PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Critical hit/fumble mechanic



MKV
2014-12-13, 11:14 AM
How do you handle critical hits and fumbles in your game? I have seen several mechanics and am curious what others exist. Here are a few I have seen
1. Natural 20 auto-hits
2. Natural 20 auto-hits and deals max damage
3. Two natural 20's in a row allows you to roll on a table of positive attacks
4. Natural 20 and a failed save vs. paralysis by the enemy allows you to roll on a table of positive affects
critical fumbles are much the same replacing "natural 20" with "natural 1", "positive" with "negative" and so forth

Jay R
2014-12-13, 11:42 AM
I'm currently running a 2E game, using the crit and fumble tables in The Dragon #39. If you roll a 20, then you roll again to confirm the crit. If you roll what you needed to hit the second time, then we go to the critical hit tables.

The same procedure in reverse is used for the fumble table.

The table is strong enough that crits and fumbles really matter, and any combat is dangerous, but it has not killed or maimed any PCs.

Gets kind of funny when you drop your weapon or lose your footing, though.

Sir Chuckles
2014-12-13, 02:11 PM
The table is strong enough that crits and fumbles really matter, and any combat is dangerous, but it has not killed or maimed any PCs.

Gets kind of funny when you drop your weapon or lose your footing, though.
Cut down for emphasis.

I've really liked this kind of fumbling, as it really screws over specific characters far more than others. A Blaster Sorcerer laughs at fumbles, where as a two-weapon fighting anything will spend a surprising amount of time cutting their attack routine short in order to pick up their dropped weapon. Not to mention the fact that a trained and hardened warrior, regardless of experience will always have that chance of dropping their weapon. I just can't imagine a Warblade 20 going "Oops, it slipped!"

DrMartin
2014-12-13, 02:54 PM
I like or dislike random tables for criticals and fumbles depending on the tone of the game. For games with epic and world-shattering scope I generally don't like them, the experienced warrior slipping in combat more often than the rookie just because he has more attacks per round does not sit well with me :D
I'm running a 3.P game at the moment where i allow players to raise the stakes of their actions in combat, essentially a bet where a better than normal outcome is levied against a potentially catastrophical (or worse than usual) failure. As a GM i can accept the bet or not, depending on the benefit or hindrance it would provide against the probability of success, and/or depending by how awesome is what the character is trying to achieve :)
It is working quite well so far, even if at the moment only some of the players are using this mechanic on a regular basis.
This moves the "out of the ordinary" contributions to the gameplay of fumbles from a random table to an area under player's control, and in a sense that makes the rule just as good as your players are.
Another side benefit is that id adds a bit of variety to martial classes, since they can improvise more freely their actions in combat and in a sense opens up a lot of versatility.

This is on top of the normal rules for criticals and natural 1s from 3.p (multiply dmg on a critical, always miss on a nat 1).

Red Fel
2014-12-13, 03:32 PM
In my games, I prefer to go with what's written in the books, without adding more.

Generally, I find that the rules explicitly lay out what a natural 20 on a hit does. Assuming a d20-style system, they generally simply deal whatever extra damage the book says they do - double, or occasionally triple, or what-have-you.

I don't use critical fumbles. I don't find that they add much, I find that they penalize some classes more than others, that they penalize higher-level characters more than lower-level ones, that they penalize PCs more than NPCs, and most importantly, they're not a core mechanic. They're an optional variant, if that. The rules generally provide only that a natural 1 is a failure. Not a magnificent failure, not a cut-off-your-foot failure, just a failure, even if you have a +500 modifier to your roll. I'm fine with that. I acknowledge that any undertaking has some risk of failure. I think it's absurd that "risk of failure" can include a trained warrior accidentally disemboweling himself.

I've used some systems where there are more elaborate rules for critical failures and successes (e.g. "exploding dice"). Where the rules provide them, I go with them. But where the rules don't explicitly state them, I don't feel compelled to add rules for critical success, or particularly for critical failure. I just don't find that they add a substantial amount.

Jay R
2014-12-13, 03:37 PM
Cut down for emphasis.

I've really liked this kind of fumbling, as it really screws over specific characters far more than others. A Blaster Sorcerer laughs at fumbles, where as a two-weapon fighting anything will spend a surprising amount of time cutting their attack routine short in order to pick up their dropped weapon. Not to mention the fact that a trained and hardened warrior, regardless of experience will always have that chance of dropping their weapon. I just can't imagine a Warblade 20 going "Oops, it slipped!"

That just doesn't match what I've seen happening under this system. Suppose a high-level fighter hits his opponent on a 3 or better. Then to drop his sword, he has to roll a one, following by a one or two, followed by rolling for the possibility of dropping a sword on the table, after which he has to roll over his DEX. The chances are vanishingly small.

In the last eleven adventures, with adventurers from 1st to 4th level, I think we've had one dropped sword and one dropped arrow.

Arbane
2014-12-13, 04:58 PM
The chances are vanishingly small.


Ha. Ha. Ha.

Since Seerow is right about everything (or at least about fumbles), I'll just quote him on this:


I have a few litmus tests for critical fumbles. I have yet to see any rule that passes all of them, but failing any is enough for me to say "Nope, not playing with this".


1) The "Are you a moron? Stop trying to gimp the weak classes" test. Does this fumble rule hurt a Fighter more than a Wizard? This includes can a Wizard's save based spells fumble, but also considers things like action economy and the penalties inflicted. If any of these things favor the Wizard being less effected, this rule should have been put out to pasture before you even started thinking it up.

2) The "Epic Hero" test. Does a higher level character have the same or worse chance of fumbling as a low level character? As an untrained character? Your higher level characters should be less likely to screw up. That's literally the function of level. If your fumble rules are arbitrarily punishing high level characters, this rule is not going to work.

3) The "target dummy" test. If you have a squad of soldiers (of any level) training by hitting something completely non threatening for an hour or so, how many will be injured, maimed, scarred, or dead as a result? If that number is greater than 0, there is a problem with your rules.

4) The "test of time". How long does it take for your fumbles to resolve? If it takes longer than it takes to confirm a critical hit (say by adding a step to reference a chart, draw a card, or anything else along those lines), this rule is a problem.

