PDA

View Full Version : Making Sane Fumble Rules



Talanic
2007-03-22, 05:25 PM
Okay, fumble rules have their good and bad potential. The first bad potential is that they make the melees--already not the greatest in the game--potentially worse. The good potential is that they can spice up a game.

Here's a few thoughts on basic useage of fumbles.

First, you can only fumble on your lowest attack roll in a round. If you have two attacks at the lowest roll, only one of them can fumble. This is to ensure that fighters don't get more likely to screw up the higher level they get. Characters can forego their lowest attack in a round at the start of the round to gain +1 to all other attacks that round. Also, when using Combat Expertise, fumbles are impossible due to the concentration involved.

Second, I would allow a charisma check (opposed by opponent) to recover from a fumble. This adds more use to the charisma stat, and fits well with charisma's status as a representation of confidence. If someone knows they're screwing up but also knows that they rock, they're possibly going to fight a way through it anyways.

Third, reasonable fumble effects. A particularly bad fumble might provoke an attack of opportunity from all threatening the character, or allow an enemy a free sunder or trip attempt against the player. No "You cut off your own leg" or "You break your arm" or immediate weapon breakages without further dice rolls. A normal fumble might provoke an intimidate check from an opponent as a free action, or provide a -1 to hit or to AC.

What's everyone think? I know this is a touchy subject because it can be done wrongly so easily.

Black Hand
2007-03-22, 05:50 PM
I work with fumbles in a slightly different fashion, I treat them like the opposite of a critical hit.

-On a natural one, you reroll a confirm check (similar to a confirm on a crit)
-If you confirm roll misses the target again then it's a legitimate fumble.

I kind of ad-hoc it with the fumbles not making it too unbalanced (like cutting your own head off) I generally determine the severity of the fumble by rolling 1d100. With the lowest being the least severe to a 99 or 100 being a good whoop-dee-doo.

The fumbles range from the loss of the rest of your attacks, or you lose your dex bonus until the next round, dropping your weapon, slipping and becoming prone (as if knocked down), to hitting an ally or yourself for the normally rolled damage, or all enemies around you get an AOO.

Again it depends on the situation: Ook'Thok Bolo the dwarf, charging ahead of his companions will most not likley be hitting his friends, but may end up falling flat on his face and skidding up to the toes of the mad cow. (and in the case of rolling high like a 95) The Minotaur getting an AOO on him as it yells FORE!

Subotei
2007-03-22, 05:53 PM
I don't see why people are so anti-fumbles myself. It does spice up combat, in the same way a good crit can. Anyone who doesn't like the element of chance should really question why they're playing a game which involves rolling loads of dice in the first place. You could just compare stats to see who the best character is and decide combat like its a game of top trumps, but its not so much fun, is it?

I like the Runequest approach (my favourite game - RQ3, not the new version) with set fumble tables - higher you roll, worse the result. The majority are pretty harmless - eg lose next attack, drop you weapon, shield/armour strap breaks etc - enough to spice up combat without resorting to "oh no - you've cut you own leg off!" approach. My personal favourite was 'hit nearest friend' - always good to see who your friends actually are! Therefore I'm definitely in favour of the reasonable fumble approach.

I like the Cha roll idea - it has potential, but I'd skip the lowest attack fumble - if you're lucky enough to have multiple attacks then you take the rough with the smooth - would you want to be limited to one crit?

OK - so who is going to suggest fumbles for spell casters?

F.H. Zebedee
2007-03-22, 05:57 PM
Actually, most of that does sound good. Maybe have the Charisma checks after the result rolls, and have varying DCs to prevent it? I dunno. That is overcomplicated, I think.

Oh gee. Sorry, but hearing spell fumbles brought back horrible memories of the FATAL review... *shudder*

Really, spells are too diverse to really have fumbles for. That's serious DM territory in my opinion. I mean, what universal effects could there be? Accidentally randomly targetting within range, forgetting extra preperations of a spell, etc?

Black Hand
2007-03-22, 05:58 PM
OK - so who is going to suggest fumbles for spell casters?

:smallcool: We'll title that one: When Ranged Touch attacks go wrong! " Imagine the cleric who just cast cause critical wounds to get a sudden itch on his butt and instinctivly scratches..."

Seriously though, spell fumbles I use in a way when a spell is fizzled due to the failure of a concentration roll, or fudging a higher level scroll... when it is disrupted, again like the 1d100 above, I guage the severity of it. Or fall back on the wand, -er...Rod of wonder effect for a wild surge for the fizzled spell.

PMDM
2007-03-22, 06:00 PM
I will. Fumbling a touch attack always make a lot of spells more dangerous to use. If a character rolls a natural 20 on their saving throw, something bad should happen to the spell caster. I.E. probably more spell backfire.

Beleriphon
2007-03-22, 06:00 PM
I always hated fumbles. As if having a 5% chance to automatically miss isn't bad enough, you have to completely screw a player when they roll a 1. Which is the way most fumble results end up. At worst I would make fumbles giving up the rest of the attacks for a round. Anything more then that tends to move into ludicrous screw the player mode.

kamikasei
2007-03-22, 06:00 PM
I don't see why people are so anti-fumbles myself. It does spice up combat, in the same way a good crit can. Anyone who doesn't like the element of chance should really question why they're playing a game which involves rolling loads of dice in the first place. You could just compare stats to see who the best character is and decide combat like its a game of top trumps, but its not so much fun, is it?

It's one thing to have an element of chance determining whether you manage to pull off the difficult task you're attempting. It's another to have a random chance of stabbing yourself in the gut 5% of the time when you attack your enemy.

Beleriphon
2007-03-22, 06:02 PM
It's one thing to have an element of chance determining whether you manage to pull off the difficult task you're attempting. It's another to have a random chance of stabbing yourself in the gut 5% of the time when you attack your enemy.

More then that if you can make multiple attacks each round. So, I now have a four 5% chances to stab myself in the gut at high levels. In many ways it actually makes a high level fighter a worse fighter because he only increases his chances to completely screw up.

PMDM
2007-03-22, 06:04 PM
You could always make the fumbles do less damage, because it's unrealistic to do full damage to yourself, even when you screw up.

clockwork warrior
2007-03-22, 06:04 PM
myself, i just go that if you fumble, what ever you were attacking gets a free attack on you.

so far it is working pretty well

Dausuul
2007-03-22, 06:04 PM
I think the main problem people have with fumbles--certainly the main problem I have with them--is when they make a supposedly expert warrior look like a clueless idiot. D&D is heroic fantasy, after all; a lot of the fun is in playing the part of a bad-ass hero. Fumbles, in the way that fumbles are usually handled, take away from that.

