3 of the classes in the game are not, especially not when the those being punished are playing the least efficient classes.

Fumbles do nothing but add another layer of offensive capabilities to the Wizard's repertoire. If you can't see what I mean, stop using fumbles.

Keneth

2014-04-01, 12:04 AM

That has nothing to with fumble rules as a concept and everything to do with the person implementing them.

As long as everyone, including spellcasters, fumbles roughly as often as everyone else, the argument becomes invalid.

Zanos

2014-04-01, 12:09 AM

Pex

2014-04-01, 12:11 AM

eggynack

2014-04-01, 12:13 AM

As long as everyone, including spellcasters, fumbles roughly as often as everyone else, the argument becomes invalid.
It looks like the argument is valid in this case, however. At least unless I'm missing something and polymorph, solid fog, and greater teleport actually are hit by these fumble rules. Even summons aren't hit as hard, because you're not the one in danger when the summons accidentally falls over in the middle of combat.

Keneth

2014-04-01, 12:23 AM

I don't think fumbles have a place in serious games, but are suited fine to one shots or certain groups who may enjoy that sort of thing. Most groups I play with would be pretty upset if they're character was killed because of some fumble effect because we get pretty invested in our characters.

Why would it be any different than getting killed by any other effect? You can get upset if the rules are unreasonable, but otherwise bad luck is just part of the game.

Saying it doesn't have a place in "serious games" seems kinda biased. :smallconfused:

At least unless I'm missing something and polymorph, solid fog, and greater teleport actually are hit by these fumble rules. Even summons aren't hit as hard, because you're not the one in danger when the summons accidentally falls over in the middle of combat.

Those spells have different issues. Incidentally, I have house rules for all of those, except solid fog. :smalltongue:

Not every spell needs to be affected by critical fumble rules. Not everything a fighter does should be either, assuming fighters do anything other than swing weapons around as fast as they can in your games.

nyjastul69

2014-04-01, 12:27 AM

It has been an interesting thread's worth of discussions, without a single ad hominem against me! Well done, playground!

Since the playground seems (with the understandable amounts of variance) unified on this, what changes to Critical Success would balance the notion of critical failure, and what restrictions of what "Critical Failure" and "Critical Success" entailed would you put on it?

When my players, against my advice, insisted on using critical failures I made a system up. If you roll a 1 you must confirm it with a roll. This roll must also be a miss. I then used a chart that was dependent upon how much they missed by. I don't have the chart handy however. What do recall is a confirmed crit failure by 5 or less was no penalty. Between 6 and 9 were small penalties. A 10 provoked an AoO from your opponent. Nothing worse could ever happen. I failed to include spell casting though. If a fighter can fumble an attack, a caster should be able to fumble a spell, even one that does not require an attack roll, such as sleep. My house rule failed in this regard, but then again, I never really wanted to use it. Heh, I fudged a bunch with it anywho. :smallbiggrin: If your players really want it, give it to them. I would proceed with caution though.

- - - Updated - - -

It looks like the argument is valid in this case, however. At least unless I'm missing something and polymorph, solid fog, and greater teleport actually are hit by these fumble rules. Even summons aren't hit as hard, because you're not the one in danger when the summons accidentally falls over in the middle of combat.

Or maybe the summons is out of control and attacks randomly. Maybe it specifically targets the caster.

eggynack

2014-04-01, 12:30 AM

Those spells have different issues. Incidentally, I have house rules for all of those, except solid fog. :smalltongue:
I can see potential room for such house rules, but there are other solid fogs out there. In the meantime, even with only solid fog, that's any quantity of advantage that wizards have over fighters within these rules. Hitting both types of character equally is extremely difficult, is what I'm saying, and if that intrinsic inequality is tilted in favor of the high tier casting guy, that's a rule that I'm not going to like.

Not every spell needs to be affected by critical fumble rules. Not everything a fighter does should be either, assuming fighters do anything other than swing weapons around as fast as they can in your games.
I'm not entirely sure what your fighters are doing that doesn't involve rolling. There's not all that much.

Hytheter

2014-04-01, 12:30 AM

Why would it be any different than getting killed by any other effect? You can get upset if the rules are unreasonable, but otherwise bad luck is just part of the game.

If you seriously can't see why accidentally cutting off your own head is worse than nobly going down in combat, then I don't think this discussion can ever come to an agreeable conclusion.

Zanos

2014-04-01, 12:32 AM

Why would it be any different than getting killed by any other effect? You can get upset if the rules are unreasonable, but otherwise bad luck is just part of the game.

Saying it doesn't have a place in "serious games" seems kinda biased. :smallconfused:
Usually characters are killed because an enemy takes an action that results in their death, or they are careless. A fumble is just their dice having the audacity to roll low. If a wizard hits you with a finger of death and you 1 the fort save, you died because you got finger of death cast on you. If you fail a reflex save on a spike trap and die, you died because you did something careless. Dying because you suck and you cut your own leg off is ridiculous. It's also not preventable. You can prevent walking into a trap, or you can run from an encounter you think is overwhelming. You can't run from having to make rolls(barring some niche builds).

And again, it's my opinion that critical fumbles don't have a place in a serious game, and yeah it's biased, because it's my opinion. I wouldn't play in any game where the DM expected me to RP my character seriously and he used crit fumbles.

eggynack

2014-04-01, 12:32 AM

Or maybe the summons is out of control and attacks randomly. Maybe it specifically targets the caster.
I'm not entirely sure how that applies here. The only roll that is occurring here is presumably an attack roll. There's no real room for spell failure on a summons, at least currently. At some point, however, it just has to be asserted that I don't know how the fumble rules will alter some arbitrary game that I don't know the rules to. I know how they impact this game, because I know the rules to this game. Such is the nature of things.

Kazudo

2014-04-01, 12:34 AM

nyjastul69

2014-04-01, 12:50 AM

I'm not entirely sure how that applies here. The only roll that is occurring here is presumably an attack roll. There's no real room for spell failure on a summons, at least currently. At some point, however, it just has to be asserted that I don't know how the fumble rules will alter some arbitrary game that I don't know the rules to. I know how they impact this game, because I know the rules to this game. Such is the nature of things.

We are in agreement. Since there is no roll it can't fail. If it can't fail there can't be a critical failure. I thought you were saying if a summons could fail the creature might just fall over. I was just trying to point out nastier potentials. I apologize for having misunderstood.

Keneth

2014-04-01, 12:54 AM

I'm not entirely sure what your fighters are doing that doesn't involve rolling. There's not all that much.

They do plenty of things that doesn't involve attack rolls. Attack rolls are simply something they're good at (having fair fumble rules doesn't change that).

If you seriously can't see why accidentally cutting off your own head is worse than nobly going down in combat, then I don't think this discussion can ever come to an agreeable conclusion.

Dying because you suck and you cut your own leg off is ridiculous.

Who would ever make you cut off your own hand or leg on a fumble? Seriously, what kind of horror stories have you been listening to? Out of all the DMs who use fumble rules, there's probably not even 1% of them who would do such a thing, and in those rare cases, it's the DM that has issues, not the system.

Also, there's nothing noble, honorable, or dignified about failing your Fortitude save against a slay living spell. At least if you're subject to a critical fumble, you get one, maybe two extra rolls to avoid it, potentially even more. In both cases, you failed because you suck, and whether or not you suck is (mostly) dictated by the dice rolls.

nyjastul69

2014-04-01, 12:56 AM

To derail the current train of conversation a bit.

Should one decide, against all logic and odds, to try to fabricate the system to incorporate some degree or other of critical failure, what changes to the fairly stable notion of spellcasting would make it equivalent to the thoroughly random chance of fighting?

I think any spell requiring an attack roll are clear enough. Spells that don't are much trickier. Apply some sort of d20 roll. Base it upon caster level maybe. Maybe base it upon the save result. This wouldn't help with 'no' spells though. Dunno. It's probably why a fumble mechanic has never been included in the game.

eggynack

2014-04-01, 01:02 AM

They do plenty of things that doesn't involve attack rolls. Attack rolls are simply something they're good at (having fair fumble rules doesn't change that).

Do ya have some examples? I'm pretty sure that there aren't many in 3.5, though there may be more in PF. The broader question is whether there are things that don't have rolls at all, because presumably those would provide room for fumbles also. I mean, I'm pretty sure you previously stated that it's only attack rolls and saving throws, but then apparently polymorph got wrapped into it, and I have no idea how that happened, and it all just hurts my brain in a million different ways.

Keneth

2014-04-01, 01:32 AM

Do ya have some examples?

I only impose fumbles on attack rolls, and DC rolls for spells and SLAs. I also use scaling DCs for all magic items (baring spell completion and spell trigger items), so magic items that produce effects can be used efficiently in combat. It's not really a fighter thing, anyone can do it with appropriate ability scores and equipment, but that's not really the point.

They can also use any Su or Ex abilities they might have if they don't require attack rolls. Not sure about fighters specifically, but Pathfinder has a myriad of archetypes for every class, and it's very generous with class abilities.

There are skills that can be used in combat, which are likewise not subject to fumble rules in my games.

Whether any of that is better than making a full attack is a different matter. I said before that making as many attacks as possible isn't always necessarily the best tactical option, and I do my best to provide my players with viable alternatives. It's why I have hundreds of houserules, and a lot of them are aimed at improving the adventuring life of mundanes.

Arbane

2014-04-01, 01:40 AM

Since the playground seems (with the understandable amounts of variance) unified on this, what changes to Critical Success would balance the notion of critical failure, and what restrictions of what "Critical Failure" and "Critical Success" entailed would you put on it?

I like the way Legends of the Wulin handles criticals aka "Interesting Times": If you get a roll than ends in a zero, the GM can offer you a luck point. If you accept it, you succeed or fail as usual... but the situation gets MORE COMPLICATED somehow. "Oh, wow - you cut that guard right in half... and the support pillar behind him. The roof starts to collapse!" But you don't _have_ to take it.

eggynack

2014-04-01, 01:40 AM

I only impose fumbles on attack rolls, and DC rolls for spells and SLAs. I also use scaling DCs for all magic items (baring spell completion and spell trigger items), so magic items that produce effects can be used efficiently in combat.
I'm not really sure where polymorph or greater teleport come into it, in that case.

Whether any of that is better than making a full attack is a different matter. I said before that making as many attacks as possible isn't always necessarily the best tactical option, and I do my best to provide my players with viable alternatives. It's why I have hundreds of houserules, and a lot of them are aimed at improving the adventuring life of mundanes.
Then, as I've mentioned, I don't really have a basis for evaluation. It's all just kinda arbitrary. I suppose we can all just assume that it's a rule set that works, or something, but that doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of assessing the applicability of critical failure rules to standard games.

Keneth

2014-04-01, 02:05 AM

I'm not really sure where polymorph or greater teleport come into it, in that case.

I never said they do. I explicitly said that not every spell should need to be subjected to fumble rules.

I only stated that I have house rules (unrelated to fumble rules) for those spells because they have bigger issues.

Then, as I've mentioned, I don't really have a basis for evaluation. It's all just kinda arbitrary.

Well, saying critical failure rules are bad because the worst possible implementation is bad is just as arbitrary. It stands to reason that if you're gonna design a rule, you're not just gonna shove it half-finished into a game with underlying issues which would only be exacerbated by that rule. The viability of such a rule needs to be evaluated under the assumption that it's going to be implemented in way that is as close to ideal as possible. A complete rule in a stable system.

Theomniadept

2014-04-01, 02:16 AM

eggynack

2014-04-01, 02:17 AM

I never said they do. I explicitly said that not every spell should need to be subjected to fumble rules.

I only stated that I have house rules (unrelated to fumble rules) for those spells because they have bigger issues.
Ah, that makes more sense, I suppose. Still, it's likely safe to assume, on that basis, that spells that aren't classed as problem spells, like polymorph and teleport are, that are otherwise lacking in rolls, have the capacity to escape the fumble rule. That list includes the pretty much all buff spells, most utility and divination, a solid quantity of BFC's, and a good number of other spells besides. It's a lot more than some intimidation shenanigans, and whatever else a melee guy can pull together.

Well, saying critical failure rules are bad because the worst possible implementation is bad is just as arbitrary. It stands to reason that if you're gonna design a rule, you're not just gonna shove it half-finished into a game with underlying issues which would only be exacerbated by that rule. The viability of such a rule needs to be evaluated under the assumption that it's going to be implemented in way that is as close to ideal as possible. A complete rule in a stable system.
That's not really a fair assumption to make. I'm not saying that the fumble rule that gets used must be the worst one possible, and it could even be the best one possible. That's the goal, after all. However, assuming that people are going to adopt your massive set of house rules to go along with critical fumbles is unreasonable. Besides that, the fact of the matter is that I know nothing about your fumble rules. You could tell me every aspect of them, and I'd still know nothing, because you're playing a different game that I know nothing about. Maybe the rules work, or maybe they don't. That's why it's arbitrary, because I couldn't possibly tell you.

TuggyNE

2014-04-01, 04:49 AM

Arbane

2014-04-01, 05:33 AM

Raezeman

2014-04-01, 06:40 AM

Yes, my group used it when i first started playing (didn't even know it was a house rule at the time) and now, some years later, I use it when I DM myself. If you think it's too harsh, well, 1 is not automatic critical failure, it still depends on what we call the 'confirm fumble check'. How I tend to do it, good enough on the confirm means just a miss, worse rolls result into something like 'you bad swing brings you out balance and makes you lose your additional attacks', or stuff like you dropped your weapon. Very bad rolls can indeed make you hit yourself or a friend. I once had a player roll a 1 on his confirm fumble check for a claw attack of his dire badger companion, so I said that the badger missed and slammed his claw into the rock soil, braking off his claws so he could't use one claw attack anymore until he received a regeneration spell.

Still to harsh? Well me and every DM i know that uses this also applies this to the NPCs and monsters, resulting in tripping themselves, one cheetah hitting his cheetah friend and skellies throwing their weapons around the field.

Some examples of critical fumbles:
-My Dwarven duskblade chopped himself in the foot, luckily my DM was kind enough to not have the shocking grasp i was channeling discharge, or that would have killed me.
-Our barbarian hit our bard, and as we were level 1, he was raging and power attacking with a maul, send the bard from full to negatives.
-The same barbarian tried to hit the dinosaur that was attacking his horse, but instead finished off the horse.
-Our archer hitting my dwarven duskblade in the ass on several occasions.

oxybe

2014-04-01, 07:04 AM

I like the way Legends of the Wulin handles criticals aka "Interesting Times": If you get a roll than ends in a zero, the GM can offer you a luck point. If you accept it, you succeed or fail as usual... but the situation gets MORE COMPLICATED somehow. "Oh, wow - you cut that guard right in half... and the support pillar behind him. The roof starts to collapse!" But you don't _have_ to take it.

this is the one crit fail rule i can abide by beyond the basic "you fail".

i think the newest marvel superhero game has something similar, where if you flub a roll you can accept a worse result but get a token-thing for later use, and if i remember the rule from my buddy's Edge of the Empire book, there is a face on one of the dice that allows for an extra complication/boon on your action, regardless if you succeed or fail at the action itself.

Captnq

2014-04-01, 07:38 AM

Do you like gambling?

Yes? Then you will love critical failures.
No? You won't.

Done.

HaikenEdge

2014-04-01, 09:23 AM

How about using reverse exploding dice on critical failures? You roll a 1, you roll a second d20, and subtract that result from your original roll, except for in the case in which you roll another 1, whereby you roll 2d20 and subtract both results from the original roll, unless you roll more 1s, etc, etc? This would be paired with regular exploding dice on critical successes.