5) The "three stooges" test. Does the result of your fumble chart bring to mind the antics of the three stooges or any other slapstick comedy? This can also include things that trigger the target dummy test, but goes beyond that. If you have characters slipping and falling, dropping weapons, dazing themselves, etc, I do not accept this rule.



I haven't found a rule that satisfies all of these criteria, but I'm sure if someone cared enough they could design one. The real question is, why would you really want to?

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-13, 05:25 PM
I -loathe- fumble mechanics. A nat 20 is an automatic success on saves and attacks, a nat 1 is an automatic failure on the same and that's it. I even dismissed the actual written rule that a nat 1 forces a save from your equipment as unnecessary extra dice rolling.

Sometimes a blind squirrel finds an acorn and occasionally monkeys fall from trees. The above captures this sentiment adequately IMO and that's more than enough for me.

Forrestfire
2014-12-14, 02:46 AM
At least in D&D, critical fumbles in their most commonly-used form are a sign to me that the D&D fundamentally misunderstands the system and are generally a dealbreaker for walking from a game for me. I don't use them, and I expect to not have them forced on me.

If someone wants them, then I would offer them the ability to critically fumble in exchange for some bonus (possibly counting as two flaws in 3.5, or giving some sort of other benefit in other editions).

The only critical fumble mechanic that I've seen and been decently ok with is "if you roll a natural 1, roll again, and if you still miss, a minor fumble happens."

Jay R
2014-12-14, 09:43 AM
Ha. Ha. Ha.

Since Seerow is right about everything (or at least about fumbles), I'll just quote him on this:

OK, I'll answer his questions.


Are you a moron?

Your "expert" does not impress me by opening with an insult.


1) The "Are you a moron? Stop trying to gimp the weak classes" test. Does this fumble rule hurt a Fighter more than a Wizard?

No, the rule is much better for fighters. The tables I referred to include critical hits and fumbles, and the results of the critical hits (which wizards get hit with) is far greater than the results of the fumbles.


2) The "Epic Hero" test. Does a higher level character have the same or worse chance of fumbling as a low level character? As an untrained character? Your higher level characters should be less likely to screw up. That's literally the function of level. If your fumble rules are arbitrarily punishing high level characters, this rule is not going to work.

No, since crits and fumbles must be confirmed with a second roll, higher level fighters have more crits and fewer fumbles.

However, that also depends on the opponent's abilities, since the chance to hit does. A level 1 fighter fighting somebody he hits on a 14 or higher has exactly the same number of fumbles as a level 20 fighter against somebody he hits on a 14, which is quite reasonable. The greatest football players have about as many fumbles in games against the greatest opponents as schoolboy players have against other schoolboys.


3) The "target dummy" test. If you have a squad of soldiers (of any level) training by hitting something completely non threatening for an hour or so, how many will be injured, maimed, scarred, or dead as a result? If that number is greater than 0, there is a problem with your rules.

Zero, of course. Nobody would apply fumble or critical hit tables for this. I can't imagine a DM willing to roll for hits at all in this situation.


4) The "test of time". How long does it take for your fumbles to resolve? If it takes longer than it takes to confirm a critical hit (say by adding a step to reference a chart, draw a card, or anything else along those lines), this rule is a problem.

It can take one step longer than resolving a critical hit, because many of the fumble results have saving throws. My players don't mind this, even if Seerow, who has never played in my game, makes up the guess that it is a problem.


5) The "three stooges" test. Does the result of your fumble chart bring to mind the antics of the three stooges or any other slapstick comedy? This can also include things that trigger the target dummy test, but goes beyond that. If you have characters slipping and falling, dropping weapons, dazing themselves, etc, I do not accept this rule.

No, it does not come even close to looking like the three stooges, in which every action causes a fumble.

It looks far more like the 1973 Michael York Three Musketeers, in which excellent fighters have occasional problems in the middle of very intense combat. In the first battle Porthos loses his sword. In the duel at the inn, Porthos is knocked on the head by a large weight he accidentally dislodged. In the battle by the mill, Athos's cloak gets caught in water wheel. In the final climactic battle, D'Artagnan throws the bundle into the wrong window. Yet Bill Hobbs's fight direction in this movie usually gets very high marks for accuracy and suspense.

Anything else?

TheCountAlucard
2014-12-14, 10:18 AM
No, the rule is much better for fighters. The tables I referred to include critical hits and fumbles, and the results of the critical hits (which wizards get hit with) is far greater than the results of the fumbles.That's assuming that the Wizard's even in a position to be hit (hint: he doesn't have to be, and typically, he isn't). And since he's capable of using spells that don't require attack rolls at all, he never fumbles. The fighter, who's generally-understood around here to be the guy who closes with people and fights them with some sort of weapon, will both eat more enemy crits and suffer more fumbles, even if he gets a secondary roll to avoid it.

And the point of the training dummy isn't that a DM and player would roll these out in a real play session, it's there for verisimilitude - it's generally assumed that characters always play by the rules of the game even when the DM fast-forwards over what they're doing: if a group of mundanes travels to a mountaintop castle, the DM skipping the travel sequence doesn't mean they suddenly sprouted wings and flew there. Hence, if your fumble rules won't allow for hitting a padded straw man for an hour without someone in the group decapitating himself, you have a problem.

oxybe
2014-12-14, 10:39 AM
Jay R, is this the chart (http://www.epicwords.com/attachments/9232)you're talking about?

GraaEminense
2014-12-14, 11:10 AM
I don't DM many d20-games, mostly d100-below-target-number-which-is-Skill-with-modifiers (CoC and WFRP).

The idea is modified from BRP and should be transferable:
If you roll 10% or less of the target number (say, 1-3 of target 36%), you roll again. If you succeed again, you get a critical success.
If you roll over 90+10% of the target number (94+ on 36%), roll again: If you fail again, you get a critical failure.
Out of combat, critical successes and failures get really good or bad results depending on the situation.
In combat, critical success allows you to choose from a number of bonus effects (usually more damage) while critical failure forces a roll on an Epic Fail Table, which generally involves action-economy-losses.