That said, I agree that a fumble system works as long as the fumbles are kept within reason and portrayed appropriately. That is, if a 20th-level fighter fumbles an attack, he doesn't heave his sword across the room; instead, he makes a subtle mistake and leaves a tiny gap in his defenses for a fraction of a second, a gap which could be exploited by a truly masterful opponent.

Hence, I like the idea of fumbles giving AoOs.

And yes, fumbles should definitely work like inverse crits as far as determining when they happen. If you roll a natural 1, you miss and have to roll again; if you miss on the "confirmation" roll, you fumble.

PMDM
2007-03-22, 06:05 PM
myself, i just go that if you fumble, what ever you were attacking gets a free attack on you.

so far it is working pretty well

Hmm... It seems that would give a slight advantage to defence builds. But it's worth it.

What about a fumble table, which would depend on your level. The higher level you were in a melee class, the less annoying the fumble is.

Beleriphon
2007-03-22, 06:12 PM
Hence, I like the idea of fumbles giving AoOs.

And yes, fumbles should definitely work like inverse crits as far as determining when they happen. If you roll a natural 1, you miss and have to roll again; if you miss on the "confirmation" roll, you fumble.

This I could live with since it requires two rolls, and its doesn't make you look like a total moron. That and since it would follow the AoO rules it can't completely bork you if the guy you're attacking already got his one AoO (not with standing Combat Reflexes).

Subotei
2007-03-22, 06:17 PM
It's one thing to have an element of chance determining whether you manage to pull off the difficult task you're attempting. It's another to have a random chance of stabbing yourself in the gut 5% of the time when you attack your enemy.

But in a sane fumble system a fumble would not equal instant death, and remember for every fumble you make, your opponent suffers similarly. Believe me, the RQ fumble system works quite well, and is not a kiss of death. However I'm wary of allowing AoOs/free attacks against the fumbler - that is quite painful, compared to say, loosing an attack.


I think the main problem people have with fumbles--certainly the main problem I have with them--is when they make a supposedly expert warrior look like a clueless idiot. D&D is heroic fantasy, after all; a lot of the fun is in playing the part of a bad-ass hero. Fumbles, in the way that fumbles are usually handled, take away from that.

But don't you just love the bit in the movie where the hero slips up, only to recover the situation? I like DnD, but sometimes the melee combat can be like mowing the lawn.

F.H. Zebedee
2007-03-22, 06:33 PM
Actually, how about this: A d100 for fumble results, with the worst at the very highest numbers. And then deduct a certain ammount per character level from the fumble check.

You know: -2 for every level Fighter/Ranger/Monk/Paladin (finesse fighters), -1 for every level Barbarian/Bard/Rogue (Lesser fighters/ less skillful fighters), -.5 per level, rounded down for Druids/Clerics (semicapable melee fighters with casting abilities), and -.2, rounded down, for full spell casters (Wizard/Sorc), since they really shouldn't be swinging away in the first place.

Raum
2007-03-22, 06:41 PM
There's a decent analysis of fumbles here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=705211) and one addressing use of fumbles with skills here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396753)

One of the (very) few reasons I've seen used to justify fumbles beyond a simple miss is "fumbles are fun / add spice". I suppose they can be if all you're concerned about are the dice. However, it stretches my belief when the heroes begin sucking in important combats. It's ok if you're playing a comic game but doesn't really fit epic story telling.

Against that you have all the reasons not to use fumbles.
- They don't affect all classes equally.
- They harm the weakest classes most.
- They hurt PCs far more than NPCs.
- Few, if any (none I've seen), critical systems account for level or skill. In some you actually fumble more as you supposedly get better at combat.

Basically, if you're role playing and telling an epic story, fumbles suck.

F.H. Zebedee
2007-03-22, 06:44 PM
Yeah, I think that maybe make it so that fumbles are once per encounter, per unit, at most. You know, after making a bonehead move, they set their jaw and go "Okay, no more **** ups from this point on."

And yeah, toned down fumbles are a must. No cutting off anything.

UglyPanda
2007-03-22, 06:47 PM
I dislike fumbles because one of my previous DMs was a dice-obsessed bastard. According to RAW, if you roll a 1 on an attack roll you miss, and if you roll a 1 on a save, you fail. That's it! No stabbing yourself in the foot or killing innocent bystanders by juggling beanbags.

Black Hand
2007-03-22, 07:02 PM
I knew I had it in my notes somewhere. I had a spell created for our games using the " roll a 1, then confirm miss crits..." and it goes something like this:

It's not too powerful, but fun. :smallbiggrin:

Butterfingers
Enchantment
Level: Wis1/Sor1, Bard 1, Luck1, Combat1, War1
Components: VSM
Casting time: Standard action
Range: 30'+5'/level
Target: 1 target
Duration: 1 minute/level.
Save Will Negates

Description: Upon casting this spell it causes the target to suffer bad luck in Combat moreso than normal. In effect it gives the fumble version of a 'threat range' with rolling a fumble. Under normal circumstances on a natural 1 you reroll your attack and in the case of a miss, you fumble.

The spell adds to this by adding to the range of the chances for the spell. The threat range increases by 1 for every 5 levels of caster class. As well as adding a -1 penalty for every 5 levels to the confirm hit.

Caster
Level _Threat ___Penalty
1-5____ 1-2 ___-1 on confirm attack
6-10___ 1-3 ___-2 on confirm attack
11-15__ 1-4___ -3 on confirm attack
16-20 __1-5 ___-4 on confirm attack

There also is a lvl 3 version of this which effects 1 target/caster level, however it is not as powerful as the full penalty is: 1-4 -3 on confirm attack at 20th level.

Avenger337
2007-03-22, 07:11 PM
I used to play where if you fumbled, then something bad happened (usually you just dropped your weapon). However, I was thinking about it, and decided that any sort of trained fighter would never do something that retarded; or at least, it would be much rarer than 5% of the time. So, I've since changed my rule to a natural 1 automatically misses, and if you fail a dex check (DC 10), you lose the rest of your action for that round.

Note that assumes proficiency with the weapon. If you're not proficient with the weapon, if you fail the dex check you would still drop it.

Talanic
2007-03-22, 08:42 PM
You can tell who didn't read my post at all.