Would that be balanced?

atomicwaffle

2014-04-01, 09:38 AM

The group i play with always handles skill check fails with rolling again and subtracting that number (successes with rolling again and adding that number).

For combat we use the pathfinder crit fail deck, and i enjoy it as a mechanic.

When i DM my own campaign, if there are casters, a Spellcraft check will be required of EVERY spell cast that's not a cantrip. (DC 10 + Spell level)

To quote Red Mage, "You see, it's important to remember that you have a 1 in 20 chance of failing at absolutely anything."

A nat 1 should inspire fear and reverence. Just as nothing feels quite as good as a nat 20, nothing feels quite as bad as a nat 1.

And remember...it's D&D. It may not be balanced, or make sense, but crit successes and crit fails help define D&D. Even the most oblivious person knows nat 20 = very very good and nat 1 = very very bad.

Seerow

2014-04-01, 09:40 AM

When i DM my own campaign, if there are casters, a Spellcraft check will be required of EVERY spell cast that's not a cantrip. (DC 10 + Spell level)

Your warrior types are still anywhere between 4 and 8 times more likely to critically fail than a caster on any given round.

Why do so many people think that this is actually an acceptable fix in any way?

- - - Updated - - -

How about using reverse exploding dice on critical failures? You roll a 1, you roll a second d20, and subtract that result from your original roll, except for in the case in which you roll another 1, whereby you roll 2d20 and subtract both results from the original roll, unless you roll more 1s, etc, etc? This would be paired with regular exploding dice on critical successes.

Would that be balanced?

It's balanced, but the better question is how often would it matter? If the only thing that happens when you roll a 1 is you get another d20 roll as a penalty, the main thing you accomplish is making a 1 much less likely to be a success. A 1 is already most likely going to be a failure, and in the event it isn't the default rules already make it a guaranteed failure.

The proposal doesn't scratch the itch for people who insist on critical fumbles, because you're only increasing failure rates rather than making combat into a slapstick sketch where allies stab each other in the face for comedy. It doesn't make anything better for people who don't like critical fumbles, because it's still extra rolling for what is effectively the same result as not having the rule at all. And on top of it all, it has the side effect of making a high roll undesirable after getting a natural 1, which is counter intuitive and goes against the grain of the entire rest of the system.

atomicwaffle

2014-04-01, 09:50 AM

Your warrior types are still anywhere between 4 and 8 times more likely to critically fail than a caster on any given round.

Why do so many people think that this is actually an acceptable fix in any way?

Also applies to spells being used out of combat. Wizards cast a lot of spells outside combat, especially if you're a transmuter. And for the record, i never said it was an acceptable fix, just that it increases the chances for wizards to roll a 1. Not trying to fix anything. I think the system is fine.

killem2

2014-04-01, 10:14 AM

I didn't read the thread except for the OP because I know what kind of replies generate in these.

With that said, OP, I suggest you take a look at the Paizo critical fumble and critical hit decks :), you may enjoy those, my group loves them.

Seerow

2014-04-01, 10:19 AM

Also applies to spells being used out of combat. Wizards cast a lot of spells outside combat, especially if you're a transmuter. And for the record, i never said it was an acceptable fix, just that it increases the chances for wizards to roll a 1. Not trying to fix anything. I think the system is fine.

"The fighter doesn't do anything out of combat, and the Wizard does, so it balances out"

What

atomicwaffle

2014-04-01, 11:58 AM

"The fighter doesn't do anything out of combat, and the Wizard does, so it balances out"

What

Here's an idea: Instead of trying to tell me what your interpretation of what i said is, and mocking me for it...Why not respond to what i actually said.

Just giving wizards more opportunities to crit fail or succeed. Not trying to 'fix' the game.

I think the PF crit fail deck works fine on its own and alongside spellcraft checks on all cast spells

Seerow

2014-04-01, 12:03 PM

Here's an idea: Instead of trying to tell me what your interpretation of what i said is, and mocking me for it...Why not respond to what i actually said.

Just giving wizards more opportunities to crit fail or succeed. Not trying to 'fix' the game.

I think the PF crit fail deck works fine on its own and alongside spellcraft checks on all cast spells

It's not about fixing the game. It's about fixing the specific rule that is being added to the game. Nothing as simple as a critical fumble rule is going to fix the disparity between Fighters and Wizards, and that's not at all the point of my post.

The only way what you're saying makes sense is if you're acknowledging that the rule imbalances things even more in favor of casters. But if that were the case, why are you trying to continue justify it saying that making the Wizard roll is what makes any sort of difference difference? You're clearly trying to argue against the point that crit fails hurt fighters more than Wizards, by saying your specific rule makes it affect both evenly. The point being made is that is a blatantly untrue statement, because Fighters are still going to roll more often, and thus critically fail more often, than a Wizard will.

atomicwaffle

2014-04-01, 12:07 PM

It's not about fixing the game. It's about fixing the specific rule that is being added to the game. Nothing as simple as a critical fumble rule is going to fix the disparity between Fighters and Wizards, and that's not at all the point of my post.

The only way what you're saying makes sense is if you're acknowledging that the rule imbalances things even more in favor of casters. But if that were the case, why are you trying to continue justify it saying that making the Wizard roll is what makes any sort of difference difference? You're clearly trying to argue against the point that crit fails hurt fighters more than Wizards, by saying your specific rule makes it affect both evenly. The point being made is that is a blatantly untrue statement, because Fighters are still going to roll more often, and thus critically fail more often, than a Wizard will.

i never said my specific rule affects them both evenly, you did. All i said is that it increases the chances for crits (success or failure) for casters. IM NOT TRYING TO BALANCE THE GAME, JUST GIVING CASTERS MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO ROLL CRITS.

Seerow

2014-04-01, 12:10 PM

i never said my specific rule affects them both evenly, you did. All i said is that it increases the chances for crits (success or failure) for casters. IM NOT TRYING TO BALANCE THE GAME, JUST GIVING CASTERS MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO ROLL CRITS.

So your entire position is to give them more opportunities to roll crit fumbles just because you want to see more critical fumbles, not out of any perceived unfairness that casters don't ever fumble?

I guess that at least has some consistency, but still doesn't make for a good rule. And still doesn't change the three-stooges problem.

Tim Proctor

2014-04-01, 12:12 PM

In my 10+ years of playing and DMing Dungeons And Dragons, I've always played with a house rule:

The Critical Failure!

The premise (for those of you who don't know) is that whenever you roll a natural 1 on the die in situations where a 1 is immediate failure (typically only attacks, though a few DMs I've played under have done the same for skill checks), you must reroll your failure similar to a critical success against some form of DC, and if you fail under the DC, something catastrophic happens! You might throw your sword across the field, slip and fall, or accidentally attack an ally!

Have any of you done the same thing? What kind of shenanigans ensued! How have other groups handled this interesting and lively house rule?

I've done it, but stopped running that house rule because all it really does is harm the melee builds with many attacks. Wizards (already OP) don't run the same risk of hurting themselves or teammates, where a Fighter (not OP at all) has a higher chance of harmful effects. So that's why I stopped with that house rule.

Kazudo

2014-04-01, 12:14 PM

Seerow

2014-04-01, 12:16 PM

Along the same vein as my previous questions and delves into this very controversial subject...

Has anyone ever heard of "exceptional critical success"?

I once had a DM who insisted that critically confirming a critical hit (read: Roll 1: nat 20, Confirm: nat 20) would allow the character to roll a third time, with the understanding that they did max critical damage. A third confirmed nat 20 would instantly kill the target.

Has anyone else ever had this done?

I've seen it done. It's another of those rules that got removed shortly after the first ridiculously implausible happened because of it. In this specific case, the 13th level Barbarian getting one shotted by a goblin who in practice shouldn't have even been able to deal a point of damage to him through DR.

Tim Proctor

2014-04-01, 12:17 PM

Along the same vein as my previous questions and delves into this very controversial subject...

Has anyone ever heard of "exceptional critical success"?

I once had a DM who insisted that critically confirming a critical hit (read: Roll 1: nat 20, Confirm: nat 20) would allow the character to roll a third time, with the understanding that they did max critical damage. A third confirmed nat 20 would instantly kill the target.

Has anyone else ever had this done?

Yes, and again it created abuses.

At 2 silver you can hire a trained mercenary, and 8,000 (1,600 gp) statistically can kill anything.

atomicwaffle

2014-04-01, 12:18 PM

So your entire position is to give them more opportunities to roll crit fumbles just because you want to see more critical fumbles, not out of any perceived unfairness that casters don't ever fumble?

I guess that at least has some consistency, but still doesn't make for a good rule. And still doesn't change the three-stooges problem.

it also allows for critical successes. I haven't hammered out all the details, but something along the lines of a crit success applies a onetime metamagic effect (such as maximize, extend, or sudden) or if it's a spell that allows a saving throw it either denies the saving throw or increases the DC by 10. I'd also want to incorporate something along the lines of a form of magical fatigue. If you crit success a spell you can only standard/move the next round.

I usually play casters (clerics or wizards). "I do this. Auto win." Fighters: "I do this *shooka shooka*". Plus, i like the flavour of asking the wizard to cast Fly, Mass and he says, "Well, i'll try." or something to that effect.

I like rolling dice. I really like crits (both successes and failures). And this wouldn't apply to just the party. Enemy casters that crit succeed or fail could be interesting.

squiggit

2014-04-01, 12:28 PM

I tend to like botch and critical success rules, though moreso in other games where wizards aren't immune to them.

The biggest problem I've run into it are DMs using it maliciously or crit successes/crit fails not really being comparable in power.

But that's more a problem of the DM rather than the rule system. Adding super-successes on nat 20 intimidate rolls or complications on nat 1s can still be a lot of fun if the DM is managing them well.

Pex

2014-04-01, 12:29 PM

Critical failures; for the times when you really want to punish players who don't play tier 1 classes.

I've never seen that garbage implemented in any way to add any depth to any game. Paizo even printed these critical cards based on successes and failures. Have you actually seen those cards? A nat 1 on a Ray of Frost at level 1 could end up cursing your spellcaster character. Cursed. As in, needs a Remove Curse. As in, 3rd level spell, as in spending Spell Level 3 x Caster Level 5 x 10 gp = 150 gold just to continue playing your character at level 1.

There is also a card where a warrior can critically hit himself. You can literally kill yourself. It's stupid.

One player in my group insists on using them when it's his turn to DM and always advocates for using them in any campaign when the subject is broached. He disregards all arguments against them and insists spellcasters get equal treatment because there exists some spells that require an attack roll. I don't use them in my turn as DM and fortunately the group has been weaned only to use them when he DMs. Unfortunately, his turn to DM is coming up again soon. It's no wonder he hates my Dual Cursed Oracle who gets to force d20 rerolls, such as when a party member rolls a Natural 1. :smallamused:

Big Fau

2014-04-01, 12:44 PM

Who would ever make you cut off your own hand or leg on a fumble? Seriously, what kind of horror stories have you been listening to? Out of all the DMs who use fumble rules, there's probably not even 1% of them who would do such a thing, and in those rare cases, it's the DM that has issues, not the system.

Actually any DM using the Dragon Compendium's Fumble chart. Which is a significant number of them from what I've heard. Specifically, a roll of 75-80 on the chart results in you hitting yourself (potentially for critical damage), a roll of 87-88 is self-hit with guaranteed crit and you're forced to roll on the sibling chart (Critical Hits) for an additional effect, and several rolls result in you hitting your friend. Given that optimized noncasters are typically capable of dealing 200+ damage on a single attack at the higher levels, Critical Fumbles mean outright death to fellow party members. The Dragon Compendium's rules on fumbling are surprisingly common, especially the "Hit yourself or ally" variant.

It isn't so much "Sever your own limb" as it is "OUTRIGHT MURDER YOUR BEST FRIEND ~5% OF THE DAMN TIME".

HaikenEdge

2014-04-01, 12:59 PM

Who would ever make you cut off your own hand or leg on a fumble? Seriously, what kind of horror stories have you been listening to? Out of all the DMs who use fumble rules, there's probably not even 1% of them who would do such a thing, and in those rare cases, it's the DM that has issues, not the system.

Practically every campaign (all 4) I've taken part in on Roll20 since the beginning of last month (March 2014) has involved critical fumble rules that include serious self-harm, ranging to one player cleaving off his own head, to another player accidentally impaling himself on his own spear, to an NPC missing so badly that he headbutted a wall and gave himself serious brain damage (1d4 points of Int damage), to an NPC who tripped and rolled under a moving wagon, which proceeded to run him over.

Frankly, it's because of those fumble rules that I'm leery about using any sort of character that uses attack rolls, if only to mitigate having to deal with accidentally hurting myself or others.

pwykersotz

2014-04-01, 02:41 PM

I use Crit Failure rules in about half my games. The ones I play with players who are similar to a majority of posters in this thread don't have them. It makes them happy. In other games my players insist that I use the crit fumble rules because they enjoy them.

Shenanigans that ensued...

The bard was convinced that he saw a shining palace high in the sky when he critically failed his spot check. It was masked by the sun. He then used his skill with words to convince the rest of the party. The campaign took a turn when their pursuit of this led them to finding an ancient invisible floating island with an ancient lich upon it. The player's look of determination when trying to convince the party was priceless...and it fueled a fun campaign!

A battle against Kobolds that was going decently turned around when one player crit failed and his hold on his greatsword slipped, the blade piercing his friend and taking him down to -8. The kobolds assumed their sorcerer had controlled him, and so bound up the fallen comrade, and the fighter and ranger surrendered to keep their friend alive. This made the sorcerer curious, and he later came and began talks with the fighter. It turned a simple kill encounter into a prisoner escape where the party discovered an ancient cavern below that held a black dragon in magical hibernation. Without the crit fail, they would have never explored the cave.

A series of unlucky crit fails that caused large party damage turned around when the player decided that he would fluff it as his character believing that the villain was secretly a powerful Psion who was causing his unluck. This was actually the case, and it blew open a major plot point very early, allowing the players to take huge advantage of the BBEG being unprepared.

So many shenanigans...so many...

killem2

2014-04-01, 04:19 PM

Critical failures; for the times when you really want to punish players who don't play tier 1 classes.

I've never seen that garbage implemented in any way to add any depth to any game. Paizo even printed these critical cards based on successes and failures. Have you actually seen those cards? A nat 1 on a Ray of Frost at level 1 could end up cursing your spellcaster character. Cursed. As in, needs a Remove Curse. As in, 3rd level spell, as in spending Spell Level 3 x Caster Level 5 x 10 gp = 150 gold just to continue playing your character at level 1.

I have seen them. So lets drop the hyperbole please. I wonder though if you have read them.

They work great. Also, have you actually read those cards or the rules behind them? The critical hit and fumble decks go hand in hand.

Your example is 1 of 4 that I feel are possible hard core ones for a level 1. The other three are elemental based 2d6 damage which could kill a character at level 1.

5% you MIGHT roll a natural roll of 1.

Then you must confirm your failue, which is making the same attack roll again with your full base attack bonus, if you still miss the fail happens. (there are two other versions you can choose as a DM that are harsher I do not)

Then, you are talking 1 card out of 52 - a less than 2% chance you MIGHT get the curse one.

Also, if you are using the critical hit deck, you can use one of those cards to cancel a fumble.