It works pretty well: If you are skilled or circumstances are in your favour (high target number), you are more likely to get positive effects and less likely to get bad ones.

Translated to d20, it would be something on the lines of "natural 1 -> roll again, if a miss, roll on Bad Things Table" and "natural 20-> roll again, if a hit, roll on Good Things Table". A skilled fighter would be vastly more likely to get good effects than bad ones. No reason to limit the system to combat, either.

Of course, D&D is a special case because spellcasters don't use skill rolls in combat and can't get any critical effects. To avoid upsetting the balance, Good Things need to have much more impact than Bad Things.

Jay R
2014-12-14, 12:32 PM
Jay R, is this the chart (http://www.epicwords.com/attachments/9232)you're talking about?

Yes, it is.


That's assuming that the Wizard's even in a position to be hit (hint: he doesn't have to be, and typically, he isn't).

Enemy archers aren't looking for and aiming at the caster? And you're never ambushed? Why not? Seems to me that the unrealistic situation is one in which an adventurer, and the one that should be the highest priority target, can always avoid being attacked.


And since he's capable of using spells that don't require attack rolls at all, he never fumbles.

True. And he also never crits. A system in which crits add more pluses than fumbles do minuses is a net gain for the fighter.


The fighter, who's generally-understood around here to be the guy who closes with people and fights them with some sort of weapon, will both eat more enemy crits and suffer more fumbles, even if he gets a secondary roll to avoid it.

And deliver more crits to the enemy and be helped with more enemy fumbles.


And the point of the training dummy isn't that a DM and player would roll these out in a real play session, it's there for verisimilitude - it's generally assumed that characters always play by the rules of the game even when the DM fast-forwards over what they're doing: if a group of mundanes travels to a mountaintop castle, the DM skipping the travel sequence doesn't mean they suddenly sprouted wings and flew there. Hence, if your fumble rules won't allow for hitting a padded straw man for an hour without someone in the group decapitating himself, you have a problem.

People don't fumble as much when they are not under stress. But they still occasionally fumble. A DM who uses the same fumble table for practice as for real combat is being just as simplistically inaccurate as a DM with no fumbles at all.

If there was a reason to roll an hour's practice, I would include possible fumbles, because I have seen people drop arrows on an archery range, and I've twisted an ankle in fencing footwork drills. Professional athletes are often injured in practice, and some have had career-ending injuries in practice. One of the purposes of practice is to catch the fumbles and learn how to prevent them. But I would reduce the probability tremendously, because practice just doesn't equal the stress and confusion of battle.

My first approximation would be to require two twenties for a fumble, and then one or two regular rolls to confirm. I'd go down the list of potential fumbles to see which ones could reasonably happen in practice, and probably change the probabilities. But I'd discuss it with the players first, two of whom are competent DMs.

But the crucial fact remains this. Many people on the internet complain about my fumbles chart, but nobody actually playing the game does. And in fact, I got the chart from one of my players.

MKV
2014-12-14, 01:59 PM
Boy! sure seems like a lot of people have very strong opinions on this. A lot of these complaints seem to revolve around two problems firstly that the probability of a critical hit is too high and secondly that the effects are too complicated and overpowered. So what are some thoughts on acceptable solutions to these problems, mine are below.

MKV's awesome critical hit/fumble mechanic.

1. get yourself some old-school d20s numbered 0-9 twice but instead of coloring them two different colors to distinguish 1-10 from 11-20 instead roll a d6 along with the d20 with 1-3 on the d6 meaning read the d20 as written and 4-6 meaning add ten
2. now a critical hit is scored whenever both a 0(10) and a 6 are rolled together thus no need for an extra roll to determine if you scored a critical
3. critical hits auto-hit except if the player is facing a god or some other uninhabitable entity in addition the player may improvise some feat for him to preform with this strike
4. if no feat is chosen the result is simply max damage
5. critical fumbles are the same except rolling a 1 on both dice which auto-misses with no additional mechanics

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 02:32 PM
However, that also depends on the opponent's abilities, since the chance to hit does. A level 1 fighter fighting somebody he hits on a 14 or higher has exactly the same number of fumbles as a level 20 fighter against somebody he hits on a 14, which is quite reasonable. The greatest football players have about as many fumbles in games against the greatest opponents as schoolboy players have against other schoolboys.

That's not true and I'll prove it because I'm in a mathematical probability and statistics mood.


Fighter 1 gets one attack and, as you gave, hits on a 14. Since a 1 is a fumble that's 5% and a 65% chance to confirm. That's a 3.25% chance to fumble on any given turn.

Fighter 20 gets four attacks. The first matches our level 1 fighter's attack at 5%X65% for a 3.25% chance to fumble that attack. Then he gets his second attack. Fumbles on a 1 and misses on anything below a 19. That's 5% by 90% for a 4.5% chance to fumble. The last two are both only hitting on 20 so that's 5% by 95% for a 4.75% chance to fumble each.

Then we combine those odds for the full attack. The odds of -not- fumbling at all are 96.75% by 95.5% by 95.25% by 95.25% which comes to 83.83%.

This means that on any turn where both the fighter 1 and the fighter 20 can use their full compliment of attacks the fighter 20 is 13.92% more likely to fumble at least once while the fighter 1 is unable to fumble more than once at all unless the enemy provides an AoO window.

LibraryOgre
2014-12-14, 05:27 PM
In Hackmaster, a 20 auto-hits, but you have to beat their defense roll to actually crit. Crit severity is based on how much damage your attack did (before the crit is applied), and how much you beat their defense by. Combine that severity with a d10,000 roll to determine location, and you'll find your crit effect.

Stellar_Magic
2014-12-14, 05:53 PM
In Hackmaster, a 20 auto-hits, but you have to beat their defense roll to actually crit. Crit severity is based on how much damage your attack did (before the crit is applied), and how much you beat their defense by. Combine that severity with a d10,000 roll to determine location, and you'll find your crit effect.

D10,000? Damn... the only time I've rolled more then a d100 is for one of the more ridiculous wild magic charts I found.

LibraryOgre
2014-12-14, 05:56 PM
D10,000? Damn... the only time I've rolled more then a d100 is for one of the more ridiculous wild magic charts I found.

d10,000 assumes you're the same size; you might roll something different against a larger or smaller opponent.