Maximum number of fumbles per round would be one because it can only happen on your lowest number BAB attack (and only once if you have two at that number). A serious fumble would provoke an attack of opportunity of the opponent's choice. Lesser (but still serious) ones would provoke a specific attack of opportunity (like, can only attempt to trip or sunder, etc). Go lower than that and you start to give the enemy chances to feint or intimidate for free, or gain +1 ac versus the fumbled player.

Spell fumbles is EASY. When rolling concentration to cast, a natural one provokes charisma check (easier for sorcerers/bards, I know); failure means you roll off the Rod of Wonder chart. (Not completely serious about that).

Anyway, any other actual ideas about fumbles, rather than simply saying yea or nay?

Galathir
2007-03-22, 09:03 PM
In a past campaign I houseruled that with a melee or ranged attack if you rolled a natural one, you immediately rolled 1d20. If you rolled below your BAB you could continue your attack(s) as if nothing special had happened. Your attack will most likely fail, but you can still take any following attacks and suffer no penalties. If you rolled above your BAB you fumbled and I had a chart of effects based off 1d8. I don't remember the effects, but they ranged from pretty bad at 1 and almost no effect at all at 8.

My reasoning was that as a character increases his BAB he is getting better at combat. A high level fighter was almost immune to fumbles as would make sense with his high level of training. However, a wizard would fumble on a one most of the time, even at high levels.

Jack Mann
2007-03-22, 09:36 PM
Lousy bunch of Fumblemonkeys (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26567).

Raum
2007-03-22, 10:08 PM
You can tell who didn't read my post at all.Gee, I bet it was someone with the "temerity" to disagree with and even debunk your premise. :-P

Just in case you'd like an analysis of your proposed system:
First, you can only fumble on your lowest attack roll in a round. If you have two attacks at the lowest roll, only one of them can fumble. This is to ensure that fighters don't get more likely to screw up the higher level they get. Characters can forego their lowest attack in a round at the start of the round to gain +1 to all other attacks that round. Also, when using Combat Expertise, fumbles are impossible due to the concentration involved. So basically there's a flat 5% chance each round of initiating a fumble check. Why doesn't an experienced fighter get better at avoiding fumbles? Using Combat Expertise to avoid fumbles just makes it a necessary feat for all primary, and probably most secondary, attackers. After all, they can simply put one point of AB into AC via Combat Expertise and avoid any chance of fumbling. Hmm, now I'm wondering why a high Int but low Dex / Str type is going to fumble less than those with a lower Int but higher Dex / Str...


Second, I would allow a charisma check (opposed by opponent) to recover from a fumble. This adds more use to the charisma stat, and fits well with charisma's status as a representation of confidence. If someone knows they're screwing up but also knows that they rock, they're possibly going to fight a way through it anyways. Is fumbling physical or mental? I'd always envisioned it as physical, but I sort of understand the mental / confidence point of view. Moving on...why is the confirmation an opposed roll? That poor fighter is going to fumble a lot more when attacking the bard.

This is one of the most common shortcomings of fumble systems. Whether it's an opposed roll or another attack roll against the opponent's AC, you're letting the opponent's abilities affect how often you fumble. This also means the fighter doesn't get better at avoiding fumbles. Counterintuitive as it is, a level 20 fighter will fumble just as often as a level 1.


Third, reasonable fumble effects. I agree with your effort to keep fumble results reasonable. However, even seemingly reasonable results such as dropping a weapon or losing attacks can have disproportionate results. And both of those are major nerfs to fighter types and not to casters. Difficult to come up with equitable results across differing classes.


Spell fumbles is EASY. When rolling concentration to cast, a natural one provokes charisma check (easier for sorcerers/bards, I know); failure means you roll off the Rod of Wonder chart. (Not completely serious about that). Not really so easy. First, casters won't be making concentration rolls every time they cast. Second, critical failures on skills is a whole new can of worms...the second link in my post above addresses those. Finally, if you give casters a straight 5% chance of spell failure, the true result is 5% fewer spell slots. I'm not entirely against nerfing casters, but losing random spells wouldn't be my choice of how to do so.


Anyway, any other actual ideas about fumbles, rather than simply saying yea or nay?If you really see a need for fumble rules on attacks I'd suggest the following criteria:
- Those with high AB (whether through level, class, or other) have a lower chance of fumbling.
- Fumble effects be transitory and not powerful enough to effect more than a single round of combat.
- Fumble effects don't take class abilities (such as iterative attacks) away.
- Those with multiple attacks don't fumble more because of it. (You've addressed this one admirably.)

I think the above can be done. I'd suggest using the characters highest AB against a set DC (probably 15) to avoid fumbles. As you said, only the last attack can fumble. If confirmed, the character is Shaken for one round.

What I don't think can be done easily is make a fumble system equally relevant to all classes, including casters, while not making the system a burden on any subset of classes.

Aquillion
2007-03-22, 10:20 PM
Allow me to quote a favorite line from the 3rd edition Ars Magica Combat Botch Result Table (basically, their fumble rules.) In the worst possible case on a fumble, which involves rolling at least four consecutive ones on the D10 die used in that game, you get the following effect:

You are sent recoiling from the fray, your arms flailing in the air. As you try to recover your footing, you lunge for the nearest ballast. Before you can stop yourself, you realize you have plunged onto the weapon of your nearest ally, and that your weapon has struck him as well. You're beyond the mortal coil. To determine whether you damage your ally... (combat roll details follow, but basically your ally gets a penalty against your normal attack roll.)...I never saw that actually happen, but I always wondered what the effect would be if your nearest ally is, say, the king, in his castle, three thousand miles away.

Also note that there is no way to restore the dead to life in that game. Ever.

JackMage666
2007-03-22, 10:32 PM
With one DM I had, a natural one simply meant that the weapon slipped out of your hands, so you dropped it. Then, had to spend the next full found picking it up, or picking it up as a move action and provoking attacks of opportunity.
It also allowed a slight benefit to monks and people with natural weapons, since it's hard to drop your hand. We never had a 1 on a touch attack spell, though, now that I think about it, but it'd probably just mean the spell was discharged harmlessly.

Talanic
2007-03-22, 11:09 PM
Gee, I bet it was someone with the "temerity" to disagree with and even debunk your premise. :-P


Nah, I was referring to the ones who posted "But then a level 20 fighter would fumble four times as often as a level 1" when my first rule made sure that that would NOT happen.

I actually don't have a game right now, I just like to discuss these rules, and I can admit when something's a bad idea. I'm just posting for the fun of debate, and don't want to make anyone mad.