Deophaun

2014-04-01, 04:30 PM

The only time I ever argued the point with a DM, he argued that critical failure is the unfortunate counterpoint to critical success. Though he never used critical failure in positions where there IS no critical success (skills, saves, etc).

Thoughts on this?
The only counterpoint to critical success is that both sides can critically succeed. Critical failure is a separate mechanic that has no relation.

Thiyr

2014-04-01, 04:56 PM

I always like to bring up the Training Dummy Test when talking crit fails/successes. Get 100 people who know how to use a weapon, and have them each attacking training dummies. In game, that's 60000 attacks made by the room as a whole, assuming they're only making a single attack a round. After an hour of training, there will have been between 7 and 8 crit fails (assuming a crit fail is three nat 1s in a row.) That's fairly high. Let's assume that there is a standard 1-100 table for what happens on a crit fail, with the top 10 results being major self injury (either death, self maiming, crippling or otherwise.) A bit under 1 person an hour will make themselves unable to continue training. Assume they train for 3-4 hours a day, and inanimate objects will have killed or crippled the whole room in around a month. This is why I hold that the most I will ever punish a player for rolling a 1 will be making them miss. To punctuate with an abridged anecdote from the predecessors of my playgroup, Mistakes happen. Missing so bad you punch yourself in the skull so hard it explodes doesn't.

(Monk with greater mighty whallop and a number of other buffs rolls poorly while the DM is using the Critonomicon. Ended up doing something like 6x damage to himself, if anyone was curious.)

This is bad for realism (the best warriors are the clumsiest). This is bad for balance (the worst fighting style is punished the most). This is bad for gameplay (extra rolls are added that annoy everybody). This is bad for DM-PC fairness (the DM controls monsters that attack with claws and special abilities which can't be dropped).

Wait, how is going Einhander being punished the most? :P

Thanatosia

2014-04-01, 05:13 PM

I once had a player roll a 1 on his confirm fumble check for a claw attack of his dire badger companion, so I said that the badger missed and slammed his claw into the rock soil, braking off his claws so he could't use one claw attack anymore until he received a regeneration spell.

Still to harsh? Well me and every DM i know that uses this also applies this to the NPCs and monsters, resulting in tripping themselves, one cheetah hitting his cheetah friend and skellies throwing their weapons around the field.
Any time you have persistant negative effects, it's gameplay impact on Players is 10000x worse even if you 'apply it fairly to NPCs and Monsters". That cheetah that hit his friend cheetah is by design an encounter that is supposed to be killed and never have any more time in the game. The Dire Badger sticks around and has to face the long term consequences of the fumble. Regeneration is a freak'n lv7 (9th for druid, wich may be applicable since it's the context of an animal companion) spell, it's easier to raise it from the dead then it is to fix that fumble. Saying it's fair cuz it applies to the NPCs to is laughably poor logic.

Valtu

2014-04-01, 05:19 PM

It may also be noted, since it's been mentioned while I was on other parts of the forum.

Spells which cannot critically fail therefore cannot critically succeed.

The only time I ever argued the point with a DM, he argued that critical failure is the unfortunate counterpoint to critical success. Though he never used critical failure in positions where there IS no critical success (skills, saves, etc).

Thoughts on this?

We use this setup in our group. Our DM uses critical fails for attacks only (including spells that require attack rolls), but not skill checks. We call it "botching," and it happens fairly often. Our enemies have that same chance as well, so occasionally it does work out in our favor. . .but usually not.

He rolls a percentile, 50% chance to injure yourself, 50% chance to injure an ally (if one is near enough). He then has the player make a new attack roll, which could potentially be a critical (in which case we all cringe).

One of the funniest things resulting from this was when we were fighting something. . . which I cannot seem to recall, and we had an NPC attack dog with our party (actually a lone surviving wolf from a huge pack that had been magically enhanced by enemies at one point, but we had captured and retrained. He was huge and glowed in the dark). Our tank botched his 2nd iterative, out of a total of 2 attacks, and hit "Puppy." Fortunately he had Cleave, however, so was able to actually land a killing blow on the enemy!

cakellene

2014-04-01, 05:42 PM

If a DM wants to play with crit fumble rules, I find a new group.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-01, 07:45 PM

If a DM wants to play with crit fumble rules, I find a new group.

I'm currently in a game and only found out in the third session that the DM has players fall prone when rolling a natural 1 on a reflex save or attack roll.

I'm a sorcerer so yeah, I don't roll d20's all that much but all the new players to the game... They are martial types :(.

If I knew of this houserule before going into the game I would have never joined.I'm only sticking around now because I don't want all the new players to get the wrong impression with D&D/Pathfinder.

What's worse is that I don't think the DM knows any rules for the game and just makes up stuff on the fly... I hate it when I get forced to be a rule lawyer to save my team from being destroyed by a DM who doesn't understand his random "houserules" is one of the biggest reasons our group of 5 level 2 characters can't take out 2 CR 1 creatures...

HaikenEdge

2014-04-01, 07:49 PM

I'm currently in a game and only found out in the third session that the DM has players fall prone when rolling a natural 1 on a reflex save or attack roll.

I'm a sorcerer so yeah, I don't roll d20's all that much but all the new players to the game... They are martial types :(.

If I knew of this houserule before going into the game I would have never joined.I'm only sticking around now because I don't want all the new players to get the wrong impression with D&D/Pathfinder.

What's worse is that I don't think the DM knows any rules for the game and just makes up stuff on the fly... I hate it when I get forced to be a rule lawyer to save my team from being destroyed by a DM who doesn't understand his random "houserules" is one of the biggest reasons our group of 5 level 2 characters can't take out 2 CR 1 creatures...

I get that certain house rules are necessary, dependent on the game and the power level (for example, making monks proficient with unarmed strikes), but I'm in the school that believes any campaign that has a bunch of house rules attached to it is indicative of a DM who has a lack of system mastery, if not a lack of understanding of the system.

What annoys me more is when a DM doesn't state what houserules are in play before the game begins; how am I supposed to read a DM's mind?

Kazudo

2014-04-01, 07:52 PM

What annoys me more is when a DM doesn't state what houserules are in play before the game begins; how am I supposed to read a DM's mind?

This is typically indicative of a DM who isn't solid on the rules and who inadvertently synthesizes houserules and actual rules in his mind, blurring the difference until he's unaware of what is, in fact, a house rule.

Any horror stories about houserules with which DMs have bamboozled you?

HaikenEdge

2014-04-01, 08:24 PM

Besides the critical failures previously mentioned that came off a table, use of a spell point system that had spells cost 0.5-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 spell points (basically, spell point cost equal to spell level), a miss and counterattack system that severely punished melee combatants since ranged attackers were too far away to be counterattacked and spellcasters didn't even bother rolling attack rolls, a stamina system with distinct but undefined stamina costs for every action (leading to a lot of hand-waving) that only applied to melee combatants... And that's just one single DM.

I've had DMs who, after I joined and created my character, told me that the DM would be purchasing my gear, as opposed to myself. There're a bunch of weird house rules floating around that I can't remember, but, it seems to me that a lot of DMs like to house rule and then not mention them; I sometimes wonder if they even realize they're house ruling, or if that's the only system they know, because the DMs who taught them the game used those same house rules too.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-01, 08:34 PM

I've had DMs who, after I joined and created my character, told me that the DM would be purchasing my gear, as opposed to myself. There're a bunch of weird house rules floating around that I can't remember, but, it seems to me that a lot of DMs like to house rule and then not mention them; I sometimes wonder if they even realize they're house ruling, or if that's the only system they know, because the DMs who taught them the game used those same house rules too.

I have a DM who purchased gear for the group... And gave everyone horrible items that they didn't want. The rogue wanted to duel wield short swords and was given a great club...

But yeah I think a lot houserule things and get so full of themselves that they forget they are house rulling in the first place.

pwykersotz

2014-04-01, 09:07 PM

I'm currently in a game and only found out in the third session that the DM has players fall prone when rolling a natural 1 on a reflex save or attack roll.

I'm a sorcerer so yeah, I don't roll d20's all that much but all the new players to the game... They are martial types :(.

If I knew of this houserule before going into the game I would have never joined.I'm only sticking around now because I don't want all the new players to get the wrong impression with D&D/Pathfinder.

What's worse is that I don't think the DM knows any rules for the game and just makes up stuff on the fly... I hate it when I get forced to be a rule lawyer to save my team from being destroyed by a DM who doesn't understand his random "houserules" is one of the biggest reasons our group of 5 level 2 characters can't take out 2 CR 1 creatures...

See, if you said you'd leave the game because of his slew of bad rules, that's one thing. Leaving because of one mildly inconvenient rule that doesn't affect you? That's a little oversensitive. Falling prone on a crit fail for two types of saves is one of the tamest fumble rules I've ever read. :smallconfused:

I get the feeling that most of these posts hating on crit fails are carrying a lot of baggage that may be unrelated on the whole. Probably mostly related to DM's who don't listen to player feedback. On the other side, I have asked players to leave who are unwilling to bend on anything and throw hissy fits about playing exactly their way and no other. They kill fun just as fast as uncompromising DM's.

One Step Two

2014-04-01, 09:10 PM

We use critical fumble rules in our group, but they don't go too insane.

They're the straight Fumble variant from the DMG (page 28), if you roll a nat 1 on attack roll, DC 10 reflex save or you need to spend a move action to "ready" yourself. Same goes for every class, it doesn't affect spell-casters as much, obviously, but if they fail on a touch attack, they also lose the charge on a nat 1.

We use it because we also use the instant kill variant found in the same sidebar, and we figure that makes it fair. There is no chance of injuring yourself or anyone else, beyond a potential AoO.

eggynack

2014-04-01, 09:14 PM

See, if you said you'd leave the game because of his slew of bad rules, that's one thing. Leaving because of one mildly inconvenient rule that doesn't affect you? That's a little oversensitive. Falling prone on a crit fail for two types of saves is one of the tamest fumble rules I've ever read. :smallconfused:

I think the issue is that the latter is indicative of the former. You can learn a lot about the way someone does the big things by the way they do the little things, and if the way they do the little things is sufficiently problematic, then it's not unfair to assume that the way they do the big things is similarly problematic. This is one of those small things that can indicate a lot of big things, like a poor understanding of mechanics and balance, or a lack of care about those two things.

atomicwaffle

2014-04-01, 09:20 PM

This is typically indicative of a DM who isn't solid on the rules and who inadvertently synthesizes houserules and actual rules in his mind, blurring the difference until he's unaware of what is, in fact, a house rule.

Any horror stories about houserules with which DMs have bamboozled you?

Knowledge Arcana doesn't work on things that don't exist in the game. I walked into a ship's brig looking for survivors, and triggered PROXIMITY EXPLOSIVE RUNES. The reflex DC was 26, and i made 27 (thank you Luck domain and True Believer). I had 8 HP left. The CLAYMORE MINES tore the ship's crew and passengers (who were bound and gagged) to shreds as i escape a burning ship. The blood and carnage summoned an undead Kraken. I had just turned level 9. It was my character's birthday that day.

delenn

2014-04-01, 10:06 PM

As with pretty much everything else that is even slightly controversial about D&D rules, it's important to talk about how to handle critical fails with the group first. Be upfront about house rules, and be open to criticism and change if something isn't working or making the game a chore.

My group does use crit fails, but sparingly and without any set of defined rules - it's more up to the DM, the context of what's happening, and whether or not the DM can come up with a fumble on the fly that makes sense for the character and actually enhances the RP. Did the PC roll a 1 attempting something that's outside of their base skill set (as in, something they're likely to suck at anyway)? Are there extenuating circumstances that would make it more difficult for a PC to perform an action they're usually very good at?

Everyone screws up sometimes, and I like playing in games where that's a real, if highly unlikely, possibility, as long as the consequences make sense, and are rare and believable. That's not how everyone likes to play, and I'm cool with that - I wouldn't mind a game where crit fails don't happen, but in the right hands, they can add some fun and depth to an encounter (and I'm not just talking about slapstick - sometimes a critical fail can be so bad that it works in a PC's favor, just not in the way they planned, or the embarrassment of failure can be used to motivate them further).

But like I said, that's how my group works, and while there are not hard-and-fast rules, so far it has worked for us. That doesn't mean it necessarily works for anyone else, but I think it's silly to categorically dismiss the whole concept just because it doesn't fit with your play style. Some people like them, others don't.

Raezeman

2014-04-02, 03:13 AM

Any time you have persistant negative effects, it's gameplay impact on Players is 10000x worse even if you 'apply it fairly to NPCs and Monsters". That cheetah that hit his friend cheetah is by design an encounter that is supposed to be killed and never have any more time in the game. The Dire Badger sticks around and has to face the long term consequences of the fumble. Regeneration is a freak'n lv7 (9th for druid, wich may be applicable since it's the context of an animal companion) spell, it's easier to raise it from the dead then it is to fix that fumble. Saying it's fair cuz it applies to the NPCs to is laughably poor logic.

it's a 6th level spell for a healer, so it costed only 770 goldpieces which isn't a lot for a 6th level character. If they were level 1 it would have been worse yes, but then i probably would have make them do a little side quest to get the spell or something, but my player got it fixed after only one additional encounter and trust me when i say that the dire badger having only 1 claw and a bite didn't make a difference in the overall power of the group.
And i think people are seriously exaggerating on how bad a critical fumble is. You seem to be under the impression that rolling a one means character death. But unless your DM is insane, it's not really that bad. in most cases with me it just means you lose the rest of your attacks in a full round action, or you might get an attack of opportunity because you have to stand up from prone or pick up or weapon or something similar, no real difference from rolling low a second time or having the opponent crit you. One of my players actually said that i was being too nice on how i rule the effect of a critical fumble.
What i would think to be way more annoying that critical fumbles is when you have high enough level encounters that the enemy spellcasters start having access to save-or-die spells, so that it's possible that the fight starts with
-DM: this guy casts something, you have a fortitude save
-Player1: darn, that's my worst save *rolls low*
-Player2: i do spellcraft check to see if i recognise the spell *rolls high*
-DM: you recognise the spell as "finger of death" and see your buddy fall to the floor. He's not moving anymore.
This would be totally by the rules and make you go 'ah well, resurrection please?', but dropping your sword due to a natural 1 would make you go "o hell no, i'm leaving this group because that's totally unfair"? I know it can suck to have a bad evening filled with bad rolls, but still...

eggynack

2014-04-02, 03:47 AM

And i think people are seriously exaggerating on how bad a critical fumble is. You seem to be under the impression that rolling a one means character death. But unless your DM is insane, it's not really that bad. in most cases with me it just means you lose the rest of your attacks in a full round action, or you might get an attack of opportunity because you have to stand up from prone or pick up or weapon or something similar, no real difference from rolling low a second time or having the opponent crit you. One of my players actually said that i was being too nice on how i rule the effect of a critical fumble.
Critical fumble rules, at least when added to standard D&D 3.5, are bad. How bad they are depends entirely on the degree to which they have an actual impact on the game. So, constant insta-death critical fumble rules are extremely bad, and the rule you've presented is pretty bad, and the rule I presented, with zero mechanical impact on the game, is value neutral in terms of badness. Not all critical fumble rules are equally bad, but they're still generally bad.

What i would think to be way more annoying that critical fumbles is when you have high enough level encounters that the enemy spellcasters start having access to save-or-die spells, so that it's possible that the fight starts with
-DM: this guy casts something, you have a fortitude save
-Player1: darn, that's my worst save *rolls low*
-Player2: i do spellcraft check to see if i recognise the spell *rolls high*
-DM: you recognise the spell as "finger of death" and see your buddy fall to the floor. He's not moving anymore.
This would be totally by the rules and make you go 'ah well, resurrection please?', but dropping your sword due to a natural 1 would make you go "o hell no, i'm leaving this group because that's totally unfair"? I know it can suck to have a bad evening filled with bad rolls, but still...
I think there are two reasons for this. First, SoD's are a component of the actual rules of the game, so they're already a factor in balance problems. You're saying, "Hey, here's this problematic game element which increases variance and reduces balance. Let's have more of those." It's just going the wrong direction. Second, the majority of SoD's have some form of protection or defense, and often more than one. That character could boost their fortitude save somehow, or go all the way with death ward. Critical fumble rules, however, tend to have no defense. In most cases, you just roll bad, and then you're screwed in some fashion. There are some good solutions to that, but they're rarely employed to my knowledge.

Jon_Dahl

2014-04-02, 04:20 AM

I love fumbles!

I want all this stuff in my games:
Professional Boxer punches himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdFP-R_LYSM)
Trained fencer headbutts and hurts himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXDY8bmnSck)
The very top notch martial artist breaks his leg (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/mma/anderson-silva-leg-break-watch-2969237)
Veteran archer shoot himself and dies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2609345.stm)

This is the kind of gaming I like.

Raezeman

2014-04-02, 04:33 AM

*everything he said*
You have some really good points. Still, the rules of critical fumbles i've followed (both as DM and player) have never made a real negative impact on the game. So either most DMs that use it are much nastier on the fumble checks than me or my DM, or people that are so strongly against it need not to get so upset when something bad happens to their character, or some day i'll be back with an apology and an admittance that i've been an idiot after a bad placed critical fumble royally screws one of my characters. But i still stand by that when a natural 1 is comfirmed with a bad roll, dropping a weapon, losing the rest of your multiple attacks, or in case of a very bad confirm roll hitting an ally or falling prone are not that bad of a rule, of course when combined with when a natural 1 is confirmed with a good roll results in a "it's just a miss, go on with your turn" or just a failed save or whatever you apply the critical fumble to.

fallensavior

2014-04-02, 05:12 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 05:39 AM

Accidents happen.

You may not want them in your fantasy world, but they exist in mine

https://www.osha.gov/dep/fatcat/fy14_federal-state_summaries.pdf

Those are just the worst case scenario natural 1's.

That being said, the balance issue is a concern. In my games I have Natural 20s auto confirm crits (extanded ranges still roll to confirm), and fumbles are resolved after you finish your other attacks...and I'm considering adding rolling to confirm fumbles and maybe even casters rolling DC vs save.

Take it from someone in the safety business (I do audits in contractors every so often)... The main reason for accidents is because of personal stupidity. Sure accidents happen but it is usually because someone did something stupid like not wear PPE or they jumped down into a trench without it being secure and things like that.

This is equivalent to a person in D&D not checking for traps or for running around the corner and finding a dragon waiting for them NOT a 5% chance of fumbling with an attack roll.

Besides D&D is a fantasy game and punishing players 5% of the time beyond what the game was designed to do is pretty messed up. The game was designed that a 1 is a miss and doing anything else that has a mechanical effect is playing dirty.

Like the DM I talked about before (who didn't tell us before hand that this would happen) knocks you prone if you roll a 1.

The true penalty of prone.. +4 AC versus ranged attacks, -4 AC versus melee (more melee baddies than ranged btw and the melee guys get into melee range more often sooo), provoke AoO for standing up, standing up is a move action, AoO is against your AC -4 (remember from before), you take a -4 to your attack rolls if do attack while prone and no one has a crossbow and everyone has stuff the DM gave them instead of letting the players pick it out.

Also from before, it may not effect me directly right now but it gets sickening when I see new players get frustrated with the so called rules and get slaughtered by creatures that should be a walk in the park. Every time the DM makes up a house rule on the spot (for the sake of "dramatics" ) I have to explain to the new players how it is a houserule.

I used Detect Magic and Spell Craft to determine the effects of an item (Nat 20 roll, not abcrit but I rolled damn well)... He said I can't tell. I figured they must be pretty powerful...

They were level 1 effects on some shoes (homebrewed) that when I put them on made me cast two of my spells per day which the shoes modified... My spells were gone AND my shoes were spent since they were 1/day effects.

So yeah his knowledge of the game is the reason why he homebrewed things.

Outside of the lack of rule knowledge he would make a DM (he has the drive) except he is prone to having DMNPCs do all the heavy work and always "saves" the party usually due to his house rules of 1's knocking people prone and other weird things... Funny enough the DMNPCs and monsters never roll a 1.

TuggyNE

2014-04-02, 05:52 AM

You seem to be under the impression that rolling a one means character death. But unless your DM is insane, it's not really that bad.

Yeeeessss. Let's just say that, given the usage of crit fumbles in a game, the probability of an insane DM is considerably higher than the prior. It's, how you say, a red flag. A bad sign.

What i would think to be way more annoying that critical fumbles is when you have high enough level encounters that the enemy spellcasters start having access to save-or-die spells

That is indeed annoying, and many of us who complain about crit fumbles also complain about SoDs. However, there is no very obvious way to remove them; if you allow PCs to use them, but soft-ban them for NPC use, it feels weirdly padded, and if you ban the spells entirely it's puzzling that no such abilities exist — are wizards really incapable of devising a spell that turns an enemy into a frog?

In the case of crit fumbles, however, there is a perfectly straightforward fix — don't use them — that also happens to be the default. Recommending this simple fix is thus quite consistent; would that we could recommend such simple fixes for all such game design problems.

Arbane

2014-04-02, 06:14 AM

I've only heard of one case where having fumble rules made for a better game: Sameo (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo).

Mando Knight

2014-04-02, 10:07 AM

Accidents happen.

You may not want them in your fantasy world, but they exist in mine

https://www.osha.gov/dep/fatcat/fy14_federal-state_summaries.pdf

Those are just the worst case scenario natural 1's.

If that's "worst case scenario natural 1s" then the table for critical fails has to be huge, with death only on one or two entries. That's maybe five reported accidental deaths per day in a country with a work force in the millions.

Big Fau

2014-04-02, 10:48 AM

If that's "worst case scenario natural 1s" then the table for critical fails has to be huge, with death only on one or two entries. That's maybe five reported accidental deaths per day in a country with a work force in the millions.

That's also a lot less than 5% of the working population being represented. The idea that a natural 1 could lead to anything on that list is absurd in sheer frequency alone.

PaucaTerrorem

2014-04-02, 11:45 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 11:56 AM

I like my DM's approach. If you roll a 1 you failure confirm with another roll. Miss on an attack? Roll just like it was a Nat 20 and if you still miss THEN you crit fail. If you hit on the confirm it's just a miss.

That is still more rolling just to tell the player they suck even though they are a fantasy character bent on saving/destroying/living in a fantasy world.

Bad way to do business. Plus this game is!'t a simulation game.

Question... How many times when Legolas fired an arrow did he fall on his face, break his bow, or shoot an ally?

pwykersotz

2014-04-02, 01:06 PM

That is still more rolling just to tell the player they suck even though they are a fantasy character bent on saving/destroying/living in a fantasy world.

Bad way to do business. Plus this game is!'t a simulation game.

Question... How many times when Legolas fired an arrow did he fall on his face, break his bow, or shoot an ally?

Cinematic fantasy can be very different from other kinds of fantasy. Not everyone plays that game.

I have one player who has gamed for 15+ years. I asked him yesterday if he would like me to tone down/remove crit fails and successes. His response was "No way, that takes away so much awesomeness!" Word for word. He's not dumb, he's not bad at optimizing, he's just a gambler at heart. He loves the wild swings of luck and the interesting things that ensue. The forced adaptation of both player and DM in extreme circumstances.

Crit fails are not a bad system. They are not bad balance unless you fail to add crit success in equal measure. They're just more swingy. A lot of people don't like that. Some do.

Big Fau

2014-04-02, 01:26 PM

Crit fails are not a bad system. They are not bad balance unless you fail to add crit success in equal measure. They're just more swingy. A lot of people don't like that. Some do.

Again, crit fails are punishing the classes that need the most help. Rangers who use TWFing are effectively suicidal because of how often they will roll a 1.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 01:30 PM

Cinematic fantasy can be very different from other kinds of fantasy. Not everyone plays that game.

I have one player who has gamed for 15+ years. I asked him yesterday if he would like me to tone down/remove crit fails and successes. His response was "No way, that takes away so much awesomeness!" Word for word. He's not dumb, he's not bad at optimizing, he's just a gambler at heart. He loves the wild swings of luck and the interesting things that ensue. The forced adaptation of both player and DM in extreme circumstances.

Crit fails are not a bad system. They are not bad balance unless you fail to add crit success in equal measure. They're just more swingy. A lot of people don't like that. Some do.

No. Crit fails are a bad system, just some people may like or are ok with a bad system.

Which is fine if that's what they like. But giving such a large chance to utterly fail at something is bad design. 5% is a higher number than you think.

And the game already has a critical fail/fumble in it. It is called missing.

A system that severly punishes players for something out of their control, that they have to do, is pretty backwards. That doesn't mean people won't like it or aren't used to playing any other way but it doesn't change the fact that people will be punished severely for playing the game.

It is like if I put a shocker button on Jepordy and 5% of the time someone got 50,000 volts just for pushing the button. Why punish them for pushing the button since the point of the game is to push the button to be able to do something? The normal failure for rolling a 1 would be that they missed the button. But with critical fumbles it means they get the 50,000 volts.

But hey some people might like to participate in that game... It would be more dramatic after all.

PaucaTerrorem

2014-04-02, 01:35 PM

pwykersotz

2014-04-02, 01:36 PM

No. Crit fails are a bad system, just some people may like or are ok with a bad system.

Which is fine if that's what they like. But giving such a large chance to utterly fail at something is bad design. 5% is a higher number than you think.

And the game already has a critical fail/fumble in it. It is called missing.

A system that severly punishes players for something out of their control, that they have to do, is pretty backwards. That doesn't mean people won't like it or aren't used to playing any other way but it doesn't change the fact that people will be punished severely for playing the game.

It is like if I put a shocker button on Jepordy and 5% of the time someone got 50,000 volts just for pushing the button. Why punish them for pushing the button since the point of the game is to push the button to be able to do something? The normal failure for rolling a 1 would be that they missed the button. But with critical fumbles it means they get the 50,000 volts.

But hey some people might like to participate in that game... It would be more dramatic after all.

I never said Crit fails as a lone addition were not a bad system. I said
They are not bad balance unless you fail to add crit success in equal measure.

You have ignored half my point.

Edit: Added 'not'. I can type words, I swear!

Flickerdart

2014-04-02, 01:47 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 02:04 PM

I've seen loads of buses, and none of them have done that.

That just means they critically failed their attack roll against you.

eggynack

2014-04-02, 02:10 PM

Because horrible misfortunes that are out of peoples control happen all the time. It's called life. That bus that just drove past could(huge hypothetical coming) blow the tires on its right side causing a spin-out that crashes it into a day care center killing everyone. Day care didn't fail its save, bus rolled 1's.
Fair enough. Let's talk percentages. What percent of all six second segments of bus driving do you think contain horrible accidents? Do you happen to think that such an accident, or indeed, some different form of accident, occurs every 40 minutes of driving? Cause that's where most critical fumble rules for bus driving would put the number, and it's actually lower for the fighter, coming about once every 10 minutes for our fighter with four iteratives. It just seems somewhat ridiculous, and the numbers get even worse if the driver/fighter would "miss" on something above a one.

pwykersotz

2014-04-02, 02:12 PM

That just means they critically failed their attack roll against you.

Alternately, critically failed check on Knowledge: Crashing Bus that cause you to fail to identify the situation. :smalltongue:

pwykersotz

2014-04-02, 02:16 PM

Fair enough. Let's talk percentages. What percent of all six second segments of bus driving do you think contain horrible accidents? Do you happen to think that such an accident, or indeed, some different form of accident, occurs every 40 minutes of driving? Cause that's where most critical fumble rules for bus driving would put the number, and it's actually lower for the fighter, coming about once every 10 minutes for our fighter with four iteratives. It just seems somewhat ridiculous, and the numbers get even worse if the driver/fighter would "miss" on something above a one.

You don't take 10 while driving? The GM in the sky might force a check if a particularly special situation occurs I guess...

But yeah, I use them, I like them(sometimes), and I'll be the first one to say that there's a disproportionate level of extremes. But that's kinda the d20 system in a nutshell.

hemming

2014-04-02, 02:20 PM

Fair enough. Let's talk percentages. What percent of all six second segments of bus driving do you think contain horrible accidents? Do you happen to think that such an accident, or indeed, some different form of accident, occurs every 40 minutes of driving? Cause that's where most critical fumble rules for bus driving would put the number, and it's actually lower for the fighter, coming about once every 10 minutes for our fighter with four iteratives. It just seems somewhat ridiculous, and the numbers get even worse if the driver/fighter would "miss" on something above a one.

The percentage increases dramatically when driving a bus through combat

eggynack

2014-04-02, 02:25 PM

The percentage increases dramatically when driving a bus through combat
I think this aspect of the thing might be somewhat disconnected from the idea of a critical fumble, as I'm not even sure what a bus critical fumble really is in the general sense, or how it connects to a bus based miss. As a final note on that point at least, this issue you've noted is already something of a criticism of normal critical fumble rules, as they tend to not take into account how easy or difficult to situation is. Just as the chances of our swordmaster fumbling when fighting a random rube is the same as his chances when fighting an army, so too must the chances for our bus driver hold between a pleasant valley road and a war zone. Anyway, my point is mostly the other thing. The frequency of fumbles seems quite high for our noble sword-god.

hemming

2014-04-02, 02:31 PM

Yeah - I agree on both counts

Appealing to IRL situations clouds the matter and 5% is an awfully high chance for something really bad happening to a guy who swings a sword 20 times

That being said - with low penalties (weapon fumble, etc) and a confirmation chance, I actually like having consequences to really bad luck as a player - and I really see no evidence that it is "a bad system," outside of personal preference

The versions of getting knocked prone or hurting/killing yourself - those I am not on board with

Kazudo

2014-04-02, 02:34 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 02:48 PM

Then perhaps the answer would be to have a sliding scale of critical failure. If it's based on Base Attack Bonus and only shows up on attack rolls, that may mean something. Early on, for example, spellcasters have this problem where their save DCs are actually attainable, so a lot of the wizard's repertoire of spells suddenly became able to be nullified by a single dice roll on the enemy's part. It's also not difficult to see a 20th level wizard doing something dumb with a sword, since that's not his primary thing.

If Critical Failure was more dependent on BAB, with the worst things (accidentally striking an ally, sword flinging, etc) happening only at low BAB numbers, and less things (grip slips a bit, take a -2 to your next iterative attack) is pretty much the worst thing to happen at high BAB numbers.

What would one think about that as a compromise, should one be attempting to compromise with a DM who insists on using it?

Actually the answer is to let the player decide what happens.

Let's see how many players put severe penalties to themselves for rolling a 1 and how many just says they miss.

This way some players can play with critical fumbles when others are not. Don't think it is fair? Tough luck no one is forcing you to play with critical fumbles but the option IS there if that is your play style. Fluff it as your allies just aren't as clumsy or don't have your bad luck.

Vizzerdrix

2014-04-02, 02:55 PM

Have any of you done the same thing? What kind of shenanigans ensued! How have other groups handled this interesting and lively house rule?

Lets see. A few things that happened to me with crit fail rules.

I crit failed once and managed to destroy a +5 weapon. At level 3. Totally blew through its hardness and HP and snapped it in half. I still have no idea how I pulled that off with a 16 str.

Same game. Nat 1 on a jump check got my neck broken. I tried to hop up onto the sidewalk, slipped and got myself run over by a wagon. On an empty street no less. I had no idea wagons had such high hide and move silently ranks.

Different game, The party fighter crit failed and was able to land a killing blow on me (from 15 feet away with a great axe). With a melee attack. But that's okay. My contingency spells went off and whipped out the rest of the party. :smallsmile:

Yup. Ever since my group adopted crit fails I refuse to play anything that needs to roll a D20. Lots of save or die casters and magic missiles from now on.

pwykersotz

2014-04-02, 03:01 PM

Actually the answer is to let the player decide what happens.

Let's see how many players put severe penalties to themselves for rolling a 1 and how many just says they miss.

This way some players can play with critical fumbles when others are not. Don't think it is fair? Tough luck no one is forcing you to play with critical fumbles but the option IS there if that is your play style. Fluff it as your allies just aren't as clumsy or don't have your bad luck.

Hmm...I can think of a number of games where that would be fun...good idea. :smallsmile:

Of course, your follow up statement indicates it's not an idea so much as mockery. Still, it's valid. Remember the corollary...no crit fails means no crit successes. No hidden passage with mounds of treasure for that Nat 20 spot check or anything else. In fact, I'd even play where a crit fail wasn't a miss, if a crit success did no extra damage.

All this is is equal risk versus reward.

P.S. - Interesting homebrew in your sig. Very intriguing. :smallsmile:

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 03:02 PM

I crit failed once and managed to destroy a +5 weapon. At level 3. Totally blew through its hardness and HP and snapped it in half. I still have no idea how I pulled that off with a 16 str.

Well probably the same way the universe crit failed and gave you the +5 weapon to begin with ? :p

Hmm...I can think of a number of games where that would be fun...good idea. :smallsmile:

Of course, your follow up statement indicates it's not an idea so much as mockery. Still, it's valid. Remember the corollary...no crit fails means no crit successes. No hidden passage with mounds of treasure for that Nat 20 spot check or anything else. In fact, I'd even play where a crit fail wasn't a miss, if a crit success did no extra damage.

All this is is equal risk versus reward.

Nope I was being serious. And there can still be crit successes just only if the player wants to use them at the time the d20 lands on 20.

You do know that normal rules there are no crit fails or crit successes for skill checks? It only applies on this like attack rolls and saves.

Skill checks (and I think all ability checks such as initiative) are immune from critical.

Vizzerdrix

2014-04-02, 03:05 PM

Well probably the same way the universe crit failed and gave you the +5 weapon to begin with ? :p

The DMGF gave it to me for the fight bud.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 03:09 PM

The DMGF gave it to me for the fight bud.

... I was going to ask why the GM's girlfriend was able to give a 3rd level player a +5 sword but I think that would make it seem like I wasn't making a joke about the situation... So I'll leave with this.

I'm not your buddy, guy!

pwykersotz

2014-04-02, 03:09 PM

Well probably the same way the universe crit failed and gave you the +5 weapon to begin with ? :p

Nope I was being serious. And there can still be crit successes just only if the player wants to use them at the time the d20 lands on 20.

You do know that normal rules there are no crit fails or crit successes for skill checks? It only applies on this like attack rolls and saves.

Skill checks (and I think all ability checks such as initiative) are immune from critical.

Oh yes. I'm quite well versed in the actual rules of the game. Two of my groups still prefer to use them.

And no, if you can take all the good separately from all the bad, there's no balance. I'd have it be chosen at the beginning of each session.

hemming

2014-04-02, 03:11 PM

Actually the answer is to let the player decide what happens.

Let's see how many players put severe penalties to themselves for rolling a 1 and how many just says they miss.

This way some players can play with critical fumbles when others are not. Don't think it is fair? Tough luck no one is forcing you to play with critical fumbles but the option IS there if that is your play style. Fluff it as your allies just aren't as clumsy or don't have your bad luck.

Eh - Players in the same game should follow common rules. If I could choose those rules as a player, then I would include critical fumbles for all. But no, I'm not going to take a penalty other players are not faced with when they have the same luck of the dice roll that I do. I'm pretty easy going - lack of crit fumbles doesn't ruin the game for me (although I do think it makes it a little less interesting).

If it is truly a "game ruining" experience for a player, then they should probably find a new game that tailors to them. That still doesn't make it a bad system in all instances or make a very likely chance of critical failure if using confirmation.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 03:19 PM

Oh yes. I'm quite well versed in the actual rules of the game. Two of my groups still prefer to use them.

And no, if you can take all the good separately from all the bad, there's no balance. I'd have it be chosen at the beginning of each session.

You are talking about 3.P, what is this balance in which you speak of?

Eh - Players in the same game should follow common rules. If I could choose those rules as a player, then I would include critical fumbles for all. But no, I'm not going to take a penalty other players are not faced with when they have the same luck of the dice roll that I do. I'm pretty easy going - lack of crit fumbles doesn't ruin the game for me (although I do think it makes it a little less interesting).

If it is truly a "game ruining" experience for a player, then they should probably find a new game that tailors to them. That still doesn't make it a bad system in all instances or make a very likely chance of critical failure if using confirmation.

They are playing under the same rules.

Each person can easily decide to do something bad to themselves when they critical fail an attack roll and each person may apply critical damage when they critical succeed on an attack.

How is that not people playing g the same rules?

It is each players choice to do so. Critical fail is still a miss and critical hit is still a hit. Beyond that is up to the player.

pwykersotz

2014-04-02, 03:20 PM

You are talking about 3.P, what is this balance in which you speak of?

Fair point. :smalltongue:

hemming

2014-04-02, 03:35 PM

They are playing under the same rules.

Each person can easily decide to do something bad to themselves when they critical fail an attack roll and each person may apply critical damage when they critical succeed on an attack.

How is that not people playing g the same rules?

It is each players choice to do so. Critical fail is still a miss and critical hit is still a hit. Beyond that is up to the player.

If the rule is "the player gets to decide the rule" - then, technically, they are all playing by the same rules. But, to iterate, I'm not really interested in such a game personally

Again - eh, doesn't really address the issue of a 'bad system,' just one that you don't want to play with personally. Being able to choose that a critical fumble need not apply is certainly one way to get around it

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-02, 03:52 PM

If the rule is "the player gets to decide the rule" - then, technically, they are all playing by the same rules. But, to iterate, I'm not really interested in such a game personally

Again - eh, doesn't really address the issue of a 'bad system,' just one that you don't want to play with personally. Being able to choose that a critical fumble need not apply is certainly one way to get around it

No. The critical fumble happens as rules as written. You just fail the roll. That's it.

If a player wants to tack on an additional penalty for whatever reason then so be it.

If a player rolls a 20, they auto hit or succeed. That player if they want may choose not to do their critical damage.

So we keep RAW but allow players the choice to put in their own touch on things. If when you roll a 1 you think you should secerly fumble that badly... Then put in on yourself and critical fumble.

But if you don't like that game play or don't like being sevely handicapped due to something that happens 5% of the time... You don't have to use that rule.

I decided to play 3.P (whichever one) I shouldn't be forced to play with a system that is not only bad mechanically but it secely punishes me for choosing to play the game... And will always secely punish me for playing the game and not for my own actions or the actions of others within the game.

Again it is like a game of jepordy where 5% of the time the players hit the button and they get 50,000 volts for hitting the button instead of just missing the button.

Seerow

2014-04-02, 03:55 PM

I like my DM's approach. If you roll a 1 you failure confirm with another roll. Miss on an attack? Roll just like it was a Nat 20 and if you still miss THEN you crit fail. If you hit on the confirm it's just a miss.

A lot of people have mentioned liking this.

I don't understand. Why does my enemy having a higher AC make me more likely to hit my ally, or stab myself in the foot? Make me less likely to hit them, sure. More likely to harm myself? Ludicrous. Yet it has been repeatedly trotted out, at least 4 or 5 times in this thread, as though it is a completely reasonable and logical solution.

Kazudo

2014-04-02, 03:57 PM

A lot of people have mentioned liking this.

I don't understand. Why does my enemy having a higher AC make me more likely to hit my ally, or stab myself in the foot? Make me less likely to hit them, sure. More likely to harm myself? Ludicrous. Yet it has been repeatedly trotted out, at least 4 or 5 times in this thread, as though it is a completely reasonable and logical solution.

I think you're failing to divorce a die roll and a total. We're talking about a nat 1 on the die roll followed by another nat 1 on the die roll. Your enemy's AC has no bearing on something like that.

EDIT: And the "confirm crit failure" has nothing to do with the enemy's AC either. It's actually just to see if you get another nat 1. My knowledge of probability's probably stumbling blind drunk again, but I think it would be safe to say that 1/400 combat maneuvers could end in personal injury if not just a penalty to the next iterative attack.

Seerow

2014-04-02, 04:02 PM

I think you're failing to divorce a die roll and a total. We're talking about a nat 1 on the die roll followed by another nat 1 on the die roll. Your enemy's AC has no bearing on something like that.

EDIT: And the "confirm crit failure" has nothing to do with the enemy's AC either. It's actually just to see if you get another nat 1. My knowledge of probability's probably stumbling blind drunk again, but I think it would be safe to say that 1/400 combat maneuvers could end in personal injury if not just a penalty to the next iterative attack.

I like my DM's approach. If you roll a 1 you failure confirm with another roll. Miss on an attack? Roll just like it was a Nat 20 and if you still miss THEN you crit fail. If you hit on the confirm it's just a miss.

What part of that even remotely implies it's talking about only rolling a second natural 1? It pretty clearly says that you roll your attack roll again, and crit fail if you miss. What on earth are you rolling to hit if not the enemy's AC again?

And if you want I can go through the thread and find other references to similar ideas. Relatively few people have gone with roll back to back 1's (I can only presume because a 1/400 chance is too little for them, and they need to get their three stooges on).

Kazudo

2014-04-02, 04:06 PM

What part of that even remotely implies it's talking about only rolling a second natural 1? It pretty clearly says that you roll your attack roll again, and crit fail if you miss. What on earth are you rolling to hit if not the enemy's AC again?

And if you want I can go through the thread and find other references to similar ideas. Relatively few people have gone with roll back to back 1's (I can only presume because a 1/400 chance is too little for them, and they need to get their three stooges on).

No, it's worse than that. I was reading their posts wrong. Apologies.

hemming

2014-04-02, 04:06 PM

Kazudo

2014-04-02, 04:10 PM

Needless to say, I think that if one is going to give players the option whether they take a severe penalty or not, it ruins having the house rule in place to begin with. It's like saying "Wizards, do you even want to deal with spells per day?" or "Hey fighters, why not just automatically hit anyway?" Of COURSE players are going to take the option that makes them win, save for a few individuals.

Hecuba

2014-04-02, 04:14 PM

No. Crit fails are a bad system, just some people may like or are ok with a bad system.

Which is fine if that's what they like. But giving such a large chance to utterly fail at something is bad design. 5% is a higher number than you think.

Which entirely ignores that many of the Critical failure house rules use things like confirmation or fumble tables, resulting in a much lower rate of failure than 5%.
And that they can often involve much less extreme penalties than the "damage yourself" or "accidentally crit the party member next to you" that always seem to come up when this discussion surfaces.

Critical failure rules, at their core, are an avenue to increase the role of chance in the game.
Considering that there are entire sectors of game design that focus on games of chance, I find it hard to buy that chance inherently equals a "bad system."

Critical failure rules are certainly inordinately difficult to implement well, especially for 3e/d20 chassis (where things like significant disparities in roll frequency make the difficulties more pronounced).
That does not make them bad wrong fun: it merely makes them very hard to do well.

The best system I have played with it involved:

Only the first roll of a full attack (and similar attacks) counted
Added a roll for casters
Counted skill rolls/checks
No Confirmation roll
Less severe effects for both crit and fail results, with the specific effect drawn from a custom deck.

No characters ever died as a result, despite 2 years of play at 1 session a week.

The key here is the work involved: the DM had made two 54 card decks- one for fails, one for successes.
Each card had 3 effects - one for physical attacks, one for spell/sla/supernatural, one for skills/other.

This means the DM effectively wrote 324 different combat events out (and took the time to seek the input of the players on the effects), in addition to implementing an acceptable spell-roll house rule.
If we treat this as the equivalent to writing a homebrew spell and eyeball 5 spells per page, that's roughly equal to writing 1/4 of the spell compendium.

I would consider this to be a good bar for the amount of work you should expect to put into an acceptable critical fumble system.

I really wish I knew where those decks went-- he passed away a couple years ago. His will spread out the D&D stuff along our regular crowd, but none of us have seen the decks or about 2 folders of other home brew.

AugustNights

2014-04-02, 07:30 PM

And fumbles are as RAW as page 28 of the DMG

Fascinating. I never knew this. Are variant rules considered RAW? I suppose they are "rules" and they are "written" but being "variant" seems to take the edge off a little.
Little wonder though, these fumble rules are awful. I really think, if one is going to play with fumbles, a fumble should never cost the combatant the rest of their actions.

Thiyr

2014-04-02, 08:01 PM

The Jeopardy analogy doesn't hold any water (it should go the way of the bus analogy) - and with a confirmation you are at far less than a 5% chance

Repeating that something is bad doesn't make it so

And fumbles are as RAW as page 28 of the DMG

Any time your character fails remarkably as a stroke of luck is not "punishment" - it is just bad luck

Two things, in reverse order

1) It's punishment for taking a course of action that could result in bad luck in the first place. Why ever bother with rolling dice with the potential to cause self-harm, when you could avoid d20s altogether? Why go for lots of attack rolls when it dramatically increases the odds of self-harm? It is punishment on a more meta-level, by the houserules in place

2) Yes, you are at less than 5% chance. That doesn't make it any better. To point this out, I will _quote myself from earlier in the thread_.

I always like to bring up the Training Dummy Test when talking crit fails/successes. Get 100 people who know how to use a weapon, and have them each attacking training dummies. In game, that's 60000 attacks made by the room as a whole, assuming they're only making a single attack a round. After an hour of training, there will have been between 7 and 8 crit fails (assuming a crit fail is three nat 1s in a row.) That's fairly high. Let's assume that there is a standard 1-100 table for what happens on a crit fail, with the top 10 results being major self injury (either death, self maiming, crippling or otherwise.) A bit under 1 person an hour will make themselves unable to continue training. Assume they train for 3-4 hours a day, and inanimate objects will have killed or crippled the whole room in around a month.

tl;dr, with double-confirmation AND a 10% chance of catastrophic results after that's already occurred, people will die or be crippled by inanimate objects at terrifyingly high rates under, even under controlled circumstances. And the higher level these individuals get, the faster it happens!

Again, it's why I hold that the consequence of missing is more than enough. For what its worth, if there's no avoiding crit fails, I'd prefer to do them like my limited experiences with Fate. You get told a general concept of how the failure is going to go by the person you failed against (more often than not the DM), but the player who failed determines the specifics, at which point you can limit damage to what you find acceptable while keeping in an acceptable framework.

Arbane

2014-04-02, 08:45 PM

tl;dr, with double-confirmation AND a 10% chance of catastrophic results after that's already occurred, people will die or be crippled by inanimate objects at terrifyingly high rates under, even under controlled circumstances. And the higher level these individuals get, the faster it happens!

The world of critical failures - on Drive (forklift) checks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oB6DN5dYWo) (Warning: ridiculously bloody, but hilarious.)

The world of critical failures - d20 Modern edition. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/julianbrand/40-gifs-of-stupid-infomercial-people-6eof)

Flickerdart

2014-04-02, 08:53 PM

The world of critical failures - on Drive (forklift) checks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oB6DN5dYWo) (Warning: ridiculously bloody, but hilarious.)

The world of critical failures - d20 Modern edition. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/julianbrand/40-gifs-of-stupid-infomercial-people-6eof)
And yet somehow, our workforce manages not to wipe itself out between paychecks.

TuggyNE

2014-04-02, 10:07 PM

Crit fails are not a bad system. They are not bad balance unless you fail to add crit success in equal measure.

And who does that? No, really. What's an example of that actually being implemented? RAW critical hits do not count, since those are there by default and are balanced against auto-misses.

Well, really critical hits are balanced against themselves primarily, and similarly for auto-misses; their balance against each other is secondary. Which does raise another point; it is possible for there to be a critical hit/critical miss system that, despite being equally usable by PCs and NPCs, is still unbalanced. For example, if enemies tend to have low HP and high critical multipliers, and PCs have higher HP and low critical multipliers, then a higher crit range for both will lead to greater PC death rates. Similarly, if there are critical fumble rules for losing limbs/eyes/whatever, and critical success rules to lose limbs/eyes/whatever, those do not balance out: indeed they add together, creating a far higher overall risk of lasting PC handicaps, without any comparable increase in NPC handicaps, since for nearly all NPCs, a rounds/level debuff is the same as a permanent one: they will die before it's removed, in either case.

An adequate balance here would consist of a critical success removing one's blindness (in self or ally), restoring function to a crippled limb, or similar patently absurd effects. Of course, since there are those who consider "hit nearest ally" an appropriate entry on a fumble table (despite the possibility of the nearest ally being 50' behind the monk who rolled a fumble with their unarmed strike), this should suffer no objections.

Fundamentally, I consider that anyone defending critical fumbles in essentially any of their forms exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature of probability in d20, a misunderstanding of the differences between PCs and NPCs, or is willing to ignore those for some reason.

ArendK

2014-04-03, 03:30 AM

This is my ten cents from my experience.
I've been DM'ing for about a bit north of ten years now. Mostly 3.5, but a few other systems as well.
My groups have seemed masochistic; While they like critical successes, and any extra variation we have (even if the critical chart is used on them as well, as it is more often to be done), they also adore Critical Failures.

I've explained to them that mathmatically, it's unfeasible and unfair to them as players, especially brutes. Even though most of the party favors melee types, they weren't bothered by this. They LIKED the flavor of something catastrophically failing or going bad.

What we did, to account for skill and ease the butthurt, is that if a one is rolled, then we do a "confirmation" roll to verify it as a true fumble. If the roll would normally succeed, then it is just written off as a slight mis-step and normal failure with no further consequences beyond normal (a miss, or just coming up short on the jump to the ledge and grabbing the ledge, etc. etc)

If it is an actual failure on the second roll, then chaos can ensue based on DM Fiat. We've got a chart for combat and it varies between over-stepping/over-committing (resulting in a penalty to AC or provoking an AoO if appropriate) to weapon malfunctions (bowstrings snapping, losing grip and improperly regripping resulting in a penalty to hit on the next attack), etc. etc. Only on the most dire of crit fails result in the weapon being disabled/unusable.

If the DM isn't feeling particularly ambitious for a tasking to be jumbled/over-complicated by a fumble, than he just handwaves the results for Out of Combat situations.

But the party loved the issues with the crit fumbles through the course of our gaming group. I always take the time to start with a new group and set a base level of understanding. If the new group doesn't like a specific rule as a group (like that one), it's no skin off me. Less work.

Each table is different. If they enjoy the chaos involved with the overly high amount of dramatic failures during the duration of their gaming table, then embrace it.

Krazzman

2014-04-03, 08:18 AM

First off: I hate Crit Fumble rules. They are an annoyingly bad system tacket onto something that does not really work with it.

"But it adds realism" was written a few times in this thread already. Well just let me reiterate what other posters already did: "Then play another system". You want to cripple yourself? Warhammer Fantasy will be your thing. DSA will be good too as you will most likely be dead after around 2 combat encounters or at least seriously crippled.
There are many systems that do realism better than DnD (a system that is at least from my grasp of the rules/stuff written by the devs more suited for non-gritty/non-realistic heroic fantasy).

"But paizos fumble deck is good/balanced"... this claim really infuriated me. No it is not it is still utter crap.
I managed to break my eldritch Glaive in one game using this stuff. Or imagine breaking your newly bought Adamantine Maul on a stone which is feasible as the only thing preventing destruction on this fumble card is a reflex DC 15 safe... on a cleric with 10 dex this means an at least 70% chance of failure. To destroy something you paid nearly half your WBL for. The other stuff I have seen so far aren't really better. 2 Monster killed themselves while using these decks.

In one campaign where it was known beforehand that we would be using these I actively went for Luck Domain Cleric and then trying to grab Better Lucky than good ASAP. If I would play such a campaign again I would play a buffing/control Character (Bard, cleric or sorcerer) with Luck feats to get rerolls for when I have to roll something.

And again about what chance... how is the adding of dice rolls (that are unnecessary) something that makes a bad rule better? The systems I have seen so far are a flat 5% chance or a 5% chance to roll another dice and depending on mystical unknown variable suddenly becoming worse.

On certain Skillchecks I can understand the want for a "fumble" climbing down a 2000 ft canyon wall... but 5% are just too high for that. In that campaign I am playing a Sorcerer. My usual actions are "fly, haste, dimension door, Magic Missile, Snowball". Yes only 1 spell that needs an attack roll and is only used if the enemy has Spell resistance.

The argument about Critical Failures/Fumbles that arise here are "when done right" for the most time. But this won't do. Because the what is right is in the most ideal case: don't implement it.
How many DM's have a really good grasp of it? From the ones you met? My count is around 0. Most stories about "cool stuff happening due to fumbles" are in my opinion stuff that didn't add anything to the story or the game at all.

Seerow

2014-04-03, 08:24 AM

What we did, to account for skill and ease the butthurt, is that if a one is rolled, then we do a "confirmation" roll to verify it as a true fumble. If the roll would normally succeed, then it is just written off as a slight mis-step and normal failure with no further consequences beyond normal (a miss, or just coming up short on the jump to the ledge and grabbing the ledge, etc. etc)

Note to Kazudo: We have another winner for the "Rolling confirmation against AC makes the fumble rule better" game.

I guess they were wrong. When they say the best defense is a good offense, they got it backwards. The best offense is actually a good defense. Just rack up that AC and watch your enemies slaughter themselves trying to hit you. This strategy would work in at least 20-30% of the games in this thread.

ArendK

2014-04-03, 08:40 AM

Note to Kazudo: We have another winner for the "Rolling confirmation against AC makes the fumble rule better" game.

I don't think it's any better; mathmatically, I think it is a terrible idea. But my GROUP, even when it was explained to them that it was not a good idea, loved it. If they have fun with it, then why not? It's not a big deal that it's a terrible system if the players have fun as far as I'm concerned.

PaucaTerrorem

2014-04-03, 12:08 PM

Kazudo

2014-04-03, 12:34 PM

Note to Kazudo: We have another winner for the "Rolling confirmation against AC makes the fumble rule better" game.

I don't know where that school of thought is coming from. Maybe it's because "We're rolling, so we need a DC, so the enemy's AC is what it should be because that matters, right? Since it's an attack roll? Anyone?"

The only time that I would consider a DC other than "Did you get a 1?" on the failure confirmation roll would be to have the critical failure DC be something to the effect of 20-BAB. In the case of iterative attacks, it would follow the highest bonus. Therefore, a 19th level fighter would basically have to roll two natural 1's in a row in order to have anything near a critical failure, while a 20th level fighter would never critically fail. Sure, an earlier level fighter (or a class with poor BAB) would critically fail.

That's where the sliderule of critical failures would come in handy with a few caveats: personal damage dealt by critical failure cannot critically hit, one is never considered lacking one's own DEX (which deals with the majority of precision damage), and one is generally protected from one's own magical enhancements on one's own weapon (as is usually in the description of most of said enhancements) while one is wielding it, dependant on Base Attack Bonus rather than actual level.

Thoughts?

Rijan_Sai

2014-04-03, 12:55 PM

On certain Skillchecks I can understand the want for a "fumble" climbing down a 2000 ft canyon wall... but 5% are just too high for that.

I just want to add my 2c on this point.

Most skill checks that someone might want to have a "fumble/Crit. Fail" on, generally have the mechanic built in anyway! Continuing "Climb" as an example:
A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained.
(Bolded for Emphasis.) There are several other skills with a similar clause, as well

This is the standard rules, where a Nat20 is not an Auto-Pass, and a Nat1 is not an Auto-Fail. (For the record, I prefer no crit. fails, myself. Especially with skills; at higher levels, I (the character) have become essentially "super-human," and if I'm going to invest resources into skills to make myself better at them (skill points, gold for masterwork items, etc.) I darn well want to be able to "Take 1" and pass my skill check!)

Thiyr

2014-04-03, 01:07 PM

When you attack, on a 2-19 you either hit or miss. Balanced, right? On a 20 you auto hit and threaten. On a 1 you auto fail, and that's all?

Also, don't you ever have bad things/misfortunes/FAILS happen in your life? Well same for adventures. It's just that what they do involves a lot more dangerous factors.

Just as all crits are not equal(I've rolled all ones on crits) all crit fails are not equal. A good DM knows how to handle each case and make them more fun/dramatic if it's fitting.

Yes, I do have failures happen in life. That's a "miss", a "fail", whatever you want to call it. Your standard "didn't hit the DC". But do I have CATASTROPHIC, mayhaps even CRITICAL failures? I can't think of the last time I did. If I have mastered some skill, I don't expect to fail critically 1 in 20 times. or 1 in 400. or even 1 in 8000. Generally speaking, its why I find the most fun use of crit fails are "don't do them". Drama should generally be something you try to plan, not something you toss in 'cause somebody got unlucky.

(Also, if we're gonna talk about inequality, where's immunity to critical fails as a racial trait/armor enchantment? What about critical fail multipliers? Increased fail-range? Improved Fail as a fighter bonus feat? they're different things that share a common part of their name, and I don't feel they should be held to the same standard of equality unless you want to try and make the things listed above, which are kinda silly and non sensible)

(Also, man, just remembered about the oWoD botch rules. So dumb. so very dumb.)

pwykersotz

2014-04-03, 01:22 PM

And who does that? No, really. What's an example of that actually being implemented? RAW critical hits do not count, since those are there by default and are balanced against auto-misses.

...stuff...

Fundamentally, I consider that anyone defending critical fumbles in essentially any of their forms exhibits a misunderstanding of the nature of probability in d20, a misunderstanding of the differences between PCs and NPCs, or is willing to ignore those for some reason.

I do.

One time my group critically succeeded in a diplomacy check to convince a small army of kobolds that the dragon god had sent them to join a great war. Then the mage of the group aided another by creating a light show of dragon-y power and critically succeeded. The kobolds joined the war, 10% of them became fanatics of the dragon god, and from then on in the campaign the party nearly always had access to mid-level kobold clerics. 1 in 400 chance for that to happen. Serious lasting effect for the party.

Had they only gotten the one nat 20, they would have had less time with the clerics as the clerics had gotten drawn into the war, but still would have had 3 levels or so of free healing/res/buffs.

Like I mentioned before, I think you and everyone else who is so vitriolic about this just has baggage and are not earnestly looking at a way to incorporate this into the system. Not that you need to try to incorporate it, but trashing the whole thing based on assumptions of ineptitude and then pasting that impression onto everyone who has fun with the system is a little disingenuous. :smallannoyed:

Krazzman

2014-04-03, 04:02 PM

I just want to add my 2c on this point.

Most skill checks that someone might want to have a "fumble/Crit. Fail" on, generally have the mechanic built in anyway! Continuing "Climb" as an example:
(Bolded for Emphasis.) There are several other skills with a similar clause, as well

This is the standard rules, where a Nat20 is not an Auto-Pass, and a Nat1 is not an Auto-Fail. (For the record, I prefer no crit. fails, myself. Especially with skills; at higher levels, I (the character) have become essentially "super-human," and if I'm going to invest resources into skills to make myself better at them (skill points, gold for masterwork items, etc.) I darn well want to be able to "Take 1" and pass my skill check!)

Level 10. Climb mod of +20. Chance to fail without falling: -2. Chance to fall down: -7. We had to instafeatherfall/angelic slowing the barbarian down.
The ONLY explanation I can have for this is: part of the canyon just eroded under the barbarians grip.

eggynack

2014-04-03, 04:12 PM

This is the standard rules, where a Nat20 is not an Auto-Pass, and a Nat1 is not an Auto-Fail. (For the record, I prefer no crit. fails, myself. Especially with skills; at higher levels, I (the character) have become essentially "super-human," and if I'm going to invest resources into skills to make myself better at them (skill points, gold for masterwork items, etc.) I darn well want to be able to "Take 1" and pass my skill check!)
That actually sounds like a pretty reasonable way to do critical fumbles in general, leaving aside the balance issues for a moment. You just uncouple critical failure from the critical hit rules entirely, and instead tie it to how much you miss by when you miss an attack. That way, good swordsmen would automatically fumble less, because such is the nature of the rule set. There are some kinks to work out in the math/mechanic, but it seems plausible.

Valtu

2014-04-03, 05:20 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-03, 05:35 PM

What about some sort of compromise, where you roll a nat 1, then you roll a d6. Get a 6 and the 1 means nothing, you add it to your BAB, STR or DEX, etc and if you hit their AC in spite of your nat 1, good for you (and very nice)! If you roll a 3-5, you do half damage or something of that nature, for a less effective blow. A 1 or 2 and you've missed.

Or divide that up however you see fit, but then at least even if you are a very skilled warrior, most likely you're going to either still hit them, but maybe not cut as deep. That example above with the d6 is by no means something I'm 100% committed to, just a quick brainstorm.

Hell, it's probably already been said in this very thread already and I missed it :P

That isn't a compromise, that is just a convoluted way of getting what you want.

A compromise means both sides give a little and come to a middle ground.

What you propose isn't middle ground but to still punishing players for no reason other than 5% of the time a d20 will hit a certain number.

I already suggested a compromise, each player gets to decide for themselves if they want to use critical fumble rules. If you are really dedicated to critical fumbles then you will use them without being forced to use then and not care if another player is not using them.

I hate how DM's get a big head and think only their decisions are the only ones that matters when starting a game, it takes players and a DM to game. I also hate how other players will try to force their house rules on others... House rules that are based on severe punishment and not rewarding.

I have a new houserule, you roll a d20 each time you gain HP from level up or from a spell. On a roll of 2 - 19 you gain normal HP from the source. On a roll of 20 you gain double the HP (restored or to your max)... But on a roll of a 1 you have an accident and lose a level. This is because your body rejects the magic or because as you level up you forget how to level up. Seems fair right, I mean... Crap happens after all it is all about risk versus reward.

One Step Two

2014-04-03, 05:54 PM

It seems from what I am reading in this thread, is the major sticking point with critical fumbles is when they deviate from the fumble variant in DMG. Anything else is house rule territory, and should definitely be explained upfront to new players.

Don't get me wrong, when playing in different systems, like Rolemaster for example, which has open-ended critical hits/fumbles, that have it baked in, it's usually par for course. I don't claim expert knowledge in pathfinder, but In 3.5 going beyond the nat 1 then failing the DC 10 reflex save is certainly something I would like to be warned about. Not that I would use it as a reason to leave a party necessarily. It all depends on how they're interpreted. The above example Krazzman made regarding breaking an Adamantine weapon on a stone due to the critical deck saying so, should be the DM taking it with a grain of salt, and drawing a new card, it's adamantine for feth's sake, or at least say the wooden haft breaks, or some such thing.

I guess what it boils down to is dramatic appropriateness, bad things happen, the worst of luck can occur at the most dire of moments, and to me, it should go towards making the story more dramatic/humorous as the story needs the event to be.

With all respect to the Sameo story, I have no doubt in my mind, that the DM looked at the list of critical fumbles, and found one that would reward the Paladin with the fumble, because it made for a far better story than, "You cut your own arm off and bled to death."

Magma Armor0

2014-04-03, 08:12 PM

The system we use is as follows: critical failures occur only in non-combat situations.

When it's not life-and-death, critical failures are still funny, even when they happen to PCs. Dropping your weapon in the middle of a fight and jeopardizing your team is not funny. Botching a search check and having the bookshelf fall on you while trying to find the book that will open the secret door is funny. When characters' lives are not at stake, we've generally found botch checks to be hilarious--some of our best ongoing jokes are the result of botches. (2 people went off together, botched a listen check at the same time to hear a pebble hit the ground. They were paranoid for the next 15 minutes that something was going to jump out at them.)

TuggyNE

2014-04-03, 09:27 PM

I do.

One time my group critically succeeded in a diplomacy check to convince a small army of kobolds that the dragon god had sent them to join a great war. Then the mage of the group aided another by creating a light show of dragon-y power and critically succeeded. The kobolds joined the war, 10% of them became fanatics of the dragon god, and from then on in the campaign the party nearly always had access to mid-level kobold clerics. 1 in 400 chance for that to happen. Serious lasting effect for the party.

Had they only gotten the one nat 20, they would have had less time with the clerics as the clerics had gotten drawn into the war, but still would have had 3 levels or so of free healing/res/buffs.

How's that different from a regular passed Diplomacy check, though? Regular Diplo has rules for fanaticism. (In the ELH, admittedly, but still.) Maybe this counts, maybe it doesn't, but I'd need more detail to be sure.

If there was some meaningful and generalizable difference between success and critical success, than yes, that does work. It doesn't necessarily act as an adequate balance for the vastly greater number of critical fumbles, but it's at least something, and one of the first anecdotes I've heard of that.

Like I mentioned before, I think you and everyone else who is so vitriolic about this just has baggage and are not earnestly looking at a way to incorporate this into the system. Not that you need to try to incorporate it, but trashing the whole thing based on assumptions of ineptitude and then pasting that impression onto everyone who has fun with the system is a little disingenuous. :smallannoyed:

"Baggage" like actual bad experiences, say? I actually don't, and am working from a general overview of experiences and the principles involved, but I'm not sure why bad experiences would be any less valid than good experiences others have had, such as your own group. Assuming everyone opposed to it must have "baggage" or they wouldn't oppose it … now that is, dare I say it, disingenuous.

I'm also not sure why you left the last section in my quote, since either you are, in fact, lacking knowledge of probability (which is astonishingly common, and not really blameworthy, but is something to try to improve on), or you consider probability unimportant; either way, you didn't actually address what I was saying at all. If the latter, I can imagine no argument that would change your mind; the experience of other groups is obviously irrelevant, and consideration of the odds is specifically out, so what's left? I sincerely do not know.

For clarity's sake, deliberately ignoring probability and game design considerations such as the unequal repercussions of any permanent debuffs on PCs is not necessarily wrong, as such. If your group has fun with it, and you are satisfied with the situation and don't consider it worthwhile to look for possible improvements that would require readjustment, that's not exactly the worst thing in the world. But it's also not particularly generalizable, and asserting that others should strongly consider imitating your group's habits carries with it an implicit willingness to imitate others if their patterns are better.

hemming

2014-04-03, 11:50 PM

Two things, in reverse order

1) It's punishment for taking a course of action that could result in bad luck in the first place. Why ever bother with rolling dice with the potential to cause self-harm, when you could avoid d20s altogether? Why go for lots of attack rolls when it dramatically increases the odds of self-harm? It is punishment on a more meta-level, by the houserules in place.

I wasn't arguing for self-harm or violent outcomes - I like fumbles literally, not catastrophic events.

2) Yes, you are at less than 5% chance. That doesn't make it any better. To point this out, I will _quote myself from earlier in the thread_. .

If confirmed with rolling a one twice, it is a .25% chance. Assuming you miss a target 30% of the time, it goes up to a 1.5% chance if confirmed by missing the target on an attack.

It just doesn't seem to have a huge effect on 'game balance mechanics' to me - or really constitute a nerf of any real consequence.

Edit: I do consider variant rules as RAW and not homebrew - they are intended to be implemented at the choice of the DM. Just like I consider Prestige Classes and ACFs to be RAW

Its also a flavor issue - I think it makes sense in the heat of battle to occasionally lose a weapon due to a stroke of bad luck. Covered in sweat and blood, most often swinging a piece of metal as hard as you can against another. I couldn't tell you the odds in a historical scenario - couldn't even speculate - but it certainly occurred

Losing a weapon in combat and having to produce another or have an ally toss you one is a fantasy trope - happens even to the best in lots of fiction. Its a trope I happen to like.

But I do get if you want to play a sword god that never screws up terribly or if you just plain think fumbles don't add anything to the game - and some of the stories up here about bad, very nerfy fumble systems are atrocious

Thiyr

2014-04-04, 12:43 AM

I wasn't arguing for self-harm or violent outcomes - I like fumbles literally, not catastrophic events.

If confirmed with rolling a one twice, it is a .25% chance. Assuming you miss a target 30% of the time, it goes up to a 1.5% chance if confirmed by missing the target on an attack.

It just doesn't seem to have a huge effect on 'game balance mechanics' to me - or really constitute a nerf of any real consequence.

Edit: I do consider variant rules as RAW and not homebrew - they are intended to be implemented at the choice of the DM. Just like I consider Prestige Classes and ACFs to be RAW

Its also a flavor issue - I think it makes sense in the heat of battle to occasionally lose a weapon due to a stroke of bad luck. Covered in sweat and blood, most often swinging a piece of metal as hard as you can against another. I couldn't tell you the odds in a historical scenario - couldn't even speculate - but it certainly occurred

Losing a weapon in combat and having to produce another or have an ally toss you one is a fantasy trope - happens even to the best in lots of fiction. Its a trope I happen to like.

But I do get if you want to play a sword god that never screws up terribly or if you just plain think fumbles don't add anything to the game - and some of the stories up here about bad, very nerfy fumble systems are atrocious

Yea, I've seen fairly tame stuff by a lot of accounts, and even then it's pretty bad (A suit of chainmail forged by the gods themselves...has a link break and falls off? How does that make sense?)

In any case, I have nothing against losing your weapon, I just think the randomness of it doesn't add a whole ton of drama imo. Now, if you get disarmed, that could work nicely, but fumbling just doesn't add anything. It doesn't bring up a sense of tension or struggle, just...chance (its the difference between "Hah, I am Max Fightmaster, Master of Fighting! My ALMIGHTY SWORD (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25D78uVozc0) shall cut down evil! Now to slay you, vaguely humanoid fiend!" and then getting disarmed (or stunned, or fear'd, or w/e) vs fumbling. The former feels dramatic, like you might just get outclassed because you underestimated the other guy, or because your opponent got clever. The latter just leaves me feeling like I'm a buffoon personally. If it can feel dramatic to you, more power to you, but it just doesn't work for me. Especially if it happens at any time other than an already dramatic moment.)

And as far as the balance thing goes, my numbers are more a jab at the realism argument. but even that single-confirm just feels a bit much to me on a gut level. I don't like stickin' the fightin' guys/gals with that chance to screw up beyond just the mundane, normal, average missing. In part because of the way the numbers fall, in part because it seems to only screw with the players, and there's no good way to deal. An octopus can't drop its tentacles, and even if it gets put on casters, they're gonna be making a lot fewer rolls. And if the DM throws humanoid fighting npcs at you, there will be more of them, and they will tend towards doing far fewer attacks than the PCs (just by weight of screentime), meaning they're less likely to f' up as well.

And in typing this, I just had the mental image of Luke Skywalker, picking up his lightsaber, training with it the first time to deflect blaster shots, and then butterfingering and burning a hole in the floor, killing everyone due to loss of atmosphere. Tee hee.

hemming

2014-04-04, 01:15 AM

Yea, I've seen fairly tame stuff by a lot of accounts, and even then it's pretty bad (A suit of chainmail forged by the gods themselves...has a link break and falls off? How does that make sense?)

Yeah - that is pretty bad. I don't know how you critically fail to have your armor fall off.

The way the DM handles it is a make or break. When I've played in games that didn't use fumbles, I really didn't miss it.

But in one of the games I played in for years I did like the implementation - it made things a little more spontaneous and a little more filled with tension.

I really wouldn't have a problem accommodating a player that really hated the variant rule (if I were sitting in the DM chair) and the reasons you give for disliking it seem totally sound to me. I just like the extra flavor when its done well and it often does add some drama/realism for me

pwykersotz

2014-04-04, 01:43 AM

How's that different from a regular passed Diplomacy check, though? Regular Diplo has rules for fanaticism. (In the ELH, admittedly, but still.) Maybe this counts, maybe it doesn't, but I'd need more detail to be sure.

If there was some meaningful and generalizable difference between success and critical success, than yes, that does work. It doesn't necessarily act as an adequate balance for the vastly greater number of critical fumbles, but it's at least something, and one of the first anecdotes I've heard of that.

"Baggage" like actual bad experiences, say? I actually don't, and am working from a general overview of experiences and the principles involved, but I'm not sure why bad experiences would be any less valid than good experiences others have had, such as your own group. Assuming everyone opposed to it must have "baggage" or they wouldn't oppose it … now that is, dare I say it, disingenuous.

I'm also not sure why you left the last section in my quote, since either you are, in fact, lacking knowledge of probability (which is astonishingly common, and not really blameworthy, but is something to try to improve on), or you consider probability unimportant; either way, you didn't actually address what I was saying at all. If the latter, I can imagine no argument that would change your mind; the experience of other groups is obviously irrelevant, and consideration of the odds is specifically out, so what's left? I sincerely do not know.

For clarity's sake, deliberately ignoring probability and game design considerations such as the unequal repercussions of any permanent debuffs on PCs is not necessarily wrong, as such. If your group has fun with it, and you are satisfied with the situation and don't consider it worthwhile to look for possible improvements that would require readjustment, that's not exactly the worst thing in the world. But it's also not particularly generalizable, and asserting that others should strongly consider imitating your group's habits carries with it an implicit willingness to imitate others if their patterns are better.

I assumed you had baggage because of the exceptionally strong stance you take. The reason it tends to be bad is not because of the experience it gives, but because it causes reason to be left behind for hardline stances that are not open to consideration. I think plenty of reasonable people oppose fumble rules. I think that because you take a hard line to say that others must lack understanding or not care about the balance of probability is extreme because you exclude the option of someone who both understands and cares. I apologize for assuming baggage.

I understand probability very well. I also consider it important. Thus, none of your statements trying to use closed logic branches on me are applicable. I am also willing to be convinced otherwise, but doing so will be difficult because I have thought about my reasoning and can justify it.

You were correct. The ELH was not applicable and those rules were not usable by the players in that case. The situation was a large power up, both preemptive against future assault (buffs), fixing minor troubles (heals), and fixing catastrophes (res). It completely validates a single (or double) crit fail carrying the opposite weight. Yes, there are other implications such as lost exp when dying. Yes, those are taken into consideration as well.

I also don't insist that others follow what I do. I joined this discussion because a lot of people were showing the oft seen dark side of this method of play. I felt it necessary to point out the lighter side.

eggynack

2014-04-04, 01:55 AM

I assumed you had baggage because of the exceptionally strong stance you take. The reason it tends to be bad is not because of the experience it gives, but because it causes reason to be left behind for hardline stances that are not open to consideration. I think plenty of reasonable people oppose fumble rules. I think that because you take a hard line to say that others must lack understanding or not care about the balance of probability is extreme because you exclude the option of someone who both understands and cares. I apologize for assuming baggage.
I think there's room for reasonably hardline stances in arguments. This is a case where the points have been well dissected and discussed in the past, so it's well known territory, and people thus have a good idea of what their stance is, and how to defend it. I think that people should always be willing to change their position with sufficient evidence, and I doubt that TuggyNE would maintain his opinion on critical fumbles if some perfect argument were made by the opposition (though I doubt such an argument exists), but in the absence of such an argument, adopting a firm stance makes sense.

I understand probability very well. I also consider it important. Thus, none of your statements trying to use closed logic branches on me are applicable. I am also willing to be convinced otherwise, but doing so will be difficult because I have thought about my reasoning and can justify it.
Can you do so then? The probability breakdown seems pretty unfavorable relative to fumble rules, at least for most fumble rules. The balance issues are, of course, also a problematic thing.

TuggyNE

2014-04-04, 02:10 AM

I understand probability very well. I also consider it important.

I am puzzled, then, because the probability for crit fumbles in essentially all implementations is at once highly unrealistic by some orders of magnitude, and also much higher than is good for the game (in the same sense that 3d6 in order minimum 17 Cha to be a Paladin, or a DC 29 Fort or die every round, is bad for the game: a few rolls have disproportionately negative effects on a character for a substantial portion of the game).

Certainly it is possible to enjoy the game despite these, which I would consider ignoring probability; it is also possible to enjoy a silly game because of these, which I would consider either ignoring or being ignorant of probability. But to enjoy a serious game specifically because it's unrealistic and cripples characters for much of play is … I don't understand that. I never have.

You were correct. The ELH was not applicable and those rules were not usable by the players in that case. The situation was a large power up, both preemptive against future assault (buffs), fixing minor troubles (heals), and fixing catastrophes (res). It completely validates a single (or double) crit fail carrying the opposite weight.

Oh, that kind of removes some of the utility from my last post; there's a chance for crit success on Diplomacy, which presumably counters chances for crit failures on Diplomacy. But since I'd neglected to consider crit failures, it doesn't even begin to counter chances of crit failures for other things, like attack rolls.

So, a more precise question*, I guess, would be: is there a game which implements approximately equivalent crit success and crit fumble tables, with the ability to prevent or restore the lasting consequences from crit fumbles present in equal proportion on crit successes, for any and all rolls with crit fumbles?

*The lack of precision is my fault; I was thinking of combat initially, but didn't specify.

Valtu

2014-04-04, 07:43 AM

That isn't a compromise, that is just a convoluted way of getting what you want.

A compromise means both sides give a little and come to a middle ground.

Like I said, it was more of a "this just popped into my head and now I'm typing" kind of thing. No strong convictions here :P

I haven't ever DM'ed so far (although our group may start doing some short one-off sessions where we take turns DM'ing each week, and I'll get the opportunity), and if I do, after reading this thread, I'll seriously consider how I handle (if I even include) critical failures at all.

What I'd suggested was merely a way of saying "if you really really really want to keep critical failures, maybe make it be less likely to be so catastrophic."

I really like the concept of "sh*t happens," where sometimes even a nearly infallible hero can make a grave mistake, but I definitely agree that a master swordsman shouldn't be chopping his own hand off one out of every 20 swings. Our group is definitely the kind that does enjoy a bit of chaos, unexpected twists and consequences, though, and I think as horribly as critical failures have screwed things up for us in the past, that if we took it to a vote, our group would keep using them purely for the excitement factor.

So that's more where I'm coming from. Knowing that my group will want to keep critical failures in play, I'd like to find some other way of dealing with them besides "you rolled a 1, 50% chance to hit yourself or 50% chance to hit ally if in proximity => now roll an attack on yourself/ally with potential to crit => tragedy," which is our current setup.

Amphetryon

2014-04-04, 08:28 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-04, 08:31 AM

Like I said, it was more of a "this just popped into my head and now I'm typing" kind of thing. No strong convictions here :P

I haven't ever DM'ed so far (although our group may start doing some short one-off sessions where we take turns DM'ing each week, and I'll get the opportunity), and if I do, after reading this thread, I'll seriously consider how I handle (if I even include) critical failures at all.

What I'd suggested was merely a way of saying "if you really really really want to keep critical failures, maybe make it be less likely to be so catastrophic."

I really like the concept of "sh*t happens," where sometimes even a nearly infallible hero can make a grave mistake, but I definitely agree that a master swordsman shouldn't be chopping his own hand off one out of every 20 swings. Our group is definitely the kind that does enjoy a bit of chaos, unexpected twists and consequences, though, and I think as horribly as critical failures have screwed things up for us in the past, that if we took it to a vote, our group would keep using them purely for the excitement factor.

So that's more where I'm coming from. Knowing that my group will want to keep critical failures in play, I'd like to find some other way of dealing with them besides "you rolled a 1, 50% chance to hit yourself or 50% chance to hit ally if in proximity => now roll an attack on yourself/ally with potential to crit => tragedy," which is our current setup.

Yeah I come off as combatant sometimes, didn't mean to be... I'm working on that and i'm still not good at portraying tone on forums.

I'm with you are unsuspecting twists and a bit of chaos. But there are less lazy ways of doing this. I really believe that using a critical fumble is just bad DM'ing. Put some narrative and work into the game.

The group is fighting on a slick dungeon floor? The DM should say something like...

"The floor of the dungeon is coated with a slick material that makes your balance unstable. Anyone without 5 ranks in balance (or tumble I guess) feels very unsteady and if you make to much movement you may fall."

Then if they rush around using their full movement or move + attack then they have a chance of falling (balance check or reflex save if they aren't trained in balance).

This would set the conditions for failure and place the punishment solely on the player's choices. You don't need critical fumbles to cause dramatics if you put minor work into the game.

Perhaps a player doesn't head the warning and moves at full speed and attacks. The attack hits but the momentum has made the player very unsteady and they must pass a balance check (or reflex save) or fall. Perhaps moving at full speed gives a penalty to the attack roll (secretly)? Perhaps the attack kills the creature but the player still falls to the ground for not passing the skill check or reflex save? Maybe due to the momentum the player doesn't fall to the ground but slides 10' in the same direction they were going as a "forced movement" type of effect? Hell for some fun that charging Barbarian might just slide past the first monster (no AoO on forced movement) and end up next to the boss monster of the fight.

There is hundreds of things you can do to add chaos and drama to a game that don't punish or severely punish a player for rolling dice (something that punishes certain classes more than others).

So again sorry I sounded so combatant against you. Lazy DMing and house rules that punish or secerly punish players based on something that will happen 5% of the time is a hot button for me.

Note: I'll be trying out the roll a 1 then you take a -10 on your attack roll and not an auto miss... So that high level adventurers aren't just as clumsy as low level adventurers.

hemming

2014-04-04, 08:38 AM

I am puzzled, then, because the probability for crit fumbles in essentially all implementations is at once highly unrealistic by some orders of magnitude, and also much higher than is good for the game (in the same sense that 3d6 in order minimum 17 Cha to be a Paladin, or a DC 29 Fort or die every round, is bad for the game: a few rolls have disproportionately negative effects on a character for a substantial portion of the game).

Certainly it is possible to enjoy the game despite these, which I would consider ignoring probability;
.

Without confirmation, the chance is a flat 5% (very high probability)

- with a table of 5 no good, horrible options; 1% chance that one of those options plays out (also, seems a pretty high probability to accidentally hurt yourself/hit an ally/etc.)

Probability of a 'confirmation roll' requires you to estimate the percentage of time you miss on average - so a 50% miss rate is 2.5%, 30% is a 1.5% chance of crit. fail, 20% is a 1% chance

If the consequence is an actual "fumble" of the weapon or a "lose your footing" type consequence etc. with a confirmation - I really don't see the 1.5% as being problematic in this scenario.

I'm not ignoring probability - I just don't see the 'upset' as really all that significant in every scenario.

Also - for the whole realism kick - sure, the failure rate is higher than what is realistic. But it does seem a little more in line with reality vs. someone whose odds of dropping a weapon are 0%.

If your RPG expectations are to have that 0% chance and the fluff of always having command of your weapon is important to you, I can see that.

The assumption here (I think?) is that what "is good for the game" is most amount of balance and that limits/negative consequences to poor luck in rolling is "punishment" - But something that upsets balance a little to add flavor and is within the existing written structure of the game is "good for the game" for a player like me (this is highly qualified by what both the players and DM agree is within reason for a given game)

I've never felt punished by the rule anymore than I feel punished for missing a target by rolling under AC or failing a save.

I think your argument is: any structural change which disproportionately affects certain actions or classes negatively from a functional standpoint is bad for the game - at any probability

-So yeah, that makes sense to me - I just find this particular change within reason given the probability of outcomes

Big Fau

2014-04-04, 10:38 AM

I'm not ignoring probability - I just don't see the 'upset' as really all that significant in every scenario.

For noncasters, not being able to full attack screws them over as it forces the first attack to be lethal or else. A huge number of encounters have abilities that will utterly annihilate a noncaster within melee reach, and some of those abilities are far worse than death (being mind-controlled, for example). The odds of the fight tip significantly in favor of the enemy the longer the fight goes on, as most enemies have at-will abilities. Any encounter lasting more than 5 rounds is near-certain death for a noncaster, as they lack the defenses of casters or the ability to recuperate their injuries efficiently.

Critical failures from the DMG result in a fight being dragged out, giving already lethal opponents like Ogres (at low levels) another round to get an attack off or things like Vampires (at mid-levels) a chance to use Dominating Gaze or some other ability. Critical failures like the ones in the Dragon Compendium actually speed up combat by increasing the amount of damage the noncasters take. In this one case, the increase in combat speed is a bad thing because it means the PCs are more likely to suffer.

Seriously, #75-90 (a massive 15%) in the Dragon Compendium's Crit Fail chart are all chances to hurt yourself or an ally, potentially killing them if your damage output is high enough. That chart also has a result where you reroll twice and take both results (and another for three rolls), potentially resulting in three of this:

Critical friend if in threatened area, otherwise self, critical hit damage and roll on Table D-1: Critical Hit Effects

That table? Results 32-62 are +1 Critical Multiplier (nearly fatal in most cases), 65-69 are a no-save Stun for 1d6 rounds each (fatal in most cases unless immune to stunning), and 89-100 are Con damage (with 97-100 being Save or Dies). Hell, 96-100 are 3d6 Con damage each (very capable of killing you depending on how much damage you rolled on the regular crit). Paizo's critical cards are just as bad.

I'm aware that some DMs like hyper-lethal campaigns, but Critical Failures are an unfair disadvantage. Missed attacks already punish noncasters enough (lower damage output really does suck when the enemy can return the favor). There's a difference between "hyper-lethal combat" and "slapstick suicide".

eggynack

2014-04-04, 10:48 AM

I think your argument is: any structural change which disproportionately affects certain actions or classes negatively from a functional standpoint is bad for the game - at any probability

Actually, for this argument, it's that any structural change which disproportionately affects low power actions or classes negatively is bad for the game. Just about any change to the game is going to impact balance somehow, unless that change is some low power option, like some sort of extra-crappy dodge. If it were wizards getting screwed over, this wouldn't be a problem, though then you're likely to get calls of "you're going too far," even when the changes don't go nearly far enough to create balance.

hemming

2014-04-04, 11:06 AM

Actually, for this argument, it's that any structural change which disproportionately affects low power actions or classes negatively is bad for the game. Just about any change to the game is going to impact balance somehow, unless that change is some low power option, like some sort of extra-crappy dodge. If it were wizards getting screwed over, this wouldn't be a problem, though then you're likely to get calls of "you're going too far," even when the changes don't go nearly far enough to create balance.

That makes sense - I recognize the negative consequences to the already disadvantaged martial classes. But the added bonus tension and spontaneity for me of rolling a one and knowing extreme misfortune just might be another unlucky roll away outweighs the nerf of an additional 1.5% chance of fumbling a weapon.

Not that it helps my argument but, if using a confirmation, casters do have a significantly higher chance of fumbling when they (very, very rarely) do choose to attack

Most encounters won't get drawn out by such odds, but you may occasionally have an extra round - not much of an upset to me

The more deadly the opponent, the worse the consequences of a fumble - but again, at 1.5% I don't see it as a big deal

Increase the percentages significantly or add a large number of scenarios in which fumble=death and then I would change my mind - and I can see how the more high-powered a game is, the more adverse the affects of the fumble rule would be

Valtu

2014-04-04, 01:07 PM

Yeah I come off as combatant sometimes, didn't mean to be... I'm working on that and i'm still not good at portraying tone on forums.

I'm with you are unsuspecting twists and a bit of chaos. But there are less lazy ways of doing this. I really believe that using a critical fumble is just bad DM'ing. Put some narrative and work into the game.

The group is fighting on a slick dungeon floor? The DM should say something like...

"The floor of the dungeon is coated with a slick material that makes your balance unstable. Anyone without 5 ranks in balance (or tumble I guess) feels very unsteady and if you make to much movement you may fall."

Then if they rush around using their full movement or move + attack then they have a chance of falling (balance check or reflex save if they aren't trained in balance).

This would set the conditions for failure and place the punishment solely on the player's choices. You don't need critical fumbles to cause dramatics if you put minor work into the game.

Perhaps a player doesn't head the warning and moves at full speed and attacks. The attack hits but the momentum has made the player very unsteady and they must pass a balance check (or reflex save) or fall. Perhaps moving at full speed gives a penalty to the attack roll (secretly)? Perhaps the attack kills the creature but the player still falls to the ground for not passing the skill check or reflex save? Maybe due to the momentum the player doesn't fall to the ground but slides 10' in the same direction they were going as a "forced movement" type of effect? Hell for some fun that charging Barbarian might just slide past the first monster (no AoO on forced movement) and end up next to the boss monster of the fight.

There is hundreds of things you can do to add chaos and drama to a game that don't punish or severely punish a player for rolling dice (something that punishes certain classes more than others).

So again sorry I sounded so combatant against you. Lazy DMing and house rules that punish or secerly punish players based on something that will happen 5% of the time is a hot button for me.

Note: I'll be trying out the roll a 1 then you take a -10 on your attack roll and not an auto miss... So that high level adventurers aren't just as clumsy as low level adventurers.

No worries, man. Sounds like you've been at a table where some bad DM'ing caused a lot of issues. I like the -10 to attack roll idea. That's interesting. As for the dungeon floor example, that's definitely good, and with or without critical fumbles I'd like more of our group's encounters to have interesting conditions like that. We had one where the walls were made of moving gears that were pretty much indestructible and would crush anything that got caught in them, so we tried to stay away from the walls, but occasionally would risk a bull-rush attempt against an enemy to get them caught.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-04-04, 02:40 PM

No worries, man. Sounds like you've been at a table where some bad DM'ing caused a lot of issues. I like the -10 to attack roll idea. That's interesting. As for the dungeon floor example, that's definitely good, and with or without critical fumbles I'd like more of our group's encounters to have interesting conditions like that. We had one where the walls were made of moving gears that were pretty much indestructible and would crush anything that got caught in them, so we tried to stay away from the walls, but occasionally would risk a bull-rush attempt against an enemy to get them caught.

See, now getting caught in that would Be interesting and dramatic.

Give the wall a passive attack... Reflex save or get caught by a gear (immobilized). Then you need to escape (escape artist or strength check) to break free. If that fails... Chomp chomp chomp. So rolling a 1 on your save does have a dire consequence ... You failed your save but the rolling of the die isn't what ground you to a pulp... The entire situation/encounter did along with your own actions (perhaps you moved into the wrong space and didn't think you would be bullrushes).

It won't be a punishment for rolling the d20.

TuggyNE

2014-04-05, 03:45 AM

Without confirmation, the chance is a flat 5% (very high probability)

- with a table of 5 no good, horrible options; 1% chance that one of those options plays out (also, seems a pretty high probability to accidentally hurt yourself/hit an ally/etc.)

Probability of a 'confirmation roll' requires you to estimate the percentage of time you miss on average - so a 50% miss rate is 2.5%, 30% is a 1.5% chance of crit. fail, 20% is a 1% chance

If the consequence is an actual "fumble" of the weapon or a "lose your footing" type consequence etc. with a confirmation - I really don't see the 1.5% as being problematic in this scenario.

I'm not ignoring probability - I just don't see the 'upset' as really all that significant in every scenario.

Also - for the whole realism kick - sure, the failure rate is higher than what is realistic. But it does seem a little more in line with reality vs. someone whose odds of dropping a weapon are 0%.

OK, let's run through a few possible fumble outcomes I've heard of:

Miss (the default RAW): Probably realistically less than 1% chance. But since this requires a compromise not only with ease of use/simplicity of rules, but also with ensuring the attack/AC RNG doesn't break, I'm willing to accept as high as 5%. (3d6/2d10 variants have an advantage here, since they can keep the natural 3/2 pattern with a lower probability that's much more sensible with no loss of efficiency.)
Attack penalty, minor damage to self or adjacent, drop weapon, etc: Pretty low odds here; I'd say .1% or even less. The RNG doesn't matter here, efficiency militates against this, and it's further from realism to assign it a 5% chance (and further from efficiency if you roll again to modify odds), so this is pretty hard to justify as anything other than 0% unless you have some amazingly streamlined system and a carefully-tuned set of consequences.
Break weapon, critical damage to self or adjacent, etc: Very very low odds of this happening without deliberate intent, so << .0001%. There's no good reason to make this anything other than 0% unless you want a game with a really strong emphasis on unavoidable misfortunes.
Automatic max critical damage, auto-die, throw weapon and critical hit target, etc: No. Just no. Please stop.

1.5% chance of the second or third listings is still pretty far from realism; since you have to roll again, it slows the game down, and it adds nothing to game balance or integrity, and indeed only exacerbates certain problems.

But the added bonus tension and spontaneity for me of rolling a one and knowing extreme misfortune just might be another unlucky roll away outweighs the nerf of an additional 1.5% chance of fumbling a weapon.

That right there? That is a perfect example of what I meant by "ignoring probability". You have some subjective reason ("oh no! a natural one!") for wanting to disregard probability by a substantial margin (potentially, several orders of magnitude), and so you do. The odds don't matter to you as much as that does.

For clarity's sake, this is not necessarily "wrong", per se, but it's important to be clear about it: it's not that it's realistic, it's not that it's balanced, you just really really want that small-but-not-too-small chance of catastrophe to liven things up. Because it's dramatic, or funny, or tense, or whatever else.