Jay R
2014-12-14, 06:04 PM
That's not true and I'll prove it because I'm in a mathematical probability and statistics mood.


Fighter 1 gets one attack and, as you gave, hits on a 14. Since a 1 is a fumble that's 5% and a 65% chance to confirm. That's a 3.25% chance to fumble on any given turn.

Fighter 20 gets four attacks. The first matches our level 1 fighter's attack at 5%X65% for a 3.25% chance to fumble that attack. Then he gets his second attack. Fumbles on a 1 and misses on anything below a 19. That's 5% by 90% for a 4.5% chance to fumble. The last two are both only hitting on 20 so that's 5% by 95% for a 4.75% chance to fumble each.

Then we combine those odds for the full attack. The odds of -not- fumbling at all are 96.75% by 95.5% by 95.25% by 95.25% which comes to 83.83%.

This means that on any turn where both the fighter 1 and the fighter 20 can use their full compliment of attacks the fighter 20 is 13.92% more likely to fumble at least once while the fighter 1 is unable to fumble more than once at all unless the enemy provides an AoO window.

Well, of course. When I say he gets no more fumbles than a lesser fighter, of course that means no more per unit attack. The best running back in the NFL gets more fumbles than I do per year - because he plays in lots more games.

If you fight four times as much, you will get four times as much of all the effects from fighting.

That's true if you fight for forty rounds and the other guy fights for ten. It's true if you fight four times as many enemies. And yes, of course it's true if you attack four times as often each round.

And you also get four times as many hits, and four times as many critical hits. And since the crits on that table have more effect on average that the fumbles, that's a net gain for the top fighters.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 06:23 PM
Well, of course. When I say he gets no more fumbles than a lesser fighter, of course that means no more per unit attack. The best running back in the NFL gets more fumbles than I do per year - because he plays in lots more games.

If you fight four times as much, you will get four times as much of all the effects from fighting.

That's true if you fight for forty rounds and the other guy fights for ten. It's true if you fight four times as many enemies. And yes, of course it's true if you attack four times as often each round.

And you also get four times as many hits, and four times as many critical hits. And since the crits on that table have more effect on average that the fumbles, that's a net gain for the top fighters.

That's just it, though. Except for his first attack the fighter 20 has a dramatically -better- chance of fumbling with each attack. HIs second attack is 38.46% -more likely- to fumble than the fighter 1 and his other two are 46.15% more likely to fumble.

The high level fighter isn't just more likely to fumble overall but he's more likely to fumble on 3/4s of his individual attacks, or thereabouts depending on how often he gets AoO's and whether either of them has combat reflexes.

Jay R
2014-12-14, 06:54 PM
That's just it, though. Except for his first attack the fighter 20 has a dramatically -better- chance of fumbling with each attack. HIs second attack is 38.46% -more likely- to fumble than the fighter 1 and his other two are 46.15% more likely to fumble.

The high level fighter isn't just more likely to fumble overall but he's more likely to fumble on 3/4s of his individual attacks, or thereabouts depending on how often he gets AoO's and whether either of them has combat reflexes.

Oh - you're applying an AD&D rule to E3 or later. Yes, I agree that that doesn't usually work. When you mix editions indiscriminately, you get unintended results. I use this in AD&D 2E, in which higher level fighters don't get lower and lower chances to hit.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 07:03 PM
Oh - you're applying an AD&D rule to E3 or later. Yes, I agree that that doesn't usually work. When you mix editions indiscriminately, you get unintended results. I use this in AD&D 2E, in which higher level fighters don't get lower and lower chances to hit.

Well yeah, that'd do it. :smalltongue: Nevermind then.

YossarianLives
2014-12-14, 07:28 PM
I also despise critical fumbles. It just hurts melee characters.

LibraryOgre
2014-12-14, 10:22 PM
I also despise critical fumbles. It just hurts melee characters.

Not as much as spell mishaps can hurt magic characters. When's the last time a critical failure turned you into an amphibian for a month?

Animidest
2014-12-14, 10:31 PM
I've been opposed to fumbles ever since my first campaign, when a party member's eye exploded from a "fumbled" Search check.

oxybe
2014-12-14, 10:44 PM
For my actual feelings on Crit/Fumbles, in a game like D&D I use the rules presented (20 hits, 1 misses. the end.) unless I know you and your gameplay style very well, the inclusion of them is a good way of tipping me towards not playing in that campaign.

I've never played with crit/fumbles that were entertaining and i've never seen them presented in a way that would enhance my game play.

In a non-D&D game it's on a case by case basis, specifically depending on the overall theme and feel of the system.

Pex
2014-12-15, 12:01 AM
Not as much as spell mishaps can hurt magic characters. When's the last time a critical failure turned you into an amphibian for a month?

Given the rule exists magic users can easily avoid the spell mishap by never casting a spell that requires an attack roll. It's disappointing to lose Disintegrate, but the wizard isn't crying. The druid can still wildshape into a bird and cast with impunity forgoing wildshaping into combat forms to avoid the fumbles. His Animal Companion and Summons deal with that. The cleric does have the harder time since there's no point to meleeing if he's going to fumble and many attack spells are touch attacks. Still, buffing party members is a valid tactic while Command, Hold Person and Blindness are good for low level attack spells. He can also Summon creatures if need be, and at higher levels Greater Command is there as well as Flame Strike if he just needs something to do.

Warriors can't avoid making an attack roll. Two-weapon rogues and rangers can kiss themselves goodbye, and the monk thought he had enough problems already with his flurry of blows. Flurry of "This Blows" now.

azoetia
2014-12-15, 01:17 AM
At my table, 20 is an automatic success plus it's got some awesome added on top. Currently I've got new players in my group so I'm just doing old fashioned double damage while they get acclimated, but in some games I like coming up with more situational results like instant dismemberment, decapitation, knocking out, knocking prone, flipping over, throwing off a building, etc instead of double damage, though instant kill crits don't happen against PCs. I've never only done full damage; that's just not anywhere near gonzo enough for my tastes. Critical successes on things like skill rolls or saving throws are usually a bit uncanny. Not necessarily supernatural, but amazing to behold.