Just in case you'd like an analysis of your proposed system: So basically there's a flat 5% chance each round of initiating a fumble check. Why doesn't an experienced fighter get better at avoiding fumbles? Using Combat Expertise to avoid fumbles just makes it a necessary feat for all primary, and probably most secondary, attackers. After all, they can simply put one point of AB into AC via Combat Expertise and avoid any chance of fumbling. Hmm, now I'm wondering why a high Int but low Dex / Str type is going to fumble less than those with a lower Int but higher Dex / Str...

Why doesn't an experienced fighter get better at avoiding fumbles? That's what the lowest BAB attack means to me. The risk of overreaching yourself in a fight. He COULD play it safe and make one fewer attack in a round, in exchange for +1 to hit with all attacks (not +2 because then it negates the penalty for multishot, flurry of blows, etc.) But instead he's reaching for another attack, and that CAN cost him.

The smart fighter fumbles less because he fights more carefully.


Is fumbling physical or mental? I'd always envisioned it as physical, but I sort of understand the mental / confidence point of view. Moving on...why is the confirmation an opposed roll? That poor fighter is going to fumble a lot more when attacking the bard.

Well, doesn't the bard need the very slight boost that this would provide? +3 to +6 to the DC when his opponents are possibly going to fumble? Just kidding. It's an opposed check because I rushed it; would something else sound better? I think CHA would do well integrated into the mechanic, though. That would provide a method for characters to 'armor' themselves against fumbling at higher levels, by increasing their CHA, which suffers so often.


This is one of the most common shortcomings of fumble systems. Whether it's an opposed roll or another attack roll against the opponent's AC, you're letting the opponent's abilities affect how often you fumble. This also means the fighter doesn't get better at avoiding fumbles. Counterintuitive as it is, a level 20 fighter will fumble just as often as a level 1.

Unless he's invested in some charisma gear, which, at level 20, is so dirt cheap for a little added to something he's already wearing...since it'll actually affect the characters, they may bother investing in some, perhaps.


I agree with your effort to keep fumble results reasonable. However, even seemingly reasonable results such as dropping a weapon or losing attacks can have disproportionate results. And both of those are major nerfs to fighter types and not to casters. Difficult to come up with equitable results across differing classes.

True. Which is one reason I'm just playing around with this, which I probably should've emphasized a little more in my first post. Also, note that none of my examples have ever advocated dropping a weapon. There are game mechanics in place to use; a bad fumble might let the enemy attempt a disarm check, but would not not an automatic dropping of a weapon.


Not really so easy. First, casters won't be making concentration rolls every time they cast. Second, critical failures on skills is a whole new can of worms...the second link in my post above addresses those. Finally, if you give casters a straight 5% chance of spell failure, the true result is 5% fewer spell slots. I'm not entirely against nerfing casters, but losing random spells wouldn't be my choice of how to do so.

How would you do it? I agree, it's not optimal as-is, but the old wild magic system is along the lines of how I envision it.



- Those with high AB (whether through level, class, or other) have a lower chance of fumbling.


Right now it's not in the mechanic, but if the mechanic were in, players would take steps to address it. You wouldn't raise AB to lower fumbles any more than you'd raise it to get hit less in combat; CHA would be your armor against fumbles.


- Fumble effects be transitory and not powerful enough to effect more than a single round of combat.


Agreed.



- Fumble effects don't take class abilities (such as iterative attacks) away.


Agreed.


- Those with multiple attacks don't fumble more because of it. (You've addressed this one admirably.)


Thanks.



I think the above can be done. I'd suggest using the characters highest AB against a set DC (probably 15) to avoid fumbles. As you said, only the last attack can fumble. If confirmed, the character is Shaken for one round.

What I don't think can be done easily is make a fumble system equally relevant to all classes, including casters, while not making the system a burden on any subset of classes.

Perhaps a CHA check against that DC...but...I'm not sure. And no, a fumble system won't be easy.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-22, 11:48 PM
Why doesn't an experienced fighter get better at avoiding fumbles? That's what the lowest BAB attack means to me. The risk of overreaching yourself in a fight. He COULD play it safe and make one fewer attack in a round, in exchange for +1 to hit with all attacks (not +2 because then it negates the penalty for multishot, flurry of blows, etc.) But instead he's reaching for another attack, and that CAN cost him.

Do you realize how awful this is from a game perspective. You introduce a mechanic that is so unpleasant that characters should consider giving up an ability (to make iterative attacks) that takes them 5 or more levels of experience to gain to avoid it. Or, you introduce MAD on the fighting classes by making them nonsensically use CHA to avoid fumbling.

DisgruntledFrog
2007-03-23, 12:19 AM
I don't use fumble rules but maybe something like this could work;

On a natural 1 for an attack roll, roll a d20 + BAB vs DC 10. Natural 1s always fail, natural 20s always pass. Only one fumble per encounter per character.

If the check fails by 5 or more, the attack is so wild you drop your weapon.
If the check fails by less than 5, your attack is clumsy and creates an opening in your defense; -2 to AC for 1 round.

HeinleinFan
2007-03-23, 12:26 AM
Our group treats fumbles precisely like the opposite of critical hits. If you roll, say, a natural 20, then another roll confirms the hit. If you roll a natural 20, then another natural 20, another roll confirms the hit - and you kill it. So on a fumble, it's a natural 1, roll to confirm the slip-up, and if you fail you drop your weapon or your bowstring snaps. (A pain in the neck, by the way, as you have to spend a whole round re-stringing the thing.)

If you roll a natural 1, then another natural 1, you confirm to see whether you kill yourself. The odds at low levels are something like 1 in 400; the odds at higher levels are much better, because you won't usually miss a third time.

If you roll that badly with a bow, you pull too hard and it shatters in your face, dealing you one D6 per level of damage to you as splinters hit your eyes, face, neck, hands, et cetera. If you do it with a crossbow, you manage to make it jam badly on your hand, catching one or more fingers, so you have to spend the next round forcibly removing the crossbow and you take about 3 D6 damage to that hand.

If a spellcaster rolls a natural 1 and there's any chance that she accidently hits a teammate, he/she rolls a Reflex Save to hit the dirt. If a psion rolls a natural 1, she has a sudden distracting thought (Oh crap! Did I leave the water running again?) and spends the next D4 rounds trying to regain her focus.

On skill checks, we're kinder. Balance and Move Silently checks are the worst - if you're anywhere near a sharp drop, you stumble in that direction. If you are using a tool, it breaks. If you are using a Charisma-based skill, the NPC starts to think that you are a dumb fool and may even try to turn others against you.

So far, it hasn't caused any major difficulty, although it can be somewhat inconvenient at times. My rogue did nearly die from having her longbow shatter. But it makes for a really interesting, fairly realistic game, and if it's not your cup of tea, that's fine - but what works for us may also work for you.

