Critical Misses Myth

[tincmetals]

I was reading a few things in your forum for the first time. I came across the Wait, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection thread. Problem occured to me is several people that are likely prominent names were mocking or otherwise, in refrence to Critical Misses as "a house rule".

This screamed incorrect in my mind. Not true! There is a valid rule in the books. So, I stopped reading and quickly sifted my books for it. How can so many people have such oversight? At any rate I refer you to the bottom right side of Page 28 in your Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5ed.

Now please stop calling it a "house rule" insult. It does exit naturally as a variant rule. This qualifies it being actual "RAW" as you may call it. Now make that DC 10 Dexterity check or lose a turn.


Critical Miss house rules. The most common version is that if you roll a natural 1, you lose the remaining attacks that you have for that roundIt is the most common because it is real.
There are all kinds of idiotic houserules. Critical fumbles are but one type. ^^
Unless it is seperately made or replacement to the variant rule. Otherwise you may now consider the real rule idiotic at your discretion.

It's not the only contemptably stupid thing in that thread to beat people with the lawyer bat with, or the semantics one.

Critical Misses do exit. Case Closed. :smallwink:

[Sian]

Variant Rule ... while calling them houserules is prehaps a bit harsh, its not strictly reading part of the system, hence its an odd intermediate between outright houserules and core rules

[Vaz]

A variant rule is a house rule. It differentiates from the normal rules.

[Shinken]

Also, house rules are not bad per se.
Ignoring multiclass penalties is a common house rule because it works, for one simple example.

[Agincourt]

A variant rule is a house rule. It differentiates from the normal rules.

I would agree with this except for the number of times I have seen other variant rules mentioned on this forum as though a player can expect them to be in play. Level adjustment buyoff is a good example. Sometimes posters remember to include the caveat that you should ask the DM, but usually it is mentioned as though it is automatically in play. Another example would be suggesting subraces from Unearthed Arcana such as Desert Kobolds. I don't think I've ever seen someone mention on this forum that Desert subraces are explicitly a variant.

P.S. Nor have I seen either of these rules dismissed as a "houserule."

[Shinken]

I would agree with this except for the number of times I have seen other variant rules mentioned on this forum as though a player can expect them to be in play. Level adjustment buyoff is a good example. Sometimes posters remember to include the caveat that you should ask the DM, but usually it is mentioned as though it is automatically in play. Another example would be suggesting subraces from Unearthed Arcana such as Desert Kobolds. I don't think I've every seen someone mention on this forum that Desert subraces are explicitly a variant.

People ignoring the context of whatever feat/class/item they are suggesting is the norm in this forum. It's like lesser planetouched, which is explicitly a DM call, but people keep suggesting anytime someone wants to play a tiefling or aasimar.

[HammeredWharf]

Well, many things are variant rules. Like almost everything in Unearthed Arcana and if I remember correctly even prestige classes are called a variant rule somewhere. Still, some rules are more accepted on this forum - and in the D&D community as a whole, in PRC's case - than others. The bad thing about critical misses isn't that they're a variant rule. It's that they're a bad variant rule.


People ignoring the context of whatever feat/class/item they are suggesting is the norm in this forum. It's like lesser planetouched, which is explicitly a DM call, but people keep suggesting anytime someone wants to play a tiefling or aasimar.

Everything is explicitly a DM call. What people on this forum suggest is just that - a bunch of suggestions you may use or ignore.

[khachaturian]

I'm not sure why this is eliciting such an emotional response, but the tone and content of the original post do not predict a happy and productive time on this forum. Please review the rules of posting

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

[Vaz]

And? It is still a houserule, one which is often made apparent albeit, and is beneficial, and has a precedence which can be supported by a section made as such.

Compare that to critical misses, where it is purely detrimental. If the book suggested a rule that said anytime you failed to roll a 20, you die, you wouldn't play it. Hyperbole but still applies here.

Critical misses are ridiculous and completely needless unless you are playing a campaign where you don't really care that your near deity level epic fighter who has single handedly fought off the elder evils cannot go into a barbrawl without 'comically' losing his weapon everytime he goes to make an attack routine.

In which case, have fun.

[NamelessNPC]

Wow, nice condescension

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, those specific rules are variant rules, but when people use critical misses, are they referencing those specific rules or are they making up their own that happen to be identical in form?
Imagine, if you will, that some DM, before Unearthed Arcana came out, added a houserule that all PC levelled up in two classes each time they levelled up, taking the best saves and hit dice.
That would be a house rule, though a variant rule exists that does the same thing.
Or if a DM, instead of looking up a rule, made a ruling that, when going back and actually looking the rule up, turned out to say the same thing as the book rule.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wow, nice condescension

More like the truth. I had a 17th level reach-tripping Dervish build I had to retire because the DM neglected to mention his fumble houserules until it came up a few months after I joined (we had only a little combat before that point and I guess we rolled lucky). His was basically "you drop your weapon" or if you don't use a held weapon, you fall prone, sometimes other things. My character (whose background was a warlord and veteran of countless bloody war battles, specifically designed for fighting masses of foes) was getting 20+ attack rolls per turn between AoOs, Dervish Dancing full attacks, and the fact that imp. trip means each trip attack is basically 2 attack rolls and thus two chances to fumble. She literally was fumbling every single round she wasn't picking up her weapon....so every other turn. Actually more often, she'd typically pick it up then fumble between turns on an AoO.

Fumble rules are horrible and screw over the weakest classes and make no sense real life. They are bad for simulation, bad for enjoyment of the game, and bad narratively when it comes to making supposed expert warriors look like a 3 stooges member. They deserve every bit of ridicule and hatred they garner. And if this is going to be a thread of emotional appeals and such, I'd gladly dig up my old rant on my experience.... :smallfurious:

(Hardly my only bad experience with fumbles, just the one that went on the longest before I could switch out characters / leave the game and one that ruined one of my favorite characters. I'd also had experiences with an archer who had a 1-in-20 chance of breaking his own bow string and a Barbarian with a reach weapon -- which shouldn't even be able to strike at her own person! -- dealing with a 1 meaning she hits herself for full damage and has to roll to confirm a self-crit and thus avoiding raging or power attacking b/c that would have KILLED HER AT FULL HEALTH)

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Wow, nice condescension

Are you refering to the OP's attempt at a gotcha, several people's derisive remarks towards an environment that assumes the availability of variants, or direct replies that call out the DMG entry as a ****e variant rule?

The difference between all the class varients in UA and lesser plane touched vs. Critical misses and things like recharging magic is that the former increase options while the latter change the game and can't be opted out of by a player. Despite what some people may believe the existence of Whirling Frenzy, Spirit Lion Totem, Wolt Totem Barbarians doesn't preclude vanilla Barbarians.

Also, many of these things are ultimately boosts to mundane/melee which tends to get them a thumbs up while critical miss rules especially the "dumpster the rest of your round" one hurt two weapon fighters the most.

[SowZ]

Most critical miss rules are house rules, especially involving tables. But if you do it as stated in the DMG, you are right. It isn't a house rule. Anyone who says variant rules are house rules is wrong. They aren't. They are variant rules. House rules are made up by that group or the community. Variant rules are published. There are three rule categories. Actual rules, variant rules, and house rules. All are distinct. So a critical miss isn't a standard rule, either. So critical misses still aren't the default way to play the game.

[Graypairofsocks]

I would agree with this except for the number of times I have seen other variant rules mentioned on this forum as though a player can expect them to be in play. Level adjustment buyoff is a good example. Sometimes posters remember to include the caveat that you should ask the DM, but usually it is mentioned as though it is automatically in play. Another example would be suggesting subraces from Unearthed Arcana such as Desert Kobolds. I don't think I've ever seen someone mention on this forum that Desert subraces are explicitly a variant.

P.S. Nor have I seen either of these rules dismissed as a "houserule."


Note that unlike the variant rules the OP mentioned, most of the variant stuff in Unearthed arcana do not replace other rules and can be added on with out removing other things.

[SowZ]

Note that unlike the variant rules the OP mentioned, most of the variant stuff in Unearthed arcana do not replace other rules and can be added on with out removing other things.

As can the critical miss rule. Though you probably shouldn't. I wouldn't mind critical miss rules if it was only the first roll per turn and there was some equivalent for spellcasting and you aren't going to do a full swing at yourself or an ally. Though just straight up losing the rest of your turn seems pretty harsh at higher levels.

[Thiyr]

I would agree with this except for the number of times I have seen other variant rules mentioned on this forum as though a player can expect them to be in play. Level adjustment buyoff is a good example. Sometimes posters remember to include the caveat that you should ask the DM, but usually it is mentioned as though it is automatically in play. Another example would be suggesting subraces from Unearthed Arcana such as Desert Kobolds. I don't think I've ever seen someone mention on this forum that Desert subraces are explicitly a variant.

P.S. Nor have I seen either of these rules dismissed as a "houserule."