Rolling a 1 is a critical fumble; these events are treasured at my table. It's always situational and I make an attempt to make it seem reasonable (so no eyeball exploding from a fumbled search roll) but it's usually at least inconvenient if not downright dire. Someone who fails a sneak roll is noisy. Someone who fumbles a sneak roll is noisy and doesn't realize it, or perhaps trips on something and causes a domino effect of disaster that brings everything around him or her down in a symphony of crashes. Fumble an attack roll? Maybe you break a bowstring. Maybe you over-swing and fall over. Maybe you hit yourself or your ally with a spell. A trained fighter isn't going to cut off her own foot, but she might screw up in a way that a trained person reasonably might when under duress, or perhaps I might make an excuse for it like a bird flying in her face at the wrong moment. I sometimes let my players decide their own fumbles when they have hilarious ideas, but if I left it totally up to them it would become The Three Stooges within an hour.

I like the chaotic feel that everything could spin out of control at any time due to a couple of crazy rolls. It's one of my favourite things about playing D&D and sometimes leads to some very Tarantino-esque moments.

NichG
2014-12-15, 10:30 AM
Generally I've done it by the book, but honestly I like Numenera's approach to them and would consider trying to port that over with some adaptation for D&D's particular idiosyncracies (e.g. different character types need to roll more or less and the usual sources of problems with fumble rules).

In Numenera, when a character rolls a 1, the DM can choose to consider it a fumble. In this case the player has an option - spend a resource (which happens to be XP, but XP is more fluid in Numenera, so some kind of 'action point' would be a good proxy) and prevent the crit fail, or they gain 1XP and can award 1XP to another player and something bad/unexpected happens. That bad thing may not be 'they screw up', but could be only tangentially related, such as 'reinforcements show up' or 'the monster uses a special ability next round'. Monsters in Numenera have powers which specifically and only activate in that sort of situation, so it's expected to occur once or twice per fight and is pretty much built into the fabric of the game, and there are a number of guidelines about how to design these complications.

The point is basically, okay, something worse than failing happens to you - but you get rewarded for it. And if you let it happen to you once when it's not such a big deal (such as dropping your weapon on an attack when the fight is almost over anyhow), you and another player can prevent it later when it would be really bad for you (such as spending an action point to boost a saving throw on a save-or-die). And if you try to milk it during downtime by doing hundreds of irrelevant rolls, the DM can simply choose not to invoke a fumble.

Red Fel
2014-12-15, 10:42 AM
The point is basically, okay, something worse than failing happens to you - but you get rewarded for it. And if you let it happen to you once when it's not such a big deal (such as dropping your weapon on an attack when the fight is almost over anyhow), you and another player can prevent it later when it would be really bad for you (such as spending an action point to boost a saving throw on a save-or-die). And if you try to milk it during downtime by doing hundreds of irrelevant rolls, the DM can simply choose not to invoke a fumble.

See, this strikes me as reasonable. One of my biggest beefs with critical fumbles isn't just that they punish some classes or concepts more than others, or that they punish higher levels more than others, or what have you; it's that the introduction of critical fumbles constitutes pure punishment. A fumble is already a failure; a critical fumble is rubbing salt in the wound, and saying, "You don't just fail, you fail badly," without anything to show for it except scars. You're introducing a mechanic that provides only penalty, no benefit.

This kind of mechanic, described by Nich, provides some benefit. Yes, you suffer for your fumble, but you can choose to buy it off, or you can receive a token reward for your troubles. And that makes sense - it gives a reason for fumbles; it lets the player avoid them if desired; if taken, it allows the player to deliberately increase the challenge of an encounter; it's discretionary, not arbitrary, so the DM could choose not to invoke it; and most importantly, there is an actual benefit when it happens.

As others have described above, fumbles happen, even in real life. (Especially in real life.) And the goal is to learn from them. If you're training on the archery range or in sparring, you want to mess up every now and then, so you can learn from it and avoid it in a crunch situation. A system like this simulates that, by rewarding you (with XP) when it happens. I think that's a very reasonable, forgiving, and entertaining alternative to "You rolled a 1, you lose a foot."

Jormengand
2014-12-15, 12:20 PM
See, I'm considering adding (entirely optional) fumble rules for a game I'm making - it's basically a pool of d6s system where you're rolling anything from 1d6 to 16d6b8 (or possibly 20d6b10 but only under very specific circumstances, also more if you're a vampire or under certain spell effects). I'm gonna start by saying "Any skill check can be failed critically if you roll nothing but 1s". Let's have a look:


1) The "Are you a moron? Stop trying to gimp the weak classes" test. Does this fumble rule hurt a Fighter more than a Wizard? This includes can a Wizard's save based spells fumble, but also considers things like action economy and the penalties inflicted. If any of these things favor the Wizard being less effected, this rule should have been put out to pasture before you even started thinking it up.

You can critically fail Magic checks, but full attack actions are a thing so you're more likely to fail a weapons check. Solution: Critically failing Weapons checks gives results like making it harder to dodge next round because you swung wide; critically failing Magic checks involves things like "Spell Backfires" or "Cast Instant Death on yourself".


2) The "Epic Hero" test. Does a higher level character have the same or worse chance of fumbling as a low level character? As an untrained character? Your higher level characters should be less likely to screw up. That's literally the function of level. If your fumble rules are arbitrarily punishing high level characters, this rule is not going to work.

Higher level characters can make more attacks and I'm happy that people who attack more should be more likely to screw up, but anyone who actually puts dice in the relevant skill becomes far less likely to flunk a check - putting a single die in weapons will allow you to make a warrior's full set of attacks and come out better than if you'd made a single attack without that weapons die.


3) The "target dummy" test. If you have a squad of soldiers (of any level) training by hitting something completely non threatening for an hour or so, how many will be injured, maimed, scarred, or dead as a result? If that number is greater than 0, there is a problem with your rules.