Dinranwen essenya, ohtar meletya!

Logos7
2007-03-23, 01:32 PM
My group uses a rather simple rule

You Roll a 1, you miss a turn.

Simple but it works, easy to remember but still penelizes the player dumb enough to role a 1, Skill Checks don't need to worry about fumbles anymore and saves auto fail so all that is left, is the effect of a 1 in combat.

Logos

kamikasei
2007-03-23, 01:46 PM
My group uses a rather simple rule

You Roll a 1, you miss a turn.

Simple but it works, easy to remember but still penelizes the player dumb enough to role a 1, Skill Checks don't need to worry about fumbles anymore and saves auto fail so all that is left, is the effect of a 1 in combat.

"The player dumb enough to roll a one"? As if it's in his hands?

The effect of a natural 1 in combat is to automatically miss. Why do you need a special rule to penalize people beyond that?

Black Hand
2007-03-23, 02:08 PM
The effect of a natural 1 in combat is to automatically miss. Why do you need a special rule to penalize people beyond that?

Touche' :smallcool:

But why does a natural 20* result in double to quadruple damage on a confirm, rather than an "automatic hit" for normal damage? Why give any advantage beyond an automatic Hit?


In this case there is less balance if you treat a 1 as an automatic miss, since the natural 20 gives you so much more beyond an automatic hit eh?

Those that use 'confirm' misses to their natural 1's are only balancing that out...mind you automatic kill-yourself is out of the question for me...after all the thread is titled "Sane fumble rules"


*or in some cases of different threat ranges?

TSGames
2007-03-23, 02:16 PM
Torn Asunder: Critical Hits by Bastion Press was by the best guide to critical hits and fumbles that I've ever seen. It did pose the problem that occasionally something extremely bad could happen from a critical hit or miss(in the former loosing a limb for example), but for these extremes to occur there was more required than random dice rolls. For example to make an opponent loose a limb you had to crit with a slashing weapon and total 25 more than your opponents AC(I think it was 25). The system for critical fumbles was similar. I think combing random and nonrandom effects to determine the results of a critical hit or fumble allows the DM and the PCs more control over the frequency of critical hits and fumbles. That's why I've always supported this system. The one downside is that is can be complex, but this has never, for me, posed a problem.

kamikasei
2007-03-23, 02:20 PM
Those that use 'confirm' misses to their natural 1's are only balancing that out...mind you automatic kill-yourself is out of the question for me...after all the thread is titled "Sane fumble rules"

Well, it's not some ying-yang all-things-in-harmony balance we're aiming for in games, it's game balance. Natural ones being automatic misses and natural twenties being automatic hits are factored in to the game's design. Critical hits are also factored in, as a separate thing, which happens to align with natural twenties a lot of the time. It doesn't balance the game to change this, as the game is designed to be balanced with the current rules.

That said, a 'confirming roll' on a natural one to possibly drop your weapon or provoke an attack of opportunity or any of these things isn't necessarily a horrible idea. Logos' post, however, seemed rather confused, as though there was no penalty for rolling a one already and that one had to be introduced to penalize "those stupid enough" to get a random result with a 5% probability. My point was that natural ones were already bad, and didn't cry out to be made worse - and losing a turn is quite a bit worse!

Logos, what do you think the rules on natural ones for attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws etc. are without your house rule in place? I'm honestly curious.

Raum
2007-03-23, 02:43 PM
But why does a natural 20* result in double to quadruple damage on a confirm, rather than an "automatic hit" for normal damage? Why give any advantage beyond an automatic Hit?Because it's a heroic game. It's about role playing great deeds (or misdeeds). It's not supposed to be a bell curve with equal chances of success and failure. Nor is it supposed to be a random game of craps, just rolling the dice to see if you rolled high or low and won or lost.


In this case there is less balance if you treat a 1 as an automatic miss, since the natural 20 gives you so much more beyond an automatic hit eh?

Those that use 'confirm' misses to their natural 1's are only balancing that out...mind you automatic kill-yourself is out of the question for me...after all the thread is titled "Sane fumble rules"If you're defining balance as that bell curve with equal chances for failure as there are for success, you're correct. But I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, can you expand on your premise?


Torn Asunder: Critical Hits by Bastion Press was by the best guide to critical hits and fumbles that I've ever seen. It's actually extremely unbalanced and one of the worst possible fumble systems. As I remember, it doesn't even address magic fumbles. It does make it far easier for the PCs to kill themselves. It also means at least one PC will likely get "debuffed" (fumbles & criticals have some big negatives) out of every single fight.

The PrCs in the book (at least one of them) are just as unbalanced. The one I'm thinking of criticals almost every hit when using a weapon with a large crit range. (The class' abilities were built around doing more or stronger criticals.)

Black Hand
2007-03-23, 02:49 PM
Of course it's a heroic game, but even the most heroic warrior may slip on a pool of blood on a stone floor and fall on his butt in the middle of combat...but then again so can the enemy.

I've found fumbles adding just as much flavor to the game as crits, as I count them in for the enemy as much as the hero's. As long as you don't make it too extreme it's fun for everyone. That's why I advocate the use of Sane fumble rules.

Raum
2007-03-23, 03:01 PM
it's fun for everyoneObviously not. Glancing back through the posts there are a few dissenters.

Swordguy
2007-03-23, 03:06 PM
Geez. I must be the last person on earth who enjoys Rolemaster fumbles...

Fumbles should be in the game. Bad crap happens occasionally, and should be represented. I fully agree that spells need some sort of fumble (but spells should have a roll to cast anyway).

Oh, one more thing:


Because it's a heroic game. It's about role playing great deeds (or misdeeds). It's not supposed to be a bell curve with equal chances of success and failure. Nor is it supposed to be a random game of craps, just rolling the dice to see if you rolled high or low and won or lost.


See, though, it IS a random "game of craps". The very second you pick up any sort of random element that decides your fate, that's exactly what happens. Cool special good stuff can happen. Cool special bad stuff should be able to happen as well.

NullAshton
2007-03-23, 03:07 PM
A simple way to have fumbles, is to not roll on a table at all. Just have the DM do something that's funny at the moment. Like for example, hitting the rangers (nonmagical) hat off his head, or shooting it off with an arrow. Or when defending a shop, you accidentally hit a bunch of cabbages and ruin the produce, leading to a bit of awkwardness when you have to repay the shopkeeper.

Nothing hazardous in the game(except for missing), but makes life a little more humorous.