Generally speaking, I find that LA Buyoff is usually presented in the context of "Don't take stuff with LA unless your table allows LA Buyoff". I very rarely see environmental subraces come up outside of the hypothetical discussion of dragonborn water orc, but I don't often see that actually...suggested. At least, not often enough that I can remember those ever really being suggested. Lesser planetouched get mentioned slightly more often, but a lot of times it's still tossed out there in the "See if the DM will let you do this" way. The big thing about those rules is that as a player, you're a lot more able to actually -say- "Hey, can I use this" (Which I at least assume as the default for any part of your build). Fumbles would be more comprable to something like "armor as DR", "Taint", or "Action Points", things that affect everyone, so its a lot harder for a player to say "Hey, can I use this?"

[DarkSonic1337]

As can the critical miss rule. Though you probably shouldn't. I wouldn't mind critical miss rules if it was only the first roll per turn and there was some equivalent for spellcasting and you aren't going to do a full swing at yourself or an ally. Though just straight up losing the rest of your turn seems pretty harsh at higher levels.

What he meant was that the other variant rules he mentioned only affect the player that wanted to bring it in (such as variant classes or races), as they do not remove the base classes/races that they modify. However the critical miss fumbles variant does remove an aspect of the game (that aspect being that your character simply never fails at simple tasks like holding on to their weapon). If a player or the DM wants to introduce this variant rule, it will affect EVERYONE. That is the main distinction to make here.

[SowZ]

What he meant was that the other variant rules he mentioned only affect the player that wanted to bring it in (such as variant classes or races), as they do not remove the base classes/races that they modify. However the critical miss fumbles variant does remove an aspect of the game (that aspect being that your character simply never fails at simple tasks like holding on to their weapon). If a player or the DM wants to introduce this variant rule, it will affect EVERYONE. That is the main distinction to make here.

You could make critical miss rules a flaw players could take? That could be interesting, and fairly brutal as flaws
were originally intended to be, (and rightfully so.) In this way, it would only affect the player electing for it.

[RegalKain]

My group and I use a house rule of this variant. Generally we "confirm" critical fumbles. So in the case of your dervish you'd Nat 1 then roll again if the next roll was say 5 or less you might lose your weapon, in most cases you just get a negative x to your next attack to show your normal mastery slipped or they parried just the right way to throw you off etc. Critical misses for magic is generally losing that SLA for a few turns, losing more then the spell slot used the casting instead turns into wild magic as if cast on yourself etc. I personally enjoy critical miss rules. To me its a way of saying even the best sometimes slip. Just like sometimes even the commoner can hurt the dragon.

[Story]

You could make critical miss rules a flaw players could take? That could be interesting, and fairly brutal as flaws
were originally intended to be

You could, but that's not the variant printed in the book, nor what most people who play critical fumbles play.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You could make critical miss rules a flaw players could take? That could be interesting, and fairly brutal as flaws
were originally intended to be

You could, but that's not the variant printed in the book, nor what most people who play critical fumbles play.

Sounds like a great flaw for a wizard to take... :smallannoyed:

[Ehcks]

On every attempt to perform an action that requires a d20, you have a 5% chance to fail so horribly that you harm yourself. Unless you have a feat, class ability, race ability, or spell that does nothing but prevent this one thing. There is no upside, in combat or in RP. You just automatically lost.

It's so completely awful that it should be an April Fool's joke flaw, and still only the negative side. Perhaps it gives you Fortune's Favor as a bonus feat.

If I roll a 1, I should simply miss, not hit myself in the face.

[Twilightwyrm]

The table you mention may indeed be a variant rule, however when most people reference critical fumble rules, they are referencing the various tables and house rule variations of this (including dropping your weapon, falling prone, hurting yourself, and many other rather problematic variations). For example, the variation my table uses evolved from the weapon dropping variation, except we allow a (fairly low) reflex save to keep a hold of the weapon (most likely add when some player asked whether they could make a reflex save to keep their weapon). This variation means that expert warriors tend to keep their weapons, but low level mooks can occasionally mess things up. And it is always made clear to new players that this is the case.

[pwykersotz]

The table you mention may indeed be a variant rule, however when most people reference critical fumble rules, they are referencing the various tables and house rule variations of this (including dropping your weapon, falling prone, hurting yourself, and many other rather problematic variations). For example, the variation my table uses evolved from the weapon dropping variation, except we allow a (fairly low) reflex save to keep a hold of the weapon (most likely add when some player asked whether they could make a reflex save to keep their weapon). This variation means that expert warriors tend to keep their weapons, but low level mooks can occasionally mess things up. And it is always made clear to new players that this is the case.

The best part about these threads is when someone pops up in favor of critical failure penalties and everyone jumps on them for obviously supporting whatever byzantine rules they were once subjected to. Worse, enough people have had bad DM experiences that they find enough like-minded individuals to continue their frothing rage ad-infinitum. It's like the spirit of discussion and debate just vanishes.

I quote you because of the distinction in your post where you both acknowledge the problematic versions and then post a version you yourself appreciate, thus giving us a fairly accurate idea of your real position. It is appreciated. :smallsmile:

[VoxRationis]

I would agree with this except for the number of times I have seen other variant rules mentioned on this forum as though a player can expect them to be in play. Level adjustment buyoff is a good example. Sometimes posters remember to include the caveat that you should ask the DM, but usually it is mentioned as though it is automatically in play. Another example would be suggesting subraces from Unearthed Arcana such as Desert Kobolds. I don't think I've ever seen someone mention on this forum that Desert subraces are explicitly a variant.

P.S. Nor have I seen either of these rules dismissed as a "houserule."

I have noted that people fall victim to an understandable tendency to eagerly assert that anything they can use to their advantage is a legitimate rule, while things that are inconvenient for them (be they variant or even core rules) are villainous attempts to ruin their lives.

[DeadMech]

I generally like more options in my games. So variant classes, races and buy off might allow for optimization but at least give you more to play with. If you don't like the power creep you have the option to limit it.

Critical miss rules take away options. The more attacks you make you more likely you are to kill yourself or your allies.

At the end of the day I'd rather play D&D and be a hero than a quadriplegic.

[rexx1888]

i find it sorta amusing that the OP troll managed to get you all fighting amongst yourselves, but your all pretty awesome so i feel i should point this out. He literally joined to start this thread, wrote it in a condescending ******** tone, and then ran away instead of responding, dont let him rile you all up an fight amongst yourselves.

as to the OP, you noted it yourself, its a variant. That means it's a choice whether it exists or not, an thus it is a houserule. As in the DM rules that within his game it is a rule. You should troll other people, the folks in the dysfunction thread didnt mean to offend you :\

[eggynack]

i find it sorta amusing that the OP troll managed to get you all fighting amongst yourselves, but your all pretty awesome so i feel i should point this out. He literally joined to start this thread, wrote it in a condescending ******** tone, and then ran away instead of responding, dont let him rile you all up an fight amongst yourselves.
I dunno. This has seemed downright civil by the standards of critical miss argument threads. Those can be pretty explosive, on occasion.

[atemu1234]

Wow, nice condescension

Just a bit of advice now, don't call people condescending, especially on a forum with a decent amount of etiquette like this one.

In this case the rule is stupid. I used to roll a separate percentile die for most occasions with critical misses. It was fun but I often ignored it to maintain the flow of the game.

[Vhaidara]

i find it sorta amusing that the OP troll managed to get you all fighting amongst yourselves, but your all pretty awesome so i feel i should point this out. He literally joined to start this thread, wrote it in a condescending ******** tone, and then ran away instead of responding, dont let him rile you all up an fight amongst yourselves.

Eh, these get amusing sometimes. I mean, between Pickford and Visigani, I got a whole week of reading that I was able to do at work.

[Svata]

Fine. It exsits as a variant. It's still a terrible rule. It punishes you for daring to play something with an attack routine. Unless you're a druid, because dropping your hands (or arms/wings/tail/mouth/feet/other bodypart used in obscure natutal attack from the formyou wildshaped into) isn't exactly possible. And it has no effect on spells with attack rolls either, so mailman away.

[2xMachina]

Myth #1: That critical misses work.
Myth #2: That critical misses are in anyway good for the game.

[georgie_leech]

Myth #2: That critical misses are in anyway good for the game.

OBJECTION!!!! A friend told me of a game where the DM tried to introduce a chaotic harlequin-style BBEG and needed a way to have his players unambiguously hate him. Thus he gave him a unique attack method: he enforced Critical Miss Tables whenever he was around. It worked as a perfect calling card, was unique so made him stick out, and ensured all the PC's hated his guts and worked their arses off to stop him, since his plan was to extend his power across all the Planes. HE wouldn't have been anywhere near as memorable otherwise. :smallbiggrin:

Admittedly the rules were less "You killed yourself lol" and more "Your Sword becomes a rubber chicken, and you lose the rest of turn as you try to comprehend what just happened, but still.

[CommandTortoise]

Fine. It exsits as a variant. It's still a terrible rule. It punishes you for daring to play something with an attack routine. Unless you're a druid, because dropping your hands (or arms/wings/tail/mouth/feet/other bodypart used in obscure natutal attack from the formyou wildshaped into) isn't exactly possible. And it has no effect on spells with attack rolls either, so mailman away.

Well, it says in the the DMG that a fumble should cause them to lose a turn and, since it's presumably for comedic games with incompetent characters, I imagine that the Druid manages to hit themselves and then spends the following turn in a daze wondering how they managed to do that. Haha, silly Druid. Or maybe they sprain their wrist or something. They don't get to the incompetence, though.

Spells with attack rolls should be fine assuming they aren't described as a type of weapon anywhere.

[VoxRationis]

Fine. It exsits as a variant. It's still a terrible rule. It punishes you for daring to play something with an attack routine. Unless you're a druid, because dropping your hands (or arms/wings/tail/mouth/feet/other bodypart used in obscure natutal attack from the formyou wildshaped into) isn't exactly possible. And it has no effect on spells with attack rolls either, so mailman away.

Some punishment. My table plays with the "drop your weapon if you miss after a natural 1" rule, and it barely affects us. It usually ends up affecting NPCs more than anyone else. And most of the people in my party make use of attack rolls as their primary means of offense.

[Vhaidara]

Spells with attack rolls should be fine assuming they aren't described as a type of weapon anywhere.

Nah, the wizard sneezes while targeting and blows up his own foot.

[eggynack]

As always, I tend towards the idea that critical fumbles, if they exist, should have absolutely zero impact on the state of the game, and should just be arbitrary silliness made up on the spot, ranging from standard slapstick to ridiculous magical effects, and everything else you could possibly imagine, cause that's just how it works. As some examples, for there are always more examples:

"You swing your sword at the goblin's head, but it accidentally bounces off the helmet, slips out of your hands, and goes spinning into the air. 'Heads up,' a nearby orc says, keeping one eye on the sword and one on your ally who is attempting to beat the crap out of him. Fortunately, in a moment of surprising dexterity, you manage to catch the sword, and continue on with your iteratives," or,

"You shoot your arrow, and it flies straight and true towards your target's throat, but out of nowhere, an arbitrary cube of lemon-lime jello forms in midair, and deflects the arrow towards a nearby rock," or even,

"You swing your spiked chain around and around, building up speed for what you're sure will be the killing blow, but before you can get the attack off, you're struck by a sudden and inexplicable malaise. 'Is this really who I want to be?' you think. 'Is there more to life than being a murder-hobo? I once felt the splendor and majesty of the adventure, but now it just feels so empty.' Fortunately though, as quickly as these thoughts arose, they subside. You recognize now, in a way you never have before, the noble truth of the path you are on. Vigor restored, you swing in for the kill on your next attack."

Of course, these could be constructed by either the DM or the players, and I figure that they have enough potential cool value to actually incentivize folks to go mundane. It seems to capture all of the best parts of critical fumbles, the sudden creativity, and the random absurdity, without hurting balance.

[Killer Angel]

My group and I use a house rule of this variant. Generally we "confirm" critical fumbles. So in the case of your dervish you'd Nat 1 then roll again if the next roll was say 5 or less you might lose your weapon, in most cases you just get a negative x to your next attack to show your normal mastery slipped or they parried just the right way to throw you off etc. Critical misses for magic is generally losing that SLA for a few turns, losing more then the spell slot used the casting instead turns into wild magic as if cast on yourself etc. I personally enjoy critical miss rules. To me its a way of saying even the best sometimes slip. Just like sometimes even the commoner can hurt the dragon.

Statistically, that dervish fumbles every single round of combat. I don't see Bruce Lee clumsily dropping his nunchaku every six seconds... which is different from "even the best sometimes slip".

And magic, most of the times, don't requires rolls (and if there's a crit. fumbles rule, casters would pick spells with no attack rolls involved at all)

[Shinken]

Everything is explicitly a DM call. What people on this forum suggest is just that - a bunch of suggestions you may use or ignore.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be familiar with the subject being discussed.
Lesser planetouched is not something a player chooses. It is something the DM chooses. It's written right there in the rules for them. However, it still keeps being suggested to players like it was something, completely ignoring the context in which it was written.
Funnily enough, you are also ignoring completely the context of my previous response.

[atemu1234]

Without alteration it's a terrible rule.

Anyone ever notice how no one who makes these games has ever used an actual sword? Despite weight problems, it's really difficult to drop your sword without someone trying to make you drop it. In combat, provided you aren't using a butterfly knife, you'd be OK.

[Psyren]

Just confirm critical fumbles like critical hits (i.e. you have to "miss" again for the fumble to occur) and they aren't so bad.

Our group uses both the hits and fumbles deck from Pathfinder and it has resulted in cool events for both sides of the DM screen.

[Vhaidara]

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be familiar with the subject being discussed.
Lesser planetouched is not something a player chooses. It is something the DM chooses. It's written right there in the rules for them. However, it still keeps being suggested to players like it was something, completely ignoring the context in which it was written.
Funnily enough, you are also ignoring completely the context of my previous response.

Yes, but if the player does not request it, the GM will never choose it, because the GM might not know it is an option.

[YossarianLives]

Critical failures are terrible. Trust me i know. If you want to hear my annoying and indignant rant its below

I was playing in a small 3-player campaign and i was playing a archer fighter. We had gotten to level 8 and it was going great. I loved rollplaying my character and enjoyed being a archer as I had never done it before. We were fighting a ettin in a dungeon so on my turn I full attack with my bow and roll two ones. So my DM looks up some sort of critical fumble chart and rolls. He then informs me that I had shot myself and somehow broke an artery. The other one was a critical hit and I took about 200 damage and instantly died.

And that kids is why i hate critical failures.

(sorry i don't know how to make spoilers)

[Shinken]

Yes, but if the player does not request it, the GM will never choose it, because the GM might not know it is an option.

Yeah, because DMs don't ever read setting books. :smallamused:

[Vhaidara]

Yeah, because DMs don't ever read setting books. :smallamused:

Given that
1. it is something in a setting specific book that isn't truly setting specific
2. A lot of DMs don't read every book cover to cover
3. The DMs who do don't necessarily retain everything
4. It is hidden in the back end of the book
5. The DM might not own the book
6. Without someone mentioning it, the DM might not even think about it

There are numerous other explanations.

[Red Fel]

Yeah, because DMs don't ever read setting books. :smallamused:

To be fair, some of the more useful stuff can get tucked into an appendix, or shuffled quietly into a paragraph on the reverse side of an uninteresting page, or otherwise just crammed in someplace where you might read the thing several times through and still miss it.

Looking at you, Tome of Battle. Seriously, editors, what were you doing there?

On the main point, though (and ignoring the hostility in the OP's tone), variant rules are, in effect, house rules - your table can either take them or leave them, or even further modify them. Not to be confused with more concrete rules, like caps on falling damage or limits on cross-class skills. The difference is that posters on this board tend to ask that critical fumbles be omitted, because they add nothing to the game but subtract a fair degree of fun, whereas posters ask that some other things be added, such as the Unarmed Swordsage adaptation or the Lesser Planetouched rules, because they add fun and versatility.

Many posters, when asked for advice, will suggest things like Unarmed Swordsage or Lesser Planetouched because they are useful. Not all posters automatically assume these things are available, any more than most of us would assume that Dragon Magazine is on the table; nonetheless, these are useful things to know, and great to have if they are available. That's why the recommendation is made.

I can't think of a time somebody has requested assistance and been told, "You know what would help your Fighter? Cutting off his own leg if he rolls a 1 on his attack." So critical fumbles are generally not suggested. In fact, because they are variant rules, which your table can take or leave, many posters will discourage critical fumbles for that specific reason - they add nothing, they subtract a lot, and if your table is using them, you might suggest to your DM that you not use them anymore. That's the great thing about variant rules - if you don't like them, you can throw them out.

[Brookshw]

Myth #1: That critical misses work.
Myth #2: That critical misses are in anyway good for the game.

Ehhh, we used to have some very absurd crit and fumble charts that were built heavily on slapstick and were much beloved by the group to the point over a decade later we still laugh at some of the combats. Swinging and dropping your sword is bad? Now imagine missing so bad a bus comes out of left field and hits you in the face (especially fun when the dragon sucks that one rather than wailing on the party). Or you accidentally cut a rift in time and space and get sucked into a pocket dimension to fight a balor. It's a very different style of game but they were huge fun and the crits were equally extreme/absurd.

[Firechanter]

The classical litmus test if a combat rule - house- or otherwise - makes any sense is to simulate a hall full of 100 training dummies and have 100 1st-level warriors attacking them for, I dunno, 10 minutes (100 rounds) or so. So you are rolling 10.000 attack rolls in a harmless environment. Keep in mind that, being warriors, they are proficient with their weapons.
If any of the warriors is dead or seriously wounded after that, whatever rule you have been testing is terrible and you can stop the evaluation right there.

One "popular" fumble rule is "drop your weapon on a Nat 1", such as our poor Dervish player here had to suffer through. In our simulation this would mean that on average, each of our Warriors (who are _proficient_ with their weapon) will drop his weapon around five times. Within those ten minutes, you will hear the clattering of steel on the floor no less than _five hundred times_.

If you have ever practiced even a bit of martial arts of any kind, you will know that this simply does. not. happen.

Even the often suggested qualifiers like "fumble confirmation roll" or "reflex save" usually fail to significantly improve this. Just run the numbers and see for yourselves.

Besides, if any kind of "fumble" rule was supposed to be implemented in any game I play in, even if it passed the litmus test, I would only accept it if an equivalent rule was also introduced that would make spellcasting more risky.

[Dornith]

This seems like the mother of all knit-picks to me.

What is the difference between a variant rule and a house rule? They're both rules that are not considered part of the core, but may be added at the DM's discretion. The name really isn't that important.

[VoxRationis]

The classical litmus test if a combat rule - house- or otherwise - makes any sense is to simulate a hall full of 100 training dummies and have 100 1st-level warriors attacking them for, I dunno, 10 minutes (100 rounds) or so. So you are rolling 10.000 attack rolls in a harmless environment. Keep in mind that, being warriors, they are proficient with their weapons.
If any of the warriors is dead or seriously wounded after that, whatever rule you have been testing is terrible and you can stop the evaluation right there.

One "popular" fumble rule is "drop your weapon on a Nat 1", such as our poor Dervish player here had to suffer through. In our simulation this would mean that on average, each of our Warriors (who are _proficient_ with their weapon) will drop his weapon around five times. Within those ten minutes, you will hear the clattering of steel on the floor no less than _five hundred times_.

If you have ever practiced even a bit of martial arts of any kind, you will know that this simply does. not. happen.

Even the often suggested qualifiers like "fumble confirmation roll" or "reflex save" usually fail to significantly improve this. Just run the numbers and see for yourselves.

Besides, if any kind of "fumble" rule was supposed to be implemented in any game I play in, even if it passed the litmus test, I would only accept it if an equivalent rule was also introduced that would make spellcasting more risky.

The thing is, attack rolls aren't meant to model people attacking training dummies in a safe environment. They're meant to model the chaos of an ongoing battle. The PHB says explicitly that an attack roll represents the success of a number of attempts to inflict damage over time. Anyone with anything approaching a firm grip on their weapons should be able to hit a motionless dummy in melee 100% of the time. Attack rolls reduce that percentage by a dramatic proportion. Consequently, they are not a good model for the room-full-of-dummies scenario.

[Firechanter]

Well, the AC of a training dummy is 5, so any warrior with a modicum of Str should be able to "hit" it in about 85-95% of cases. Where "hit" stands for "if this were a living thing, you'd have dealt damage". Of course it's not a perfect model, but that is the D20 combat system for you. The question that we test with this scenario is whether a houserule makes the system a hundred times more ridiculous than it need be.

[SowZ]

Well, the AC of a training dummy is 5, so any warrior with a modicum of Str should be able to "hit" it in about 85-95% of cases. Where "hit" stands for "if this were a living thing, you'd have dealt damage". Of course it's not a perfect model, but that is the D20 combat system for you. The question that we test with this scenario is whether a houserule makes the system a hundred times more ridiculous than it need be.

I thought motionless objects like walls and stuff have an AC of 0 in melee?

[Psyren]

I thought motionless objects like walls and stuff have an AC of 0 in melee?

Big solid stuff like the broad side of a barn, yeah. Practice dummies don't take up their entire square so it's possible to miss.

[SowZ]

Big solid stuff like the broad side of a barn, yeah. Practice dummies don't take up their entire square so it's possible to miss.

Oh, all right. If the average level 1 warrior whose been through basic has +2 attack, (1 BAB, 12 Str,) that means he'll still miss 10% of the time. Which still makes him a bit laughable.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Oh, all right. If the average level 1 warrior whose been through basic has +2 attack, (1 BAB, 12 Str,) that means he'll still miss 10% of the time. Which still makes him a bit laughable.


Weapon Focus (longsword or whatever) is pretty much the feat of choice for low-level warriors, that would increase the AB to +3 which means they only miss on a 1, and everyone misses on a one so it sort of works. Having said that I've been thinking on implementing a rule that whenever outstrips someone in skill there is no conciebable way for the better fighter to miss to drop the miss on nat 1. Not sure how to determine that... maybe if the difference is more than half of the BAB of a fighter... say a Fighter 10 would not auto-miss on anything that has 5 or less BAB... though that runs in the problem of monster which huge amounts of HD.

[Psyren]

Keep in mind also that a "miss" doesn't necessarily mean you swing for the fences and hit nothing but air. It can also be a glancing blow, or you stumbled slightly mid stroke, or you whack it with the flat of the blade and the impact makes your arm go numb or something. All of these can happen with a practice dummy.

On a natural 1 it gets more drastic - you sneezed mid-blow, or pulled a muscle, or you tripped over your own shoelaces etc. (I think some of the crit fumble effects from prior editions were pretty serious though.)

[Vhaidara]

Weapon Focus (longsword or whatever) is pretty much the feat of choice for low-level warriors, that would increase the AB to +3 which means they only miss on a 1, and everyone misses on a one so it sort of works. Having said that I've been thinking on implementing a rule that whenever outstrips someone in skill there is no conciebable way for the better fighter to miss to drop the miss on nat 1. Not sure how to determine that... maybe if the difference is more than half of the BAB of a fighter... say a Fighter 10 would not auto-miss on anything that has 5 or less BAB... though that runs in the problem of monster which huge amounts of HD.

My rule is that a 1 is treated as a -10, and a 20 is treated as a 30. If you still hit on the 1 or miss on the 20, then you hit or miss.

[Knaight]

The variant rule - house rule distinction is important, in that variant rules are at least a common basis that everyone knows. That said, critical fumbles are a category of rules, and the vast majority of them (particularly the dumb ones, such as the ones where an ally is hit with the weapon or one hits themselves) are house rules. Even the variant is pretty terrible.

[DeltaEmil]

A training dummy should have an AC of 3, as a result from having 0 Dexterity (a -5 penalty to the AC) and being a nonmoving object (another -2 penalty).

[Studoku]

OBJECTION!!!! A friend told me of a game where the DM tried to introduce a chaotic harlequin-style BBEG and needed a way to have his players unambiguously hate him. Thus he gave him a unique attack method: he enforced Critical Miss Tables whenever he was around. It worked as a perfect calling card, was unique so made him stick out, and ensured all the PC's hated his guts and worked their arses off to stop him, since his plan was to extend his power across all the Planes. HE wouldn't have been anywhere near as memorable otherwise. :smallbiggrin:

Admittedly the rules were less "You killed yourself lol" and more "Your Sword becomes a rubber chicken, and you lose the rest of turn as you try to comprehend what just happened, but still.

That actually sounds really cool.

[Psyren]

A training dummy should have an AC of 3, as a result from having 0 Dexterity (a -5 penalty to the AC) and being a nonmoving object (another -2 penalty).

It doesn't have Dex 0, it has Dex - , which is a modifier of 0 rather than -5.

[Karnith]

It doesn't have Dex 0, it has Dex - , which is a modifier of 0 rather than -5.
Inanimate objects have Dex 0 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject), actually, plus an additional -2 to AC. For, I dunno, some reason.

[Firechanter]

Inanimate objects have Dex 0 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject), actually, plus an additional -2 to AC. For, I dunno, something.

Probably for exactly the reason that has been voiced here in this thread: it is a bit laughable that someone might fail to hit an inanimate object, thus the Target Number to hit said object has to be brought down so far that everybody will hit, all the time. If the AC is 3, a warrior doesn't even need Str 12 nor Weapon Focus to reliably hit the dummy.
(The extra -2 is a thing that I forgot as well, as you may have noticed.)

[AugustNights]

For what it's worth, my table uses fumbles with a few variations on the theme.
1) Spells and the like have a 5% chance of surging (fumbles foe magic)
2) The Fumble table is a flat BaB or special skill check (Weapon Focus). On cannot Critically Fail a Fumble check. Fighter level is added to this check.
3) Absolutely no effects that stun, lose attacks, or otherwise take away actions from the character.

I also allow players to full attack as a standard action, and "steady" as a Move, which prevents fumbles.

[icefractal]

One thing that bugs me is that you often see the logic "There are critical hits, there should be critical fumbles." However - a critical hit is just an extra attack*. That's it! Not some force of vast destruction. So with that in mind "you drop your weapon" or "you stab yourself" is not the opposite of a crit, it's far worse.

The actual opposite of a crit would be "you miss, and you also miss your next attack". And it should have a confirmation roll, as well. A crit miss rule like that, I could live with - although I still question how much it adds to the game.

Streamlined Version - bundles confirmation roll into next attack, saving time:
If you roll a natural '1' on an attack roll, you are Off Balance. If you make an attack while Off Balance, you roll two dice and take the worse one, then the condition ends. You can also end the condition by taking a move action to rebalance yourself.


* With a 20/x2 weapon. Some weapons are designed to be more deadly when you get a good hit in, or make it easier to get those good hits. No weapons are designed to **** up more often or more badly. So a basic 20/x2 weapon is the appropriate thing to mirror.

[Vhaidara]

* With a 20/x2 weapon. Some weapons are designed to be more deadly when you get a good hit in, or make it easier to get those good hits. No weapons are designed to **** up more often or more badly. So a basic 20/x2 weapon is the appropriate thing to mirror.

The exception I've had made to fumble rules in my group is flail. Flails can fumble. Dire Flails fumble on anything less than a 4, because how the hell have you not already killed yourself with that thing?

[squiggit]

The exception I've had made to fumble rules in my group is flail. Flails can fumble. Dire Flails fumble on anything less than a 4, because how the hell have you not already killed yourself with that thing?

And spiked chains fumble on a 12?

[VoxRationis]

Chain weapons are actually used from time to time. As depicted, the spiked chain in the PHB could be used, though I have no idea how you get the 10' reach if you are holding it so close to each end. Each end of the chain is independent from the other because there's an anchor point in between the two ends. Thus, one end can move about, swing, hit the enemy, etc., while the other remains still, or at least still enough that it doesn't damage the wielder. The dire flail, on the other hand, almost mandates that you hit yourself. When one end hits the enemy, the other hits you or loses momentum and then hits you.
Of course, realistically, the spiked chain should be hell for your allies...

[icefractal]

The exception I've had made to fumble rules in my group is flail. Flails can fumble. Dire Flails fumble on anything less than a 4, because how the hell have you not already killed yourself with that thing?Actually, that could be an interesting feature for a weapon, although hard to balance ...

Bladed Chain (Exotic)
Like a spiked chain, but crazier and more dangerous, including to the person holding it. Instead of small spikes, it has dagger-length blades sticking out all along the length, making it hard to predict or block.
A Bladed Chain ignores shields, and opponents are flat-footed the first attack it's used against them.
However, if the wielder rolls a natural '1', they must drop the weapon or hit themselves (minus precision damage, but full normal damage). A wielder not proficient in the Bladed Chain does both.

Good for Rogues, perhaps.

[VoxRationis]

Well, the AC of a training dummy is 5, so any warrior with a modicum of Str should be able to "hit" it in about 85-95% of cases. Where "hit" stands for "if this were a living thing, you'd have dealt damage". Of course it's not a perfect model, but that is the D20 combat system for you. The question that we test with this scenario is whether a houserule makes the system a hundred times more ridiculous than it need be.

But that's just it! You're attempting to establish with a test that a rule is ridiculous, because it creates a ridiculous scenario when the test is applied to the rule. But the test itself is ridiculous, because it applies a model intended to work for one scenario and applies it to something completely different.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Chain weapons are actually used from time to time. As depicted, the spiked chain in the PHB could be used, though I have no idea how you get the 10' reach if you are holding it so close to each end. Each end of the chain is independent from the other because there's an anchor point in between the two ends. Thus, one end can move about, swing, hit the enemy, etc., while the other remains still, or at least still enough that it doesn't damage the wielder. The dire flail, on the other hand, almost mandates that you hit yourself. When one end hits the enemy, the other hits you or loses momentum and then hits you.
Of course, realistically, the spiked chain should be hell for your allies...


It doesn't function as a reach weapon and a double weapon at the same time, so it stands to reason that you aren't holding it near the middle but closer to te end. Unfortunatly the secondary and tertiary blades on each side of the weapon as depicted would make this difficult.

This

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-NxNxQ4-Ly-sDbXB3Z6dAMQ_NcuMYW_xvaGNYMXQTzN4dKU3VtA

or this

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_OO3SwDqviLdTJzKRrhhIlGfcazh3L zeuwqdz8hW4thcRfe2d

feel better IMHO.

[Knaight]

It doesn't function as a reach weapon and a double weapon at the same time, so it stands to reason that you aren't holding it near the middle but closer to te end. Unfortunatly the secondary and tertiary blades on each side of the weapon as depicted would make this difficult.

If they'd just used a rope dart, it would have been fine. It's the spikes all over the chain that make the weapon stupid. It would be like running barbs down the entire side of a spear for more spikes, even though that prevents a lot of proper spear handling.

[Anlashok]

It would be like running barbs down the entire side of a spear for more spikes, even though that prevents a lot of proper spear handling.

You're not really intended to be bashing people with the side of the spear though.


It doesn't function as a reach weapon and a double weapon at the same time, so it stands to reason that you aren't holding it near the middle but closer to te end. Unfortunatly the secondary and tertiary blades on each side of the weapon as depicted would make this difficult.

Amusing quirk. My friend tells me that in 4e you can get a Spiked Chain to count as a flail, a light bladed weapon, a reach weapon and a double weapon all at the same time.

[MeeposFire]

You're not really intended to be bashing people with the side of the spear though.



Amusing quirk. My friend tells me that in 4e you can get a Spiked Chain to count as a flail, a light bladed weapon, a reach weapon and a double weapon all at the same time.

Light blade and flail yes though I do not recall the reach and double weapon part...granted the only OP part was the light blade plus flail part so that could be why I don't remember.

[Anlashok]

Light blade and flail yes though I do not recall the reach and double weapon part...granted the only OP part was the light blade plus flail part so that could be why I don't remember.

It was a feat that allowed you to wield the spiked chain as a double weapon weapon and make it count as a light slashing weapon, but the particular feat in question didn't actually remove the weapon's reach or flail properties from what I understand.

[Knaight]

You're not really intended to be bashing people with the side of the spear though.

Nor are you supposed to hit people with the rope part of a rope dart.

[Firechanter]

I just remembered a little exchange we had on a previous thread about critical fumbles a couple of years ago on these boards.
There I suggested that, if at all, I would say you can fumble (in the sense of "bad things happen") only if you are fooling around with a weapon you aren't proficient with. Conversely, if you are proficient with your weapon, you don't fumble, as simple as that.

At that point, someone else came in frothing at the mouth that I was just arbitrarily making rules up, and nowhere did it say that Proficiency did anything like that. To which I could only reply that the rules also explicitly say that nothing bad happens beyond "you miss" on a Nat 1 anyway, so I am just countering one arbitrarily made up rule with another one.

[Killer Angel]

At that point, someone else came in frothing at the mouth that I was just arbitrarily making rules up, and nowhere did it say that Proficiency did anything like that. To which I could only reply that the rules also explicitly say that nothing bad happens beyond "you miss" on a Nat 1 anyway, so I am just countering one arbitrarily made up rule with another one.

aka "what's good for the goose..." :smallbiggrin:

[Hecuba]

aka "what's good for the goose..." :smallbiggrin:

Stupid mumble mumble grumble grumble house-ruling ganders, with their wings.



On the original topic: in discussions of critical miss rules, I've only rarely seen the actual variant rules as the rules under discussion. The rules that most people discuss, and thus presumably encounter, are even more punitive.

As a matter of design principles, there's noting inherently wrong with randomized risk (in the abstract). There are, however, significant systemic problems with implementing it for attack rolls in 3.5.

From a simulationist perspective, it fails most basic tests of verisimilitude: c.f. the target dummies above.
It implements the randomized risk incompletely and unevenly: there are some characters that do not need to make attack rolls. Risk that is avoidable and provides no advantage is not good game design.
The iterative attacks cause the risk to trend in the counter to the structure of the underlying mechanics.
The overall frequency of attack rolls by PCs would likely make this too punitive even if the other issues were magically solved. Risk-affine design is valid, but if all players are making attack rolls we might see a 1 for the party as often as every round at higher levels. That is unlikely to mirror with the intended goal.

[eggynack]

It implements the randomized risk incompletely and unevenly: there are some characters that do not need to make attack rolls. Risk that is avoidable and provides no advantage is not good game design.
It doesn't help that the risk is mostly given to the characters that are at the lowest levels of power.

[Millennium]

Variant rules are nothing more than common house rules which the editors noticed and published their own versions of. But I'm curious: why is it an insult for something to be a house rule?

[Hecuba]

It doesn't help that the risk is mostly given to the characters that are at the lowest levels of power.

Even if the reverse were true, it would still remain bad design: to properly serve any design goal I can imagine, risk must either provide potential advantage or be unavoidable. When neither is true, it exists only in the service of randomness.

Edit: I suppose you could have a goal of randomness, like georgie_leech's example on the prior page. In that case, the service of randomness will work. But that's, let' say, a corner case.


Variant rules are nothing more than common house rules which the editors noticed and published their own versions of. But I'm curious: why is it an insult for something to be a house rule?

Because, despite its lack of ontological rigor, the appeal of authority as truth is a deeply ingrained element of the human thought process.

[Firechanter]

Stupid mumble mumble grumble grumble house-ruling ganders, with their wings.

Haha, made my day! xD

[eggynack]

Even if the reverse were true, it would still remain bad design: to properly serve any design goal I can imagine, risk must either provide potential advantage or be unavoidable. When neither is true, it exists only in the service of randomness.
Well, theoretically, the risk could be considered an intrinsic part of making the attack (with some sort of underlying assumption that the critical missing has always been there), and the reward is that you get to hit folks. If hitting folks were the best thing you could do, then it would be avoidable, but you wouldn't want to avoid it. In any case, the idea is that critical missing would be some variety of balancing factor. Like, imagine if critical miss rules only applied to magic. In that case, the potential advantage would be pretty obvious.

[Red Fel]

Well, theoretically, the risk could be considered an intrinsic part of making the attack (with some sort of underlying assumption that the critical missing has always been there), and the reward is that you get to hit folks. If hitting folks were the best thing you could do, then it would be avoidable, but you wouldn't want to avoid it. In any case, the idea is that critical missing would be some variety of balancing factor. Like, imagine if critical miss rules only applied to magic. In that case, the potential advantage would be pretty obvious.

The problem is that, as stated previously, there are character concepts that can hit folks without critical failure chance. (See, e.g., casters.) If you have a choice between receiving a benefit in exchange for a risk, or receiving a benefit without risk, why would anyone choose the risk? (Yes, I know - I love playing melee too. But that's not the point.)

I think that this is the reason critical failure rules are so reviled. They add a serious penalty, and offer no genuine benefit that couldn't be found without them; they penalize melee over casters, and in particular penalize those who use more melee in a round - who should, by logic, be better at using weapons; perhaps most damningly, because of the proportion of PC attacks to NPC attacks, they tend to penalize players more than enemies.

Think about it. If you're a level 15 Fighter, you make three attacks on a full attack. You're a warrior of legend - most people couldn't even dream of becoming as awesome as you are. You have a 1/20 chance to do something stupid with your weapon, the same as a level 1 Fighter would. But since you attack three times in a round, you actually have three times the probability of doing something stupid. You are, in fact, more likely than a level 1 Fighter to do something stupid with your weapon.

I understand that battle is chaotic, and critical fumble rules may simulate that, or any number of other variables. It's still absurd to me, and I think to some others who have posted in this thread, that someone who has build a career out of slaying dragons and doing battle with beings beyond our comprehension, who has embodied what it means to be a swordsman, whose mastery of weapons is literally the stuff of legends, is more likely to screw up with his weapon than a novice who only just picked the thing up for the first time on a drunken dare.

This is, I think, chiefest among the failings of critical fumble rules. When a trained Navy SEAL with seven campaigns under his belt is more likely to critically fail a simulation than an aging, half-blind drunk who found an old gun in an open sewer, the simulation is seriously flawed.

Meanwhile, that idiot goblin attacking you once per round? With a pointed stick? He still hasn't dropped his freaking pointed stick.

[SiuiS]

I was reading a few things in your forum for the first time. I came across the Wait, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection thread. Problem occured to me is several people that are likely prominent names were mocking or otherwise, in refrence to Critical Misses as "a house rule".

This screamed incorrect in my mind. Not true! There is a valid rule in the books. So, I stopped reading and quickly sifted my books for it. How can so many people have such oversight? At any rate I refer you to the bottom right side of Page 28 in your Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5ed.

Now please stop calling it a "house rule" insult. It does exit naturally as a variant rule. This qualifies it being actual "RAW" as you may call it. Now make that DC 10 Dexterity check or lose a turn.

It is the most common because it is real.
Unless it is seperately made or replacement to the variant rule. Otherwise you may now consider the real rule idiotic at your discretion.

It's not the only contemptably stupid thing in that thread to beat people with the lawyer bat with, or the semantics one.

Critical Misses do exit. Case Closed. :smallwink:

So when my DM had me roll a d12 every time I rolled 1 on an attack to see if I;
Crit myself for maximum damage
Commited a death blow against a random bystander
Lost an arm, leg or sometimes head
Broke my weapon
Dropped my weapon
Died, no save


That wasn't a houserule?



I think you've missed the point. Yes, 3e took this houserule, have it a nod and moved on. But one permutation existing does not justify the entirety of the concept, and it is still a dysfunction. It doesn't work as intended.

[eggynack]

Snip
I'm not really supporting critical fumble rules, because they're the worst, but rather the idea that their negative impact on balance is a big part of the problem. If critical fumble rules only hit spells, and never hit attacks, then that would be quite a bit less problematic, though perhaps not perfectly lacking in problems, and difficult to implement. Sure, hitting with weapons offers no genuine benefit that can't be gained without them, but spells absolutely do, and if weapons and spells had their power level and versatility reversed, then critical fumble rules would be a whole lot more palatable.

[Hecuba]

I'm not really supporting critical fumble rules, because they're the worst, but rather the idea that their negative impact on balance is a big part of the problem. If critical fumble rules only hit spells, and never hit attacks, then that would be quite a bit less problematic, though perhaps not perfectly lacking in problems, and difficult to implement. Sure, hitting with weapons offers no genuine benefit that can't be gained without them, but spells absolutely do, and if weapons and spells had their power level and versatility reversed, then critical fumble rules would be a whole lot more palatable.

If that were the case, then the risk would have an attached potential reward.

To formalize this:

Let there be 2 options, A & B
Let A carry output a
Let B carry output b on success and c on failure
Let B have probability of success of d


Let f(X) equal the expected output of a choice, X.
f(A) = a
f(B) = b*d + c*(1-d)

If a is greater than both b & c, f(A) is always greater than f(B).
The introduction of risk d does not change the strategic dynamic between the two choices: A is optimal regardless of the level of risk.

Moreover, because it applies only to the outcome-inferior strategy, any general value inherent to d will not be realized if the players play strategically.

Players do not always play strategically, of course (nor do we necessarily want them to for all games).
If one takes risk as a general goal, however, it does not make sense to make the execution of that goal dependent on the players explicitly not playing strategically.

Thus for the risk be a well-executed game design element for a goal (other than sadistically punishing sub-optimal play), it must be either attached to an option where it would change the strategic incentives of play or relevant regardless of which option is taken.

[Snails]

Thus for the risk be a well-executed game design element for a goal (other than sadistically punishing sub-optimal play), it must be either attached to an option where it would change the strategic incentives of play or relevant regardless of which option is taken.

Your conclusion is false because output a is not always superior to output b.

The other reason critical fumbles are so reviled is it fits poorly in the context and flow of the game. (1) The potential for unlucky weird results is already baked into the system (a PC can always miss many times in a row, or get hit by multiple lucky crits). (2) Harsh negative incentives are very rare for PC actions, and this adds a special kind of disincentive that the very consistently designers avoided. (3) It adds complexity to an area of the game that is already rich with fiddly bits.

[eggynack]

Snip
I'm not really sure why you seem to be missing this, but if casters were the ones with critical fumble rules, then the reward would be both intrinsic to the system and absolutely massive. I don't need to introduce a new reward to casting, because it's already there, as it's fundamentally the most powerful thing you can do in the entire game. If the game is already imbalanced in favor of the characters getting the new risk, then I can just call the risk a balancing factor and call it a day, because it would take some pretty cruel critical miss rules to make magic stop being amazing.

[StreamOfTheSky]

aka "what's good for the goose..." :smallbiggrin:

No, what's "good for the goose" would be if you had fumble rules....FOR SPELLS. And *only* spells. I mean, it actually makes more sense, if anything. Even a commoner can swing around some pointy implement reasonably ok without hurting himself (one simple weapon proficiency), but it takes innate mystical power, many years of intense study, or devoting your life to doing PR for some god in order to cast magic. It's explicitly very complicated and hard to do. So why not assign every use of a spell an arbitrary 5% chance of screwing up real badly? Makes it more exotic and dangerous! Maybe exempt direct damage and healing spells from the rule, since they suck. No analytical reason is needed, "they suck" is good enough. That's the power of magic. Whenever something seems illogical, you get to just scream, "it's magic!" :smallbiggrin:

[Red Fel]

No, what's "good for the goose" would be if you had fumble rules....FOR SPELLS. And *only* spells. I mean, it actually makes more sense, if anything. Even a commoner can swing around some pointy implement reasonably ok without hurting himself (one simple weapon proficiency), but it takes innate mystical power, many years of intense study, or devoting your life to doing PR for some god in order to cast magic. It's explicitly very complicated and hard to do. So why not assign every use of a spell an arbitrary 5% chance of screwing up real badly? Makes it more exotic and dangerous! Maybe exempt direct damage and healing spells from the rule, since they suck. No analytical reason is needed, "they suck" is good enough. That's the power of magic. Whenever something seems illogical, you get to just scream, "it's magic!" :smallbiggrin:

Yes, but arcane spells have a chance to simply fail outright. That counts, doesn't it?

True, I suppose you can mitigate ASF by getting special armor or taking feats.

True, divine spells don't suffer ASF at all.

True, even if you're an arcane caster too poor to invest in armor that reduces ASF or too feat-starved to invest in Battle Caster, you could just wear a towel and be fine.

True, even if you're an arcane caster too daft to not wear heavy plate, and your spells subsequently fail, at least your head won't explode.

... But it's the same principle, right?

[Anlashok]

I mean, it actually makes more sense, if anything.

So does wizards having a low will save and fighters having a good one. But "What makes sense" only matters when we're talking about ways to make martials worse.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, but arcane spells have a chance to simply fail outright. That counts, doesn't it?

True, I suppose you can mitigate ASF by getting special armor or taking feats.

True, divine spells don't suffer ASF at all.

True, even if you're an arcane caster too poor to invest in armor that reduces ASF or too feat-starved to invest in Battle Caster, you could just wear a towel and be fine.

True, even if you're an arcane caster too daft to not wear heavy plate, and your spells subsequently fail, at least your head won't explode.

... But it's the same principle, right?

Blue text or not....No, it's not the same principle at all. The normal nat 1 rules (you auto-fail the attack) is akin to ASF, for those few who actually make themselves subject to it (Mage Armor and Greater MA are a thing, as is mithral and twilight property, etc...). Crit fumble rules are worse than failing at something. They also tend to cause you harm or waste your entire rest of turn (fumble in the middle of a full attack) and/or a chunk of your next turn and exposing you to more harm (picking it up, picking yourself up, etc... leading to AoO).

[Psyren]

No, what's "good for the goose" would be if you had fumble rules....FOR SPELLS. And *only* spells. I mean, it actually makes more sense, if anything. Even a commoner can swing around some pointy implement reasonably ok without hurting himself (one simple weapon proficiency), but it takes innate mystical power, many years of intense study, or devoting your life to doing PR for some god in order to cast magic. It's explicitly very complicated and hard to do. So why not assign every use of a spell an arbitrary 5% chance of screwing up real badly? Makes it more exotic and dangerous! Maybe exempt direct damage and healing spells from the rule, since they suck. No analytical reason is needed, "they suck" is good enough. That's the power of magic. Whenever something seems illogical, you get to just scream, "it's magic!" :smallbiggrin:

One reason is that you don't get limited attacks per day. So fumbling one does not set you back, aside from whatever penalty might accompany the fumble itself.

You could say that spells are powerful enough to compensate for that, and you'd be right. The problem though is that many spells benefit the entire party rather than just the caster.

[StreamOfTheSky]

One reason is that you don't get limited attacks per day. So fumbling one does not set you back, aside from whatever penalty might accompany the fumble itself.

You could say that spells are powerful enough to compensate for that, and you'd be right. The problem though is that many spells benefit the entire party rather than just the caster.

Well, by mid levels, running out of spells is never really a concern, and you're free to have backup scrolls/wands, too. So I guess this houserule would be the opposite of martial fumbles: It'd become less painful at higher levels than at lower ones. The hit to action economy will still suck at any level, though.

[Snails]

One reason is that you don't get limited attacks per day. So fumbling one does not set you back, aside from whatever penalty might accompany the fumble itself.

The penalty for missing is missing, and the likely consequence that you are standing next to something alive and dangerous that has a strong incentive to see you dead sooner rather than later. Adding some super special kind of miss is justified why?

Certain spells benefit the entire party in a way attacks do not, like buffs or healing. But a fireball is not fundamentally different from a volley of arrows. Maybe there should be a 5% chance that the Wizard hits his familiar with the fireball instead of the intended target? Would that make the game more fun?

[Killer Angel]

No, what's "good for the goose" would be if you had fumble rules....FOR SPELLS. And *only* spells. I mean, it actually makes more sense, if anything. Even a commoner can swing around some pointy implement reasonably ok without hurting himself (one simple weapon proficiency), but it takes innate mystical power, many years of intense study, or devoting your life to doing PR for some god in order to cast magic. It's explicitly very complicated and hard to do. So why not assign every use of a spell an arbitrary 5% chance of screwing up real badly? Makes it more exotic and dangerous! Maybe exempt direct damage and healing spells from the rule, since they suck. No analytical reason is needed, "they suck" is good enough. That's the power of magic. Whenever something seems illogical, you get to just scream, "it's magic!" :smallbiggrin:

:smallbiggrin:

well, if a fumble rule (equal for all) were to exist, it should be something ala "every time you do a standard action, there's a 0.1% chance of fumble".
But that would be too much impractical, so it's far better to avoid all fumble houserules.

[Hecuba]

I'm not really sure why you seem to be missing this, but if casters were the ones with critical fumble rules, then the reward would be both intrinsic to the system and absolutely massive. I don't need to introduce a new reward to casting, because it's already there, as it's fundamentally the most powerful thing you can do in the entire game. If the game is already imbalanced in favor of the characters getting the new risk, then I can just call the risk a balancing factor and call it a day, because it would take some pretty cruel critical miss rules to make magic stop being amazing.


I'm not missing it. That is why the word "if" was included in

If a is greater than both b & c, f(A) is always greater than f(B).

Or, put another way, I was discussing the implications when the rule


applies only to the outcome-inferior strategy

For a theoretical case where the casting had critical fumbles and attack rolls did not, b would be greater than a and the rule would introduce legitimate strategic choice (which would largely depend on the player's level of risk aversion)*.


Your conclusion is false because output a is not always superior to output b.
As above please note the "if."


*At least, if we presume that c (the value of the fumbled role) is not so vastly negative or vast likely as to make B the outright weaker option.

[...]

I know that Critical Fumbles are bad for attack rolls, but what do you guys think about using them for skill checks?

[georgie_leech]

I know that Critical Fumbles are bad for attack rolls, but what do you guys think about using them for skill checks?

I prefer roleplaying botched attempts when the dice rolls especially low. Like so. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=850)

[bekeleven]

Inanimate objects have Dex 0 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject), actually, plus an additional -2 to AC. For, I dunno, some reason.
Very odd, since Shriekers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/fungus.htm) - which can't move (Dex Ø) - don't have this AC penalty.

On the original topic: in discussions of critical miss rules, I've only rarely seen the actual variant rules as the rules under discussion. The rules that most people discuss, and thus presumably encounter, are even more punitive.

As a matter of design principles, there's noting inherently wrong with randomized risk (in the abstract). There are, however, significant systemic problems with implementing it for attack rolls in 3.5.

From a simulationist perspective, it fails most basic tests of verisimilitude: c.f. the target dummies above.
It implements the randomized risk incompletely and unevenly: there are some characters that do not need to make attack rolls. Risk that is avoidable and provides no advantage is not good game design.
The iterative attacks cause the risk to trend in the counter to the structure of the underlying mechanics.
The overall frequency of attack rolls by PCs would likely make this too punitive even if the other issues were magically solved. Risk-affine design is valid, but if all players are making attack rolls we might see a 1 for the party as often as every round at higher levels. That is unlikely to mirror with the intended goal.


Also, since I don't think I saw it in this thread yet: Critical Misses decrease the PC survival rate.

You can view this two ways. I think the DMG mentions something like "A PC makes more rolls in his life than the average enemy so he can make more misses." That's not a very intuitive reason, at least for me. I view it like this: Any encounter that's easier than CR+4, AKA nearly all of them except for some boss battles, are tilted in favor of the PCs. Therefore, anything that decreases the game's swinginess increases PC success in all of these encounters. Anything that increases randomness increases the chance that something, well, unlikely will happen, like an underdog victory.

So critical misses, just like critical hits, hurt PCs in the long run. Although whether they hurt them more depends on the specific rule in question. Also, this damage can be mitigated by making the rule work for you (Crit Fisher builds are better with crits in the game than without them, for instance. And in a world where critical misses are punitive, the party can similarly adapt by playing all casters and watching their enemies flail about and fall down.)

[Curmudgeon]

The talk about training dummies got me to thinking. By the time a Fighter gets to level 20, they're going to be able to hit the AC (whether that's 3 or 5) with every swing of every full attack, except when they roll a 1. So, since we're talking about house rules regarding automatic failures when performing what's supposed to be a core competency, the following seems only fair:


Every spell has a chance of failure during casting. If a 20th level Fighter attacking a straw training dummy misses 5% of all swings, the minimum chance of failure to cast any spell is also going to be 5%. (This being a new house rule which is designed to be equitable for everyone, it has nothing to do with Arcane Spell Failure.)

When a Fighter gets additional swings, the chances of missing in a round increase, and so should the chances of a Cleric/Druid/Wizard failing to cast a spell; higher-level spells are at least as powerful as all the swings a Fighter at the same level gets in a full attack. The formula for spellcasting success is 19/20 = 95% for spell levels which are available to those primary spellcasters at class levels 1-5, (19/20)^2 = 90% for spells which first become available at class levels 6-10, (19/20)^3 = 86% for spells which first become available at levels 11-15, and (19/20)^4 = 81% for spells which are only available at levels 16+. That leads to the table below. When attempting to cast a spell, roll percentile dice; you fail to cast the spell if you don't roll the required success percentage or less:
spell level 0-3: 95% success rate
spell level 4-5: 90%
spell level 6-8: 86%
spell level 9+: 81%
(You can get spell levels over 9 with Improved Spell Capacity [Epic].)

To address Psyren's argument about limited spell resources, the spell wouldn't be wasted; only the casting would fail. (The Fighter keeps their sword when they auto-fail; the spellcaster similarly gets to keep their spell when they auto-fail. Each is losing the action, not a limited resource.)

Thoughts?

[Shinken]

Extra rolls are a major pain, specially if it is a roll that only determines if you lose a spell.

[georgie_leech]

Extra rolls are a major pain, specially if it is a roll that only determines if you lose a spell.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, out of combat you could just have it be done, in the same way the DM usually doesn't have you go "I use my Standard Action to cast Mage Armor on myself. I don't move. I use my next Standard Action to cast..." for the morning buff routines. In combat, it's the same added rolling that would be done if you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll; try again next round.

[Shinken]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, out of combat you could just have it be done, in the same way the DM usually doesn't have you go "I use my Standard Action to cast Mage Armor on myself. I don't move. I use my next Standard Action to cast..." for the morning buff routines. In combat, it's the same added rolling that would be done if you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll; try again next round.

No, you misunderstand.
You attack! Roll your attack roll, if it's a one you miss.
You cast! Possibly roll your attack roll, possibly roll Concentration, possibly roll for spell penetration. Oh, before that, roll percentile dice just to know if your spell doesn't fizzle.
Failing on a one for an attack roll is something that is already integrated in the rules. There is no extra rolling. If it's a 1, it sucks. So be it.
The spell failure check is one extra roll for a spellcaster, no matter which way you cut it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, even, I'm just saying that implementing it is gonna be a pain.

[Firechanter]

I kinda lost track, are we talking about a houserule that imposes a SF% on all spells under _all_ circumstances, even when ASF by Armour is irrelevant?
Cuz tbh, I have _never_ experienced ASF% to be a thing in any game I played in; every single Arcane Caster took care that he could use whatever armour they intended to wear without incurring ASF.

[Curmudgeon]

The spell failure check is one extra roll for a spellcaster, no matter which way you cut it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, even, I'm just saying that implementing it is gonna be a pain.
You throw two extra dice into your dice rolling cup, and the overhead is maybe an extra second to scoop up those additional dice each turn. They're there along with the d20 for Concentration should you decide to cast defensively, and the other d20 for caster level check if the enemy has SR. If you don't need particular dice on your turn you just ignore them. There's no reason for spellcasting characters to drag gameplay out any more than for martial characters to not have their d20 and damage dice rolled together.

If you have a serious objection other than 1 second of overhead each spellcaster's turn, I'll be happy to consider it.

[Hecuba]

spell level 0-3: 95% success rate
spell level 4-5: 90%
spell level 6-8: 86%
spell level 9+: 81%

Thoughts?

I would stick with the flat 5% increments (95%,90%,85%,80%) rather the multiplicative reduction you have.
This allows you to roll it with a d20 (failure on 1,2,3,4 respectively), creating a parallel between the actual attack roll.

The mechanical difference would be slight, but the tone will likely be more important for all but the most mathematically minded groups.

[ddude987]

I like the rules suggested. I believe the complexity of implementation of these rules is dependent on your group, for example my dnd group this would probably add way more time than its worth, but because that is a group matter, not a matter with the rules themselves, it seems irrelevant for discussion.

[Curmudgeon]

I would stick with the flat 5% increments (95%,90%,85%,80%) rather the multiplicative reduction you have.
This allows you to roll it with a d20 (failure on 1,2,3,4 respectively), creating a parallel between the actual attack roll.

The mechanical difference would be slight, but the tone will likely be more important for all but the most mathematically minded groups.
One reason I went with the percentile dice is to make it easier to differentiate things in the roll. When your dice cup already includes a d20 for Concentration for casting defensively and another d20 for a CL check to overcome SR, requiring a third d20 of a different color tends to be too much of the same thing. I wanted to head off potential confusion.

[Asteron]

This thread has gotten me thinking about my groups crit fumble rule. We have always played that a Nat 1 resulted in your turn ending and you are flat-footed until your next turn. Is this too much? No one in our groups has complained, but it's still places more of a burden on mundane PCs that casters...

Part of me thinks of it as a balancing factor for the fact that a Nat 20 is always a crit. We don't confirm crits either. If you threaten a crit and the total to hit exceeds the targets AC, then you crit... Considering that information, is the fumble rule a little more balanced?

[Vhaidara]

This thread has gotten me thinking about my groups crit fumble rule. We have always played that a Nat 1 resulted in your turn ending and you are flat-footed until your next turn. Is this too much? No one in our groups has complained, but it's still places more of a burden on mundane PCs that casters...

Part of me thinks of it as a balancing factor for the fact that a Nat 20 is always a crit. We don't confirm crits either. If you threaten a crit and the total to hit exceeds the targets AC, then you crit... Considering that information, is the fumble rule a little more balanced?

My group rules that you provoke an AoO. It's resulted in some short boss fights. Our GMs don't use enemies that the entire party can threaten in melee at once anymore.

[Asteron]

My group rules that you provoke an AoO. It's resulted in some short boss fights. Our GMs don't use enemies that the entire party can threaten in melee at once anymore.

We did that in my 4E game because FF didn't exist... That also made for some shorter fights, although not as bad as it can in 3.5.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I know that Critical Fumbles are bad for attack rolls, but what do you guys think about using them for skill checks?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Seriously, don't ever do that.

[Marlowe]

"Urist McFighter gets out of bed and attempts to put on and ties his shoes. He rolls a 1. His head explodes."

[Gavinfoxx]

I know that Critical Fumbles are bad for attack rolls, but what do you guys think about using them for skill checks?

Then I would say, "I take 10" all the time. And if you say I can't do that, I would say, "Am I in combat? Am I in high winds in the middle of a storm or a heaving ship or something equally distracting? Note that risk of death for failing a skill is not considered distracting by the rules, it has to be something actively interfering. Reread the skills section, I'll wait."

[Fax Celestis]

Very odd, since Shriekers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/fungus.htm) - which can't move (Dex Ø) - don't have this AC penalty.

0 != Ø

That is, a score of 0 (modifier -5) isn't the same thing as Ø (modifier +0). Read the Nonabilities section.

[DarkSonic1337]

This thread has gotten me thinking about my groups crit fumble rule. We have always played that a Nat 1 resulted in your turn ending and you are flat-footed until your next turn. Is this too much? No one in our groups has complained, but it's still places more of a burden on mundane PCs that casters...

Part of me thinks of it as a balancing factor for the fact that a Nat 20 is always a crit. We don't confirm crits either. If you threaten a crit and the total to hit exceeds the targets AC, then you crit... Considering that information, is the fumble rule a little more balanced?

Losing a turn is extremely harsh, and being flatfooted is adding insult to injury.

Nat 20s always critting isn't really that big a deal if you're fighting varied enemies. Between enemies that are immune to crits anyway, enemies with low enough AC that confirming crits almost always happens, and instances where a critical hit is just overkill the houserule doesn't really change much. All critical threats being confirmed would be a sizable change...but this is pretty negligible.

[bekeleven]

0 != Ø

That is, a score of 0 (modifier -5) isn't the same thing as Ø (modifier +0). Read the Nonabilities section.

We were discussing things with nonabilities and -5 dex modifiers.

Go to the page.

Shriekers have -5 dex modifiers.

Unless you're saying a stationary object has a dex of 0 and not Ø.

[Fax Celestis]

It should. That's what a notability means.

[bekeleven]

It should. That's what a notability means.

Shriekers have no dex and a -5 dex modifier to AC.

Objects have a listed dexterity of 0 and a -5 dex mod to ac, plus an additional -2 penalty.

I don't know why objects have stats plants don't, but that's the case.

[Allanimal]

Every spell has a chance of failure during casting. If a 20th level Fighter attacking a straw training dummy misses 5% of all swings, the minimum chance of failure to cast any spell is also going to be 5%. (This being a new house rule which is designed to be equitable for everyone, it has nothing to do with Arcane Spell Failure.)

*snip*

When attempting to cast a spell, roll percentile dice; you fail to cast the spell if you don't roll the required success percentage or less:
spell level 0-3: 95% success rate
spell level 4-5: 90%
spell level 6-8: 86%
spell level 9+: 81%
(You can get spell levels over 9 with Improved Spell Capacity [Epic].)

To address Psyren's argument about limited spell resources, the spell wouldn't be wasted; only the casting would fail. (The Fighter keeps their sword when they auto-fail; the spellcaster similarly gets to keep their spell when they auto-fail. Each is losing the action, not a limited resource.)

Thoughts?

Interesting idea. Since the spell is not lost on failure, this effectively means outside of encounters (or other time pressure), spell casting is not thwarted, as there is no risk to just try again.

What about casting time? If the spell takes a full round or ten minutes to cast, for examples, does it take that long to know it failed? I would think so... Or do they know after a single standard action?

I may have to try this.

[Fax Celestis]

Shriekers have no dex and a -5 dex modifier to AC.

Objects have a listed dexterity of 0 and a -5 dex mod to ac, plus an additional -2 penalty.

I don't know why objects have stats plants don't, but that's the case.

That shrieker stat block is wrong.


Some creatures lack certain ability scores. These creatures do not have an ability score of 0—they lack the ability altogether. The modifier for a nonability is +0. Other effects of nonabilities are detailed below.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

[Curmudgeon]

What about casting time? If the spell takes a full round or ten minutes to cast, for examples, does it take that long to know it failed? I would think so... Or do they know after a single standard action?

I may have to try this.
The success/failure determination should be made when the casting is finished. Everything else about casting a spell (target selection, caster level checks, & c.) is determined at the end of the process.
You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell. I don't see any rationale for creating a new mechanic here. How would that work, anyway? Wouldn't concentration on the spell be ruined if you interrupt the casting partway through to check to see how you're doing?