They can take 3 on the weapons roll, so zero. Even if they did have to roll, anyone with a soldier's MT and Weapons dice should be rolling at least five dice


4) The "test of time". How long does it take for your fumbles to resolve? If it takes longer than it takes to confirm a critical hit (say by adding a step to reference a chart, draw a card, or anything else along those lines), this rule is a problem.

I gave "Cast Instant Death on yourself" as an example, which takes the longest (you have to roll magic against two saves), but it's no longer than if you cast the spell successfully anyway.


5) The "three stooges" test. Does the result of your fumble chart bring to mind the antics of the three stooges or any other slapstick comedy? This can also include things that trigger the target dummy test, but goes beyond that. If you have characters slipping and falling, dropping weapons, dazing themselves, etc, I do not accept this rule.

Swinging wide, blowing up the cannon you're trying to fire (which was certainly a thing which happened), turning people hostile... those aren't exactly three stooges so much as a realistic part of things that happen, especially if you don't know what you're doing. A normal person with any training at all (3d6b2) has a titchy chance of actually failing that hard too (1 in 217 is not exactly huge), and an amazingly awesome person (rolling 8 die) has a 1/1679616 chance - of course, it's possible (even notwithstanding vampires) to drop that to 1/2821109907456. The main problem with critical failure is that it's pointless beyond a certain point. I could also make it have a nasty effect based on how badly you fail, but that doesn't seem necessary.

Iunno, I don't really like critical miss systems in games but someone, somewhere is inevitably going to want one.

Jay R
2014-12-15, 12:20 PM
In Numenera, when a character rolls a 1, the DM can choose to consider it a fumble. In this case the player has an option - spend a resource (which happens to be XP, but XP is more fluid in Numenera, so some kind of 'action point' would be a good proxy) and prevent the crit fail, or they gain 1XP and can award 1XP to another player and something bad/unexpected happens.

I have no problem with people who like to do this kind of meta-gaming, so have fun with it. However, I'm trying to simulate a combat to some extent. When I have lost my footing or committed some other kind of fumble while fencing, I didn't then choose whether to spend a resource; I tried to recover my footing. So that's what I prefer the system to do.

But if the Numenera system appeals to you, have fun with it.


See, this strikes me as reasonable. One of my biggest beefs with critical fumbles isn't just that they punish some classes or concepts more than others, or that they punish higher levels more than others, or what have you; it's that the introduction of critical fumbles constitutes pure punishment. A fumble is already a failure; a critical fumble is rubbing salt in the wound, and saying, "You don't just fail, you fail badly," without anything to show for it except scars. You're introducing a mechanic that provides only penalty, no benefit.

Simply untrue, unless the bad guys don't ever fumble. I am helped by their fumbles even as I am hurt by my own. And the melee fighters are facing far more of the enemy melee fighters than the others.

In any event, I consider critical hits and fumbles to be a single system. The melee fighters are helped by their own critical hits more than they are hurt by their fumbles.

YossarianLives
2014-12-15, 12:46 PM
Not as much as spell mishaps can hurt magic characters. When's the last time a critical failure turned you into an amphibian for a month?
I would probably enjoy having fumbles in my game much more if magicians had a equal (if not higher) chance of messing up than a warrior. Unfortunately I find very few DMs employ fumbles for casters.
Which in my opinion is a waste of potential. It would be interesting to play in a setting where magic is dangerous and volatile and has a very good chance of blowing up in your face or turning you into a frog.

Mastikator
2014-12-15, 12:52 PM
We used to do crit-fail on a 1 and crit-success on a 20 while rolling 1d20. It turned out to be extremely random and more often than not your actual stats had little effect. I convinced the DM that we try using 2D10 instead and treat 2 as crit-fail and 20 as crit-success. It turned out extremely well (IMO), the crit-rate is only 1% and the stats are important. I feel like this is more realistic and natural, using a single D20 felt unnatural and arbitrary, the sheer randomness broke immersion for me.

I generally think that it should not be so much about the natural 1 or natural 20, instead if you merely succeed with a big margin you should get some kind of bonus in whatever the task, for attacks, extra damage, for skill checks, improved success, for resistance, more resistance. Same with extreme failures and the player should be allowed to know in advance if the PC thinks it's a very hard task.

It makes it more about show-casing the PCs skill and less about randomness.

Red Fel
2014-12-15, 01:09 PM
Simply untrue, unless the bad guys don't ever fumble. I am helped by their fumbles even as I am hurt by my own. And the melee fighters are facing far more of the enemy melee fighters than the others.

The problem is the action economy - a given enemy is unlikely to have as many (if any) fumbles as a given PC, because that PC - and the PCs collectively - will be acting more. Most combat-enemy NPCs will be dead within rounds, never to take another action. If an enemy NPC has a slim percentile chance to fumble, and will only take between one and four actions before his death, he probably won't fumble, ever. But the PCs have an entire campaign to lop off their feet, gouge out their eyes, and kill themselves and one adjacent target (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo).


In any event, I consider critical hits and fumbles to be a single system. The melee fighters are helped by their own critical hits more than they are hurt by their fumbles.

Even if we accept that critical hits and fumbles are one system, instead of the former being a core rule and the latter being an optional variant, your second statement - that melees are helped by crits more than they are hurt by fumbles - can be mathematically tested.

Let's assume that a critical hit means double damage, which is a fairly common critical hit rule. For melees to "break even" between crits and fumbles, the reaction must be proportionate. In other words, since a critical hit constitutes gaining a second attack, a fumble should constitute losing an attack.

Here's the problem. An ordinary fumble - a miss - already wastes the attack. No damage. That's breaking even. Instead of gaining the effects of a second attack, you've lost the attack you made. Any more than that is penalizing you beyond the benefit of a critical hit.

In other words, for melees to be "helped by their own critical hits more than they are hurt by their fumbles," critical fumbles have to do less than making you lose an attack. And generally speaking, they do more - even if they don't cause the melee to accidentally decapitate himself, at the very least you may be knocked prone, temporarily blinded, provoke attacks by your enemies, or any number of other incidents.

Short version, I've yet to encounter a critical fumbles alternative that is even balanced against critical hits, let alone one where the benefits of critical hits outweigh the penalties of critical fumbles.