Black Hand
2007-03-23, 03:08 PM
Obviously not. Glancing back through the posts there are a few dissenters.

As I said, it's only fun for everyone only if it's fair...well, as fair as any fumble could be.

I'd say any or most dissent would be the result of DM's using over-complicated or using very harsh penalites for fumbles. I've been on the recieving end of harsh fumbles and can understand that it's no fun when a DM overkills the rule.

I believe he made me throw my 2 handed sword into the back of a companion for triple damage.:smallfurious:

Raum
2007-03-23, 03:30 PM
Geez. I must be the last person on earth who enjoys Rolemaster fumbles...Gah, I remember Pagemaster...the one time we tried it a PC fell 10' out of a tree, broke his leg, and bled to death. Though it was the pages and pages of charts that really killed the game IMO.


Fumbles should be in the game. Bad crap happens occasionally, and should be represented. I fully agree that spells need some sort of fumble (but spells should have a roll to cast anyway). Fumbles should be in any game built with them in mind. Shadowrun did a decent job, botches were rare but potentially nasty. The problem is, D&D isn't mechanically designed to work well with fumbles beyond missing. About 99% of the fumble systems I've seen tacked on end up being nerfs to non-casters. And that's a "bad thing" when casters are already arguably the most powerful classes.


See, though, it IS a random "game of craps". RAW, it's not.

Edo
2007-03-23, 03:46 PM
A simple way to have fumbles, is to not roll on a table at all. Just have the DM do something that's funny at the moment...Referenced for truth, although methinks it's usually better when the player comes up with their doom themselves.

(Except that one time. I was 2nd level and critted by two halberds. Contrary to popular belief, I did not say, "As a swift action, I bend over and grab my ankles." That did not happen.)

GolemsVoice
2007-03-23, 04:03 PM
Another way to use fumbles is, that if you fumble, you suffer a -1 penalty on all your following attacks (and maybe also on AC). For me, rolling the dice does not just mean your character swings his sword in the direction of the enemy, but the combatants begin a deadly dance of blades, messing strength and skill. A fumble, like a rock in your way, dirupts your concentration and messes up your combat planning. By this, the fumbling fighter must use time to again build up his defense and offense. He will be disturbed by his fumble, but is trained enough to keep on fighting. Remember: Fighters are exceptional good at what they do, even at level 1.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-23, 05:10 PM
For combats, we do it simple:
If you roll a 1, re-roll to confirm, like Black Hand does.
If you fumbled, and you had more attacks that round, you lose one or two attacks.
If you had no more attacks, you either lose your weapon, or lose balance (not really fall). Next round you need to spend one move-equivalent action to recover weapon/recover balance to be able to attack again.
For ranged fumbles, we do the losing an action thing, or, having to re-adjust your weapon (losing one standard action next round). Plus, the DM rolls randomly an character in the line of fire and re-rolls the attack to see if he hits.

Nothing too hard, just something to add flavor.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-23, 05:16 PM
My group uses a rather simple rule

You Roll a 1, you miss a turn.

Simple but it works, easy to remember but still penelizes the player dumb enough to role a 1, Skill Checks don't need to worry about fumbles anymore and saves auto fail so all that is left, is the effect of a 1 in combat.

Logos

This simple rule is simply horrible. It makes the game less fun (unless you actually enjoy losing a turn). It penalizes characters who fight with two weapons and those that gain levels and get iterative attacks. It adds a penalty for using the attack you gain from the haste spell. The only redeeming feature is that it's scalable...you can follow up with another house rule that says if you die you have to sit through 3 sessions doing nothing before your character gets raised because, "Doing nothing is fun!"

Swordguy
2007-03-23, 05:39 PM
Gah, I remember Pagemaster...the one time we tried it a PC fell 10' out of a tree, broke his leg, and bled to death. Though it was the pages and pages of charts that really killed the game IMO.


Heh, heh. Had a character who came into game to replace my previous PC. He ran across the street to the party, failed his moving maneuver check (rolled a 66!), and got run over by a cart. Total time in-game: 1.5 minutes.



Fumbles should be in any game built with them in mind. Shadowrun did a decent job, botches were rare but potentially nasty. The problem is, D&D isn't mechanically designed to work well with fumbles beyond missing. About 99% of the fumble systems I've seen tacked on end up being nerfs to non-casters. And that's a "bad thing" when casters are already arguably the most powerful classes.


Agreed. Me loves my Shadowrun. It's a pity that everyone near me hates any RPG with even a hint of scifi.



RAW, it's not.

OK. I gotta ask. How is D&D NOT dependent on a series of random rolls? Or is this another facet of the "casters pwn everyone" game (reflected in the fact that they don't have to roll dice to do thier primary thing, while melee-ers do)?

Raum
2007-03-23, 06:22 PM
I agree with you about SR, it's one of my favorite systems. Or at least it was, I haven't had a chance to play SR4. As you said, it doesn't have as big an audience.


OK. I gotta ask. How is D&D NOT dependent on a series of random rolls? Or is this another facet of the "casters pwn everyone" game (reflected in the fact that they don't have to roll dice to do thier primary thing, while melee-ers do)?No, please not another one of those dead horse beatings! :)

To answer your question though, most skills can be accomplished by taking the average or by spending time to do it right (taking 10 or 20) so it's hardly fair to characterize those as "a series of random rolls." Regarding attack rolls, the outcomes of success and failure aren't equivalent by RAW (without fumble house rules) so again it's not simply random, it's weighted in favor of success. Add in the various bonuses from level, abilities, items, and circumstances and it's weighted even more towards success. And, if you wish to consider spells, things like True Strike make success near 95%.

All of that is just mechanics. Add the metagame reasons both DM and players have for telling stories, accomplishing goals, and even simply surviving to keep the game going and there's very little randomness at all on a macro scale.

Swordguy
2007-03-23, 06:48 PM
I agree with you about SR, it's one of my favorite systems. Or at least it was, I haven't had a chance to play SR4. As you said, it doesn't have as big an audience.

No, please not another one of those dead horse beatings! :)

To answer your question though, most skills can be accomplished by taking the average or by spending time to do it right (taking 10 or 20) so it's hardly fair to characterize those as "a series of random rolls." Regarding attack rolls, the outcomes of success and failure aren't equivalent by RAW (without fumble house rules) so again it's not simply random, it's weighted in favor of success. Add in the various bonuses from level, abilities, items, and circumstances and it's weighted even more towards success. And, if you wish to consider spells, things like True Strike make success near 95%.