Jormengand
2014-12-15, 03:24 PM
Here's the problem. An ordinary fumble - a miss - already wastes the attack. No damage. That's breaking even. Instead of gaining the effects of a second attack, you've lost the attack you made. Any more than that is penalizing you beyond the benefit of a critical hit.

But you could say that just hitting is giving you the effects of a successful attack too. You need to compare critical hits to hits (+full attack damage) and critical misses to misses (Under normal rules +/- nothing) for it to be fair.

Jay R
2014-12-15, 04:37 PM
The problem is the action economy - a given enemy is unlikely to have as many (if any) fumbles as a given PC, because that PC - and the PCs collectively - will be acting more. Most combat-enemy NPCs will be dead within rounds, never to take another action. If an enemy NPC has a slim percentile chance to fumble, and will only take between one and four actions before his death, he probably won't fumble, ever. But the PCs have an entire campaign to lop off their feet, gouge out their eyes, and kill themselves and one adjacent target (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo).

Every time I'm fighting, the enemy is as likely to fumble as I am. Yes, the fact that my character generally survives, while the bad guys generally die, means that the next time it will be a different enemy with as much chance of fumbling as I have. But all my enemies' fumbles help me.


Even if we accept that critical hits and fumbles are one system, instead of the former being a core rule and the latter being an optional variant,...

I've stated clearly and unambiguously that I'm using the tables from The Dragon #39, in a 2E game. Both crits and fumbles are optional.


... your second statement - that melees are helped by crits more than they are hurt by fumbles - can be mathematically tested.

I'm aware. My first game theory project, back in 1976, was the combat system of original D&D.


Let's assume that a critical hit means double damage, which is a fairly common critical hit rule.

Given that I have already cited the tables I'm using, in which the lowest possible critical hit is double damage, this is clearly a false assumption. There is a 31% chance of double damage, 31% chance of triple damage, and 38% chance of worse.


For melees to "break even" between crits and fumbles, the reaction must be proportionate. In other words, since a critical hit constitutes gaining a second attack, a fumble should constitute losing an attack.

Here's the problem. An ordinary fumble - a miss - already wastes the attack. No damage. That's breaking even. Instead of gaining the effects of a second attack, you've lost the attack you made. Any more than that is penalizing you beyond the benefit of a critical hit.

Nice try. Without a fumble, you've already lost that attack, even with no fumble rules. Only bad stuff beyond that can be ascribed to the fumble rule.


In other words, for melees to be "helped by their own critical hits more than they are hurt by their fumbles," critical fumbles have to do less than making you lose an attack. And generally speaking, they do more - even if they don't cause the melee to accidentally decapitate himself, at the very least you may be knocked prone, temporarily blinded, provoke attacks by your enemies, or any number of other incidents.

This table allows saving throws to avoid tripping or dropping weapons, so many fumbles do nothing at all. Others merely entangle a shield or weapon, causing you to lose one attack.

Your conclusion was based on a false assumption about the critical hits, a false assumption about the severity of fumbles, and a false procedure of acting like the fact of the miss is part of the fumble, rather than what happens when you roll a one without a fumble rule.


Short version, I've yet to encounter a critical fumbles alternative that is even balanced against critical hits, let alone one where the benefits of critical hits outweigh the penalties of critical fumbles.

If you treated other systems with the same false assumptions you applied to mine, then you don't know whether you have or not.

But that's fine. Play the system you enjoy, with the rules you enjoy, and I will do the same. We don't have to agree to both have fun with D&D.

LibraryOgre
2014-12-15, 04:52 PM
Given the rule exists magic users can easily avoid the spell mishap by never casting a spell that requires an attack roll.

Depends entirely on your system. Hackmaster, the only way to avoid it is to only cast unamped spells in perfect conditions.

veti
2014-12-15, 07:56 PM
Ha. Ha. Ha.

Since Seerow is right about everything (or at least about fumbles), I'll just quote him on this:

His last point (and, pretty much, only that) is on the money: "I haven't found a rule that satisfies all of these criteria, but I'm sure if someone cared enough they could design one. The real question is, why would you really want to?"

Good question: why would you want a fumble mechanic that adds neither entertainment nor suspense to the game?

Fumbles add uncertainty to a combat that might otherwise be a walkover. They're an incentive to do something other than fight, no matter how overwhelming your advantage. And they penalise those who insist on taking the ludicrously long shot on the assumption that sooner or later they'll roll a 20.

I'm a fan of (relatively) elaborate tables with outcomes ranging from mildly unfortunate to ludicrously implausible, which can mess up any character in varying degrees, without regard to class. "Losing a weapon", for instance, is not just for fighters - for a sorceror, it could mean she temporarily panics and forgets how to cast that spell. But for either one, it's not nearly as bad as the dreaded "accidentally invents an arcane gesture that momentarily opens a Gate to a lower plane".

As for the effect when battling dummies: you know how many soldiers are injured during basic training on a weekly basis, yes? No, of course you don't, the figures aren't published because no army wants to look like the Three Stooges. But I promise you it's a number substantially higher than zero... even before anyone gets live ammo.

Lord Torath
2014-12-16, 02:59 PM
For Critical Hits I use the 2nd option in the 1st printing of the 2E AD&D handbook. A natural 20 hits, inflicts normal damage, and instantly allows another attack roll. If that roll hits, inflict normal damage. Repeat until a 20 is not rolled.

For Critical Fumbles, a natural 1 misses. That is all.

goto124
2014-12-20, 06:30 AM
Is there a list of hilarous critical fails, such as 'I stab myself in the head' and 'my fireball hits the little girl behind my opponent instead'?

Marlowe
2014-12-20, 07:24 AM
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/252x373q90/909/VBvXbB.jpg

Arbane
2014-12-20, 02:27 PM
Sadly, Marlowe, there's no way for me to 'like' your post. :smallbiggrin:
Also, it's missing "1d4 players quit in disgust."


I would probably enjoy having fumbles in my game much more if magicians had a equal (if not higher) chance of messing up than a warrior. Unfortunately I find very few DMs employ fumbles for casters.
Which in my opinion is a waste of potential. It would be interesting to play in a setting where magic is dangerous and volatile and has a very good chance of blowing up in your face or turning you into a frog.