All of that is just mechanics. Add the metagame reasons both DM and players have for telling stories, accomplishing goals, and even simply surviving to keep the game going and there's very little randomness at all on a macro scale.

Fair enough. My players practically never take 10 or 20, so I forget it exists occasionally. I disagree in the thought that you can "always" take 10 or 20 (attack rolls, for example), and while the odds are weighted in favor of success, the outcome is still random.

Your last paragraph, however, is spot on. Good call.

OOTS_Rules.
2007-03-23, 09:24 PM
I make a random effect, such as a weapon flying out of your hands. This happened in a campaign of mine for a new player, where Regdar's sword flew at Lidda and knocked her unconcious. Luckily, Eberk healed her.

TSGames
2007-03-23, 11:51 PM
It's actually extremely unbalanced and one of the worst possible fumble systems. As I remember, it doesn't even address magic fumbles. It does make it far easier for the PCs to kill themselves. It also means at least one PC will likely get "debuffed" (fumbles & criticals have some big negatives) out of every single fight.

The PrCs in the book (at least one of them) are just as unbalanced. The one I'm thinking of criticals almost every hit when using a weapon with a large crit range. (The class' abilities were built around doing more or stronger criticals.)
I doubt we're talking about the same book, or you have greatly misread it. The fumble system is, in a nutshell: If you roll a one make a DC 15 DEX check. Failing that, roll 1d3 + DEX(max of +4, min of 0) to determine result. These seven possible effects range from striking an ally(1), to loosing your weapon(3), falling prone(4), to being dazed for one round(7). None of which is unreasonable for a critical fumble.

As for the PrC's, the Marksman(I think that's the one you're talking about, there's only two or three PrC's) gives a bonus to called shots for the most part. I don't play with the called shots variant, so I've never had a problem with the class as a substantial portion of it's abilities do nothing in my game.

I could see you being against the critical hit rules, but I find nothing unreasonable in the critical fumble rules. I use the Critical Hit rules because it makes the game more interesting and slightly more gritty. Also, I happen to be of the opinion that if your opponent does score more than 15 over your AC on a crit, perhaps you deserve to loose a limb...

As for it not dealing with magic fumbles... Magic fumbles generally don't exist, even when using a WLS, if I recall correctly. I don't see why you should hold it against the book for not addressing a particularly uncommon variant rule that you would like to use.

Raum
2007-03-24, 09:57 AM
I doubt we're talking about the same book, or you have greatly misread it. Torn Asunder (http://www.amazon.com/Torn-Asunder-Critical-Steven-Creech/dp/1592630073/ref=sr_1_15/102-7370265-0582526?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174746098&sr=8-15)? Used it, don't like it.


The fumble system is, in a nutshell: If you roll a one make a DC 15 DEX check. Failing that, roll 1d3 + DEX(max of +4, min of 0) to determine result. These seven possible effects range from striking an ally(1), to loosing your weapon(3), falling prone(4), to being dazed for one round(7). None of which is unreasonable for a critical fumble.All of those results are unreasonable. Worse, they're nerfs to noncasters. I still don't understand how stabbing a friend in the back, clumsily falling or dropping your weapon, or losing a turn becomes fun. I also take issue with having the dexterous rogue fumble less often than a fighter who has trained far more with weapons.


I could see you being against the critical hit rules, but I find nothing unreasonable in the critical fumble rules. I use the Critical Hit rules because it makes the game more interesting and slightly more gritty. Also, I happen to be of the opinion that if your opponent does score more than 15 over your AC on a crit, perhaps you deserve to loose a limb...In other words, you think a random PC should lose a limb almost every time the group goes up against a noncasting BBEG. Yeah, sure sounds fun to me!

The problem is, AC doesn't scale like AB. And when a PC is hit by a crit in the system, they're basically no longer a factor in the fight. Even a light critical applies a -2. Worse, it affects PCs far more than NPCs. With a few exceptions, NPCs are on the stage for only one scene. And they're almost always easily replaceable. The PCs are the ones who have to figure out how to reattach that limb. Or pay for the resurrection if the critical was to head or torso.


As for it not dealing with magic fumbles... Magic fumbles generally don't exist, even when using a WLS, if I recall correctly. I don't see why you should hold it against the book for not addressing a particularly uncommon variant rule that you would like to use. WLS (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Weight+loss+surgery)? I "hold it against the book" because it's not equitable. It's a nerf to noncasters.

TSGames
2007-03-24, 01:57 PM
Torn Asunder (http://www.amazon.com/Torn-Asunder-Critical-Steven-Creech/dp/1592630073/ref=sr_1_15/102-7370265-0582526?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174746098&sr=8-15)? Used it, don't like it.

All of those results are unreasonable. Worse, they're nerfs to noncasters. I still don't understand how stabbing a friend in the back, clumsily falling or dropping your weapon, or losing a turn becomes fun. I also take issue with having the dexterous rogue fumble less often than a fighter who has trained far more with weapons.

Then we have difference of opinion. It sounds to me like you're against fumbles in general.


In other words, you think a random PC should lose a limb almost every time the group goes up against a noncasting BBEG. Yeah, sure sounds fun to me!

Again it seems we disagree. I run a high power game and we have a lot a fun with it. Also, keep in mind that this helps nerf spell caster's, placing more emphasis on their ability to heal; in high magic setting even a lost limb is a temporary ailment. Beside that, it means every opponent could be a threat and it keeps people on their toes. Maybe you prefer your games easier.



The problem is, AC doesn't scale like AB. And when a PC is hit by a crit in the system, they're basically no longer a factor in the fight. Even a light critical applies a -2. Worse, it affects PCs far more than NPCs. With a few exceptions, NPCs are on the stage for only one scene. And they're almost always easily replaceable. The PCs are the ones who have to figure out how to reattach that limb. Or pay for the resurrection if the critical was to head or torso.

With magic it's not hard to reattach limbs. Even then, loosing a limb is a rare occurrence, at least for the PC's. You seem to forget the large section of the book that dealt with magical and natural healing.


WLS (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Weight+loss+surgery)? I "hold it against the book" because it's not equitable. It's a nerf to noncasters.
WLS=Weapon Like Spell(see Complete Arcane). Sorry, but I think it may give NPC casters an advantage(which are easily manageable), but not PC casters as they are needed more than ever for healing and AC boosting.

Anyway, I'll derail the thread no longer. I use Torn Asunder because my players and I enjoy a high power game with more risks in combat than the standard D&D game. To each his own, I suppose, some people just like it easy(insert your mom joke here).

Raum
2007-03-24, 02:56 PM
Then we have difference of opinion. It sounds to me like you're against fumbles in general.Not in general, just against fumbles as a tacked on house rule to a system not built for them.


Again it seems we disagree. I run a high power game and we have a lot a fun with it. Also, keep in mind that this helps nerf spell caster's, placing more emphasis on their ability to heal; in high magic setting even a lost limb is a temporary ailment. Beside that, it means every opponent could be a threat and it keeps people on their toes. Nerfs casters? You might want to think through the implications before trying to defend such a premise. All it does is use a few more spells for healing...meaning your party rests more often. And it doesn't even do that to arcane casters.


Maybe you prefer your games easier.

<snip>

To each his own, I suppose, some people just like it easy(insert your mom joke here).Rather than making ad hominem attacks, why not address the actual negatives caused by fumble systems? You like them because they're "cool" or add "grittiness" to the game. Fine, more power to you. Just realize the implications.

Tallis
2007-03-24, 08:31 PM
In a past campaign I houseruled that with a melee or ranged attack if you rolled a natural one, you immediately rolled 1d20. If you rolled below your BAB you could continue your attack(s) as if nothing special had happened. Your attack will most likely fail, but you can still take any following attacks and suffer no penalties. If you rolled above your BAB you fumbled and I had a chart of effects based off 1d8. I don't remember the effects, but they ranged from pretty bad at 1 and almost no effect at all at 8.

My reasoning was that as a character increases his BAB he is getting better at combat. A high level fighter was almost immune to fumbles as would make sense with his high level of training. However, a wizard would fumble on a one most of the time, even at high levels.

I like this rule, though I would do the chart off of a d20, making more unpleasant effects rarer than ones that are easily dealt with. Maybe if the roll is missed by 10 or more you roll on a seperate (more severe) chart. That way more experienced combatents would become immune to severe fumbles. Of course there should be a balancing rule for spell casters, but I'm still trying to figure out how it would work.

Logic
2007-03-24, 09:26 PM
My house rules on fumble are always:
*Confirm the miss first.

Then, I determine what happens with the fumble. When running my simple campaigns where I try to never have a book out & open besides the Monster Manuals, I do a 50-50 chance of provoking an attack of opputunity (normal rules of limits to attacks of oppurtunity per round still apply) or the character loses all other attacks per round.

In my "detailed" campaigns, I have a short table of what happens. I borrowed one from another DM and modified it to suit my needs better, eliminating all the "You are screwed, make a new character" results.

Iron_Mouse
2007-03-25, 01:26 AM
I'll never get why so many people use fumble rules. I've seen so many different fumble systems, and there was not even a single one that did not suck. I mean, really, they suck. They all do.

I don't know if there is ANY out there that doesn't nerf the noncasters, that doesn't penalize PCs over NPCs, that takes iterative attacks/TWF/etc. into account, that doesn't make high level characters look like incompetent idiots and so on...

But if it really exists somewhere, then it's probably so complicated that I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Dervag
2007-03-25, 01:59 AM
But in a sane fumble system a fumble would not equal instant death, and remember for every fumble you make, your opponent suffers similarly. Believe me, the RQ fumble system works quite well, and is not a kiss of death. However I'm wary of allowing AoOs/free attacks against the fumbler - that is quite painful, compared to say, loosing an attack.Yes, but if you miss you effectively lose the attack because it achieves nothing. A fumble must be more punishing than a simple miss.

Losing your next attack is about as bad as an enemy getting an attack of opportunity against you, assuming that both you and your current enemy can deal out and withstand roughly equal amounts of damage. So either losing your next attack or an enemy getting an attack of opportunity would be acceptable.

Note that if you lose your next attack on a fumble, higher-level fighters will gain an advantage over lower ones in that some percentage of their fumbles will merely cause them to lose one of their later attacks in the same round, the ones that aren't as likely to hit in the first place.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-25, 02:27 AM
But in a sane fumble system a fumble would not equal instant death, and remember for every fumble you make, your opponent suffers similarly.

Actually, this doesn't work out that way. Fumbles that cause exposure to additional attacks, loss of attacks, and self mutilation lead to increased deaths for PCs and only faster deaths for NPCs/critters.

A PC takes months to advance, loses months of advancement when it dies, and is supposed to survive to continue on the adventure. When a PC dies, the player is often out of the game for a period of time. If the character can't be raised or resurrected, all of the roleplay history and continuity built up between the characters is lost. When the character loses an action or turn, the player is stuck doing nothing.

NPCs/critters take a minute to create, lose nothing by dying and are supposed to die anyway. When a NPC/critter dies, the DM just grabs the next one. If the DM wants to raise or resurrect a creature he can do so at will. When the creature loses an action or turn, the DM still has something else to do.

The suffering of critical misses is felt overwhelmingly by the players.

Lemur
2007-03-25, 02:46 AM
From what I've seen, a lot of fumble rules seem to go massively overboard. Striking an ally, for example, is utterly absurd. Being proficient in a weapon assumes you know enough about combat not do to stuff like that.

I would say sane fumble rules would apply only for certain circumstances, like
-using a weapon you're not proficient with
-using inferior quality items.

In the first case especially, but also the second, a confirmation roll is a good idea. For nonproficiency, stuff like "-1 to AC or secondary attacks till your next turn" or "lose ability to make attacks of opportunity until next turn" might be in the sane area.

For inferior quality, confirming a fumble would probably result in the weapon taking damage. Perhaps, make the weilder roll weapon damage, adding damage bonuses as normal, so stuff like strenght and power attack apply. The weapon takes damage normally, subtracting the hardness from the damage dealt. If the weapon takes enough damage, it'll break. I could see this as a potential risk when using, say, flint weapons, especially since inferior goods already probably have a lower hardness/hitpoints than normal ones.

As a sidenote, I don't think it's fair to bring up stuff like x4 weapon criticals as a justification for fumbles. For a lot of martial weapons, the only advantage they have over simple weapons is their critical range/multiplier. I think that "there are critical hits, so there should be critical fumbles" is some kind of logical fallacy, that I don't know the name to.

Jack Mann
2007-03-25, 03:24 AM
Or while under the influence of Fumblemonkeys (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26567). Lord knows what could happen then.

Matthew
2007-03-28, 08:57 PM
Bah! Fumbles and Critical Hits. 3.x has changed the dynamic integrating Critical Hits as a fundamental part of the game and removed Fumbles altogether. Some people like it that way, some people don't. Personally, I like using Critical Misses if I am using Critical Hits, but I don't really see the necessity for either.