I'd be semi-ok with that (magic's supposed to be mysterious and dangerous, right?), IF it passes a logic check: Can any magician make it through their apprenticehood without getting devoured by demons or turned into a begonia?

Stellar_Magic
2014-12-23, 11:12 PM
Sadly, Marlowe, there's no way for me to 'like' your post. :smallbiggrin:
Also, it's missing "1d4 players quit in disgust."

I'd be semi-ok with that (magic's supposed to be mysterious and dangerous, right?), IF it passes a logic check: Can any magician make it through their apprenticehood without getting devoured by demons or turned into a begonia?

I've seen some pretty interesting results when people use 'Wild Magic' type rules. There's some pretty off the wall d1000+ charts for those.

Solaris
2014-12-24, 06:04 PM
When I'm running a game, I avoid martial fumbles like the plague.
I did work out a system of casting fumbles for a d20 derivative where wizards rolled 'casting rolls' using their caster level much like a warrior uses his BAB (it's kinda clunky, and I've never employed it in actual play for a reason). Most of the fumbles fall under the realm of 'screw you, wizard', but none are fatal (except for the petrification one, but the odds of picking that up are vanishingly slim) and all can be counteracted by remove curse and break enchantment.

My present DM has a rule that if you roll a natural 1, then miss on your confirmation roll, you provoke an attack of opportunity from everyone threatening you. That's about as far as I'll tolerate on a critical fumble set-up without building my character as a non-attack-roll-using caster.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-24, 07:34 PM
True. And he also never crits. A system in which crits add more pluses than fumbles do minuses is a net gain for the fighter.

And deliver more crits to the enemy and be helped with more enemy fumbles.

Wrong. Find the nearest 3rd edition DMG or Epic Level Handbook and open it to any of the several sidebars about adding fumbles and/or "spicing up" critical hits. One of the last few paragraphs will warn you that doing either of these things ultimately makes the game harder. The reason for that is simple: The players rarely need a crit or enemy fumble to turn a fight in their favor, but a single enemy crit or player fumble can sure as hell turn it against them.


See, I'm considering adding (entirely optional) fumble rules for a game I'm making - it's basically a pool of d6s system where you're rolling anything from 1d6 to 16d6b8 (or possibly 20d6b10 but only under very specific circumstances, also more if you're a vampire or under certain spell effects).

You're to have to explain how your system actually works, because I can't think of a non-cluster**** core mechanic capable of calling for those kinds of rolls.:smalleek:

Jormengand
2014-12-24, 08:02 PM
You're to have to explain how your system actually works, because I can't think of a non-cluster**** core mechanic capable of calling for those kinds of rolls.:smalleek:

1 to 8 stat and 0 to 8 skill dice - so if you have an intellect of 5 and arcane magic of 3, you roll 8d6b5 on magic check. So a cripple would roll 1 die on climb rolls and the greatest mage who ever lived would roll 16 dice on magic rolls. Paragon-ranked (Level 20, essentially) warriors can increase the stat, and therefore skill, limit to 10, so they can technically be rolling 20 dice.

GloatingSwine
2014-12-24, 08:45 PM
The only critical fumble mechanic that I've seen and been decently ok with is "if you roll a natural 1, roll again, and if you still miss, a minor fumble happens."

That's probably a solid way of doing it. If you roll a natural 1, roll again, if you miss then your next attack is made at -n circumstantial penalty (whatever feels appropriate) unless a round passes before you make it (ie you compose yourself/fix your grip/whatever).

It affects higher level characters less, they'll confirm the fumble less often and the penalty is less relevant to them because they're better at hitting, it doesn't break the flow of an encounter but it does put that little extra thing for players to occasionally work around.

It also gives you a property to play with on items you make up, weapons that have expanded fumble ranges/penalties in exchange for some bonus elsewhere, for instance.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-24, 09:12 PM
1 to 8 stat and 0 to 8 skill dice - so if you have an intellect of 5 and arcane magic of 3, you roll 8d6b5 on magic check. So a cripple would roll 1 die on climb rolls and the greatest mage who ever lived would roll 16 dice on magic rolls. Paragon-ranked (Level 20, essentially) warriors can increase the stat, and therefore skill, limit to 10, so they can technically be rolling 20 dice.

Quite simple and elegant indeed, to the point that I did in fact think of it a few minutes after my previous post.:smallwink:

Have you run it much through Anydice yet? Because if not I'm tempted to and I'll PM you my findings.

Jormengand
2014-12-25, 06:44 AM
Quite simple and elegant indeed, to the point that I did in fact think of it a few minutes after my previous post.:smallwink:

Have you run it much through Anydice yet? Because if not I'm tempted to and I'll PM you my findings.

No, I haven't, and it could be interesting. :smallbiggrin:

Broken Twin
2014-12-25, 12:25 PM
1 to 8 stat and 0 to 8 skill dice - so if you have an intellect of 5 and arcane magic of 3, you roll 8d6b5 on magic check. So a cripple would roll 1 die on climb rolls and the greatest mage who ever lived would roll 16 dice on magic rolls. Paragon-ranked (Level 20, essentially) warriors can increase the stat, and therefore skill, limit to 10, so they can technically be rolling 20 dice.

Oh, it's a Roll/Keep system, if I understand you correctly. I'm personally very fond of that roll system, even if it is a bit clunky to describe to new players. Easy to adjust to, though.

---------------------------------

As to the OP, I don't like using crit fumbles in d20 systems, because the idea of a master whatever messing up badly a full 5% of the time bugs me. I love them in dice pool systems, since your chance to critical fail shrinks as your skill increases.

For critical hits in d20, I prefer max damage and roll again. Just max is boring, and a critical hit that deals minimal damage just feels wrong. "Yeah, double damage on my d12 weapon! ... I rolled a two..."

Sith_Happens
2014-12-25, 01:12 PM
For critical hits in d20, I prefer max damage and roll again. Just max is boring, and a critical hit that deals minimal damage just feels wrong. "Yeah, double damage on my d12 weapon! ... I rolled a two..."

I know that feeling, rolling snake-eyes on your (1d12+30)x3 is such a pain.:smalltongue: