I HATE fumbles. But why?

[Fenryr]

Yo, hello!

I hate fumbles charts and the such variations. I really LOATHE 'em. In an upcoming campaign the DM wants to use this generator (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/tools/critical-generator).

Would you please help me with arguments why it's a bad idea?

[Extra Anchovies]

They introduce excess random chance into the game (or at least increase the influence of the existing random chance). Anything that increases random chance A) hurts PCs more than NPCs, because PCs roll more dice, and B) reduces the amount of control players have over their characters, which is not fun for players. Sure, he's also adding extra bonuses on critical hits, but bad luck hurts more than good luck helps (e.g. rolling entirely 1s for HP hurts more than rolling the highest possible HP helps).

If that doesn't convince him, just let him know that his inclusion of the critical success/failure generator will reduce your enjoyment of the game. A DM who cares about his players is willing to make small accommodations (e.g. not using critical failures) to help everyone have fun.

[darksolitaire]

Anything adding more random elements skews the players in the long run more then their enemies since they roll more dice. Sooner or later you'll fumble in a hard fight and end up getting character killed because he rolled poorly.

It also makes no sense that experienced fighter disarms himself without opponent trying to disarm him.

[ComaVision]

It invalidates a lot of character options. Nobody in their right mind would make a TWFer or a Totemist in a game with fumble rules.

[heavyfuel]

Get a Venerable lv 1 Commoner and give him a longsword. He'll average at -7 attack bonus. Now tell him to hit something for 400 rounds.

Do the same thing with another character, except this other character is a lv 20 Fighter, who uses two weapons, and whose wealth of magic items that help him do battle is worth more than the entire kingdom this commoner belongs to and deals 10 attacks (4 BAB, 3 TWF, 1 slashing flurry, 1 Haste, 1 Snap Kick) in 6 seconds with attack bonuses from +40 to +20.

On average, the commoner will only fumble once (if you require two nat 1s) or 20 times (if you require only a single nat 1)

Meanwhile, the Fighter with years of experience and who has both destroyed entire armies single handedly and sent back a demon that had enough power to destroy all that was holy will fumble 10 or 200 times, on average, respectively.

Makes perfect sense. Not.

[Zaq]

In addition to what else has been said, it affects high-level warriors more than low-level ones, because high-level ones make more attacks (and therefore roll more d20s, which might come up 1). What sense does it make that a level 20 Fighter is four times as likely as a level 1 Fighter to make a critical error on a given round?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It harms weaker archetypes like TWF Ranger* more than stronger ones like the standard pouncing leap attack shock trooper two-hander characters. And it harms non-casters more than casters. Basically the weaker your character the more fumble rules hurt it.

*or for maximum spams, 2WF flurrying kama monk

[Rhyltran]

Yo, hello!

I hate fumbles charts and the such variations. I really LOATHE 'em. In an upcoming campaign the DM wants to use this generator (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/tools/critical-generator).

Would you please help me with arguments why it's a bad idea?


My problem with fumbles is roll a d20 until you roll a one. It's not that hard to eventually roll a one it's bound to happen. Take a sword and swing at a tree or even spar a friend. How often do you "stab yourself" with your blade or "accidentally fling" it across the room? I've been practicing swordsmanship for years and I have never once done these things. The characters you play in D&D can eventually get to the point where they are soloing giants and even dragons.

Why would a man who can solo armies and single handedly slay dragons have less control over his weapon than a mere mortal like me? Sure, it's a game and it doesn't have to make sense but it just doesn't sit right with me no matter how I look at it and even then it hurts TWF more than anyone else.

[Zakerst]

I'm likely echoing others already, but a large part of the problem is that it just gives anyone who "fumbles" a "feel bad" feeling, like you're getting punished hurt ect. and there's nothing you could've done about.

Another problem is that it will always hurt players more than mobs, a mob fumbles and dies no big deal, there's more where that came from, even a BBEG unless he's trying to go the blender route, it will matter less for him as he's going to be in combat less.

For a third problem as others have pointed out it hurts melee more than anyone (the people who least need beaten with more random fails...) not to mention actively punishing people who try and go with blender type chars, and even the lowly TWFer gets cut to pieces on his own dagger...

These kinds of problems are going to make players not want to play anything but casters and the less dice the player has to role the better, leading to a very skewed field of play.

some more problems with this one, all of these have the deal damage to yourself option meaning you will kill yourself at some point if you build a high damage dealing char, and some of the other "crit fails" do nothing in the case you not using that type of weapon (the ranged ones in particular) not to mention some how your long bow can jam... and getting cursed randomly at level 1 or so might as well roll a new caster... oh and here's some fun using a natural weapon, here have some ability damage that's going to take days to heal...

this is going to be a monster for any low level chars as any of these crit fails or crits made by enemies are going to be game ending

oh and here's another good one some of the crits do what the weapon already does, triple damage on the attack, yep that's what bows do...

also how are the save dcs determined because I see that nowhere...

not to mention a lot of these crits say "normal damage" so you're crit counts for nothing, eg ugly wound does cha damage and drain, something no mob is going to care about but will hurt players, yep seems reasonable...

[SinsI]

"Put 10 1st level warriors hitting straw dolls targets in a room for 10 minutes. If any of them is heavily injured, permanently incapacitated or dead, those fumble rules are unplayable in anything but a joke game."

This generator has results like "The attack deals damage to you instead of the target." - this is unplayable.

[Rhyltran]

"Put 10 1st level warriors hitting straw dolls targets in a room for 10 minutes. If any of them is heavily injured, permanently incapacitated or dead, those fumble rules are unplayable in anything but a joke game."

This generator has results like "The attack deals damage to you instead of the target." - this is unplayable.

I'm using the roller in mind and testing this. First guy in 64 swings became sick for 4 rounds, dazed for two, and then critically hit himself resulting in his own death. 64 swings at a straw dummy and this guy brutalized himself.

Guy 2 ended up with a -4 penalty, hit the guy next to him for 6 damage, took 3 points of damage + 1 bleed, and then stabbed himself for 7 points of damage. Guy 2 is also dead. This is by swing 74.

Guy 3 survives but in this time he accidentally flung his swong. He damaged his armor. He lost balance twice.

Guy 4 survives as well but he took 1d3 strength damage (rolled a 3), didn't threaten any spaces around him due to fog of war, and got his weapon lodged in the ground and had to spend 5 rounds trying to free it. So now this poor commoner is likely sitting at 9-7 strength.

Guy 5 I thought he might be the luckiest so far. No failure until his 51st swing which unfortunately resulted in a critical hit that ended his life. May he rest in piece.

Guy 6 Hit himself for 2 damage, bled himself for 4 damage, got sick for 3 rounds, got sick for 2 rounds, stunned himself for 1 round, blinded himself for 1 round, and did damage to his own shield. He did survive, however.

Guy 7 After 19 swings he's done by default. He destroyed his weapon.

Guy 8 Survives after deafening himself until he gets a heal dc of 15, and became sickened for 7 rounds in total.

Guy 9 Survives. Mostly got a bunch of penalties to stuff. Not too bad. Bent his weapon but that was the worst of it. Also dropped his weapon three times. He also hurt himself for 3 damage.

Guy 10 The most unluckiest of them all. Assuming that these guys are lined up next to each other. He managed to not only kill himself but number 9 as well. He finished the poor guy off before offing himself.

In this little exercise numbers 10, 9, 5, 2, and 1 all managed to die. With number 7 destroying his own sword. So 6 of the 10 are no longer able to fight.

[Know(Nothing)]

I actually really like that generator(I have the card version as well as the crit deck) but we also play with a home-brew version of Hero Points, or Action Points, so that you can burn one to undo a crit fail. Enemies don't get those(except major villains), so it keeps things interesting without being too much of a detriment to PCs.

[Shackel]

Disclaimer: I've played with critical fumbles all my roleplaying life to the point where I was surprised to find out they weren't actually a thing.

This is something that always bothers me whenever fumbles come up and there's all of these complains about how a level 20, godlike Superman fighter wailing on a bag will deal more damage to himself, or that the better trained someone is, the more likely they are to screw up because fumbles are the spawn of evil.

Even disregarding the fact that, yes, someone who swings ten times as often with a flat percentage of failure will fail ten times as much, there's one, very important question: do you confirm fumbles or not? If you don't confirm fumbles, then, yes, it's as stupid as everyone says it is, and you could probably solve 90% of the problems by just asking him if you can confirm them the same way crits are(except a miss confirms it); it turns the level 20 fighter's critfail chance into a .25% chance, and that's if I remember it correctly and 1s autofail on confirm rolls.

If you already do confirm them, tell him that some of these effects are just abhorrent and would need a lot of fixing and flavor to make them work. They're bad for PCs and monsters alike. To just use Natural Attacks:

Hitting the target, but stunning you for 2 turns unless you succeed at an arbitrary Fort save... for 1 turn?
Entangling yourself?
Disabling that weapon until healed?

These sound a hell of a lot worse than just beaning yourself in the head or something. Or you could take 1 Con damage, or a little nonlethal and a malus. It's too swing-y, even for crits.

[Arbane]

Ask if spellcasters will also be getting a nonzero chance of their spells backfiring. (Probably not.)
If not, ask them why they hate fighters so much. (The reasons why they obviously hate fighters have already been well-explained in this thread.)

Someone here posted a good playtest for any proposed fumble rules: Hand 100 Commoners swords, and have them attack straw practice dummies for 10 minutes. If at the end of that time, any of the commoners lies dead or dying, the GM has to butter their proposed fumble rules and eat them. (Drat, I fumbled my post, and got ninjaed by SinsI)

edit to add: If I play a melee type, I want a chance to feel like Conan or D'Artangan, not Larry, Moe and Curly.

Edit 2: Wow, Rhyltran, most of those fumbles will screw up a PC _worse_ that an enemy trying to commit grievous bodily harm with a battle axe. That's kind of impressive.

[Flickerdart]

Give a sword-like object to your DM. Remind him that he is an untrained commoner. Tell him to hit something with it once every 6 seconds for 10 minutes. Anything that happens while he's doing this is allowed to go on the fumble table. Then ask him whether or not he thinks that a trained swordfighter doing the same thing will have screwed up in every one of those ways.

This (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/02/heres-that-fumble-chart.html) is the only fumble chart worthy of being used.

[Rhyltran]

Ask if spellcasters will also be getting a nonzero chance of their spells backfiring. (Probably not.)
If not, ask them why they hate fighters so much. (The reasons why they obviously hate fighters have already been well-explained in this thread.)

Someone here posted a good playtest for any proposed fumble rules: Hand 100 Commoners swords, and have them attack straw practice dummies for 10 minutes. If at the end of that time, any of the commoners lies dead or dying, the GM has to butter their proposed fumble rules and eat them. (Drat, I fumbled my post, and got ninjaed by SinsI)

edit to add: If I play a melee type, I want a chance to feel like Conan or D'Artangan, not Larry, Moe and Curly.

Edit 2: Wow, Rhyltran, most of those fumbles will screw up a PC _worse_ that an enemy trying to commit grievous bodily harm with a battle axe. That's kind of impressive.

Check it out now. I just finished. LOL

[torrasque666]

Ask if spellcasters will also be getting a nonzero chance of their spells backfiring. (Probably not.)
If not, ask them why they hate fighters so much. (The reasons why they obviously hate fighters have already been well-explained in this thread.) Because any time you do. People jump on the "Well they only have so many spells. The fighter doesn't run out of swings" band wagon. Basically, any time you want to have a spellcaster have the same chance at failure at a given task as a martial, people get offended.

[Arbane]

This (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/02/heres-that-fumble-chart.html) is the only fumble chart worthy of being used.

....But only in a game of Toon. Or possibly Hackmaster...

[Segev]

Give a sword-like object to your DM. Remind him that he is an untrained commoner. Tell him to hit something with it once every 6 seconds for 10 minutes. Anything that happens while he's doing this is allowed to go on the fumble table. Then ask him whether or not he thinks that a trained swordfighter doing the same thing will have screwed up in every one of those ways.

This (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/02/heres-that-fumble-chart.html) is the only fumble chart worthy of being used.

Way too lenient on those powergaming munchkins who play fighters! Take a cue from your own sig; every entry on the fumble table needs to include summoning 1d4 Orci!

"Orci" is, of course, the plural of "Orcus."

[Douglas]

I'm using the roller in mind and testing this. First guy in 64 swings became sick for 4 rounds, dazed for two, and then critically hit himself resulting in his own death. 64 swings at a straw dummy and this guy brutalized himself.

Guy 2 ended up with a -4 penalty, hit the guy next to him for 6 damage, took 3 points of damage + 1 bleed, and then stabbed himself for 7 points of damage. Guy 2 is also dead. This is by swing 74.

Guy 3 survives but in this time he accidentally flung his swong. He damaged his armor. He lost balance twice.

Guy 4 survives as well but he took 1d3 strength damage (rolled a 3), didn't threaten any spaces around him due to fog of war, and got his weapon lodged in the ground and had to spend 5 rounds trying to free it. So now this poor commoner is likely sitting at 9-7 strength.

Guy 5 I thought he might be the luckiest so far. No failure until his 51st swing which unfortunately resulted in a critical hit that ended his life. May he rest in piece.

Guy 6 Hit himself for 2 damage, bled himself for 4 damage, got sick for 3 rounds, got sick for 2 rounds, stunned himself for 1 round, blinded himself for 1 round, and did damage to his own shield. He did survive, however.

Guy 7 After 19 swings he's done by default. He destroyed his weapon.

Guy 8 Survives after deafening himself until he gets a heal dc of 15, and became sickened for 7 rounds in total.

Guy 9 Survives. Mostly got a bunch of penalties to stuff. Not too bad. Bent his weapon but that was the worst of it. Also dropped his weapon three times. He also hurt himself for 3 damage.

Guy 10
I only saw the 4 sample cards, but if this is representative of the deck as a whole then yes, this deck is terrible. OP, I doubt you're going to get any evidence more convincing than a farcical training record like this one.

[Arbane]

Yo, hello!

I hate fumbles charts and the such variations. I really LOATHE 'em. In an upcoming campaign the DM wants to use this generator (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/tools/critical-generator).

Would you please help me with arguments why it's a bad idea?

This is a Pathfinder game? Ask your GM if you can play a Witch. Take the Cackle and Misfortune Hexes (you can get both at level one). Make ALL your enemies stab themselves to death while you laugh in- AND out-of character.

If logic and reason don't work, maybe forcing him to suffer his own bad rules will.

[Segev]

There is that: if you don't like the rules your DM is using, play something that is more optimal due to them (or at least avoids being impacted by them).

[Geddy2112]

Disclaimer: I've played with critical fumbles all my roleplaying life to the point where I was surprised to find out they weren't actually a thing.

There's one, very important question: do you confirm fumbles or not? If you don't confirm fumbles, then, yes, it's as stupid as everyone says it is, and you could probably solve 90% of the problems by just asking him if you can confirm them the same way crits are(except a miss confirms it); it turns the level 20 fighter's critfail chance into a .25% chance, and that's if I remember it correctly and 1s autofail on confirm rolls.


Most of my life I played with fumble rules, not just for attacks either. You could have bad things happen if you failed a save or skill check. Largely been up to the DM as to what happened to your character. I have played with that critical generator, and it sucks. Most of the time it is pointless and it slows down combat. My current group still plays that any roll of a 1 is a failure for any d20 roll. However, there are no additional penalties besides failing to succeed.

[Keltest]

In general, I prefer my fumble rules, when they exist at all, to be things like "You accidentally leave yourself open. Enemies in range get a free attack at you for +X" where X depends on exactly where on the chart you rolled. The one I use does have "strike self" or "strike ally" but they are both for minimum weapon damage and are incredibly difficult to roll: as in, ive been playing with this table for 6 years and seen it happen maybe twice on either side of the DM screen.

[Seerow]

Most of my life I played with fumble rules, not just for attacks either. You could have bad things happen if you failed a save or skill check. Largely been up to the DM as to what happened to your character. I have played with that critical generator, and it sucks. Most of the time it is pointless and it slows down combat. My current group still plays that any roll of a 1 is a failure for any d20 roll. However, there are no additional penalties besides failing to succeed.

HOLY CRAP you must really hate Fighters. Seriously causing fumbles on failed saves rather than caster fumbles on nat 20s vs their spells is just telling your players they'd better go roll up a character who uses as few d20s as possible.

[Shackel]

Most of my life I played with fumble rules, not just for attacks either. You could have bad things happen if you failed a save or skill check. Largely been up to the DM as to what happened to your character. I have played with that critical generator, and it sucks. Most of the time it is pointless and it slows down combat. My current group still plays that any roll of a 1 is a failure for any d20 roll. However, there are no additional penalties besides failing to succeed.

Funny thing; critfailing a save is still a thing sometimes: your equipment takes damage. My group's varied, but on 'average' it tends to be that a confirmed critfail gives your enemy the chance to make an attack of opportunity. Keeps the flow of combat. With a good DM, I could see the generator being used as more of a loose guideline. A critfail perhaps resulting in 1d4 Strength/Dex damage until you are given any kind of healing, for instance, rather than just a flat 1d4 Str damage. Or your enemy gets a free trip check. Nice variation.

To tell the truth I still kind of view a whole lot of the hubbub over critfails and immediately declaring any DM who uses them to be nothing short of the spawn of Asmodeus to be a kneejerk reaction. Not nearly as much as when I thought people were talking about a confirm to critfail, of course, but it certainly gets a lot more petty or irrational reactions than constructive criticism.

EDIT: On the age-old "do casters get critfail chances", on a confirm system it doesn't matter because casters can't crit. However, if a DM were willing to make fluff and the like, I would actually love to see there be consequences for an enemy critical success, or at least them taking less effects. "Partial/Half" resulting in no damage/effects, for instance, or, my favorite thing that I've never seen much mechanical support for: giving someone screwing with your mind a taste of their own medicine through sheer willpower.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

In general, I prefer my fumble rules, when they exist at all, to be things like "You accidentally leave yourself open. Enemies in range get a free attack at you for +X" where X depends on exactly where on the chart you rolled. The one I use does have "strike self" or "strike ally" but they are both for minimum weapon damage and are incredibly difficult to roll: as in, ive been playing with this table for 6 years and seen it happen maybe twice on either side of the DM screen.

I could see this working, if you did it right.

Maybe roll 3d6 for fumbling, with the mid range being very minor penalties, and the extreme ends being serious injuries that, while incredibly rare, can still happen in the heat of combat. Then perhaps allow higher level fighters and their ilk to re-roll 1 or more fumble dice as a class feature, making them FAR less likely to seriously damage themselves.

It's a lot of complexity, but if you absolutely HAVE to have fumbles that it's one of the best ways I can think of to implement them.

[Keltest]

I could see this working, if you did it right.

Maybe roll 3d6 for fumbling, with the mid range being very minor penalties, and the extreme ends being serious injuries that, while incredibly rare, can still happen in the heat of combat. Then perhaps allow higher level fighters and their ilk to re-roll 1 or more fumble dice as a class feature, making them FAR less likely to seriously damage themselves.

It's a lot of complexity, but if you absolutely HAVE to have fumbles that it's one of the best ways I can think of to implement them.

Indeed. And just to be clear, the monsters still have to roll their hit, they don't automatically hit you, so if the fighter fumbles and is surrounded by orcs he wont get killed by 8 orcs suddenly smacking him with a greataxe.

[Banjoman42]

Here is a rule for I've been working on for critical failures. I like critical failures, but they should not be nearly as harsh as people make them. They can be a decent thing in a game if handle them correctly.
-You do confirm failures. The confirmation roll must equal the target's AC -4 or lower.
-You can only critically fail once per round. Other natural 1s do nothing special.
-Critical failures do the following: 1) Enemy gets +1 on there next attack roll against you next round only 2) Your weapon takes 1 damage 3) The enemy gets +2 on any disarm or trip attack they make against you next round 4) You strike yourself for 1 non-lethal damage 5) The enemy dodged well and may immediately take a 5 ft step away from you. You roll a d10 to find which one happens, and each has an equal amount to happen. If using a natural weapon, number 2 gives number 4 instead
-When casting a spell, you roll a d10. If you get a 1, the spell is ineffective and does nothing.
I think that this incorporates most complaints with the rule, yet still makes it a fun rule to use.

[SinsI]

There's a very good article about the nature of dice rolls in D&D Goblin Dice (http://ponderingsongames.com/2013/01/27/goblin-dice/)


Hence, goblin dice: good for determining the fate of goblins. Not so good for determining the fate of heroes, or worlds. They are terrible for anything important.

And that's why you should never, ever, play with serious fumble penalties in even a slightly serious game. What would any player think if their character suddenly slipped on a banana peel and broke his neck? Is it fair? Is it a good storytelling? Is it even remotely interesting?


It’s not fun to miss and waste a rare resource through no fault of your own. It’s even less fun to die this way.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

Like Shakel, we've used critical fumbles since the very beginning, and were surprised when we discovered that it was an optional rule. We've tried several tables, and the web site linked is the one we have settled on. We've enjoyed the slightly tailored critical fumbles depending on the mode of attack (the magic one is my favourite).

Sure it's annoying when you're flurrying and you end up with a fumble, but we've enjoyed the randomness and sometimes hilarious results it gives.

Obviously we play with confirmation roles, so a 1 followed by a confirmed miss gives a critical fumble. This seriously reduces the chance of actually getting fumbled (though it depends on your attack vs enemy AC, obviously)

About the example with the training swordsman and the tree. Sure, if it is 100% RAW, then yes it would be stupid. But you could equally just say that you only fumble in a middle of a fight (or in a situation where you would be unable to take 10), since it is easy to make a mistake when you are under pressure than when you are training with the same sword technique in a non-threatening situation. In the latter situation, it is a LOT harder to get the attack THAT wrong that you critical yourself instead (though accidents do happen). Not RAW at all of course. This is only my personal interpretation on why this wouldn't happen anyway.

However, I can honestly understand why some (or should I say many? :smallamused:) hate fumbles, and I fully respect their opinion. We just like it because it gives a bit more diverse actions apart from the usual "stab, stab, stab, stab... end of turn".

Here are a few stories of some of our most memorable fumbles:

I was DMing this one, where the high levelled party had been captured and locked up by the assassin's guild. They had all their items taken, and the casters had personal anti-magic bracelets locked onto their arm, stopping them from casting spells.

After finding a way to escape, the party creeps through the corridor, and ambush an assassin to take his weapons and items. The gnome cleric, bereft of magic, was incapable of doing anything at all. So on his turn, he asks if he can... well... relieve himself with a n°2 as a full round action. I let him, and next round, he declares that he picks up his newly created gnomish turd, and throws it at the assassin.

And he rolls a nat 1.

And he confirmes the critical fumble.

I looked at the critical generator, and then looked at the waiting table and said "Backfires".

It took us at least 15 minutes to finally stop laughing and get back to the fight. Everybody was in stitches.


And maybe not as funny, but memorable nonetheless:

one of our enemies had a very powerful sword (actually a spinal column) and was wrecking us with it. He tried to attack our blinded cleric and fumbled. After looking at the critical generator, our DM declared that though blind luck, the cleric moved her shield up just in time, and the sword shattered into a thousand pieces onto her shield. It was fairly easy afterwards to finish the fight.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Here is a rule for I've been working on for critical failures. I like critical failures, but they should not be nearly as harsh as people make them. They can be a decent thing in a game if handle them correctly.

How? This rule does nothing but punish the weaker classes. If I build a wizard I can avoid ever having to make an attack roll. Fighter, monk, barbarian and similar others don't have that luxury.

I really want to know how they improve the game?

[Lorddenorstrus]

How? This rule does nothing but punish the weaker classes. If I build a wizard I can avoid ever having to make an attack roll. Fighter, monk, barbarian and similar others don't have that luxury.

I really want to know how they improve the game?

They don't. Every time someone points out that difference all you see is that some systems impose idiotic "Failure" chances on spells. Kinda like this thing called Arcane Spell Failure.. huh funny thing about that the player controls whether or not to be effected by it rather simply.. I mean earlier someone posted rolling a d10 to see if it rolled a 1 to fail any spell being cast. I'm not sure what kinda crack he smokes but apparently it makes that stuff look balanced.

Theres a bloody reason ASF is completely controlled by the player you don't ever want to have spells not going off. For melees they only got their bloody auto attacks or maneuvers going for them. Punishing people further for choosing not to play the God wizard is an idiotic continuation of the age old "Fighters aren't allowed to ever have nice things." There is no justification for the blanket stupidity required to reiterate that statement.

[Uncle Pine]

You know, every time I see a discussion about fumbles I always see grotesque tables filled with heinous effects that will likely kill any character unlucky enough to roll a 1. I also see excellent points made about the fact that any fumble rule will cripple mundanes more than casters.
I've played with critical fumbles since I have memories (I thought it was supposed to work like that at the time), but never created a complex table: if you roll 1 on a melee attack, everyone gets an AoO on you; if you roll 1 on a ranged attack, you roll a die (1d8 if your target is a Medium creature) and your attack hits the corresponding square. In 8+ years, this never caused a death on the PCs' part (maybe once, but the guy had like 5 hp and he would have died anyway next turn even without an arrow in the head).
Thinking about it, if I had to justify my fumble rules I'd say that a 20th Fighter with 5 weapons statistically provokes more AoOs because he's attacking at a much higher speed than a 1st level Fighter (more or less in line with the fact that the more attacks you make, the higher the penalties are on those attacks).

EDIT: I pass the 10 warriors Vs straw dolls test. :D

[Keltest]

How? This rule does nothing but punish the weaker classes. If I build a wizard I can avoid ever having to make an attack roll. Fighter, monk, barbarian and similar others don't have that luxury.

I really want to know how they improve the game?

The same way that being able to be killed improves the game. if theres no possibility for failure, theres no challenge. And sometimes theyre hilarious. My group likes to come up with increasingly improbable explanations for what happened in-story to cause the fumble. My favorite was when the archer fumbled to hit himself and we decided he accidentally held his bow backwards.

[Lorddenorstrus]

The same way that being able to be killed improves the game. if theres no possibility for failure, theres no challenge. And sometimes theyre hilarious. My group likes to come up with increasingly improbable explanations for what happened in-story to cause the fumble. My favorite was when the archer fumbled to hit himself and we decided he accidentally held his bow backwards.

So you enjoy making it sound like your character has no intelligence score what so ever? Unless you're playing something with extremely subpar score in that nobody who wields a weapon they're an expert with is ever. EVER. Going to shoot themselves with a backwards bow.
That's a blanket insult to archers to. I actually use a bow myself when hunting and because I'm intelligent enough to maintain my weapon and keep it in amazing condition. I have NEVER. EVER. Had anything close to some of the failures i've seen on Crit failure charts. If me a simple commoner who just trained with a bow a bit and knows how to maintain it NEVER has problems. The expert archer who's saving the world is going to have even less problems than my 0 problems.

[Keltest]

So you enjoy making it sound like your character has no intelligence score what so ever? Unless you're playing something with extremely subpar score in that nobody who wields a weapon they're an expert with is ever. EVER. Going to shoot themselves with a backwards bow.
That's a blanket insult to archers to. I actually use a bow myself when hunting and because I'm intelligent enough to maintain my weapon and keep it in amazing condition. I have NEVER. EVER. Had anything close to some of the failures i've seen on Crit failure charts. If me a simple commoner who just trained with a bow a bit and knows how to maintain it NEVER has problems. The expert archer who's saving the world is going to have even less problems than my 0 problems.

That's the joke, man. I did say it was improbable. Actually, I would go so far as to say physically impossible to hold your bow backwards and actually pull it enough to launch an arrow.

[SinsI]

if you roll 1 on a ranged attack, you roll a die (1d8 if your target is a Medium creature) and your attack hits the corresponding square.
If there is someone in that square, do you automatically hit him, or does he get a chance to use his AC or other defenses against your attack?

[ZamielVanWeber]

The same way that being able to be killed improves the game. if theres no possibility for failure, theres no challenge.

But there is possibility of failure. Attacks always miss on a 1. You are making the consequences worse for some people.

[Keltest]

But there is possibility of failure. Attacks always miss on a 1. You are making the consequences worse for some people.

To which I respond: so?

Monsters can fumble too, you know.

[ZamielVanWeber]

To which I respond: so?

Monsters can fumble too, you know.

But, as has been stated, by the nature of monster not needing to stick around beyond one encounter the fumbles matter less. A monster over its lifetime simply rolls fewer times.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Also why put more power into 2h melee vs twf? 2h is already when in a melee vs melee comparison so much the better twf is basically done for flavors sake. Seriously everything about the concept makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker. From spellcaster to melee. to 2h vs twf. Poor ideas really need to just die out.

[Keltest]

But, as has been stated, by the nature of monster not needing to stick around beyond one encounter the fumbles matter less. A monster over its lifetime simply rolls fewer times.

well sure, on any given monster is has less effect, but youre also going to be fighting a lot more monsters than the monsters will be fighting players.

Don't look at them as frequency of the individual getting in a fight, look at it as how often players get into an encounter. If you look at all the monsters as the DM's "character" it evens out.

[Terazul]

To which I respond: so?

Monsters can fumble too, you know.

To which countless people have pointed out, Monsters are both A) Expendable, and B) Not Player Characters. PCs are going to roll significantly more attacks over their careers.

I never get the "it adds a sense of danger" argument. Are people at your tables not fighting appropriate challenges? Because I've had a fair share of encounters where we were already on the ropes, and stabbing myself in the face would've just been a TPK. It's not really adding anything to deal with when that factor is completely out of your control, it's just a complete arbitrary "screw you" factor. Especially given you already missed to begin with.

[Zaq]

Here is a rule for I've been working on for critical failures. I like critical failures, but they should not be nearly as harsh as people make them. They can be a decent thing in a game if handle them correctly.
-You do confirm failures. The confirmation roll must equal the target's AC -4 or lower.
-You can only critically fail once per round. Other natural 1s do nothing special.
-Critical failures do the following: 1) Enemy gets +1 on there next attack roll against you next round only 2) Your weapon takes 1 damage 3) The enemy gets +2 on any disarm or trip attack they make against you next round 4) You strike yourself for 1 non-lethal damage 5) The enemy dodged well and may immediately take a 5 ft step away from you. You roll a d10 to find which one happens, and each has an equal amount to happen. If using a natural weapon, number 2 gives number 4 instead
-When casting a spell, you roll a d10. If you get a 1, the spell is ineffective and does nothing.
I think that this incorporates most complaints with the rule, yet still makes it a fun rule to use.

While I'd rather have this sort of table in play than anything that could have you end up dead or incapacitated, it still seems to me that you're bogging the game down for no real purpose. Why add two rolls to a turn just to have you take 1 nonlethal damage? Combat takes long enough already, and you just made it slower without really changing anything about how the combat is going to go.

I remain unconvinced that critical fumbles are ever a good idea, at least in D&D. They're fine in, say, Kobolds Ate My Baby. But that's not what we're talking about here.

[ngilop]

I'm using the roller in mind and testing this. First guy in 64 swings became sick for 4 rounds, dazed for two, and then critically hit himself resulting in his own death. 64 swings at a straw dummy and this guy brutalized himself.

Guy 2 ended up with a -4 penalty, hit the guy next to him for 6 damage, took 3 points of damage + 1 bleed, and then stabbed himself for 7 points of damage. Guy 2 is also dead. This is by swing 74.

Guy 3 survives but in this time he accidentally flung his swong. He damaged his armor. He lost balance twice.

Guy 4 survives as well but he took 1d3 strength damage (rolled a 3), didn't threaten any spaces around him due to fog of war, and got his weapon lodged in the ground and had to spend 5 rounds trying to free it. So now this poor commoner is likely sitting at 9-7 strength.

Guy 5 I thought he might be the luckiest so far. No failure until his 51st swing which unfortunately resulted in a critical hit that ended his life. May he rest in piece.

Guy 6 Hit himself for 2 damage, bled himself for 4 damage, got sick for 3 rounds, got sick for 2 rounds, stunned himself for 1 round, blinded himself for 1 round, and did damage to his own shield. He did survive, however.

Guy 7 After 19 swings he's done by default. He destroyed his weapon.

Guy 8 Survives after deafening himself until he gets a heal dc of 15, and became sickened for 7 rounds in total.

Guy 9 Survives. Mostly got a bunch of penalties to stuff. Not too bad. Bent his weapon but that was the worst of it. Also dropped his weapon three times. He also hurt himself for 3 damage.

Guy 10 The most unluckiest of them all. Assuming that these guys are lined up next to each other. He managed to not only kill himself but number 9 as well. He finished the poor guy off before offing himself.

In this little exercise numbers 10, 9, 5, 2, and 1 all managed to die. With number 7 destroying his own sword. So 6 of the 10 are no longer able to fight.


I just want to make a single point in opposition to this them im done.

Why is every, and I mean, every anti-critical fumbles argument always this? and why does they always rag on how it helps the monsters rather than the heoes as the heroes take more attacks that the monsters/

isot the reverse true as well, and the opposite true with critical hits? my PC has MILLIONS of chances to be critically hi than that lone goblin but nobody EVER makes that argument


I just don't and will never understand 2 things about the no fumbles ploc side.
how come hey are so set on it being anti- PCs when in reality critical hits are waaay more skeweed to the monsters than fumbleswill ever be?

my next point is as follows


it NEVER EVER been about the skill, rolling 1 on the dice has no bearing on the skill of the PC so stop that BS argument right now. our attack bonus, attack skill etc etc is what represents you actualy fighting ability.
any one saying 'take 1726483t5484 attacks n a straw dummy' is just making up some BS to 'prove' their point.

the dice roll only AND WILL Only ever represent one thing, the randomness of chance.

wat a criticial or a fumble actually mean in a game sense is thus: a critical is where you find the perfect opening in yor oppoents difference ( hence why there is even a crit range as well as a weapon damage range) whilst a fumble is where your opponent manages to perfectly deflect, disarm, or what ever-ed our attack.

and using combat rules to 'test' what happens whne you attack a target dummy is just being asinine.

and for all those peeps who claim they been doing super expert and professional weapons training for years and have never done anything besides be perfectly accurate this is my sole disproving video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdFP-R_LYSM

[Shackel]

How? This rule does nothing but punish the weaker classes. If I build a wizard I can avoid ever having to make an attack roll.


But, as has been stated, by the nature of monster not needing to stick around beyond one encounter the fumbles matter less. A monster over its lifetime simply rolls fewer times.


I remain unconvinced that critical fumbles are ever a good idea, at least in D&D.

Once again, I just don't get the sheer amount of hatred sent towards any sort of fumble system. Confirm the critfail. Very few complaints other than "they make my character look bad"(which not only doesn't need to happen, description-wise, but feels like it's too close for comfort to the same kind of logic that leads to "my character shouldn't be hit/be killed/be wrong") seem to stand up to that: high level mundanes don't catastrophically fail in the face except on extraordinarily rare occasions, high level wizards can't critfail, but they can't critically succeed, either, one out of a few warriors might sprain an ankle or something wailing on a target as if it were actually out to kill them, but injuries during training actually happen.

So long as the effects are not literally killing your character or doing far more wrong than something equivalent of the damage you just dealt, it has nothing wrong with it. It is not some demonic offspring of Asmodeus and Vecna whose mere concept is a blight upon the roleplaying world as it's treated.

[rweird]

My biggest problem with fumbles is mass combat. A with a few people, it is unlikely, with armies, its absurd. Imagine two armies of 6000 men each, 2000 archers and 4000 melee people. The archers have rapid-shot, and full attack. Statistically, each round, 20 of the archers would shoot themselves, their allies, break their bows, or so-on, assuming they have to confirm fumbles, and only do on a natural 1, if a natural 1 alone is a fumble without being confirmed, this would happen 400 times.

The melee people exchanging blows would be similar. On the initial charge, some 10 people would trip and fall on their swords, end up handing their swords to their enemies, stabbing allies, themselves, or otherwise making fools of themselves.

Unless every battle is supposed to look like a very gruesome gag reel, or the game is supposed to be a comedy, its absurd that trained armies would fail at what they are supposed to do so terribly. Battles typically last more than a few minutes, so statistically, a fair percentage of the combatants would end up fumbling each battle, if a fumble means hitting an ally or yourself, its silly to be that common.

[Magma Armor0]

Guy 3 survives but in this time he accidentally flung his swong. He damaged his armor. He lost balance twice.


"flung his swong" sounds like some kind of bizarre euphemism. It's made made even more strange by the fact that flinging his swong apparently made him lose his balance twice and damaged his armor! :P

[Keltest]

My biggest problem with fumbles is mass combat. A with a few people, it is unlikely, with armies, its absurd. Imagine two armies of 6000 men each, 2000 archers and 4000 melee people. The archers have rapid-shot, and full attack. Statistically, each round, 20 of the archers would shoot themselves, their allies, break their bows, or so-on, assuming they have to confirm fumbles, and only do on a natural 1, if a natural 1 alone is a fumble without being confirmed, this would happen 400 times.

The melee people exchanging blows would be similar. On the initial charge, some 10 people would trip and fall on their swords, end up handing their swords to their enemies, stabbing allies, themselves, or otherwise making fools of themselves.

Unless every battle is supposed to look like a very gruesome gag reel, or the game is supposed to be a comedy, its absurd that trained armies would fail at what they are supposed to do so terribly. Battles typically last more than a few minutes, so statistically, a fair percentage of the combatants would end up fumbling each battle, if a fumble means hitting an ally or yourself, its silly to be that common.

it seems like a significant number of people against fumble rules in general are basing their points on terribad fumble tables rather than the concept of fumbling in general.

In my opinion, if your table is in any way reasonable, a significant number of your fumbles should just be very wide misses. These may or may not come with enemies taking advantage of it, but the primary idea should be "you missed badly." Beyond that, only a tiny fraction of them should ever result in you doing something to yourself or your allies.

On my fumble table, for example, you first need to roll a 1. Then you roll percentile. 90% of the time, your fumble is just a miss. of the remaining 10%, more than half of them are enemies getting free swings at you while you look foolish. a 98 is a broken weapon. a 99 is accidentally hitting an ally (if theyre in range) for minimum damage. a 100 is accidentally hitting yourself for minimum damage.

If anyone on my fumble table is killing themselves with a fumble, they never had a chance to begin with.

[Darkweave31]

When you use fumble rules the spellcasters win... which isn't really any different from when you don't use them, but now it sucks even more to be mundane.

[Terazul]

On my fumble table, for example, you first need to roll a 1. Then you roll percentile. 90% of the time, your fumble is just a miss. of the remaining 10%, more than half of them are enemies getting free swings at you while you look foolish. a 98 is a broken weapon. a 99 is accidentally hitting an ally (if theyre in range) for minimum damage. a 100 is accidentally hitting yourself for minimum damage.

If anyone on my fumble table is killing themselves with a fumble, they never had a chance to begin with.

At which point, why even bother having them? That's really what it comes down to. Either they're frequent enough that they become a problem, or infrequent enough that it basically adds nothing.

[Seerow]

it seems like a significant number of people against fumble rules in general are basing their points on terribad fumble tables rather than the concept of fumbling in general.


You know, this gets said a lot. But every time, when the person actually goes into detail as to what their actual fumble rules are, it does run into at least one of the problems people have with fumbling as a concept. Occasionally somebody gets really proud about having overcome basics like "my commoners don't murder themselves when they fumble!" and "my fighters don't fumble more at high level than low level!" but forget other things like "Well... no why would a caster fumble on a spell without an attack roll?". Or they get that and fail at "TWFing is now even more worse than THFing". Or maybe now spellcasters who use a ray that has a secondary effect that grants a save has a double chance of fumbling on the same attack. Or their fumble rule is "provoke an attack of opportunity from enemies adjacent to you" which will straight up murder a lot of melee characters while leaving casters or archers untouched 9 times out of 10.


For example!


On my fumble table, for example, you first need to roll a 1. Then you roll percentile. 90% of the time, your fumble is just a miss. of the remaining 10%, more than half of them are enemies getting free swings at you while you look foolish. a 98 is a broken weapon. a 99 is accidentally hitting an ally (if theyre in range) for minimum damage. a 100 is accidentally hitting yourself for minimum damage.

If anyone on my fumble table is killing themselves with a fumble, they never had a chance to begin with.

Problem 1) Caster casting a spell that doesn't require an attack roll isn't rolling fumbles.
Problem 2) A level 20 warrior is fumbling 4x more often than a level 1 commoner.
Problem 3) A TWFer is fumbling twice as often as a THFer
Problem 4) Half of your fumbles are "provokes AoOs from threatening enemies" which will not affect characters who are attacking from a range in most situations. Even if they were engaged in melee at the start of their turn, they're moving out of melee before attacking to avoid provoking from their normal attack. So most fumbles don't affect them at all.

Oops. You already hit basically every major sin short of your army killing themselves. Though that's technically still possible since you let them hit themselves or other people, it's just much more rare (a 1 in 1000 occurence). Meanwhile one of your fumble rolls is literally "break your weapon" which will devastate any character with a magic weapon, and has no effect whatsoever on the magic user who isn't using weapons even if he happens to be casting a spell that uses an attack roll.


Fumbles are bad. Your rule is not an exception. Everyone thinks they're the special snowflake who got fumbles "right", but in actuality the only way to get them right is to make them so irrelevant that someone who actually likes fumbles isn't going to be satisfied with them anyway. Fumbles are an outdated concept that needs to die horribly in balefire strong enough to make it so nobody even remembers they ever existed.

[Boci]

Fumbles are bad. Your rule is not an exception. Everyone thinks they're the special snowflake who got fumbles "right", but in actuality the only way to get them right is to make them so irrelevant that someone who actually likes fumbles isn't going to be satisfied with them anyway. Fumbles are an outdated concept that needs to die horribly in balefire strong enough to make it so nobody even remembers they ever existed.

Only is verisimilitude and balance is important to your group though. Its important to me, and so I have fortunately been able to dissuade any DMs from introducing them with similar such arguments. But if your group is less focused on mechanics and balance and find fighters occasionally shiving themselves hilarious, then fumbles are a neat little rule.


Here is an argument which worked on one of my GM s (they had said why they don't want to implement a house rule for penalties from taking HP damage)

Me: That is my exact stance on critical fumbles. Even if they are more realistic, it sucks to have them. It makes your character feel stupid when it happens, and it hurts martial classes more than casters (who do not need to make as many attack rolls), and hurts two-weapon fighters more than two-handed weapon wielders, since the former make more attack rolls, even though they also have a higher dexterity, which seems contradictive.

Them: I think I could fairly invert all these arguments though. Having critical hits are great, they make you feel awesome when they happen, and they benefit martial classes more than casters who do not need to make as many attack rolls. Likewise, two-weapon fighters benefit from them the most since they make more attack rolls, despite not having as high of a strength score as their power attack allies.

Me: Yes, but in a hero game you are meant to feel awesome. Do you really want our first impression of the BBEG to be him charging at the parties tank only to slip and damage his own weapon? It will break the mood and turn what was supposed to be a respectable foe into a laughing stock. This is already a problem with the potential series of low rolls which critical fumbles only make worse.



But casters do not need critical hits. They have enough spells that deal damage, but they can also debuff, control the battle field and do many other things martial classes cannot even dream of. All the latter has is the ability to wield their weapon. Why do they need to have a chance to look like idiots with their only skill?



But the higher damage of two-handed fighters makes an individual crits worth more for them. This does not work with critical fumbles.

[Fenryr]

Well, thanks for all the answers. The DM is hosting a voting. Let's see what the rest of the group says.

Thanks again.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Once again, I just don't get the sheer amount of hatred sent towards any sort of fumble system. Confirm the critfail. Very few complaints other than "they make my character look bad"(which not only doesn't need to happen, description-wise, but feels like it's too close for comfort to the same kind of logic that leads to "my character shouldn't be hit/be killed/be wrong") seem to stand up to that: high level mundanes don't catastrophically fail in the face except on extraordinarily rare occasions, high level wizards can't critfail, but they can't critically succeed, either, one out of a few warriors might sprain an ankle or something wailing on a target as if it were actually out to kill them, but injuries during training actually happen.

So long as the effects are not literally killing your character or doing far more wrong than something equivalent of the damage you just dealt, it has nothing wrong with it. It is not some demonic offspring of Asmodeus and Vecna whose mere concept is a blight upon the roleplaying world as it's treated.

We have given reasons for "why not". Now the burden lies on you to say "why". If it has literally no detrimental effect on the characters, then... it adds ten seconds to the game every time you roll a one. For no good reason. That doesn't sound interesting to me.

[ZamielVanWeber]

One of the nice things about crit tables that fumble tables can share is that a crit/fumble can have a qualitative difference from a hit/miss.

Now the problem with fumble tables as I see them is that PCs each have more rolls than each NPCs and PCs can fall to a sustained chain of bad luck. For Crit tables this is 1 pro and 1 con but for fumble tables this is 2 cons.

This invokes a dilemma: How can you structure fumbles such that you retain the benefit from paragraph 1 but fix the problem in paragraph 2?

What about giving fumbles an inverse? For example, if you roll a natural 1 you roll top confirm; if you hit the target then you get a benefit, like if you roll another natural 1 this/next round it isn't an automiss. Not as good as hitting, but still better than nothing. If you fail to hit then you get a small deficit, such as enemies get +1 to hit you on their next attack. Annoying but hardly lethal. I would also recommend making this optional. They can accept than the 1 is a miss, or they can go for the gusto and try to get some benefit out of it.

The fluff would be you make a serious miss and have a split second to try to gain control of the situation. Success is good, failure is worse than simply missing.

It turns natural 1's into risk/reward moments and even lets you salvage them somewhat.

[Rhyltran]

"flung his swong" sounds like some kind of bizarre euphemism. It's made made even more strange by the fact that flinging his swong apparently made him lose his balance twice and damaged his armor! :P

LOL didn't catch that typo. Either way. I am keeping it.


I just want to make a single point in opposition to this them im done.

Why is every, and I mean, every anti-critical fumbles argument always this? and why does they always rag on how it helps the monsters rather than the heoes as the heroes take more attacks that the monsters/

isot the reverse true as well, and the opposite true with critical hits? my PC has MILLIONS of chances to be critically hi than that lone goblin but nobody EVER makes that argument


I just don't and will never understand 2 things about the no fumbles ploc side.
how come hey are so set on it being anti- PCs when in reality critical hits are waaay more skeweed to the monsters than fumbleswill ever be?

my next point is as follows


it NEVER EVER been about the skill, rolling 1 on the dice has no bearing on the skill of the PC so stop that BS argument right now. our attack bonus, attack skill etc etc is what represents you actualy fighting ability.
any one saying 'take 1726483t5484 attacks n a straw dummy' is just making up some BS to 'prove' their point.

the dice roll only AND WILL Only ever represent one thing, the randomness of chance.

wat a criticial or a fumble actually mean in a game sense is thus: a critical is where you find the perfect opening in yor oppoents difference ( hence why there is even a crit range as well as a weapon damage range) whilst a fumble is where your opponent manages to perfectly deflect, disarm, or what ever-ed our attack.

and using combat rules to 'test' what happens whne you attack a target dummy is just being asinine.

and for all those peeps who claim they been doing super expert and professional weapons training for years and have never done anything besides be perfectly accurate this is my sole disproving video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdFP-R_LYSM

If you want to argue the real life angle here's the deal. Boxing is a sport that is designed in a way to allow the fighters a chance for a small break and to continue. There has been matches that have gone on for the full twelve rounds. Each round is three minutes each. One minute is ten rounds in D&D. You're talking 30 D&D rounds over the course of one Boxing round. Now multiply that by twelve. That guy missed and hit himself in the face but in his entire career how many times has that happened? In D&D we're talking about at minimum 360 attacks. According to that fumble chart he would have killed himself three times over in the entirety of that one match. You post a video of a fluke, from a very tired man, who chances are will never do that in his career ever again versus a fumble chart that will happen many times to the characters in less than an in-game year.

Not to mention that he's a single boxer. A normal human versus people who can take out entire armies single handedly and stand toe to toe against dragons. In fights that are less than the fraction of the time. Sorry, I'm not convinced that the system is any good. Plus this is only discussing the realistic side of things. There's the other side of things that it just isn't very good to melee characters or the players. You point out that critical hits favor the players more than the monsters. You're right, which is why it's a main rule and fumbles are a variant. They're supposed to but fumbles do the opposite. They heavily skew things in favor of the monsters over the players.

[elonin]

Does it need to be mentioned that fumbles are not a part of RAW? RAW is roll a 1 and that attack misses. I'll also point out that I'm not a fan of critical hit tables either.

[eggynack]

Sure it's annoying when you're flurrying and you end up with a fumble, but we've enjoyed the randomness and sometimes hilarious results it gives.
My solution to that scenario, the desire to add randomness to the game in an entertaining way, is as it always was. That is, if the character gets a natural one, and confirms the fumble, then have them miss in a ridiculous or even magical way. As is my wont, I will give examples.

"You send your sword careening into your enemy's skull, but before it can make contact, the blade suddenly becomes a bright pink color. You are so surprised by this that your blade leaves its original trajectory and strikes their armor instead, returning to its original color when it hits with a loud clang."

Or,

"Before you can even begin your hammer attack, your mind is consumed by an existential crisis. What is the meaning of life? Does anything we're doing here really matter? If we're naught but a speck of dust in the infinite cosmos, then why fight? However, you soon recall that your quest was specifically handed down by the gods, and that what you do actually is important in the grand scheme of things, and so you return to battle."

Or,

"Your spiked chain sails true to its target, but mid-flight it is interrupted by a rubber chicken spontaneously popping out of the void. The chain rebounds off of the chicken, ripping it to shreds in the process, and you feel like you maybe understand the world you live in a little better. Or not."

As you can see, the absurdity captured by critical fumbles is still there, but without all of the negative associations. They're just fun and ludicrous nonsense, or if you'd like a different tone or want a different world built by their construction, then you can change them up in that fashion. You can even let the players create these ridiculous fumbles, using them as a staging ground for bursts of creativity unbounded by realism.

I just want to make a single point in opposition to this them im done.

Why is every, and I mean, every anti-critical fumbles argument always this? and why does they always rag on how it helps the monsters rather than the heoes as the heroes take more attacks that the monsters/

isot the reverse true as well, and the opposite true with critical hits? my PC has MILLIONS of chances to be critically hi than that lone goblin but nobody EVER makes that argument
It's just as ridiculous for ten goblins to kill themselves after a few minutes of attacking a training dummy. I don't exactly see how your rebuttal applies.

Once again, I just don't get the sheer amount of hatred sent towards any sort of fumble system. Confirm the critfail.
Most critical failure systems already do require confirmation, and that's typically the sort of rule that earns this sort of ire. If you're not confirming, then you fall below the already argued silliness and into the level of absolute ridiculousness.

Very few complaints other than "they make my character look bad"(which not only doesn't need to happen, description-wise, but feels like it's too close for comfort to the same kind of logic that leads to "my character shouldn't be hit/be killed/be wrong") seem to stand up to that:
How about the incredibly valid complaint that it actively reduces balance in the game? Seems pretty valid to me.

High level mundanes don't catastrophically fail in the face except on extraordinarily rare occasions.
Depends on the particular rule, but if we're just using a standard roll to confirm on a one, then that's far from extraordinarily rare. It's just one in 400. Rare, perhaps, but certainly not extraordinarily so.

High level wizards can't critfail, but they can't critically succeed, either.
So what you're saying right now is, because fighters can critically hit and wizards can't, fighters are the more powerful class. Because, unless you're claiming that, this argument is ludicrous on its face, and if you are claiming it, then it's somehow even more ludicrous. Wizards make up for their lack of ability to critically hit by having insane levels of power that apply to every facet of the game. They manage somehow, I think.



So long as the effects are not literally killing your character or doing far more wrong than something equivalent of the damage you just dealt, it has nothing wrong with it. It is not some demonic offspring of Asmodeus and Vecna whose mere concept is a blight upon the roleplaying world as it's treated.
If the rule isn't straight up killing you, then it still sucks to whatever degree it's causing harm. There's a pretty simple rule of thumb, I think. A critical fumble rule sucks proportionally to the extent that it has an impact on the game. If you're having your fighters attack their allies whenever they roll a one, then that obviously sucks an insanely massive amount. If you're having them deal a single point of damage to themselves whenever they confirm a failure ten times in a row, then that obviously sucks to an essentially negligible degree, aside from the issue associated with massive amounts of rolling. Anything in between sucks that in between amount. So, if you have a relatively low impact critical failure system, go forth with the knowledge that you're only making your game suck a relatively small amount, and if you're crippling PC's left and right, know that you're increasing game suckitude by a lot.

[Pex]

The same way that being able to be killed improves the game. if theres no possibility for failure, theres no challenge. And sometimes theyre hilarious. My group likes to come up with increasingly improbable explanations for what happened in-story to cause the fumble. My favorite was when the archer fumbled to hit himself and we decided he accidentally held his bow backwards.

That is what a Natural 1 is an automiss is for. There's no need to add insult to that injury by having the character immolate himself.

[Shackel]

We have given reasons for "why not". Now the burden lies on you to say "why". If it has literally no detrimental effect on the characters, then... it adds ten seconds to the game every time you roll a one. For no good reason. That doesn't sound interesting to me.

You really chose the wrong person to quote, because my only response related to detrimental effects was that it doesn't need to instakill you, nor should it be higher than the damage you could've done on a normal hit. Ten seconds? Please, even that is a hyperbole: if it takes you longer than ten seconds to roll the die again and say your number, you've got more time problems than ten more seconds. Worst case scenario, your DM might have to click the mouse and spend, I don't know, what, 5 seconds tops in the case that the generator spits out something stupid.

And that's without a set-in-stone system like the enemy getting an attack of opportunity off on you. In that system, any time "wasted" is still moving the battle forward and, by jolly gee, even the casters have a bad time(since we are in an anti-caster hate rally where a marginal chance that a mundane will have a problem is tantamount to heresy) because what in Pelor's name are they going to do with an AoO. Unless it's a druid, but he's stocked up on so many natural attacks that he could run into the same problem.

In the case of a confirm system with attacks of opportunity, it gives a little more pizzazz to the combat and, in a sense, can actually cause it to go faster in terms of rounds. Suddenly, making your attacks more accurate might actually mean something other than "more to sacrifice for PA"... which it should... over just spitting out as many swings as possible. Maybe it's because my groups show some kind of restraint when it comes to casting, so we don't deal with the villified casters who always win, but, when arguing against a confirm critfail system like it's a deadly sin, it feels far more like whining or nigh-fanatic level fear and demonification of the idea of having something bad happen. At least with the level of vehemence I see. It's like a critfail killed their parents. And dog. And cat. And their house.

And I usually take players' side on unnecessary things happening to them.

[Elbeyon]

At least with the level of vehemence I see. It's like a critfail killed their parents. And dog. And cat. And their house.That happened to me. Oh, you mean as a player. Nvm.

Don't worry they got better. I crit failed one of my attacks hard enough to cast a random resurrection spell (I chose their cat (the dog was kinda a puppy) since the parents were kinda couple.)

[eggynack]

And that's without a set-in-stone system like the enemy getting an attack of opportunity off on you. In that system, any time "wasted" is still moving the battle forward and, by jolly gee, even the casters have a bad time(since we are in an anti-caster hate rally where a marginal chance that a mundane will have a problem is tantamount to heresy) because what in Pelor's name are they going to do with an AoO. Unless it's a druid, but he's stocked up on so many natural attacks that he could run into the same problem.
The cool thing about casters is that they're really good at positioning themselves with respect to various rules. So, melee folk have a chance of provoking AoO's every so often? Well, it's a good thing for the druid that they've outsourced their melee to a pile of summons and an animal companion. Now, the druid gets to take advantage of a bunch of provoked AoO's, even more than some melee folk because they have their melee tendrils in multiple places at once, and any AoO's their melee would provoke is attached to relatively expendable chunks of meat. The druid doesn't particularly care whether these beings die, after all, at least not from a mechanical standpoint.

So, our noble druid takes potentially greater advantage of this rule than the melee, and exposes himself to just about zero risk. The same is the case of other casters, incidentally, as they too can summon, but it's to a somewhat lesser extent. And no, this isn't about anti-caster hate. It's about the fact that rules that reduce the balance of a game are problematic. Simple as that. I actually like casters more than mundanes, but I'm not going to put into place a rule that benefits them over mundanes, because they're already crazy broken. It's just an unwise thing to do.

[Andezzar]

Another benefit for casters is that they generally do not need their move action for anything other than movement. Casters can move around and still have their full offensive capabilities. Any character with more than one mundane attack needs to stand still to use all of them (well a 5 ft step is still allowed)

What I don't like about critical fumbles is that as characters become more experienced (i.e. they get more attacks) they are more likely to fumble instead of the other way around. If you really want those slap stick elements, don't give them a flat chance but a chance modified by the character's skill.

[ericgrau]

It's simple. 1 in 20 is not that uncommon at all. You will make 20 attacks or other rolls in no time flat. So this is a heavy and very common penalty, not a rare penalty, to anyone who makes d20 rolls. Not everything requires a d20 roll so the fumble rule skews the game in favor of anything that doesn't take a roll. Hope I boiled it down enough. Good luck explaining it to your DM.

[Seerow]

Another benefit for casters is that they generally do not need their move action for anything other than movement. Casters can move around and still have their full offensive capabilities. Any character with more than one mundane attack needs to stand still to use all of them (well a 5 ft step is still allowed)

What I don't like about critical fumbles is that as characters become more experienced (i.e. they get more attacks) they are more likely to fumble instead of the other way around. If you really want those slap stick elements, don't give them a flat chance but a chance modified by the character's skill.

On this note: One thing I was thinking about was the "roll 3d6" system someone was mentioning earlier in the thread. If you did something like rolling high was bad (I know, counter intuitive) but made it so every extra attack gained from BAB took away one of the d6s, by level 16 your martial types stop fumbling altogether, and they get notably better at avoiding them at the same time they would normally start making more attacks.

It still doesn't address a ton of the other issues (especially TWFing), but there's a starting point if someone wants to work on a "fumbles that don't screw over the high level character" rule.

[Anlashok]

A commoner with average stats (i.e. a normal person) has a reasonably decent chance to accidentally kill himself while TWFing in five minute. While practicing against a training dummy.

Really don't think there's anything else that needs to be said.

[Andezzar]

It still doesn't address a ton of the other issues (especially TWFing), but there's a starting point if someone wants to work on a "fumbles that don't screw over the high level character" rule.Just limit the fumbles to one per turn, that way TWF is not worse off. Alos make the mitigation through skill based on BAB and not AB.

[Seerow]

Just limit the fumbles to one per turn, that way TWF is not worse off. Alos make the mitigation through skill based on BAB and not AB.

Even limiting to one per turn TWFing would be worse off, because TWFing would have more chances of making that 1 fumble happen. For example say you have a 2% chance per attack of fumbling. A mid level THFer with 3 attacks is comparable to a mid level TWFer with 5 attacks. The THFer has a 5.9% chance of seeing a fumble on a full attack while the TWFer has a 9.7% chance of seeing a fumble. The TWFer might not fumble twice in a single turn, but he'll still see fumbles more often overall.

The only way to make it really fair is to restrict it to the first attack of the round. But then things start getting weird, especially for players who like to roll multiple attacks at once to speed up play. But even without that it's an extra thing to remember for something that will come up less frequently. And of course then you still need to figure out what to do about Wizard using save spells (do you count a natural 20 on the opponent's save as a Wizard fumbling?), and of course figure out a fair mechanic for the fumble itself that will disadvantage anyone who fumbles equally and isn't so punishing that your campaign looks like a comedy of errors.


Seriously, fumbles have a ridiculous number of problems that have to be addressed to really be fair at all.

[Arbane]

The game Legends of the Wulin has some fumble rules I sort-of LIKE: "Interesting Times". To oversimplify, if you roll and it ends in a zero, the player has the CHOICE to accept a luck point in exchange for the situation getting more complicated. (You killed the ninja, but also cut through the pillar behind them, and now the building collapsing. Your effort at poetry unintentionally insulted a local bigshot. To avoid your enemy's attack, you dived through an open window... into the guard barracks! Etc.)

[Extra Anchovies]

The game Legends of the Wulin has some fumble rules I sort-of LIKE: "Interesting Times". To oversimplify, if you roll and it ends in a zero, the player has the CHOICE to accept a luck point in exchange for the situation getting more complicated. (You killed the ninja, but also cut through the pillar behind them, and now the building collapsing. Your effort at poetry unintentionally insulted a local bigshot. To avoid your enemy's attack, you dived through an open window... into the guard barracks! Etc.)

That's... that's awesome. Was not expecting to see a well-implemented fumble system in this thread. Also, I love the name; it's so very fitting with a Wuxia-themed game.

For those who don't get the name, "may you live in interesting times" is a supposed Chinese curse. It's actually apocryphal, but whatever. Still cool.

[eggynack]

Yeah, I dig that one. Anything that turns critical fumbles into a pure upside mechanic seems good. The incentives are essentially reversed. TWF fellows get the most benefit, and they need it, followed by THF folk, who need it a little less, and casters tend to get limited benefit, because their summoned monsters would presumably be getting the points in their stead. As bad as critical fumbles are for balance, the opposite of typical critical fumbles are good for balance.

[Uncle Pine]

If there is someone in that square, do you automatically hit him, or does he get a chance to use his AC or other defenses against your attack?

It automatically hits, which is ridiculous in itself but since the archer keeps rolling only numbers below 10 85% of the times it's been one of his major source of damage over the last year. Meanwhile, the PCs seldom position themselves adjacent to each other, so if one of the 5 owlbears with crossbows rolls a 1, it simply misses.

[NNescio]

The only reason to use the fumble rules. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo)

Also, this:


Critical Fumble Rule:
If at any time a DM shall propose using a "critical failure" or "fumble" table of any sort in a 3.X game, the players are to beat the DM with folding chairs until each of them has accidentally struck himself with his chair at least once, while keeping a count of the number of strikes made before this happens. Then, the average rate of such "fumbles" as generated by a table full of nerds swinging improvised weapons will establish the maximum probability of a "fumble" within the game mechanics for a level 1 Commoner (note that this already will probably require rolling multiple Natural 1's in succession to confirm a fumble), with the probability dropping by at least an order of magnitude per point of BAB of the attacking character. Thus a full-BAB character at level 20 might have to roll 20+ Natural 1's in a row to before you even bother glancing at the Fumble Table.

I suppose I might consider using fumble rules if full spellcasters had to roll Concentration for every spell they cast ever, and a Natural 1 on that roll had comparable consequences to a Natural 1 on a mundane attack... but really, No. Just no. Not even then.

[Andezzar]

@ Uncle Pine: What happens if a creature occupies more than one square and has an AC so high that only a natural 20 would hit? Would you have a greater chance than 1 in 20 of hitting them because the projectile can scatter onto another square occupied by the creature and automatically hit?

[Uncle Pine]

@ Uncle Pine: What happens if a creature occupies more than one square and has an AC so high that only a natural 20 would hit? Would you have a greater chance than 1 in 20 of hitting them because the projectile can scatter onto another square occupied by the creature and automatically hit?

In order: it would have a greater chance to be hit by a stray arrow or bolt, because it occupies more squares; the attack would hit regardless of AC, because there are enough dice to roll as it is without also confirming fumbles; yes. As I said, it's ridiculous. But I'd likely spend some time trying to make heads or tails of the grapple rules than explaining my players that you aren't supposed to provoke AoOs when you roll a 1 after all these years.

[SowZ]

If fumbles aren't always on the table but, say, something the GM tells you 'if you try that, there is a small risk of X,' I'm okay with it, especially in more narrative games. As long as it isn't overdone. Say, I am trying to shoot an enemy in a grapple with an ally from a long ways, or firing an automatic weapon at a villain near a crowd, or trying to precision bomb a bad guy amidst a factory of highly combustible materials with a high chance of sending the whole factory sky high if I miss. At dramatically appropriate times, a fumble is a tool a GM can introduce which allows the player to make a difficult decision. If I do X, there is a chance of Y. Hmmm.

If fumbles are always on the table, there is no real element of meaningful decisions.

Some games have gun jamming rules, too, which as long as the chance is very low I'm fine with. It gives things like bows or single shot firearms or melee a reason to be used in a world with firearms, even though jamming won't come up in the majority of encounters, (hopefully.)


The same way that being able to be killed improves the game. if theres no possibility for failure, theres no challenge. And sometimes theyre hilarious. My group likes to come up with increasingly improbable explanations for what happened in-story to cause the fumble. My favorite was when the archer fumbled to hit himself and we decided he accidentally held his bow backwards.

In the right groups, I can see where that would be funny. Personally, I don't want to be Mr. Bean the adventurer.

[Dr TPK]

I tried to read more than the first page, but I just couldn't. People have HUGE misconceptions about fumbles. I'm going to do my best here to give you an exhaustive explanation why fumbles are ok or maybe even great.

New flash! D&D already has fumble rules by default! It's called the Natural 1 and automatic miss!

Imagine that there's a blind granny with advanced terminal lung cancer and wooden legs. A 21st-level fighter is given one chance to kill that granny within 3 seconds or the world will be destroyed. He/she charges! And... rolls a natural 1. The old woman dies from laughter as his grandchildren tell her of this.

With fumble rules there's at least SOME variation! It adds INTEREST to the game. The key is to cafefully consider the implication of each fumble as to avoid any silliness. Dropping your weapon and slipping are good choices.

I'd prefer game where different things can happen to game where the exact thing happens 5% of the time. This should be a simple choice for anyone. If it hurts the PCs more than NPCs than fine. With that logic you could dying altogether: no matter how many NPCs die, there'll always be more. A PC death will cost, in gold and XP.

I love fumble rules. Not because they are great, but because they expose whiners. And I don't play with whiners.

[SowZ]

I tried to read more than the first page, but I just couldn't. People have HUGE misconceptions about fumbles. I'm going to do my best here to give you an exhaustive explanation why fumbles are ok or maybe even great.

New flash! D&D already has fumble rules by default! It's called the Natural 1 and automatic miss!

Imagine that there's a blind granny with advanced terminal lung cancer and wooden legs. A 21st-level fighter is given one chance to kill that granny within 3 seconds or the world will be destroyed. He/she charges! And... rolls a natural 1. The old woman dies from laughter as his grandchildren tell her of this.

With fumble rules there's at least SOME variation! It adds INTEREST to the game. The key is to cafefully consider the implication of each fumble as to avoid any silliness. Dropping your weapon and slipping are good choices.

I'd prefer game where different things can happen to game where the exact thing happens 5% of the time. This should be a simple choice for anyone. If it hurts the PCs more than NPCs than fine. With that logic you could dying altogether: no matter how many NPCs die, there'll always be more. A PC death will cost, in gold and XP.

I love fumble rules. Not because they are great, but because they expose whiners. And I don't play with whiners.

You like them because they expose whiners? That seems a pretty antagonistic/aggressive way to play a board game. I don't want to play with someone out to uncover people's flaws and judge the other people at the table.

[Terazul]

New flash! D&D already has fumble rules by default! It's called the Natural 1 and automatic miss!
Yeah, in a game where action economy is king, that's already a huge negative. Especially for the weaker classes that rely on attack rolls. It only applies to Attack Rolls (Ouch) and Saving Throws (Double Ouch), but not Skill Checks where I often see people applying fumble rules too.



With fumble rules there's at least SOME variation! It adds INTEREST to the game. The key is to cafefully consider the implication of each fumble as to avoid any silliness. Dropping your weapon and slipping are good choices.
I keep seeing this used as an argument and I will never understand it. Have any of you actually played Dungeons and Dragons? The game is interesting enough on its own without adding slapstick. There's rules for disarming or making your opponent fall down already. Things doing what they'll say they do isn't uninteresting. It just eliminates the meaningfulness of choices if there's a 5% chance it's going to blow up in your face every time. Hey, you've spent years becoming a master trapsmith but WHOOPS you decided to shove your hand through the glyph of warding trap haha! SO INTERESTING. I seriously can't understand the appeal of wanting there to always be the equivalent chance that you'll decide to just run your own car off the road every time you get behind a wheel, or that you strangle yourself whenever you tie your shoes. Life would certainly be interesting, yes. It'd also be horrendous.



I'd prefer game where different things can happen to game where the exact thing happens 5% of the time.
Again, are any of you guys actually playing this game? Or is literally everyone in your worlds a single classed core fighter so without people falling or flinging their weapons around there's no tactical choices whatsoever?



I love fumble rules. Not because they are great, but because they expose whiners. And I don't play with whiners.
I've often found fumble great as an indicator that the user doesn't fully understand the system they're about to run, but they are too inflexible to listen to reason because this is the way they've always done things. Alternatively they just dig "haha, so random!" as a form of humor, to which, yeah, we're not going to get along. So I suppose they do serve a purpose as a warning flag.


The game Legends of the Wulin has some fumble rules I sort-of LIKE: "Interesting Times". To oversimplify, if you roll and it ends in a zero, the player has the CHOICE to accept a luck point in exchange for the situation getting more complicated. (You killed the ninja, but also cut through the pillar behind them, and now the building collapsing. Your effort at poetry unintentionally insulted a local bigshot. To avoid your enemy's attack, you dived through an open window... into the guard barracks! Etc.)

See that? That's wonderful. Choices are still meaningful, but for the sake of storytelling you can make things more complicated for oneself. That's legit.

[Darkweave31]

OK, serious answer now. I see the natural 1 critical failure not as the character's lack of skill, but outside forces and luck acting upon them. The epic fighter didn't miss the kobold with some wild swing, it surprised him with an unexpected parry.

If I used fumble rules, first I would have a confirmation roll. If the roll beats their AC, you just miss. If it doesn't, you leave yourself open to an attack of opportunity. From there maybe the enemy makes a disarm or trip attempt. For spellcasting, make wild magic the norm for planes.

That said, I don't use fumble rules. It is a burden unevenly placed on players that choose mundane classes.

[Andezzar]

OK, serious answer now. I see the natural 1 critical failure not as the character's lack of skill, but outside forces and luck acting upon them. The epic fighter didn't miss the kobold with some wild swing, it surprised him with an unexpected parry.That then means that the same kobold does more unexpected parries against an epic fighter than against a level 1 commoner. Now that makes sense.

[Darkweave31]

That then means that the same kobold does more unexpected parries against an epic fighter than against a level 1 commoner. Now that makes sense.

Makes more sense than the fighter dropping her sword or impaling their friend. I guess I'm reluctant to remove all chance of failure when it comes to combat (even spellcasters suffer from an enemy's natural 20 on a save or a 1 on a ray attack). I just explain it as luck or an enemy's competence rather than a character's incompetence because it helps me wrap my head around it.

[Andezzar]

The problem is less that such things happen but that they a) happen way to often if you use the 1/20 chance b) they happen no matter what the situation is. c) they happen more often when a character can roll more often, although being able to roll more often usually mean that the character is more skilled and not more prone to accidents.

Not being able to hit the broad side of a barn every 20th attack no matter your skill is penalty enough IMHO

[Odin's Eyepatch]

There seems to be a lot of vehemence here in this thread about fumbles. A lot more then I thought existed.

I should maybe expound on a previous point I mentioned: using the training dummy example is a fallacy, unless you are going entirely by RAW. I ask now, with all honestly, as anyone ever roleplayed attacking a training dummy, as part of a training exercice? And did you roll dice for it? I'm pretty sure EVERYONE can agree that fumbling against a dummy is stupid beyond belief. Fumbles are used in combat situations, and it is there that the arguments for and against must take place. The training dummy should not be used as a necessary counter-argument, unless you believe that it gives a valid reason for not allowing fumbles in a completely different environment (the combat).

Now, in a combat situation, I wholeheartedly agree, mundanes have it tough. epic fighters will fumble more often, ect... I cannot and will not dispute that. It's true. The question we must ask is, despite all of these reasons that people have presented, why do tables still use it? Even in full knowledge of the numerous disadvantages it gives mundanes?

Because people do use them, there may not be as many as those that hate them, but people do. Even people playing mundanes use them, fully aware that they are getting the short end of the stick. And I don't think it is sheer pig-headedness that is stopping them from saying "NO!' to fumbles. Maybe the 'pro-fumbles' have played fumbles since the beginning, and are therefore used to it, and think that it isn't as bad as others make it out to be.

In our table, we enjoy randomness (the deck of many things and the rod of wonder featured heavily in our previous campaign). The fumbles is just another way to generate our own randomness, disregarding such petty things as realism and party balance (not that D&D didn't already disregard that in the first place). We've had many hilarious moments with it, and the table is still sufficiently low OP that casters don't have a incredibly huge advance on mundanes (though the power gap still exists)

It depends on your play-style, and if you don't want it, then don't take it. If your DM is stubborn enough to not listen to the players concerns, then it isn't the fumbles that is your problem, it's the DM.

[Andezzar]

I should maybe expound on a previous point I mentioned: using the training dummy example is a fallacy, unless you are going entirely by RAW. I ask now, with all honestly, as anyone ever roleplayed attacking a training dummy, as part of a training exercice? And did you roll dice for it? I'm pretty sure EVERYONE can agree that fumbling against a dummy is stupid beyond belief. Fumbles are used in combat situations, and it is there that the arguments for and against must take place. The training dummy should not be used as a necessary counter-argument, unless you believe that it gives a valid reason for not allowing fumbles in a completely different environment (the combat).Replace the training dummy with any inanimate unattended object to be destroyed. You could even use splash weapons to be thrown at a square. The more often a character an attack the more often will he fumble.


It depends on your play-style, and if you don't want it, then don't take it. If your DM is stubborn enough to not listen to the players concerns, then it isn't the fumbles that is your problem, it's the DM.I agree.

[Uncle Pine]

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE can agree that fumbling against a dummy is stupid beyond belief.

No, impaling yourself with your net is stupid beyond belief. Entangling with your dagger also is, as well as decapitating yourself and your target on a natural 1. Bonus points if you do it with a club.

EDIT:
It depends on your play-style, and if you don't want it, then don't take it. If your DM is stubborn enough to not listen to the players concerns, then it isn't the fumbles that is your problem, it's the DM.
This is true.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

Replace the training dummy with any inanimate unattended object to be destroyed. You could even use splash weapons to be thrown at a square. The more often a character an attack the more often will he fumble.


Fair point, though if you are using the "nat 1, confirm the fumble," rule then this chance of happening is decreased (basically two nat 1's, or 0.25%). We've never rolled to attack or sunder an inanimate object outside of combat (since we just assume that you just do it). I suppose this is some sort of personal unspoken house-rule or ours. (My monk once punched his way through a wall, our sorcerer once threw a sword into a chasm, a barbarian once sundered an artifact, and it occurred to nobody to roll any form of attack roles, since we were never in a combat situation). Does anybody else have this rule?

Maybe that's how you should keep fumbles under control in your game?:smalltongue:

I suppose a nat 1 followed by a nat 1 would also mean that you automatically miss, which is equally stupid if you try and hit the inanimate object... and miss! In which case fumbling doesn't arrive in the equation. A fighter hitting the dummy is going to miss once every 20 attacks!

EDIT: and I agree with your point: the more attacks, the more fumbles. It is the sad truth of any hasted level 18 two-weapon fighting Fighter. :smallfrown:

[eggynack]

I suppose a nat 1 followed by a nat 1 would also mean that you automatically miss, which is equally stupid if you try and hit the inanimate object... and miss! In which case fumbling doesn't arrive in the equation. A fighter hitting the dummy is going to miss once every 20 attacks!
Just because critical fumble rules are stupid, that doesn't make the existing rules for missing on a natural one necessarily smart. I mean, I suspect that crappy combatants are capable of missing at that rate, but we're still talking about the same rate on a high level character, which is a bit silly, perhaps even if we transition to kobolds. The latter, at least in this case though, at least captures some of the random chance of battle in a way that the fighters impaling themselves constantly exaggerates. I would suspect that the ideal would be some penalty applied to a roll of one, perhaps a -10, and perhaps the same scaled bonus would apply to a natural 20, though that wouldn't necessarily be there. In any case, the natural one rules already in existence are not equally stupid. They are, in point of fact, a good deal less stupid.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

Just because critical fumble rules are stupid, that doesn't make the existing rules for missing on a natural one necessarily smart. I mean, I suspect that crappy combatants are capable of missing at that rate, but we're still talking about the same rate on a high level character, which is a bit silly, perhaps even if we transition to kobolds. The latter, at least in this case though, at least captures some of the random chance of battle in a way that the fighters impaling themselves constantly exaggerates. I would suspect that the ideal would be some penalty applied to a roll of one, perhaps a -10, and perhaps the same scaled bonus would apply to a natural 20, though that wouldn't necessarily be there. In any case, the natural one rules already in existence are not equally stupid. They are, in point of fact, a good deal less stupid.

It was more to point out that the example of using attacks versus inanimate objects is already slightly flawed in that you will miss 5% of the time, irregardless of fumbles or not [EDIT: and you have a very very small chance of confirming the fumble anyway, since a nat 1 on the confirm role does not mean an automatic fumble]. Using that as reason for saying no to fumbles was what I'm disagreeing with. However, I do agree with many peoples points of the short-comings of fumbles in combat, even though I probably will be sticking with fumbles in my own games (unless the players ask not to).


I like the -10 on a nat 1 (an maybe +10 on a nat 20?), it would straighten out those encounters a bit.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

That then means that the same kobold does more unexpected parries against an epic fighter than against a level 1 commoner. Now that makes sense.

Not actually.

See, the attack rules aren't necessarily the number of attacks you make in 6 seconds: it's the number of possible HITS you make in 6 seconds. I can flavor those however I want.

6 seconds is time for a LOT of bladework. I see this as a low-level Commoner has one decent chance of hitting a kobold in his 6 seconds of flailing. The kobold parries 1/20th of these "actual" attacks.

The kobold also parries 1/20th of the "actual" attacks by a level 20 Fighter. The level 20 Fighter is just launching FOUR TIMES as many attacks that pose an actual threat instead of stabbing about ineffectually, so, while the kobold has more attempts that he can parry, he's still taking MUCH more damage from the more skilled fighter, and has to be much luckier to survive.

[SinsI]

If you like randomness so much - how about rolling some dices whenever your character has to walk to see if he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck, dying horribly? That's what "fumble rules" mean!
Dices should control whether or not a goblin minion survives this round or dies in the next one; everything else should be decided by the players' actions.
Fumble rules are incredibly unfair for players - if it happens to an NPC 99.9% of the time that NPC doesn't matter at all, but if they happen to the PCs it is important all the time. Dramatic events should be staged and controlled by the DM, and not occur randomly.

[Andezzar]

I like the -10 on a nat 1 (an maybe +10 on a nat 20?), it would straighten out those encounters a bit.What does the +/-10 mean? Are you saying that natural 1s/20s no longer automatically miss/hit? That would be the exact opposite of critical fumble rules.


The level 20 Fighter is just launching FOUR TIMES as many attacks that pose an actual threat instead of stabbing about ineffectually, so, while the kobold has more attempts that he can parry, he's still taking MUCH more damage from the more skilled fighter, and has to be much luckier to survive.If the kobold would not take more damage from a more experienced fighter, leveling up would be totally pointless. We all know that the attack in D&D is not just one swing. The point is that when the fighter makes more swings that can threaten the kobold he will fumble more often, in the same amount of time. The likelihood of fumbling on a single roll is identical regardless of skill, which also makes no sense.

[eggynack]

[EDIT: and you have a very very small chance of confirming the fumble anyway, since a nat 1 on the confirm role does not mean an automatic fumble].
I'm not sure what this means. A natural one is currently an automatic miss. Thus, such a roll would confirm a critical fumble.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If the kobold would not take more damage from a more experienced fighter, leveling up would be totally pointless. We all know that the attack in D&D is not just one swing. The point is that when the fighter makes more swings that can threaten the kobold he will fumble more often, in the same amount of time. The likelihood of fumbling on a single roll is identical regardless of skill, which also makes no sense.

Well, yes. But the point I was debating was this sentence specifically: That then means that the same kobold does more unexpected parries against an epic fighter than against a level 1 commoner. Now that makes sense.

And I was pointing out that he's not making MORE unexpected parries -- there are just more ACTUAL attacks to parry, so the parries show up more often, even if his parry-to-attack ratio remains equally pathetic.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

What does the +/-10 mean? Are you saying that natural 1s/20s no longer automatically miss/hit? That would be the exact opposite of critical fumble rules.


Aye, we would have to get rid of them if we ever implement that in a campaign. Or maybe work out a variant rule of fumbling (maybe if you miss on the -10, it's a fumble, if you don't, it's fine (include confirmation fumbles, of course)). I don't know, I find it an interesting way to do away with automatic hit/miss. I have no idea if I would ever use it. using fumbles doesn't automatically mean that I can't choose to NOT use them. I can express interest in other rules than fumbles you know. I hope I'm not passing off for some guy with extremist views here. I'm trying to stay open-minded. :smallsmile:

EDIT


I'm not sure what this means. A natural one is currently an automatic miss. Thus, such a roll would confirm a critical fumble.

Sorry. I'll explain with an arbitrary example:

Fighter with +7 attack modifier attacks an object with 3 AC. He rolls a 1. This is an automatic miss and a possible fumble. he rolls again and rolls another 1, which gives him a total of 8 (with his attack modifier). This would normally hit the object. Therefore there is no fumble, just the automatic miss.

It's a bit like confirming criticals, if you want.

[atemu1234]

Critical fumbles punish weaker classes. Statistically, this is verifiable, it is true.

'But it's funinterestingymabob!' is not an excuse.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

Critical fumbles punish weaker classes. Statistically, this is verifiable, it is true.

'But it's funinterestingymabob!' is not an excuse.

It IS an excuse.

We play D&D because we want to have fun. That is the prime reason for playing. Those being punished are fine with it, because they also have fun when they find out what stupid stuff they have done instead. Sometimes it comes at a bad moment. Sometimes it's incredibly annoying. But sometimes it's hilarious. Those being punished know this, but they find it funny and interesting nonetheless.

Our table enjoys it, and that is all that matters, really. We're not asking for confirmation or permission here. I don't want to force anybody to play it if they don't want to. But as long as we enjoy it, we will play with it.

[eggynack]

Sorry. I'll explain with an arbitrary example:

Fighter with +7 attack modifier attacks an object with 3 AC. He rolls a 1. This is an automatic miss and a possible fumble. he rolls again and rolls another 1, which gives him a total of 8 (with his attack modifier). This would normally hit the object. Therefore there is no fumble, just the automatic miss.

It's a bit like confirming criticals, if you want.
Your arbitrary example doesn't really make sense. Just as the first rolled one is an automatic miss, so too is the second. The modifier is irrelevant, because the rules for rolling a natural one don't just magically go away when you're confirming the hit. The same is the case for confirming criticals, which is the source for my confusion.

Edit: I agree that it's not really an excuse, not because seeking fun over balance is necessarily wrong, but because you don't have to compromise like that. My cited pure flavor fumble rules would maintain the fun without the heartache, and the mentioned "interesting times" rule, which turns fumbles into an upside, would maintain the fun and actually add balance. In the latter case, you'd even add some characterization to the game, as you'd get another indicator that a given character is aggressive or risk averse in their combat style.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

Your arbitrary example doesn't really make sense. Just as the first rolled one is an automatic miss, so too is the second. The modifier is irrelevant, because the rules for rolling a natural one don't just magically go away when you're confirming the hit. The same is the case for confirming criticals, which is the source for my confusion.

Hmm? Rolling a second nat 20 is also an automatic hit?

...

Well, you learn something new every day! :smallbiggrin: In that case, apologies for the confusion. It seems that we've been playing it differently. Indeed, it would then seem, by the actual rules, that you can have 0.25% chance of failing to completely hit an inanimate object. Stupid, I agree. I'm just happy that that has never turned up in battle for us.

[Segev]

The RAW in 3.5 don't have a "critical fumble" any more serious than "you fail to-hit rolls on natural 1s, regardless of bonuses." This nicely mirrors the "you automatically hit on a natural 20, regardless of the opponent's AC."

Come to think of it, that would be an interesting way to make armor a little distinct: give them a reflection of weapons' critical threat ranges. If a to-hit roll rolls in the "critical defense" range of the armor, the armor makes the attack do half damage, or something.

This becomes a function of the armor the target is wearing, rather than inherent to the attacker. It also makes actual armor a little better. Could give some of the medium armors that are currently just plain inferior higher "critical defense" ranges on the grounds that they cover more or more often provide partial deflection. Leave the currently "best" armors more or less alone (with the possible exception of full plate).

[Keltest]

The RAW in 3.5 don't have a "critical fumble" any more serious than "you fail to-hit rolls on natural 1s, regardless of bonuses." This nicely mirrors the "you automatically hit on a natural 20, regardless of the opponent's AC."

Come to think of it, that would be an interesting way to make armor a little distinct: give them a reflection of weapons' critical threat ranges. If a to-hit roll rolls in the "critical defense" range of the armor, the armor makes the attack do half damage, or something.

This becomes a function of the armor the target is wearing, rather than inherent to the attacker. It also makes actual armor a little better. Could give some of the medium armors that are currently just plain inferior higher "critical defense" ranges on the grounds that they cover more or more often provide partial deflection. Leave the currently "best" armors more or less alone (with the possible exception of full plate).

Armor doesn't really work like that. The armor's ability to deflect or mitigate an attack is reflected in the AC. Its implied that the armor is deflecting/you are dodging a significant number of swings beyond the ones you actually roll for.

[SolarSystem]

Bottom line, for me, is simply that I enjoy the hilarious results of a properly built fumble chart with confirmation rules and a DM who applies them intelligently.

Our current (new to being a) DM is using a bad chart and not confirming, which will be addressed soon enough, but this isn't our top priority to fix at the moment. >.> WBL issues are a top priority next - especially as new players are joining with full WBL next session while the rest of us are behind by at least 50% - but all that's tangential to this thread. (She does eventually listen to reason.. just have to make our arguements and reasoning very clear.)

On the note of spellcasters not being affected very much, which I honestly never gave much thought to before, the only possible balance1 I can think of is to apply wild mage wild surge rules (2nd edition AD&D style, not the boring 3.x version) to ALL magic. - nothing beats the time my brand-new wild mage turned herself to stone in the first fight during her first session. (DM was kind enough to give me a save roll to revert after combat was over, which I succeeded.)


1'balance' in this case meaning giving spellcasters an equal chance to fumble as the weapon users, making no claim that fumbles themselves are actually balanced in any way.

[SolarSystem]

Armor doesn't really work like that. The armor's ability to deflect or mitigate an attack is reflected in the AC. Its implied that the armor is deflecting/you are dodging a significant number of swings beyond the ones you actually roll for.

Certainly, but if you're throwing in fumble charts which are always a house-rule, no reason you can't house-rule armor to work that way.

[Segev]

Yeah, I fully understand how AC works and is justified. What I'm suggesting is adding to it.

I mean, hp damage is based on a number of things, but weapons have crit modifiers and ranges as part of their stats. Why not give armor a bit more mechanical crunch?

[razorback]

So, I haven't read the whole thread, but I am an advocate of fumbles for both physical attacks and spell casting.
My group of friends from grade school up grew up more on Rolemaster/MERPS than 1st and 2nd Ed (at the time), though we did play them. In the 3.x games I run I've ported over the RM carts.
That being said, for combat I run fumbles like criticals (which I have remade the RM charts for, too). You have to confirm. If you roll a 1 on the original roll, you confirm on (20 - BAB) on D100 with a second 1 always being a fumble. Not too complicated, even for the math challenged. So, after the fumble threat, a 19th+ fighter will have a 1% chance while the 1st level wizard will have a 20% chance of a true fumble.

I train with weapons multiple times a week. Escrima sticks, regular staves, knives, and swords every week along with nunchucks, wooden swords, ropes, small sticks, etc for years and mistakes happen.

At my table, once people get used to the difference, everyone likes it. No one has died directly from it and it adds another level of drama, suspense and excitement. And my players for the most part, when they DM, have adopted it because they think it is fun while they play. If it weren't, we would have discarded it years ago. We agree before any new game begins.

Just my 2¢.

[rweird]

Personally, I don't like fumbles. I've played with them before, I even have used them as DM (I didn't realize they were an optional rule). They were a moderate inconvenience, both for players and monsters, although I didn't have anything like hitting yourself, pretty much it was dropping your weapon or falling prone.

If other people like them, fine, but I don't. I played with a few people that had a confirm system of some sort (it was d100 based, somehow, I think it also was a bit fiat based, a natural 1 on the d100 was a coup de grace on an ally IIRC, which is ridiculous).

I feel like fumbles being a really big thing is inordinately large compared to crits (and I don't like critical hit variants with decapitation and the like making them more deadly, as it makes the game more luck based, and eventually a PC will probably die to a lucky critical hit), and would screw up combat, while if they are minor, they would complicate things without really adding anything appreciable IMO.

However, I like the natural 1 missing automatically (although ELH had an optional rule that essentially treated natural 20s as 30s, and natural 1s as -10s, which typically would be the same, save for in epic play), as it shows that combat is unpredictable, and you never really are "completely" safe.

I'm not saying that people who like fumbles play wrong, if you enjoy it, who am I to stop you? I am saying I don't really enjoy it, and I view dangerous fumbles, like the generator given, as silly when applied to various situations, and minor fumbles to be another thing to keep track of which doesn't add much.

[Arbane]

I should maybe expound on a previous point I mentioned: using the training dummy example is a fallacy, unless you are going entirely by RAW. I ask now, with all honestly, as anyone ever roleplayed attacking a training dummy, as part of a training exercice? And did you roll dice for it? I'm pretty sure EVERYONE can agree that fumbling against a dummy is stupid beyond belief. Fumbles are used in combat situations, and it is there that the arguments for and against must take place. The training dummy should not be used as a necessary counter-argument, unless you believe that it gives a valid reason for not allowing fumbles in a completely different environment (the combat).

okay, bare-knuckle-nonlethal sparring then. Estimated time until someone punches their own head off: 71 rounds. Based on statistics I just made up.



Now, in a combat situation, I wholeheartedly agree, mundanes have it tough. epic fighters will fumble more often, ect... I cannot and will not dispute that. It's true. The question we must ask is, despite all of these reasons that people have presented, why do tables still use it? Even in full knowledge of the numerous disadvantages it gives mundanes?


Lots of people enjoy randomness. MOST people are bad at math.



On the note of spellcasters not being affected very much, which I honestly never gave much thought to before, the only possible balance1 I can think of is to apply wild mage wild surge rules (2nd edition AD&D style, not the boring 3.x version) to ALL magic. - nothing beats the time my brand-new wild mage turned herself to stone in the first fight during her first session. (DM was kind enough to give me a save roll to revert after combat was over, which I succeeded.)

1'balance' in this case meaning giving spellcasters an equal chance to fumble as the weapon users, making no claim that fumbles themselves are actually balanced in any way.

Someone here has a sig that says (roughly) "A wizard can screw up much worse than a fighter ever could. A fighter might cut their own head off, but only a wizard can accidentally planeshift themselves into some hell-dimension to be tormented for all eternity."


Yeah, I fully understand how AC works and is justified. What I'm suggesting is adding to it.

I mean, hp damage is based on a number of things, but weapons have crit modifiers and ranges as part of their stats. Why not give armor a bit more mechanical crunch?

You might want to try a game besides D&D - lots of other RPGs model armor as being primarily DR, and relying on dodging/parrying/shields/forcefields/lucky rabbit's feet for the whole 'not getting hit' part.

[Pex]

Makes more sense than the fighter dropping her sword or impaling their friend. I guess I'm reluctant to remove all chance of failure when it comes to combat (even spellcasters suffer from an enemy's natural 20 on a save or a 1 on a ray attack). I just explain it as luck or an enemy's competence rather than a character's incompetence because it helps me wrap my head around it.

Not having critical fumbles doesn't mean that. A Natural 1 is still an automiss. That's the chance of failure that's always there. That's the luck that somehow creeps in. A fighter dropping his weapon, injuring himself or an ally, or enduring an attack from an enemy are not required.

[Segev]

You might want to try a game besides D&D - lots of other RPGs model armor as being primarily DR, and relying on dodging/parrying/shields/forcefields/lucky rabbit's feet for the whole 'not getting hit' part.

Nah. I am happy with D&D for most of this. I am positing something for those who like the idea of critical fumbles, and maybe a modification for greater depth of rules with armor. I am not really desperately searching for more verisimilitude in my D&D.

[Banjoman42]

Wow, I missed a lot.

How? This rule does nothing but punish the weaker classes. If I build a wizard I can avoid ever having to make an attack roll. Fighter, monk, barbarian and similar others don't have that luxury.

I really want to know how they improve the game?
Perhaps you missed the part with spell failure, which is actually much more likely to result in a spell failing than a critical fail for an attack roll.

Second, because my players and I find it humorous in games. I enjoy the randomness of it. Takes the edge of a dangerous encounter sometimes.

As for the comments on it slowing down the game, seeing as how they occur rarely and players can roll in advance, it usually works fine in my opinion. But yes, it does slow things down slightly, which is fine with me.

Again, this is a rule I am working on, not set in stone. Peach.

[eggynack]

Second, because my players and I find it humorous in games. I enjoy the randomness of it. Takes the edge of a dangerous encounter sometimes.

If that's all that you seek, I don't really see the issue with just employing ludicrous flavor on a fumble in lieu of mechanical impact. If you want mechanics, then I again suggest the system where certain rolls give melee the option of incurring mysterious encounter wrath in exchange for some sort of point or bonus. That one seems really awesome, I gotta say. Hits all the notes that I think a critical fumble system should hit without hitting any I think it shouldn't.

[Banjoman42]

They don't. Every time someone points out that difference all you see is that some systems impose idiotic "Failure" chances on spells. Kinda like this thing called Arcane Spell Failure.. huh funny thing about that the player controls whether or not to be effected by it rather simply.. I mean earlier someone posted rolling a d10 to see if it rolled a 1 to fail any spell being cast. I'm not sure what kinda crack he smokes but apparently it makes that stuff look balanced.

Theres a bloody reason ASF is completely controlled by the player you don't ever want to have spells not going off. For melees they only got their bloody auto attacks or maneuvers going for them. Punishing people further for choosing not to play the God wizard is an idiotic continuation of the age old "Fighters aren't allowed to ever have nice things." There is no justification for the blanket stupidity required to reiterate that statement.
Drug comment not appreciated, especially since I believe you are comparing the d10 rule with the typical fumble rule. I have trouble understanding what you are saying here, but I can justify the rule like so: casters are tier 1. Honestly, they can do fine with some spell failure. I don't understand why you think it is idiotic to incorporate chance to nerf casters, and I don't understand where you got the whole "fighter's can't have nice things" from why rule, assuming my rule is the one you are speaking of. I honestly don't know what you are trying to say; you seem to switch sides mid-paragraph on the second paragraph there.
Eggy back, it's not necessarily the only thing I seek, but it is the major one. I also don't think that rule works as a fumble rule, but maybe just a rule on its own that you can take a bad penalty for something good later, without a fumble required.

[eggynack]

Eggy back, it's not necessarily the only thing I seek, but it is the major one. I also don't think that rule works as a fumble rule, but maybe just a rule on its own that you can take a bad penalty for something good later, without a fumble required.
I'm honestly not all that sure what critical fumbles grant that isn't also made available by the interesting times rule presented. You get some realism, because people toting around sharp weapons do sometimes have bad stuff happen, you get some ridiculousness, because the things that happen can be ridiculous if you want, and you get an additional element of chance, because I guess people like that for some reason. The only difference between this rule and a critical fumble rule that I can see is that this rule is constructed as upside instead of downside, and if what you seek is giving downsides to melee folk, then I don't think that's something you should really be pursuing.

Basically, what I'm saying is, I think a lot of people start from critical fumble rules, and then find all these things that those rules provide for them, because the rules do have occasional upsides of various kinds. Critical fumbles are assumed, and then you proceed on that assumption. Instead, I think you'd be better off starting from what it is you hope to add to your game, which could even be a decently sized list, then find the best way to accomplish that goal such that the least downside is incurred in exchange for the rule's addition. My suspicion, working from that starting point, is that this rule would fit into that slot very well, but if I'm missing something that you're getting out of critical fumbles that isn't granted by this, then that'd be a thing worth talking about.

[Banjoman42]

I'm honestly not all that sure what critical fumbles grant that isn't also made available by the interesting times rule presented. You get some realism, because people toting around sharp weapons do sometimes have bad stuff happen, you get some ridiculousness, because the things that happen can be ridiculous if you want, and you get an additional element of chance, because I guess people like that for some reason. The only difference between this rule and a critical fumble rule that I can see is that this rule is constructed as upside instead of downside, and if what you seek is giving downsides to melee folk, then I don't think that's something you should really be pursuing.

Basically, what I'm saying is, I think a lot of people start from critical fumble rules, and then find all these things that those rules provide for them, because the rules do have occasional upsides of various kinds. Critical fumbles are assumed, and then you proceed on that assumption. Instead, I think you'd be better off starting from what it is you hope to add to your game, which could even be a decently sized list, then find the best way to accomplish that goal such that the least downside is incurred in exchange for the rule's addition. My suspicion, working from that starting point, is that this rule would fit into that slot very well, but if I'm missing something that you're getting out of critical fumbles that isn't granted by this, then that'd be a thing worth talking about.
What I want with the fumble rule is enough chance and poor things happening to make the player chuckle and say "whoops" without actually affecting combat. However, I like the idea of extreme mishaps with the rule you recommended that still grant bonuses, which is why I suggested it be a separate rule. I think the rule you mentioned has a bit of a heavy effect on combat, which is not something I want in a fumble rule.
Also, that was a pretty long "basically" :smalltongue:

[SowZ]

Some people that use fumbles say that they only work on the first d20 roll of the round. This encourages metagaming, however. People intentionally save the important stuff for later.

[eggynack]

What I want with the fumble rule is enough chance and poor things happening to make the player chuckle and say "whoops" without actually affecting combat. However, I like the idea of extreme mishaps with the rule you recommended that still grant bonuses, which is why I suggested it be a separate rule. I think the rule you mentioned has a bit of a heavy effect on combat, which is not something I want in a fumble rule.
Also, that was a pretty long "basically" :smalltongue:
In that case, it might make sense to make the rule a bit more swingy. By that I mean, split up the possible fumbles into things with a slight downside and things with a slight upside. That way, you don't have to mess around with the ever more complicated casting, and you're left with occasional random happiness in addition to the occasional random mishaps. It might be tricky to make it so that the upsides balance out with the downsides, but melee sucks so you can't go too far off course erring on the side of upside.

Edit: Considering further, I would think that fumbles would be more likely than crazy accidents producing success, but I would similarly expect the latter to have bigger impact than the former. Don't really have a basis for that beyond intuition, but it sounds true enough to work in a game. As such, what could work is putting down more bad results than good, maybe eating up 80% of the probability space, but you make the good results bigger, to the extent that the biggest downside from hitting a bad roll there would be missing out on that 20%. Something about that kinda setup feels right to me.

[RolkFlameraven]

I really need to stop reading these threads because it always becomes people saying just how much badwrongfun my group is having as we use fumbles and have for coming up on 20 years now.

We have confirmation rolls for fumbles, a second 1 is NOT an auto-fail (god help you if you trip one though!) And the fumble is rather tame now days. You fumble your turn is over, that's it. If it was your first attack or your 9th it doesn't matter you are done for the round.

Does this hurt fighters and twf users? Sure, but there is something wrong with my group as most want to use a sword and kill stuff *gasp* we play with fumbles and then choose to play beat sticks, how odd right?

It isn't even that most of us can't make or play a god Wiz's or mailman Sor's its that we don't care too and we still have fun.

I will say that nastier fumbles have gone out of style with us as we left highschool behind and having someone cut their own head off stoppes being funny and started feeling stupid. But there was an interesting option in the crit decks, if you crit you can 'bank' it and then use that crit to not fumble. We stopped using the deck before we where even level 5 but it is an interesting option to use with some of the more 'random' generators for fumbles.

[Yahzi]

You get some realism, because people toting around sharp weapons do sometimes have bad stuff happen
No they don't.

My dad was a door gunner in Vietnam. He fired literally hundreds of thousands of rounds. He never accidentally shot himself or dropped his machine gun; he can't even recall ever having a misfire.

Missing on a 1 can be explained as the enemy making their parry/dodge/save (but we don't want to slow the game down with defense rolls so we just fold it in with the attack). Friendly fire already exists in the firing into melee rules and spell area of effects. Beyond that the number of times a professional warrior stabs his buddy is so rare it is better described as a curse than an accident.

[Jay R]

The descriptions people are writing about games with critical failures simply don't match what I've experienced, playing with them many times.

I agree that many (not all) critical fumble tables, run by a DM with zero judgment, will seem like the nonsense people are describing, but all combat will get ridiculous with a DM with zero judgment.

Getting back to the question. You want an argument for not using fumble tables. The only argument that might effect a DM who wants to use them is this: "I won't play if you use that table."

[Pex]

The descriptions people are writing about games with critical failures simply don't match what I've experienced, playing with them many times.

I agree that many (not all) critical fumble tables, run by a DM with zero judgment, will seem like the nonsense people are describing, but all combat will get ridiculous with a DM with zero judgment.

Getting back to the question. You want an argument for not using fumble tables. The only argument that might effect a DM who wants to use them is this: "I won't play if you use that table."

Only works if all the players do that, and even then some DMs won't care, accept there's no game, and be self-righteous in their DMdom that they're not playing with "whiny" players while looking for players who will use them.

[Lorddenorstrus]

I agree with Pex, I think the biggest issue the self righteous "People who don't want to play with this are whiny" idea. Frankly whether a poorly balanced suicide machine is run on their character should be the players decision. If someone wants to use the books just fail on 1s you should let them.. Then when everyone else playing realizes this guy isn't making a new character every few accidental 1s or doing nothing whilst dead awaiting ress. . . they might make similar decisions shockingly because some people as heretical of an idea as it is.. are actually attached to their characters and role play them and don't want to die a lot.

[Shackel]

I agree with Pex, I think the biggest issue the self righteous "People who don't want to play with this are whiny" idea. Frankly whether a poorly balanced suicide machine is run on their character should be the players decision. If someone wants to use the books just fail on 1s you should let them.. Then when everyone else playing realizes this guy isn't making a new character every few accidental 1s or doing nothing whilst dead awaiting ress. . . they might make similar decisions shockingly because some people as heretical of an idea as it is.. are actually attached to their characters and role play them and don't want to die a lot.

I could not feasibly blame any DM in the least for thinking players who would/will go to this level of fanaticism and wrongbadfun about critfail tables for thinking that player is whiny.

[Keltest]

I could not feasibly blame any DM in the least for thinking players who would/will go to this level of fanaticism and wrongbadfun about critfail tables for thinking that player is whiny.

Indeed. Some fumble tables are ill-conceived, but the number of people in just this thread who are insisting that my group is having fun wrong is shocking.

[eggynack]

I could not feasibly blame any DM in the least for thinking players who would/will go to this level of fanaticism and wrongbadfun about critfail tables for thinking that player is whiny.
The correctness of the player's reaction really depends on how bad the tables are. Just because there exist relatively unobtrusive critical fumble tables, that doesn't mean that all of them are of that sort, and if the tables in question are causing large quantities of death, then reacting in a strongly negative way doesn't really seem whiny to me.

[Shackel]

The correctness of the player's reaction really depends on how bad the tables are. Just because there exist relatively unobtrusive critical fumble tables, that doesn't mean that all of them are of that sort, and if the tables in question are causing large quantities of death, then reacting in a strongly negative way doesn't really seem whiny to me.

Even then, this level of negativity corresponds to what sounds like rather hostile arguments, were this attitude to be in real life. I think that if a crit table was as bad as that generator can be when run straight, it wouldn't take two steps from a fistfight or very loud walkout to express dislike for it.

[eggynack]

Even then, this level of negativity corresponds to what sounds like rather hostile arguments, were this attitude to be in real life. I think that if a crit table was as bad as that generator can be when run straight, it wouldn't take two steps from a fistfight or very loud walkout to express dislike for it.
I'm not really sure what it is in the post you responded to, or any other post for that matter, that was two steps from a fistfight. Granted, I'm not exactly sure where two steps from a fistfight would put you on the confrontation scale, so I guess choosing to not use critical fumbles in a game where either option is allowed could hit that level.

[Shackel]

I'm not really sure what it is in the post you responded to, or any other post for that matter, that was two steps from a fistfight. Granted, I'm not exactly sure where two steps from a fistfight would put you on the confrontation scale, so I guess choosing to not use critical fumbles in a game where either option is allowed could hit that level.

It's more to the general vehemence that seems far beyond even normal heated arguments on the site. I try to imagine that kind of attitude, and it doesn't really fit in with calm and collected, y'know?

[Lorddenorstrus]

Lets put it this way when I first started playing a few years back the group I was with used Critical fumbles. I almost quit playing the game altogether. I died within rounds every combat from accidentally killing myself. Or stunned myself in front of enemies left and right. I asked the guy running it why anyone played melee, (The rest of the group were all casters, I see why now.) I was told it was to balance out how powerful it was to not have any "Cooldown" to my stuff. I can do it all day.

Thankfully before I warned off my friends from bothering to learn the game, a different DM found me and explained that was just a cancerous house rule and not really part of the game. I got taught how to actually play and had much more fun and invited my friends to learn the game rather than warning them off from it.

[RolkFlameraven]

One of the things I dislike about the straw dummies thing when people talk about fumbles is how wrong it is compared to how a normal game plays out.

How often do PCs have that many attacks with out brakes in a game? My groups plays with triple ones and triple 20's and has for a long, long time. We have seen monsters kill themselves by triple 1's being rolled, we have killed some by a lucky triple 20 but have yet to lose a player to either of these (and before people start saying the DM is fudging things I'm one of three in the group and have been the one in the chair most often).

The thing is we have seen strings of 3-6 ones or 20's before but they are used on everything from skill checks, initiative rolls to saves to people just tossing dice because it wasn't their turn and cursing the wasted 20 or thanking the die for 'getting rid' of those 1's. Not all rolls are combat, combat hardly lasts for ONE minute let alone 5-10 (unless you are playing with waves or something has gone horribly wrong) so a bunch of people attacking AC 5 objects for minutes at a time doesn't really prove anything except that if you roll a lot of dice in a row you are going to get low numbers sooner or later.

Heck, that guy who did the test had people getting up to round 54+ right? How many of those low rolls would have been a skill check where a 1 is not (normally) a fumble? How many would have been an initiative roll and not an attack where a 1 just means you go late in the order of combat?

Am I saying that fumbles that you can 'easily' kill yourself or your buddy are grate? No; but I am saying that they are hardly the bane of all things fun like many want to imply.

[eggynack]

It's more to the general vehemence that seems far beyond even normal heated arguments on the site. I try to imagine that kind of attitude, and it doesn't really fit in with calm and collected, y'know?
Fumbles have a lot of problems, is the issue, and when you get really defined sides like you get with fumbles, you wind up with a lot of passion. Personally, my distaste for them is largely rooted in their negative impact on balance in the vast majority of cases, and I'd put forth similar claims against any rule I see as having such an impact. This argument definitely doesn't go beyond some of the crazier arguments I've seen hereabouts, in any case.

[Segev]

Heck, that guy who did the test had people getting up to round 54+ right? How many of those low rolls would have been a skill check where a 1 is not (normally) a fumble? How many would have been an initiative roll and not an attack where a 1 just means you go late in the order of combat?

It doesn't matter. The 100 rounds of combat could happen in one fight, or broken up however you like. These are selected out of all rolls made as ONLY the to-hit rolls of a particular character. If you see a "1," and you're testing a fumble table that requires a follow-up roll, you know the roll immediately thereafter is that follow-up roll; it has to be, as that would be the very next thing rolled.

The test is valid; after 54 rounds of combat, the commoners in those tests were dead, facing nothing but straw dummies that didn't fight back. About the only thing you can hedge against this is if you suggest that between-combat healing would keep people alive. However, these tests usually find maimings and disfigurements and broken weapons amongst them; things which are fight-ending or are not otherwise healed between battles.

That's why these fumble rules are considered bad: no matter how you slice it, before too long characters playing by them are permanently mangled or dead.

[RolkFlameraven]

You are going to have to explain that to me I'm afraid. My group has gone from 1-23 with out a single person killing themselves with a fumble back when we where using things that would hurt far more then we do now, the party had a Barb, a PsyWar a Rog/swash, a Bow Ranger and a Blaster Psi. Hardly setting the world on fire with Opt here with everyone rolling attacks even the Psi.

So please tell me how, if fumbles WILL KILL YOU by 54 rounds of combat with other dice rolls not meaning squat, they got that high in level? Where we just horribly lucky or what?

[Segev]

You are going to have to explain that to me I'm afraid. My group has gone from 1-23 with out a single person killing themselves with a fumble back when we where using things that would hurt far more then we do now, the party had a Barb, a PsyWar a Rog/swash, a Bow Ranger and a Blaster Psi. Hardly setting the world on fire with Opt here with everyone rolling attacks even the Psi.

So please tell me how, if fumbles WILL KILL YOU by 54 rounds of combat with other dice rolls not meaning squat, they got that high in level? Where we just horribly lucky or what?

I don't know. I don't know what fumble rules you were using, how faithful you were to them, how often dice were fudged, how lucky you were, what IC tools you had to mitigate the results, etc.

My instincts tell me you weren't using one of the fumble tables that are being showcased here. But that's just a guess, really.

[Keltest]

I don't know. I don't know what fumble rules you were using, how faithful you were to them, how often dice were fudged, how lucky you were, what IC tools you had to mitigate the results, etc.

My instincts tell me you weren't using one of the fumble tables that are being showcased here. But that's just a guess, really.

Well that's the thing, isn't it? A lot of people are vehemently opposed to fumble tables on principal because of things like that test, and yet there are plenty of tables out there that don't have results anything like that. And yet were still wrong for enjoying playing with them.

[Segev]

Well that's the thing, isn't it? A lot of people are vehemently opposed to fumble tables on principal because of things like that test, and yet there are plenty of tables out there that don't have results anything like that. And yet were still wrong for enjoying playing with them.

If you go back and read the way the test is initially brought up, it goes something like this: "Perform this test with your fumble table. IF at the end of it, your commoners are dead or maimed beyond any semblence of being taken seriously, it's a bad fumble rule and you should not use it."

In theory, if your fumble rules do not result in the deaths of a lot of your commoners or otherwise making them jokes of potential PCs based on the laundry list of injuries they've suffered, the test does not tell you not to use the rule in question.

This is one reason why the "always miss on a 1" rule of base d20 is not considered inherently a bad "fumble rule;" it won't result in any commoners being dead or hillariously maimed when fighting straw dummies, no matter how long they do it.

[Pex]

Well that's the thing, isn't it? A lot of people are vehemently opposed to fumble tables on principal because of things like that test, and yet there are plenty of tables out there that don't have results anything like that. And yet were still wrong for enjoying playing with them.

You're not wrong for playing with them as much as we're not whiny for not liking them.

Deal?

[Elbeyon]

Well that's the thing, isn't it? A lot of people are vehemently opposed to fumble tables on principal because of things like that test, and yet there are plenty of tables out there that don't have results anything like that. And yet were still wrong for enjoying playing with them.I played a game with fumbles. I had my bowstring break in every (literally every) single combat. I was playing the only powerful mundane combatant and for a good reason. I took quickdraw because I went through bows on a daily basis. I carried around a ball of bowstring for after combat.

Some games and groups handle rping rough sex great, most do not. Most of the time fumble rules are a horrible idea, but not all of the time. Some groups love rping rough sex and some love fumble rules. Neither group is wrong. They just have a particular taste that most people do not share.

[eggynack]

So please tell me how, if fumbles WILL KILL YOU by 54 rounds of combat with other dice rolls not meaning squat, they got that high in level? Where we just horribly lucky or what?
Maybe you got lucky, or maybe the game wasn't that combat focused, or maybe your characters were built such that they're less likely to get hit by fumbles. But obviously, your particular triple ones based fumble rules wouldn't be likely to kill in 54 rounds. They'd kill after something like 4,000 attacks, on average. Not sure if that number's perfect, but it's close. If you've attacked about that many times, or more, and haven't died, then yeah, you got a bit lucky.

[RolkFlameraven]

Hardly any, fumbles pop up so rarely that none of the players ever went out of the way to counter them, but fortification vs Crits was looked at by both the PsyWar and the Barb.

I guess our rules wouldn't have been quite so bad as you could only kill yourself on a trip 1 but being stunned, falling prone, losing your weapon 10 feet in a random direction, attacking a friend if they where adjacent to your target (with a new attack roll, no free hits) being blinded by blood in your eyes for a round and other things did happen. The big thing was while a 1 is a miss you only fumbled on a confirmation roll and baring a 2nd one or two (or PA for most if not all your BAB) the confirmation roll was almost never a miss again so it never really mattered much.

As for fudging, didn't happen. Wasn't even using a screen, and really haven't for a long time. All the rolls where out in the open and that did get some nice times around the table when someone would roll 20. 20... 19 and the times around the table when a trip 20 is rolled and even saved them from a TPK (they have gotten better at running away... well MOST of them have gotten better at running away).

I will say that anyone who is playing with a fumble on a 1 without a confirmation roll is just being mean. And when we where playing Star Wars witch has crits on 20s auto happen we never thought to bring fumbles into the game.

[Keltest]

You're not wrong for playing with them as much as we're not whiny for not liking them.

Deal?

Fair enough.

[Shackel]

Lets put it this way when I first started playing a few years back the group I was with used Critical fumbles. I almost quit playing the game altogether. I died within rounds every combat from accidentally killing myself. Or stunned myself in front of enemies left and right. I asked the guy running it why anyone played melee, (The rest of the group were all casters, I see why now.) I was told it was to balance out how powerful it was to not have any "Cooldown" to my stuff. I can do it all day.

Thankfully before I warned off my friends from bothering to learn the game, a different DM found me and explained that was just a cancerous house rule and not really part of the game. I got taught how to actually play and had much more fun and invited my friends to learn the game rather than warning them off from it.

Oh right, people can actually start off thinking "hyperfails", to give the most extreme crit tables a name, are a part of the game. You know what, point taken, there: if someone doesn't know it's a houserule, it can actually end up pretty bad when they get extreme. Almost like if an unconfirmed 20 could just instakill a boss(truth be told I don't know why critfails are treated as being so much more powerful and yet so much more common), it'd kind of take the fun out of things.


Fumbles have a lot of problems, is the issue, and when you get really defined sides like you get with fumbles, you wind up with a lot of passion. Personally, my distaste for them is largely rooted in their negative impact on balance in the vast majority of cases, and I'd put forth similar claims against any rule I see as having such an impact. This argument definitely doesn't go beyond some of the crazier arguments I've seen hereabouts, in any case.

The way I see it is that it's an inverse crit. A balance in that a nat 20 can do much larger damage, so why can't the inverse do the opposite of it?


You're not wrong for playing with them as much as we're not whiny for not liking them.

Deal?

My apologies if I, myself, have come off as saying all people who dislike critfails are whiny. I speak more about those who don't really seem to talk rationally about it, just stamping it with "the worst possible thing" and implying that playing with them is badwrong.

[eggynack]

The way I see it is that it's an inverse crit. A balance in that a nat 20 can do much larger damage, so why can't the inverse do the opposite of it?
Why would it? Not everything needs to have some arbitrary balancing factor. If you want to know what the balance for critical hits is, how about the fact that melee is at the bottom of the totem pole of power level, or even just the fact that the fighter is never freed from the possibility of missing, while casters can often take actions with no chance of failure.

[Shackel]

Why would it? Not everything needs to have some arbitrary balancing factor. If you want to know what the balance for critical hits is, how about the fact that melee is at the bottom of the totem pole of power level, or even just the fact that the fighter is never freed from the possibility of missing, while casters can often take actions with no chance of failure.

I don't think that "casters are OP" is much of a balancing factor. That just means casters are OP. I think I noted back, though, that if crits on saves had some kind of bonus effect(this, I admit, would need to be just as much of a house rule) or consequence to the caster, it'd make things a little more exciting to be on the receiving end.

[eggynack]

I don't think that "casters are OP" is much of a balancing factor. That just means casters are OP. I think I noted back, though, that if crits on saves had some kind of bonus effect(this, I admit, would need to be just as much of a house rule) or consequence to the caster, it'd make things a little more exciting to be on the receiving end.
How isn't that a balancing factor? And it's not just that casters are overpowered. It's that nearly everything in the game is overpowered relative to your basic mundane classes. If it were just wizards looking down their noses at fighters, then that'd be one thing, but there's about four tiers standing atop them, and only one NPC dominated tier below. As for casters, the main issue is that constructing a casting house rule that applies universally is tricky. Something that only works on saves, for example, could be evaded through the use of the wide range of no save spells, which are often quite good.

[Elbeyon]

No save spells are a staple of casting. As are ones that avoid SR. A good caster carries spells that would avoid fumble rules already, they don't need to work much harder at avoiding them. A swordslinger swings their sword. They don't have the power to avoid fumble houserules.

[Pex]

The difference between a critical hit and a critical fail is one of perspective. When a monster critically hits a character it sucks, sure, but it's not so devastating. Usually it's just extra damage that can be healed, or not if the combat is almost over or the character still has plenty of hit points. If it leads to character death, even that can be fixed by RAW. As the game evolved remedies were made to even prevent that - Breath of Life in Pathfinder, Revivify in late 3E and in 5E from the start with easier access. (I'm unfamiliar enough with 4E to know what that system uses.) It would be a house rule, but some DMs might allow a one round chance for someone to provide any healing to the character until the monster's next turn to prevent true death. It's a player's character. They are a special snowflake. Emotionally, the critical hit from the monster also doesn't sting so much because it's a natural part of a monster's action. That's the game part. The monster will attack. The PC will sometimes get hit. A critical hit is expected eventually.

The critical miss is the opposite of all this. The Natural 1 is an automiss rule is accepted because that's the game part. It's the minimalist chance of failure necessary for success to be fun. Dropping your weapon is not as easily recoverable as losing hit points. You lose actions picking it up and drawing attacks of opportunity. You may have to use a secondary less optimal weapon, and you can't full attack unless you have Quick Draw or its equivalent. 5E's free action to manipulate one object rule, so this happenstance is a little less harmful in 5E. Hurting yourself may be just damage, but it's damage that shouldn't have existed. You build your character to damage the bad guys. Doing it to yourself is humiliating. Hitting an ally is damage that shouldn't have existed for them. Stun yourself? That's devastating. There's a reason the game has evolved to make save or die/suck spells to be save or not be so suck/don't suck for long if you can make another save. Losing action economy is a great disadvantage and also not fun for the player to sit there not doing anything. If it happens because of a monster's attack, that's why it's the monster and is part of the game. If you do it to yourself because you rolled a 1, it's an inherent wtf.

[HurinTheCursed]

I was a friend whose first ever PC was killed during his first session by another's fumble before he rolled a single die. Luckily he gave RPG another chance (and needn't spend 3 hours to create the next).

15 years ago, as a GM in another system, I used to have fumbles that happened depending on the miss margin so that it was less likely or less bad for advanced characters, but in the end it was still too random and too complicated for what it brought.

I had a Dark Heresy GM ruling that a close miss means you hit something close to your target, quite often our courageous friend that was in melee with the opponents. It seemed to make sense but wasn't scaling with characters skills, and the warrior was often taking more damage from the guys firing from range than from the daemons and xenos... Bad again.

I played my first D&D campaign in a group (a real life good friends) in which there was little coop between characters, quite a lot of successful or more often missed humourous attempts with heavy and stupid fumble rules.
My first character (a rogue) died after a 1 on a silent move test, the next rogue (played by another) was kill by an un-trapped door after a double 1, crushed. Mundane kept hitting each other... Some friends ended up leaving the group because of that. I now feel lucky a had on purpose chosen abuffer/debuffer cleric with improved spell penetration and rolled nothing.

In my current campaign, my L15 character was hardly closer to death than when he was hit by a friendly single target damage spell after a 1 (no confirm). I'd seriously have been pissed to lose a character played for years like that. The DM goes back and forth on fumbles but the perspective of dropping my weapon every 4 rounds is not exactly fun, especially when lich or dragons are around.

The monsters may have to deal with it, but they are expected to lose 99% of time. In a common campaign, how ofter to do you intend the group to be defeated and run away ? I'd feel bad for the recurring villain as well.

Crit, autohit and automiss are already pretty bad but I deal with it. I might just switch d20 to 3d6 if I was DMing to lower the impact of randomness.
Ending your round, possibly losing the next is just as bad as hitting someone else. When the action economy is so important, losing group coordination because of unrealistic odds can have dire consequences.

I find crit/ fumbles
- are anticlimatic, they doesn't scale with PC/NPC abilities and break the mood of MOST games
- enhance existing problems of balance between players, magic > THF > TWF
- are DM skewed
- slow down a slow game
- that don't happen regularly not even worth bothering to use them in the first place

Still when a campaign setting is light hearted, the challenge level lower than it should (beginners in the group) and the players OK with it, why not. But that's something I'd rather ban from any serious setting not to ruin the fun. And I'd rather play a stupid / deranged PC than play with stupid rules in an unchallenging setting.

[Banjoman42]

I was a friend whose first ever PC was killed during his first session by another's fumble before he rolled a single die. Luckily he gave RPG another chance (and needn't spend 3 hours to create the next).

15 years ago, as a GM in another system, I used to have fumbles that happened depending on the miss margin so that it was less likely or less bad for advanced characters, but in the end it was still too random and too complicated for what it brought.

I had a Dark Heresy GM ruling that a close miss means you hit something close to your target, quite often our courageous friend that was in melee with the opponents. It seemed to make sense but wasn't scaling with characters skills, and the warrior was often taking more damage from the guys firing from range than from the daemons and xenos... Bad again.

I played my first D&D campaign in a group (a real life good friends) in which there was little coop between characters, quite a lot of successful or more often missed humourous attempts with heavy and stupid fumble rules.
My first character (a rogue) died after a 1 on a silent move test, the next rogue (played by another) was kill by an un-trapped door after a double 1, crushed. Mundane kept hitting each other... Some friends ended up leaving the group because of that. I now feel lucky a had on purpose chosen abuffer/debuffer cleric with improved spell penetration and rolled nothing.

In my current campaign, my L15 character was hardly closer to death than when he was hit by a friendly single target damage spell after a 1 (no confirm). I'd seriously have been pissed to lose a character played for years like that. The DM goes back and forth on fumbles but the perspective of dropping my weapon every 4 rounds is not exactly fun, especially when lich or dragons are around.

The monsters may have to deal with it, but they are expected to lose 99% of time. In a common campaign, how ofter to do you intend the group to be defeated and run away ? I'd feel bad for the recurring villain as well.

Crit, autohit and automiss are already pretty bad but I deal with it. I might just switch d20 to 3d6 if I was DMing to lower the impact of randomness.
Ending your round, possibly losing the next is just as bad as hitting someone else. When the action economy is so important, losing group coordination because of unrealistic odds can have dire consequences.

I find crit/ fumbles
- are anticlimatic, they doesn't scale with PC/NPC abilities and break the mood of MOST games
- enhance existing problems of balance between players, magic > THF > TWF
- are DM skewed
- slow down a slow game
- that don't happen regularly not even worth bothering to use them in the first place

Still when a campaign setting is light hearted, the challenge level lower than it should (beginners in the group) and the players OK with it, why not. But that's something I'd rather ban from any serious setting not to ruin the fun. And I'd rather play a stupid / deranged PC than play with stupid rules in an unchallenging setting.
Wait, you want to take away Crits? Why do you think they enhance problems with magic? Crits are one of the few things martials have that they can enjoy.

Also, with the 3d6 thing wouldn't work at all with crits unless you changed all the weapons crit ranges. I'd stick with the d20.

[HurinTheCursed]

Yes, I am aware of that and I know this kind of things is divisive. 3d6 means hardly any auto hit/miss would ever happen. For years I played with that in other systems and it means characters are better at what they're supposed to be able to do and worse at what they're not supposed to be trained.

Most weapons are "balanced" according to a crit chance and factor, that would be a loss (another solution would be to reduce the threat range or factor by 1). But it would only affect crit specific builds from what I've seen so far since the crit-focused weapons deal less damage otherwise.

According to the rules, there is more bonus for a crit (at least +100% damage) than there is malus for a 1 (-100% damage). But that extra damage is often wasted for a PC or a BBEG, they would always hit on 20 without the autohit and wouldn't necesseraly miss on a 1 without the automiss.Mooks never hit on 1 and not always on 20 naturally, they benefit more and their extra damage is never wasted against a PC. Poisons with low DC / big effects are a curse as well at low level, death effects based on fortitude... everyone may roll a 1, but the meatshield is often the first target for anything. Thus I find it DM skewed and detrimental to the party on the long term, especially for melee characters.

In my groups, crits hardly made any difference except when fighting BBEG, and an early crit against the boss may ruin the challenge. Mooks are dead or incapacited by meleers before they can full attack back, crit or not. Archers would notice the difference though. Maintaing all the meleers high enough in hit points to allow a BBEG crit, a big brute crit, a lance build crit... is not easy, doing otherwise is just leaving PCs one 20 away from death. A ray that crits can just cripple any PC as well.

I believe crits also damage PC, especially meleers, more than NPC. So globally, I'd rather be done with crit and fumbles. Auto hit/miss is more than enough to my taste. I find 3d6 fits heroic, dramatic, gritty style of play way more than the d20 randomness. A kobold may escape a grapple against a colossal dragon close to 10% time in my group.

[Brookshw]

Personally my group loved our old crit and fumble tables, we made them collectively and the players put up some pretty nasty ones for the list. We'd still use them if we knew where they had ended up. They may not be everyone's cup of tea but they definitely are a plus for some games or groups.

Also the look of joy on a players face when a dragon fumbled right out of the gate rather than unloading a dozen face rending attacks is pretty good :smallbiggrin:

[Grod_The_Giant]

One of the things I dislike about the straw dummies thing when people talk about fumbles is how wrong it is compared to how a normal game plays out.
Forget balance, it's a verisimilitude thing. If you swing a stick at a tree for ten minutes, you might lose your grip a couple times, maybe clip yourself once or twice (in an "ouch" way, not a "break your arm" sort of way), but I bet that's all. If a short training session's worth of attack rolls leaves you with a higher casualty rate than actual battles, something is wrong with the way the world works.

Personally, I don't like fumbles because they feel spiteful. You already wasted your action by missing; anything on top of that is just rubbing it in. And worse, it's hard to roleplay your master swordsman properly when he occasionally ****s up to the Loony Toones degree that a lot of fumble tables include.

[OldTrees1]

Forget balance, it's a verisimilitude thing. If you swing a stick at a tree for ten minutes, you might lose your grip a couple times, maybe clip yourself once or twice (in an "ouch" way, not a "break your arm" sort of way), but I bet that's all. If a short training session's worth of attack rolls leaves you with a higher casualty rate than actual battles, something is wrong with the way the world works.

Personally, I don't like fumbles because they feel spiteful. You already wasted your action by missing; anything on top of that is just rubbing it in. And worse, it's hard to roleplay your master swordsman properly when he occasionally ****s up to the Loony Toones degree that a lot of fumble tables include.

2 questions:

Q1: Since fumbling against an inanimate object is silly, why not just differentiate between combat and training? The easy fluff answer is that fumbling is the result of both the attacker's and defender's actions(attack vs parry). Once the two situations are differentiated, then we can use the "Don't roll when no roll is needed" rule to handle training sessions.

Q2: Criticals have a range and do nothing if not confirmed. Currently Fumbles have a range(nat 1) and are always confirmed(nat 1s always miss). Would it make more sense to have both Criticals and Fumbles have a confirmation roll that determined the severity (normal damage thru critical multiplier, normal attack thru automatic miss)? This way fumble rules are not a spiteful add on to the auto missed attack but rather the auto missed attack is an example of a severe confirmed fumble.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Q1: Since fumbling against an inanimate object is silly, why not just differentiate between combat and training?
Certainly a start, but... "serious/dramatic/epic fantasy" and "chance to stab yourself in the face" don't belong in the same game, in my book.


Q2: Would it make more sense to have both Criticals and Fumbles have a confirmation roll that determined the severity (normal damage thru critical multiplier, normal attack thru automatic miss)?
The bare minimum, to be sure, but I haven't always seen it played that way. (Heck, I generally don't bother with a confirmation roll in my games-- sucks a lot of the excitement out of a natural 20). I'd be fine with an auto-miss on a 1, and, oh, flat footed until the start of your next action. Or something similar-- provoking an AoO, being shifted 5ft in a direction of your opponent's choice, that sort of thing. "Missed a block and now I'm off-balance" is a perfectly logical warrior's mistake; "swung too hard and threw my weapon away" is slapstick.

[Shackel]

Certainly a start, but... "serious/dramatic/epic fantasy" and "chance to stab yourself in the face" don't belong in the same game, in my book.


The bare minimum, to be sure, but I haven't always seen it played that way. (Heck, I generally don't bother with a confirmation roll in my games-- sucks a lot of the excitement out of a natural 20). I'd be fine with an auto-miss on a 1, and, oh, flat footed until the start of your next action. Or something similar-- provoking an AoO, being shifted 5ft in a direction of your opponent's choice, that sort of thing. "Missed a block and now I'm off-balance" is a perfectly logical warrior's mistake; "swung too hard and threw my weapon away" is slapstick.

I think the last one could even be flavored correctly. Mechanically it's you disarm yourself, or your weapon ends up a few feet away. Easy enough for your grip to have been wrong in the combat, blood and sweat just kinda compounding it until one wrong swing and slip away it goes. Sort of like why good grips on knives are important?

A lot of the spite can just come from a DM, which even I(as someone whose always dealt with critfails) had to deal with.

[Elbeyon]

Fumble rules are a stick. They are a bad event. Mechanics are built into the game to help guide the people playing to play the game in a certain way. What does this stick suggest and/or do? What is its purpose?

[Flickerdart]

What does this stick suggest and/or do? What is its purpose?
To honour our dread lord Grog, long may he reign. The more sensible rules a DM sacrifices at the altar of Grog, the more his power increases.

[OldTrees1]

Fumble rules are a stick. They are a bad event. Mechanics are built into the game to help guide the people playing to play the game in a certain way. What does this stick suggest and/or do? What is its purpose?

Um. Guiding people towards a particular play style is not the only design goal of game designers. So the existence of a bad event does not mean it was intended as a stick to drive players away from the prior actions.

[Elbeyon]

It may not be the only design goal, but it is a major and very important one. Perhaps, the most important part of pnp design is the rules and what they stimulate. A good game encourage's certain actions and discourages others via its mechanics. Things should be put into a game with that purpose in mind not on a whim or random thought.

I do see a stick driving players away from certain actions. Players should consider a game's houserules, and when they see that there is a chance of something really bad happening to their character they will consider avoiding that. I don't see players actively trying to fumble. If it's not dissuading an action what is it encouraging? What are fumble rules purpose?

[Lorddenorstrus]

It may not be the only design goal, but it is a major and very important one. Perhaps, the most important part of pnp design is the rules and what they stimulate. A good game encourage's certain actions and discourages others via its mechanics. Things should be put into a game with that purpose in mind not on a whim or random thought.

I do see a stick driving players away from certain actions. Players should consider a game's houserules, and when they see that there is a chance of something really bad happening to their character they will consider avoiding that. I don't see players actively trying to fumble. If it's not dissuading an action what is it encouraging? What are fumble rules purpose?

I've heard both "balance" (which is retarded it's a neerf to melee. Anyone implementing them can't sugercoat it any other way.) Or "Realism" if any of us wanted realism we wouldn't play a game where we can turn into a bear and summon an army of other bears. Other than the above reasons there simply isn't one to add it. And with both of those being horrible reasons we're back at square one.

[Keltest]

I've heard both "balance" (which is retarded it's a neerf to melee. Anyone implementing them can't sugercoat it any other way.) Or "Realism" if any of us wanted realism we wouldn't play a game where we can turn into a bear and summon an army of other bears. Other than the above reasons there simply isn't one to add it. And with both of those being horrible reasons we're back at square one.

How about "Its fun"?

[Lorddenorstrus]

How about "Its fun"?

For the DM perhaps if he's sadistic and likes killing people. Even if you do have players that for some reason enjoy it, what if a new player joins your group and doesn't want his character to be all slapstick idiotic. He asks you to not apply your system to him, he wants to go by the book rules for his character. So far all I've seen is "That person is whiny."

[HurinTheCursed]

One of my grip with d20 is it is thought to be generic, great on a commercial point of view, but then it is not tailored to fit the mechanics of the universe it has to represent. Between Scarred Lands, Eberron, Ravenscroft, Midnight... you would wish different mechanics to convey the unique atmosphere of each setting. I believe a system can be used for multiple universes but only if the DM/writers want a similar game experience.

Regarding fumbles, why was it added ? I supposed they're thought to bring some RANDOM fun, as in ridiculizing someone who slipped on a banana skin, with no global vision which would be bad design.

If I am wrong, how do the fumble writers / DM that add them want the players to react to these rules ? What should be the impact on characters ? Does it emphasize the importance of fate in the culture ? Is it an hint of nihilism ? Does it remind humility to the strong and give hope to the weak ?
In my book, nothing in fumbles fits with the "serious/dramatic/epic fantasy" that a high level party can expect. Heroes risk their lives daily for better reasons than bashing skulls and collecting gold, they chose to separate from their relatives, postpone most life pleasures, they are responsible of many defenseless people. Rules should support the fact PC, even more at high levels, are supposed to be heroic IMO.

[OldTrees1]

It may not be the only design goal, but it is a major and very important one. Perhaps, the most important part of pnp design is the rules and what they stimulate. A good game encourage's certain actions and discourages others via its mechanics. Things should be put into a game with that purpose in mind not on a whim or random thought.

You are conflating 2 design goals throughout this paragraph.
1) Simulate
2) Stick

Honestly, "stick" is not a major design goal of table top RPGs. Guiding the player(a broader category where stick is a subset) is much more common in video games where it is used as a necessary shortcut used to cover the lack of a human DM.

Simulate, on the other hand, is one of the major design goals of RPGs but it is descriptive not prescriptive. Things put in for the goal of simulation have a purpose in mind but that purpose is not the steering of players towards or away from options.

[Keltest]

For the DM perhaps if he's sadistic and likes killing people. Even if you do have players that for some reason enjoy it, what if a new player joins your group and doesn't want his character to be all slapstick idiotic. He asks you to not apply your system to him, he wants to go by the book rules for his character. So far all I've seen is "That person is whiny."

If a person does not like the rules the table plays by, he probably should not be playing at that table rather than attempting to either force them to play differently or change the rules just for him.

I don't know if I would call them whiny, specifically, but I am not going to let a new player dictate the rules of our existing table to me when they are entirely within their right to go and find a game they enjoy more.

[HurinTheCursed]

Why would he have to force other players. Maybe he could just convince them with his arguments rather than with reasons such as "if we don't change he may leave". Maybe other players agree but didn't say what they had in mind ?
Like in a couple, it's sometimes worth communicating to reach a compromise that fits all rather than agreeing or quitting.

To me, fumbles impact not only mechanics. Asking for a revision is not being more whiney as saying, "would you mind putting more emphasis on descriptions to improve immersion ?" (After all, better descriptions impacts gameplay as well, favoring players).

[Keltest]

Why would he have to force other players. Maybe he could just convince them with his arguments rather than with reasons such as "if we don't change he may leave". Maybe other players agree but didn't say what they had in mind ?
Like in a couple, it's sometimes worth communicating to reach a compromise that fits all rather than agreeing or quitting.

To me, fumbles impact not only mechanics. Asking for a revision is not being more whiney as saying, "would you mind putting more emphasis on descriptions to improve immersion ?"

I maintain my stance. I am not going to change a system that works or allow them to be a special snowflake just to accommodate a player who otherwise wouldn't want to be there. They aren't forced to game with us, and they are more than welcome to seek a group that uses a system they enjoy more.

No good comes from trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

[Elbeyon]

You are conflating 2 design goals throughout this paragraph.
1) Simulate
2) Stick

Honestly, "stick" is not a major design goal of table top RPGs. Guiding the player(a broader category where stick is a subset) is much more common in video games where it is used as a necessary shortcut used to cover the lack of a human DM.

Simulate, on the other hand, is one of the major design goals of RPGs but it is descriptive not prescriptive. Things put in for the goal of simulation have a purpose in mind but that purpose is not the steering of players towards or away from options.I think we'd agree a regular design goal is not to use punishment as a means to achieve an action. I think we can also agree that a reward is one of the major design goals of a pnp to achieve an action.

Mechanics are added into the game to encourage an action that isn't intended to guide? Sounds like a oxymoron. The entire point of rules is to guide actions. That is what they do. Whether they achieve that is an entirely different question, but rules should certainly be built to be competent. A rule that does not affect a player in anyway is a waste of paper and shouldn't even make it to the printer.

Fumble rules are a stick, which designers try to avoid, to encourage "Fun." A nebulous and highly personal thing. Such a fuzzy goal would show a real lack of understanding if that was designer's only one. The rules can say that a defeated monster rewards the players gold or that if a person's total attack roll was higher than the monsters defense they are rewarded a hit. But, rules can not force a player to have fun.

Side note:
When in a small group of friends; however, this once nebulous thing called fun can be a quantifiable reward. That's true for a whole lot of things. A bad movie or bad anything by all standards will still be enjoyed by other people. People are allowed (obviously) to like technically bad things. A technically good or bad thing doesn't even necessarily matter on the personal level. Just because a person likes something doesn't make it a technically good thing however.

[OldTrees1]

I think we'd agree a regular design goal is not to use punishment as a means to achieve an action. I think we can also agree that a reward is one of the major design goals of a pnp to achieve an action.

I don't think we can agree that pnp RPG designers generally try to guide players to play a particular playstyle via rewards. Every example that does fit that statement seems to be a highly criticized exception(see WotC and excessive LA/RHD for monstrous PCs). In general, pnp RPG designers do not try to decide which playstyle players will play. Thus both sticks and carrots(rewards) are generally not put in for the sake of being sticks and carrots.


Mechanics are added into the game to encourage an action that isn't intended to guide? Sounds like a oxymoron. The entire point of rules is to guide actions. That is what they do. Whether they achieve that is an entirely different question, but rules should certainly be built to be competent. A rule that does not affect a player in anyway is a waste of paper and shouldn't even make it to the printer

Mechanics can be added with the purpose of permitting an action without needing to be encouraging or discouraging that action. When they put in "You get 1-1/2 Str when wielding 2 handed, but it takes both hands" they were not doing so to encourage people to play or to not play twohanded warriors. Rather they were merely trying to add an additional differentiated option to expand the options available to the players(The exact opposite of attempting to guide the player by sticks/carrots).

Notice how the rule affects the player but was not added with the goal of choosing for the player/guiding the player nor was it added with the goal of being a "right"/"wrong" option.


Fumble rules are a stick, which designers try to avoid, to encourage "Fun." A nebulous and highly personal thing. Such a fuzzy goal would show a real lack of understanding if that was designer's only one. The rules can say that a defeated monster rewards the players gold or that if a person's total attack roll was higher than the monsters defense they are rewarded a hit. But, rules can not force a player to have fun.

Game designers are trying to increase the enjoyment players get from the game. In the particular case of fumble rules, I would expect they would be trying to tap into the simulation and RNG aspects that some but not all players enjoy. No rule can force a player to have fun, but that is not what was attempted. What was attempted was providing players with material(rules/content) that matches the kind of enjoyment those players desired. Obviously no single rule can hit every possible source of enjoyment, which is why pnp RPGs are usually distributed with a bunch of optional variants to the main rules.

[Elbeyon]

I don't think we can agree that pnp RPG designers generally try to guide players to play a particular playstyle via rewards. Every example that does fit that statement seems to be a highly criticized exception(see WotC and excessive LA/RHD for monstrous PCs). In general, pnp RPG designers do not try to decide which playstyle players will play. Thus both sticks and carrots(rewards) are generally not put in for the sake of being sticks and carrots.I'm sure you could find a lot of people that would agree that dnd is not a well designed game. I agree with that. However, designers absolutely try to decide playstyle as long as the rules are followed. If a game hands out insanity for scary monsters that just had a huge affect on playstyle. If the game gives the players tons of combat actions to defeat monsters that's another playstyle choice. If a player has one hp and a sword does more than that then a game is not going to be about superheros. If killing things makes the world more dangerous then that will affect playstyle. A good game design creates a playstyle via the rules and what players can do within them.


Mechanics can be added with the purpose of permitting an action without needing to be encouraging or discouraging that action. When they put in "You get 1-1/2 Str when wielding 2 handed, but it takes both hands" they were not doing so to encourage people to play or to not play twohanded warriors. Rather they were merely trying to add an additional differentiated option to expand the options available to the players(The exact opposite of attempting to guide the player by sticks/carrots).

Notice how the rule affects the player but was not added with the goal of choosing for the player/guiding the player nor was it added with the goal of being a "right"/"wrong" option.Allowing 1.5 str when wielding 2 handed could be encouraging or discouraging that action. As it turns out in 3.5 it is encouraging that action with the reward of doing some of the best low-optimization weapon damage. You will find a lot of people that say 2 handed fighting is way more encouraged than twf because the results/rewards are much higher. The rules encourage the action of two-handing via making the character stronger. If twf had a feat that said it does x10 damage the game would be encouraging that.

If a printed rule's affects were not a goal of the designer than that person was a poor designer. A good designer would absolutely be thinking about what such an ability would have on the player.


Game designers are trying to increase the enjoyment players get from the game. In the particular case of fumble rules, I would expect they would be trying to tap into the simulation and RNG aspects that some but not all players enjoy. No rule can force a player to have fun, but that is not what was attempted. What was attempted was providing players with material(rules/content) that matches the kind of enjoyment those players desired. Obviously no single rule can hit every possible source of enjoyment, which is why pnp RPGs are usually distributed with a bunch of optional variants to the main rules.Enjoyment may be an end goal, but a doctor doesn't treat his patients with happy pills to make them happy. He uses a methodologically that ends with happiness. Now wanting a greater simulation or RNG aspect to a game is a design goal that'd be far more acceptable. You can build towards having realism or randomness in a game. Ones which do not negativity affect balance while encourgaging those aspects.

[ShaneMRoth]

Yo, hello!

I hate fumbles charts and the such variations. I really LOATHE 'em. In an upcoming campaign the DM wants to use this generator (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/tools/critical-generator).

Would you please help me with arguments why it's a bad idea?

My problem with fumble rules is that they don't fix anything. Whatever mechanical flaws exist in the 3.x rules regarding combat, those flaw flaws will not be improved by a set of fumble rules.

But this problem is not going to be solved by an airtight rhetorically sound arument.

If the DM really wants to take this mechanic out for a spin, he is going to try it.

First, decide whether or not you can live with this mechanic.

You don't have to learn to love it, or even like it. Can you live with it? Does the good outweigh the bad? Is the game worth your time with this fumble rule? Is the food good? Is the company good? Do you enjoy the company of the players? Is this DM a good friend?

Make it clear that you hate this mechanic. Make it clear that this mechanic gets between you and your ability to enjoy the game. You are there because you like the DM, not his fumble mechanic. If possible, do this in private. Make sure you clarify that you don't just hate this fumble mechanic. You hate fumble mechanics in all their forms.

And, then, once you have been heard out... insist that this matter be revisited in an agreed upon time. Say in twelve game sessions.

Being heard out doesn't mean that you have changed the DM's mind. It just means that you have spoken your peace and have made an on the record dissent.

At the table, make a point of giving the DM every benefit of the doubt on this mechanic.

So, when the fumble checks happen, you put on your poker face. No eye rolling. No sighs. No audio commentary track. Bite your tongue. If necessary, literally. (Just don't chomp down.)

Just let the mechanic play out. Let the other players experience the fumble mechanic and become disenchanted with it.

Let each absurd, nonsensical, disruptive, and suspension-of-disbelief collapsing fumble roll result hang over the game table like a fart in church. And let the other players get a good long whiff of that fart.

Let the cleric decapitate himself with his own mace.

Let the wizard lose his voice, and his spell casting ability, because he throat punched himself with his own staff.

Let the fighter chop off half of his fingers, and 1d4 Dex points, with his crossbow.

And then, when the other players are rolling their eyes, sighing, and becoming visibly upset... that is when you use the Dr. Phil Gambit.

Made famous by TV's Dr. Phil McGraw, this gambit is: "How's that workin' for ya?"

"So, we've play-tested this fumble mechanic for what? Twelve sessions now? So, tell me, how's that workin' for ya?"

Either you will remain in the dissenting minority, or most of the players will have find the fumble rules about as fun as a prostate exam.

If all else fails, be prepared to vote with your feet.

Having said that, do not threaten to quit as a tactic. Leaving the group is not a tactic, it is an admission of an irreconcilable difference.

Don't burn a bridge, just make a clean break.

Good luck.

[OldTrees1]

Allowing 1.5 str when wielding 2 handed could be encouraging or discouraging that action. As it turns out in 3.5 it is encouraging that action with the reward of doing some of the best low-optimization weapon damage. You will find a lot of people that say 2 handed fighting is way more encouraged than twf because the results/rewards are much higher. The rules encourage the action of two-handing via making the character stronger. If twf had a feat that said it does x10 damage the game would be encouraging that.
You are ignoring the middle. Allowing 1.5 str when wielding 2 handed could be neither encouraging nor discouraging that action but rather just be yet another available option for players to choose from (imagine if TWF and TWF were both balanced). Game design is not about dictating the player's choices(leaving them with a "right" option and a bunch of "wrong" options) but instead by defining the player's choices (giving them a limited set of options to choose from). When you dictate player choices you are shrinking the size of your game(by intentionally invalidating options you had put in the game). To grow the size of your game you need to add options without invalidating previous options. So you cannot attempt to control a player's decisions(insert carrots/sticks to encourage/discourage options) if your purpose is to create a slew of options for them to choose from since doing so only eliminates options.

I hope you agree that creating a slew of differentiated yet valid options is a major tool in pnp RPG design. If so, then my above paragraph should demonstrate how inserting mechanics to encourage players towards 1 option over others or to discourage players from 1 option over others is counterproductive to creating a slew of differentiated yet valid options.


Edit:
Editing in an example.

Imagine the following 2 systems

System 1:
Players can attack with a sword(slashing), club(bludgeoning), or shortspear(piercing)

System 2:
Players can attack with a sword(slashing, +10 damage), club(bludgeoning, -5 attack), or shortspear(piercing)

Both systems have differentiated options. However system 2 has only 1 valid option as the result of being designed with the intent of guiding everyone to use swords(carrot) and not use clubs(stick). As a result system 1 has 3x the value of system 2. This is why it is bad design to use carrots/sticks to encourage/discourage options rather than merely differentiating options without encouraging/discouraging options.

[Elbeyon]

You are ignoring the middle. Allowing 1.5 str when wielding 2 handed could be neither encouraging nor discouraging that action but rather just be yet another available option for players to choose from (imagine if TWF and TWF were both balanced). Game design is not about dictating the player's choices(leaving them with a "right" option and a bunch of "wrong" options) but instead by defining the player's choices (giving them a limited set of options to choose from). When you dictate player choices you are shrinking the size of your game(by intentionally invalidating options you had put in the game). To grow the size of your game you need to add options without invalidating previous options. So you cannot attempt to control a player's decisions(insert carrots/sticks to encourage/discourage options) if your purpose is to create a slew of options for them to choose from since doing so only eliminates options.

I hope you agree that creating a slew of differentiated yet valid options is a major tool in pnp RPG design. If so, then my above paragraph should demonstrate how inserting mechanics to encourage players towards 1 option over others or to discourage players from 1 option over others is counterproductive to creating a slew of differentiated yet valid options.Yes, I think we agree on almost everything to varying degrees. Yes, rules are about defining a player's choice. Yes, the players are usually free to do whatever they want (as long as it fits within the defined choices). Depending on a player's decision (sometimes) the defined rules encourage something. Just because something is encouraged doesn't mean that the rules are dictating a player's actions. If something is mechanically identically (for example: twf or twhf) then its not a mechanical choice or mechanically encouraged. Some systems define a mechanic, let's say fighting power, but the fluff is completely mutable. The designer isn't encouraging any weapon because they didn't give any mechanical choice. And, yes, creating different valid (to varying degrees) options is a major tool in pnp design. I wouldn't disagree with that.

Like I said previously (this time in different words for more clarity): Encouraging actions is not the only way to design things, but it is a major and very important way to design things. A lot of this happens by defining player choices, not by making player's choices for them. Curse you typed words! Why do you not convey meaning perfectly!

[OldTrees1]

Yes, I think we agree on almost everything to varying degrees. Yes, rules are about defining a player's choice. Yes, the players are usually free to do whatever they want (as long as it fits within the defined choices). Depending on a player's decision (sometimes) the defined rules encourage something. Just because something is encouraged doesn't mean that the rules are dictating a player's actions. If something is mechanically identically (for example: twf or twhf) then its not a mechanical choice or mechanically encouraged. Some systems define a mechanic, let's say fighting power, but the fluff is completely mutable. The designer isn't encouraging any weapon because they didn't give any mechanical choice. And, yes, creating different valid (to varying degrees) options is a major tool in pnp design. I wouldn't disagree with that.

Like I said previously (this time in different words for more clarity): Encouraging actions is not the only way to design things, but it is a major and very important way to design things. A lot of this happens by defining player choices, not by making player's choices for them. Curse you typed words! Why do you not convey meaning perfectly!

It is starting to look like we agree. I think "encouraging" might not be a good word choice for what you are trying to say. "Encouraging" sounds to me like the designer intentionally is weighting one option of a choice with more than its fair share of positives and or less of its fair share of negatives in order to get the player to choose that option over the others. "Discouraging" sounds to me like the designer intentionally is weighting one option of a choice with less than its fair share of positives and or more of its fair share of negatives in order to get the player to avoid that option over the others. So both of these words sound to me like dictating player choice.

While designers use positives and negatives (pros and cons) to mechanically differentiate options, they do try to balance them enough to avoid dictating player choice. Now just because they don't intent an imbalanced system does not mean that their intent behind every mechanic is to create balance. Some mechanics might have other intents and the designers then try to prevent the mechanic from imbalancing the choices.

Example: Someone might have liked the idea of Critical Hits tables and added it because it creates exciting effects. (So it was not added for balance nor for imbalance) But then they wanted to avoid imbalance so they decided to add a Fumbles table as a negative/con to balance out the additional positive/pro from the Critical Hits table.
Note about this example: This designer did not think things through perfectly or they would have noticed that Critical Hits tables are less imbalancing(affect martial vs magic balance only) than Fumble tables(affect martial vs magic balance and PC vs NPC balance).

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think the last one could even be flavored correctly. Mechanically it's you disarm yourself, or your weapon ends up a few feet away. Easy enough for your grip to have been wrong in the combat, blood and sweat just kinda compounding it until one wrong swing and slip away it goes. Sort of like why good grips on knives are important?
Um, no. Maaaaybe if we're talking a new recruit here, but not if we're talking about a warrior entirely capable of slaying an army single-handedly. Who, by the way, will lose his weapon much more often than the recruit, since he rolls more attacks.

[Shackel]

Um, no. Maaaaybe if we're talking a new recruit here, but not if we're talking about a warrior entirely capable of slaying an army single-handedly. Who, by the way, will lose his weapon much more often than the recruit, since he rolls more attacks.

Um, no. Losing the grip on a blood-soaked weapon while you are slashing multiple times per second at more than likely some monstrosity without real-life parallel who is also fighting back is more than reasonable, even for a champion.

Who, by the way, on a "no confirm" system(which I don't think anyone here is supporting) fails more often since he's swinging ten times as much, and that recruit would, once he finally gets to that number of attacks many minutes later will have failed, on average, the exact same number of times. And on a confirm system, that's more than likely not only completely false since unless it's the champions last, tired, forced-out swing at 1-5 BAB, he'll have an insanely larger chance than the recruit to recover.

[Flickerdart]

Um, no. Losing the grip on a blood-soaked weapon while you are slashing multiple times per second at more than likely some monstrosity without real-life parallel who is also fighting back is more than reasonable, even for a champion.
Except this will still happen if you're fighting opponents who haven't got any blood.

[Keltest]

Except this will still happen if you're fighting opponents who haven't got any blood.

Sweat then.

[Flickerdart]

Sweat then.
Sweat through leather gloves and metal gauntlets?

[Shackel]

Except this will still happen if you're fighting opponents who haven't got any blood.


Sweat through leather gloves and metal gauntlets?

Then you had your grip slowly deteriorate through your countless swings due to the enemy's powerful defense, unable to take even that miniscule time to readjust it. Eventually, it hit a breaking point and as you swung, your enemy batted your strike with enough force to send it flying.

[Flickerdart]

Then you had your grip slowly deteriorate through your countless swings due to the enemy's powerful defense, unable to take even that miniscule time to readjust it. Eventually, it hit a breaking point and as you swung, your enemy batted your strike with enough force to send it flying.
Except it still happens if all you've been doing is beheading commoners. Hell, it can happen on the first round of combat against these commoners.

[Keltest]

Except it still happens if all you've been doing is beheading commoners. Hell, it can happen on the first round of combat against these commoners.

Muscle Spasm then. Seriously, are you trying to say that a high level fighter's weapon should magically fuse to his hand when in combat or something? If youre going to argue realism, it is significantly more likely that someone will eventually lose their grip on their weapon for one reason or another than it is them having an unbreakable iron grip on it unless the opponent specifically tries to disarm them.

[Flickerdart]

Muscle Spasm then. Seriously, are you trying to say that a high level fighter's weapon should magically fuse to his hand when in combat or something? If youre going to argue realism, it is significantly more likely that someone will eventually lose their grip on their weapon for one reason or another than it is them having an unbreakable iron grip on it unless the opponent specifically tries to disarm them.
No, his weapon is not fused to his hand - an enemy can try to disarm him by making the appropriate combat maneuver attempt. I'm just against the universe doing it for free, with an infinite modifier.

Remember - the high level fighter is not you. He is not the guy at the gym. He is a hero who is literally larger than life, who spends his days slaying dragons and his nights bashing in demon skulls in literal Hell.

[SowZ]

No, his weapon is not fused to his hand - an enemy can try to disarm him by making the appropriate combat maneuver attempt. I'm just against the universe doing it for free, with an infinite modifier.

Remember - the high level fighter is not you. He is not the guy at the gym. He is a hero who is literally larger than life, who spends his days slaying dragons and his nights bashing in demon skulls in literal Hell.

Hell, I can't remember dropping my sword for no reason during a spar and I am certainly not a professional swordfighter. I could be disarmed, though. I mean, sure, sometimes someone might overswing and just drop the weapon. But your grip would have to be ****e and it would be incredibly rare for a good swordsman to do. If we are talking realism, there is a chance that you will have a heart attack mid battle. All that adrenaline and fast activity, eh? But the odds are so low and it would just be stupid to demand a roll to avoid randomly dying. That's of course more extreme than dropping your sword, but my point is that is not a thing that masters of the blade just do. Now, if you are trying to represent parries and clashes where someone drops a sword, that makes more sense. Sometimes someone does drop a sword during a parry where the other fighter wasn't actually trying to disarm.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Muscle Spasm then. Seriously, are you trying to say that a high level fighter's weapon should magically fuse to his hand when in combat or something? If you're going to argue realism, it is significantly more likely that someone will eventually lose their grip on their weapon for one reason or another than it is them having an unbreakable iron grip on it unless the opponent specifically tries to disarm them.

Eh. In 13 years of fencing I can recall about five times that I lost my weapon (may have been a few more that I can't recall): four of them were due to being hit by a powerful beat attack when my hand was in the wrong position (best simulated by a disarm attempt from an opponent), and once when I lunged from too close a distance and the flex of the blade ripped it out of my hand: something that wouldn't happen with a more conventional weapon, at least with any frequency. Either way, it's statistically insignificant given the number of times I've attacked an opponent.

So, honestly, I'd probably err on the "unbreakable iron grip" side of things: the PCs are heroes, after all. Unless we're upping Unarmed Combat rules so that, when unarmed, they can still crush things with their bare hands: adding that in to most melee classes as a feature might go a long way towards making things like "lose your weapon" less irritating.

This isn't to say Fumble rules are inherently bad. I'm on the fence on that one: I think you can implement them well, but I'm also not convinced that D&D will benefit in any way from them.

[RolkFlameraven]

Forget balance, it's a verisimilitude thing. If you swing a stick at a tree for ten minutes, you might lose your grip a couple times, maybe clip yourself once or twice (in an "ouch" way, not a "break your arm" sort of way), but I bet that's all. If a short training session's worth of attack rolls leaves you with a higher casualty rate than actual battles, something is wrong with the way the world works.

But that isn't how D&D works so why does it matter? Unless you have PC's train by attacking dummies in your game why in the world does that matter? Dice roll as dice roll and with multiple other rolls that have NOTHING to do with attacking where fumbles mean anything I fail to see why having people attack an AC 5 object means anything more then 'I rolled a bunch of dice and got some really low numbers in a row'.

My group has played with fumbles for years, we have played with lots of different fumble rules and have settled on our current ones because the old slowed down game play more then ticked our melee heavy group off. And we have seen lots of strings of both high and low numbers but not all of them where on rolls that had much of anything to do with combat. We have seen 7 ones in a row once but as that player had done it on five skill checks initiative and then another skill check it didn't end up doing any worse in combat then normal. In the fallowing combat he hit 4 times with two of those being crits.

Had that been him attacking a dummy he would have 'killed himself' but, as he was playing the game, it was an odd string of bad rolls fallowed by some very nice ones and the game continued. That is my problem with the idea of how a few minutes with some dummies means anything in practice.

I fail to see why this has become 'I'm a god and therefor can't possibly fail!'. Yes, on your first round of combat you could toss your blade, why? Because its a bunch of commoners and you where not taking it seriously? Because the gods looked down upon your slaughter of the innocent and decided to smite you in your most vulnerable place, your pride? Because you are in town and forgot your weapon was peace-bound and couldn't get it out the sheath? That peasant you where trying to kill tripped over a cobblestone and then got lucky and rolled out of the way of your strike, upon hitting that same cobblestone the vibrations ran up your arms and numbed your hands so when you went for a 2nd strike it slipped from your grasp?

Fumbles, if used, really need to either be multiple-choice or DM prevue and not off a RNG or you get odd things like that yes. I'm not disputing that, nor are they for everyone.

[Rhyltran]

Hell, I can't remember dropping my sword for no reason during a spar and I am certainly not a professional swordfighter. I could be disarmed, though. I mean, sure, sometimes someone might overswing and just drop the weapon. But your grip would have to be ****e and it would be incredibly rare for a good swordsman to do. If we are talking realism, there is a chance that you will have a heart attack mid battle. All that adrenaline and fast activity, eh? But the odds are so low and it would just be stupid to demand a roll to avoid randomly dying. That's of course more extreme than dropping your sword, but my point is that is not a thing that masters of the blade just do. Now, if you are trying to represent parries and clashes where someone drops a sword, that makes more sense. Sometimes someone does drop a sword during a parry where the other fighter wasn't actually trying to disarm.

I've said this and it was ignored. I've been practicing Kenjutsu and Kendo for 8 years. I never once dropped my sword in a spar. I've cut hundreds of dollars worth of cutting mats and never once so much as nicked myself. They used the argument "You're not fighting a battle.." spars can get heated they can get sweaty. I'm not even close to the best and we're not talking about me. We're talking about a man capable of soloing armies. If I haven't done it why will my Paladin or fighter do it multiple times a week/month let alone a year?

Being disarmed sure but that's different. Either way it's hard to imagine someone who is a hundred thousand times better than me would somehow have less of an ability of maintaining a grip on his sword.

That all being said if they find it fun that is an argument. This is fantasy and isn't meant to be real life. I'm not knocking people who like fumble rules. Honestly, if I had a bunch of players come up to me and wanted to use them I would. It doesn't matter that I don't like them or even agree with them. If the players wanted it and liked it that's what would be used. If I am DM ultimately I want to create the best experience for the players.

[OldTrees1]

I think the "drop your weapon" result is meant to simulate you being disarmed during your turn as a result of the opponent seizing a good opportunity. But that is not a strong defense of that result.

[Andezzar]

I think the "drop your weapon" result is meant to simulate you being disarmed during your turn as a result of the opponent seizing a good opportunity. But that is not a strong defense of that result.Yeah people who do not know what they're doing constantly disarm people who do. And they get better at it the more the opponent knows about fighting.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah people who do not know what they're doing constantly disarm people who do. And they get better about it the more the opponent knows about fighting.

Well, yeah! Isn't there a whole martial arts style focused on using the strength of your opponent? Surely you don't think they stop there. No they use the Str, BAB, Dex, Initiative, Reflexes, Class Features, and Feats of their opponent. :P

[Andezzar]

Where's the like button?

[Flickerdart]

I fail to see why this has become 'I'm a god and therefor can't possibly fail!'.
Hyperbole does not become you.

[eggynack]

Hyperbole does not become you.
Y'know, I think I'm going to stand behind the kinda strawmannish argument, and in so doing remove its rhetorical straw if it once possessed it. Take a swordsman from most high fantasy settings. Say Lord of the Rings, because it's a popular thing to point to for good reason. Consider how, as I recall, they do not often toss their swords or completely screw something up without some outside entity acting on them. Those are something like level five characters. By level twenty, a fighter has become exponentially more powerful than those characters. As those characters are to commoners and mooks, so too should they be to our noble 20th level PC's, and maybe there's even another layer or two of power between them. If a god of melee combat were to exist, it would be these behemoths of swordsmanship, who can take down the strongest of demons and dragons and armies like it's nothing, with their profoundly magical equipment and renown that spreads across the entire world. If these characters are fighting commoners, they are gods, and they can't possibly fail. If they can, if they toss down their weapon by accident when facing off against commoners, then something has gone horribly wrong.

[Shackel]

Except it still happens if all you've been doing is beheading commoners. Hell, it can happen on the first round of combat against these commoners.

See: Blood comment, confirming, coup 'de graces so it wouldn't even be applicable there. On a .25%(if even that if you have no autofail/success on a confirm) chance, sure, then it starts becoming a little less believable. But this is also in a system where said commoner, no matter how masterful that fighter is, has a 5% chance of hitting him. Even if that fighter can move faster than the wind in a suit of armor enchanted to high heaven... 5% chance. By all means, without damage reduction, a fighter can't even take on a division because in that time they'll get hit ~500 times.

Abstractions happen.


Yeah people who do not know what they're doing constantly disarm people who do. And they get better at it the more the opponent knows about fighting.

See that's the thing. They don't. It's simple probability. You might think they get better, but someone even listed how that doesn't make sense no matter what system you're using. Whether in confirming or non-confirming critfails, there's a certain percentage (5%, or, if this is some level 20 fighter wailing on commoners with a confirm system, .25%) of critfails that you'll get. Your opponent doesn't magically get better at taking advantage of that 5-.25% chance of weakness.

You're swinging four times as often, thus giving four times more opportunities.

[Elbeyon]

See: Blood comment, confirming, coup 'de graces so it wouldn't even be applicable there. On a .25%(if even that if you have no autofail/success on a confirm) chance, sure, then it starts becoming a little less believable. But this is also in a system where said commoner, no matter how masterful that fighter is, has a 5% chance of hitting him. Even if that fighter can move faster than the wind in a suit of armor enchanted to high heaven... 5% chance. By all means, without damage reduction, a fighter can't even take on a division because in that time they'll get hit ~500 times.

Abstractions happen.If a high level fighting relies solely on ac for their defense then they are a crappy high level fighter. I'm not sure why a hypothetical about fighters without abilities besides AC is even worth bringing up. There are fighters that can kill armies.


See that's the thing. They don't. It's simple probability. You might think they get better, but someone even listed how that doesn't make sense no matter what system you're using. Whether in confirming or non-confirming critfails, there's a certain percentage (5%, or, if this is some level 20 fighter wailing on commoners with a confirm system, .25%) of critfails that you'll get. Your opponent doesn't magically get better at taking advantage of that 5-.25% chance of weakness.

You're swinging four times as often, thus giving four times more opportunities.It's simple probability, I agree. A fighter swings four times as much, their opponents are giving four times as many opportunities to disarm a fighter, and their opponents disarm the fighter four times as often in a given around. An opponent's ability to disarm someone scales with their player's character's skill. A commoner disarms a high level fighter with four times the frequency in a given around than a low level fighter. The more skilled an opponent the more likely a commoner is to disarm him in a single around.

Makes sense to me!

[Shackel]

If a high level fighting relies solely on ac for their defense then they are a crappy high level fighter. I'm not sure why a hypothetical about fighters without abilities besides AC is even worth bringing up. There are fighters that can kill armies.

I'm actually curious, please do tell the build that completely avoids 2,000+ set attacks likely--assuming archers--coming 1-2 per round, more if an entire archer force is brought to bear. Fighters in 3.5 are laughable so it's not like they have the DR 5 thing going for them. Without something like Vampiric, fast healing, etc. things that really would only be useful for attacking armies since at level 20 any creature that can hit you is going to be doing much more than "Lifesteal" can give, I don't see someone getting past a 5% hit rate... from 100,000 people.


It's simple probability, I agree. A fighter swings four times as much, their opponents are giving four times as many opportunities to disarm a fighter, and their opponents disarm the fighter four times as often in a given around. An opportunities ability to disarm someone scales with their player's character's skill. A commoner disarms a high level fighter with four times the frequency in a given around than a low level fighter. The more skilled an opponent the more likely a commoner is to disarm him in a single around.

Makes sense to me!

This is why vacuum examples don't really work, now, don't they? Because if you could live through the strikes beforehand, you're strong enough to be able to deflect a blow. The more skilled an opponent is, the more likely that commoner's dead on the first connected hit, anyway.

If you couldn't, that means the first roll was a critfail, which can happen to anyone.

[Rhyltran]

There's another angle people aren't arguing when it comes to someone "luckily" knocking the sword from their hand. Most of these high level fighters are going to have 20+ strength. Considering the average person has a strength of 10 we're talking about super human levels of strength here. That also translates to super human level of a grip when holding onto the sword. It's not impossible for a level 20 fighter to have a strength of 30 which according to the player's handbook is as strong as an elephant. (Not hyperbole.)

[Elbeyon]

I'm actually curious, please do tell the build that completely avoids 2,000+ set attacks likely--assuming archers--coming 1-2 per round, more if an entire archer force is brought to bear. Fighters in 3.5 are laughable so it's not like they have the DR 5 thing going for them. Without something like Vampiric, fast healing, etc. things that really would only be useful for attacking armies since at level 20 any creature that can hit you is going to be doing much more than "Lifesteal" can give, I don't see someone getting past a 5% hit rate... from 100,000 people.There are a lot of odd assumptions going on. A fighter at this level has access to teleportion. He gets to choose were he attacks. If he wanted he could fight in an open field or he could chose not to. Let's go with a stupid fighter that will fight in on a flat plane because I like a challenge. Fast healing is only useful for fighting armies? Doubt it, I look for fast healing on all of my characters because that means infinite healing/endurance on a fighter. Are we having the army use fumble rules? :smallamused:



This is why vacuum examples don't really work, now, don't they? Because if you could live through the strikes beforehand, you're strong enough to be able to deflect a blow. The more skilled an opponent is, the more likely that commoner's dead on the first connected hit, anyway.

If you couldn't, that means the first roll was a critfail, which can happen to anyone.It wasn't my example. I think it was yours? I was just building off of it. If you want to use a different example that's fine by me. We'll take a creature that can live all those hits. A one attack fighter has a 5% chance to lose his sword. A four attack fighter has a 19% chance to lose his sword. A eight attack fighter has a 36% chance to lose his sword. The probability of a fighter losing his sword in a round increases with the number of attacks he gets a round. A level one fighter has a five percent chance to lose a sword while a level twenty fighter has a one in five to a much greater chance, depending on the number of attacks, to lose his sword.

[Brookshw]

It wasn't my example. I think it was yours? I was just building off of it. If you want to use a different example that's fine by me. We'll take a creature that can live all those hits. A one attack fighter has a 5% chance to lose his sword. A four attack fighter has a 19% chance to lose his sword. A eight attack fighter has a 36% chance to lose his sword. The probability of a fighter losing his sword in a round increases with the number of attacks he gets a round. A level one fighter has a five percent chance to lose a sword while a level twenty fighter has a one in five to a much greater chance, depending on the number of attacks, to lose his sword.

Huh, so are we treating all fumbles as drop your sword? I think in my experience it's usually one of many possible outcomes so the %s are going to be skewed depending on what table you're using (including the OPs). For example my slapstick loving group's old table involved a fumble potentially having a bus drive through a wormhole into your face, talk about a bad swing :smallbiggrin:

But more seriously, how do people weigh it if it's a 2% chance of dropping a sword rather than the 100% chance this conversation is treating it as now? 10%? 1%? Is there a range for you and if so what is it?

[Elbeyon]

I'm still working off the example of the bad result is dropping the sword. If he'd like to provide a table of some such that'd be fine. A 5% chance per swing of something bad happening has the same percentages though. That 19% of dropping (given four attacks) could be "kill yourself". For now I'll work off dropping a weapon being the result.

[Flickerdart]

But more seriously, how do people weigh it if it's a 2% chance of dropping a sword rather than the 100% chance this conversation is treating it as now? 10%? 1%? Is there a range for you and if so what is it?
According to the guys who have actually done swordfighting, the chance is 0% even for a regular human being.

[OldTrees1]

But more seriously, how do people weigh it if it's a 2% chance of dropping a sword rather than the 100% chance this conversation is treating it as now? 10%? 1%? Is there a range for you and if so what is it?

Personally I don't like dropped weapon fumbles since they requires a whole lot more design balance than I trust anyone to have. So I go with 0% for dropping a sword. However the easier to balance fumbles(Ex: become flatfooted until next turn, or get pushed 5ft) are perfectly fine to me provided the fumble mechanic is balanced(I have a 3/4 version as of now so it is not good enough yet).

[Sir Chuckles]

Muscle Spasm then. Seriously, are you trying to say that a high level fighter's weapon should magically fuse to his hand when in combat or something? If youre going to argue realism, it is significantly more likely that someone will eventually lose their grip on their weapon for one reason or another than it is them having an unbreakable iron grip on it unless the opponent specifically tries to disarm them.

I'd like to point out that even in the event of a Locked Gauntlet or similar item, the fumble still causes the weapon to go flying.

I can agree that a fumble is a collection of absurd events somehow getting the better of a person, but the level at which you are talking reaches a point where it breaks immersion.

In 8 years of broadsword fencing, highland dirk fighting, archery, and spear practice, I have never dropped a weapon due to sunlight, muscle spasms, blood, sweat, or anything of the like. I've been disarmed a lot of times, but never have I gone "Whoops, suddenly I twitched and now my knife is 30ft that way."
It gets significantly more absurd when you have people who have killed entire legions of actual hell spawn decapitating themselves because they got a cramp. Not a very poetic end to a hero's story, eh?

In a standard game, fumbles beyond the standard miss have a hard time fitting in. That's not saying people who use them are having badwrongfun, that's saying they have a time and a place and that place is not with many players on this board.

[OldTrees1]

I'd like to point out that even in the event of a Locked Gauntlet or similar item, the fumble still causes the weapon to go flying.

[Citation Needed] A dropped weapon in a locked gauntlet is still in the locked gauntlet. Please, there are plenty of reasons against the dropped weapon fumble, you don't need to invent a fallacious one.

[Brookshw]

According to the guys who have actually done swordfighting, the chance is 0% even for a regular human being.

Meh, I've did sword fighting for a few years and definitely dropped my blade a few times. Heck, I would have taken off half my foot at one point if I had been using an sharpened sword. The chance definitely isn't 0%. Hell, Olympic relays are a bit hilarious in that they're the best of the best in the world at running and handing things to one another yet still drop them. With some regularity no less.


Personally I don't like dropped weapon fumbles since they requires a whole lot more design balance than I trust anyone to have. So I go with 0% for dropping a sword. However the easier to balance fumbles(Ex: become flatfooted until next turn, or get pushed 5ft) are perfectly fine to me provided the fumble mechanic is balanced(I have a 3/4 version as of now so it is not good enough yet).

Absolutely fair, different tables for different tones (I lie, everyone must use the bus to the face table!). Some things like penalties to AC for leaving yourself exposed, a penalty to your next attach for badly lining up your blow. Lots of things you could do that don't have to go as far as dropping a sword.

[OldTrees1]

Absolutely fair, different tables for different tones (I lie, everyone must use the bus to the face table!). Some things like penalties to AC for leaving yourself exposed, a penalty to your next attach for badly lining up your blow. Lots of things you could do that don't have to go as far as dropping a sword.

Yeah. The only balance issue I haven't solved is "PC fails vs NPC fails: Frequency and Severity Returns". But that is not worth defending in this thread.

[Elbeyon]

Fumbles could just be a d20 roll at the start of a persons turn. A one means something bad happens. Enemies get a bad result on on a chart varying from Nat 1 to something depending on things. Everything is worse because of it not just people that use attack rolls.

[Flickerdart]

Fumbles could just be a d20 roll at the start of a persons turn. A one means something bad happens. Enemies get a bad result on on a chart varying from Nat 1 to something depending on things. Everything is worse because of it not just people that use attack rolls.
This was my first thought for Gambles, but a 5% chance every turn is just too often, and will quickly get boring because you have to roll so many dice. This led me to make it a per-encounter thing, and then to add the possibility of good events to make it stop being "the universe hates everyone in the world."

[Elbeyon]

Roll a d100 instead. A system I spent three seconds thinking about isn't going to be good or usable. :smallbiggrin: Just an example that attacks rolls do not need to be the trigger or the thing that decides punishment.

[Flickerdart]

d100 is probably the worst die to roll every round since it requires two dice (or one mega-die that rolls off the table and into the cat).

[Elbeyon]

Not for me. :smallamused: My dice contain every dx from 1 to 10,000. My group don't use physical dice and haven't for a long time. :smalltongue:

[Brookshw]

Shadow Run actually has a pretty good systems for fumbled that might address some of peoples concern, in a nutshell, the better you are the less you fumble.

[Andezzar]

Shadow Run actually has a pretty good systems for fumbled that might address some of peoples concern, in a nutshell, the better you are the less you fumble.If you are talking about SR4, it has the problem with odd vs even dice pools.

[Brookshw]

If you are talking about SR4, it has the problem with odd vs even dice pools.

SR5 actually, skipped 3 & 4.

[Andezzar]

Never bothered much with SR5. Does WiFi really improve the function of bone lacing?

[Brookshw]

Never bothered much with SR5. Does WiFi really improve the function of bone lacing?

Don't recall offhand but wouldn't be surprised if it did, there's a lot of goofy things in the system. I was not as happy with it as I had hoped.

[eggynack]

See: Blood comment, confirming, coup 'de graces so it wouldn't even be applicable there. On a .25%(if even that if you have no autofail/success on a confirm) chance, sure, then it starts becoming a little less believable. But this is also in a system where said commoner, no matter how masterful that fighter is, has a 5% chance of hitting him. Even if that fighter can move faster than the wind in a suit of armor enchanted to high heaven... 5% chance. By all means, without damage reduction, a fighter can't even take on a division because in that time they'll get hit ~500 times.

Abstractions happen.

You seem to be operating under the premise that automatic hitting is, y'know, a good thing. I'd suspect that it isn't much of one, with the main advantages over critical fumbles being that they're at least attached to your opponent's actions rather than your own, and as a result at least somewhat preventable without just ditching out of combat altogether, and that they incentivize risk taking and daring adventuring, which fumbles don't do so much.. Point is, I'd suspect that it's not much of a good thing, at least for balance. Not as bad as fumbles, but not great. Wouldn't feel too bad house ruling them out.

Meh, I've did sword fighting for a few years and definitely dropped my blade a few times. Heck, I would have taken off half my foot at one point if I had been using an sharpened sword. The chance definitely isn't 0%.

How many "attacks" caused you to drop your sword that many times? If such attacks were fairly frequent, and the "fumbles" as infrequent as that, then I'd think you're pretty close to rounding to 0%.

[Brookshw]

How many "attacks" caused you to drop your sword that many times? If such attacks were fairly frequent, and the "fumbles" as infrequent as that, then I'd think you're pretty close to rounding to 0%.

Oh its low, no doubt there, but its still not zero. So what's your take on percentages? Preferance for 0% on a fumble? .5%? 1%? 5%?

[eggynack]

Oh its low, no doubt there, but its still not zero. So what's your take on percentages? Preferance for 0% on a fumble? .5%? 1%? 5%?
Definitely zero with standard rules. I'm kinda reconsidering in favor of either an optional system where you gain points for accepting some arbitrary downside, or a system where the bad outcomes are balanced out by good ones, however. Either way gets you most of the upside of fumbles without the negative impact on balance. Dunno if I'd definitely make use of them, but it's not a bad idea if you implement them well.

[Brookshw]

Definitely zero with standard rules. I'm kinda reconsidering in favor of either an optional system where you gain points for accepting some arbitrary downside, or a system where the bad outcomes are balanced out by good ones, however. Either way gets you most of the upside of fumbles without the negative impact on balance. Dunno if I'd definitely make use of them, but it's not a bad idea if you implement them well.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the first (probably my fault for not reading the thread). Do you mean something like a flaw system? As to the latter are you talking about critical charts for balancing or something else?

[eggynack]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the first (probably my fault for not reading the thread). Do you mean something like a flaw system? As to the latter are you talking about critical charts for balancing or something else?
The former is referring to the "interesting times" rule, which is apparently a thing in another system. On certain rolls, presumably ones with maybe some extra roll (maybe a one on a 1d4 or something. I don't have exact numbers.), you get the option to incur some arbitrary bad outcome, like embedding your weapon in the ground, or alerting some nearby enemies, for an action point or something. The latter is just modifying the standard all negative fumble table to be split evenly in some fashion. Like, you roll a d10, where the bottom eight are penalties like a minus whatever to attack for a round, or invoked AoO's, and the top two are something like getting your attack back or recovering from your failure so successfully that it inspires the team. I don't have all the exact stuff in mind for either system, but that's the idea of it.

[Sir Chuckles]

[Citation Needed] A dropped weapon in a locked gauntlet is still in the locked gauntlet. Please, there are plenty of reasons against the dropped weapon fumble, you don't need to invent a fallacious one.

A locked gauntlet does not make it impossible to drop the weapon, and the fumble charts rarely give special mention of them.
But I digress on the notion that it is pointless to argue about it.

But I will bring up the fact that you can still accidentally hurl, break, drop, or cause similar negative actions when using weapons like a spiked gauntlet, brass knuckles, cestus, and similar weapons.

Nothing like watching your hook hand fall off cliff because you sneezed.
I'm serious. That's kinda funny. I just wouldn't want it to happen in a non-comedic campaign.

I also dislike adding another fistful of dice to someone who's turn was already nothing but rolling dice, with the possibility of the result of the dice roll asking for more dice rolls.

However, simple and low-slapstick fumbles rules are entertaining. Dazzled until the start of your next turn, shifted a square, or similar effects. None of this "decapitate nearest ally" nonsense.

[SowZ]

Oh its low, no doubt there, but its still not zero. So what's your take on percentages? Preferance for 0% on a fumble? .5%? 1%? 5%?

I have tripped and fallen on nothing more often than I've dropped my sword without contact with another sword. (Hint: For the latter, zero times.) I have received spontaneous migraines mid fight more often than dropping my weapon for no reason. Yes, dropping your sword is not a 0% chance. But neither is having a stroke. If we tried to find the actual percentage of dropping the sword after whiffing the air, we'd probably need to roll for confirmation several times with several ones in a row. At which point we are wasting valuable game time for no real reason.

[Andezzar]

Exactly. 10 characters

[Earthwalker]

It may not be the only design goal, but it is a major and very important one. Perhaps, the most important part of pnp design is the rules and what they stimulate. A good game encourage's certain actions and discourages others via its mechanics. Things should be put into a game with that purpose in mind not on a whim or random thought.
I do see a stick driving players away from certain actions. Players should consider a game's houserules, and when they see that there is a chance of something really bad happening to their character they will consider avoiding that. I don't see players actively trying to fumble. If it's not dissuading an action what is it encouraging? What are fumble rules purpose?

I've heard both "balance" (which is retarded it's a neerf to melee. Anyone implementing them can't sugercoat it any other way.) Or "Realism" if any of us wanted realism we wouldn't play a game where we can turn into a bear and summon an army of other bears. Other than the above reasons there simply isn't one to add it. And with both of those being horrible reasons we're back at square one.

How about "Its fun"?
Going back to the OP I guess I don’t find fumble tables fun seems to be the best reason to give.

Personally I don’t want fumbles in my pathfinder game. I am not a fumble hater. I am more than happy to play RuneQuest and fumble away with the rest of them. What makes fumbles different in runequest ?

The more skill you have the less likely you fumble.

It effects all people (Runequest has no caster / martial divide. Everyone has spells (pretty much)) and all spells need a dice roll from the caster, that can fumble.

The fumbles are in the system from the beginning not added on later and so have uniformed rules.

The focus of the game is different, the powerlevel of the characters is lower than Pathfinders High fantasy.

I play Runequest when I want a world where combat is dangerous and random and deadly. Where finding ways around combat is a good idea. I also love the world of Glorantha (the biggest draw for RuneQuest for me).

I play Pathfinder to play its separate games. I like the character creation game. Where you try to build a mechanically strong character choosing class combinations. I like the combat mini game where I see how well my character creation choices play out and gives me as a player a little bit of a strategy fix. For me the fun of the combat mini game is hampered by the inclusion of fumble tables as its yet another factor I can’t account for. Pathfinder is about the combat mini game I personally don’t think it needs more randomness, I don’t think it needs help making the caster / martial divide bigger and I don’t think it needs more dice to roll. Fumble tables add in all of that.

[Brookshw]

I have tripped and fallen on nothing more often than I've dropped my sword without contact with another sword. (Hint: For the latter, zero times.) I have received spontaneous migraines mid fight more often than dropping my weapon for no reason. Yes, dropping your sword is not a 0% chance. But neither is having a stroke. If we tried to find the actual percentage of dropping the sword after whiffing the air, we'd probably need to roll for confirmation several times with several ones in a row. At which point we are wasting valuable game time for no real reason.

Sure though a fumble could still be a result of connecting poorly and pinging off armor, knocked by a shield, etc. I'm taking from this that your preferance or tolerance level is for 0% and that ever 1% or 2% doesn't suit your tastes.

Aside and on the topic of convoluted fumble confirmation and tables, anyone know what hackmaster's doing these days?

[mashlagoo1982]

Has a fallacy been created to address the fact that RAW =/= reality?

If not, any suggestions?

It seems like something that could be used.

EDIT:
Probably be good to contribute to the topic.
My thoughts just got sidetracked due to the discussion occuring earlier in this thread.

We do use a variation of the fumble rules.

However, everything that does occur in addition to a miss is only fluff just for fun.
Often times the player who rolled the critical miss will make suggests as to what actually happened.

If somebody doesn't want to have a comic moment, I don't force the issue.

[OldTrees1]

Has a fallacy been created to address the fact that RAW =/= reality?

If not, any suggestions?

It seems like something that could be used.

I would advise against it since it would be used to support RAW weirdness(like Drown Healing) over verisimilitude. This obviously would be a fallacious invoking but that is the concern with condensing a nuanced argument into a single term that people can and will misuse to win internet arguments.

[mashlagoo1982]

I would advise against it since it would be used to support RAW weirdness(like Drown Healing) over verisimilitude. This obviously would be a fallacious invoking but that is the concern with condensing a nuanced argument into a single term that people can and will misuse to win internet arguments.

Good point. I hadn't thought of it being used like that.

[Brookshw]

Good point. I hadn't thought of it being used like that.

Just name it Monopoly banks don't charge interest and call it a day.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Has a fallacy been created to address the fact that RAW =/= reality?

If not, any suggestions?

It seems like something that could be used.

EDIT:
Probably be good to contribute to the topic.
My thoughts just got sidetracked due to the discussion occuring earlier in this thread.

We do use a variation of the fumble rules.

However, everything that does occur in addition to a miss is only fluff just for fun.
Often times the player who rolled the critical miss will make suggests as to what actually happened.

If somebody doesn't want to have a comic moment, I don't force the issue.
;
That would probably fall under the "Guy at the Gym Fallacy", besides at least in D&D 3.5 fumbles aren't RAW ; I think there might be a sidebar in the DMG that offers them as a variant.

[mashlagoo1982]

;
That would probably fall under the "Guy at the Gym Fallacy", besides at least in D&D 3.5 fumbles aren't RAW ; I think there might be a sidebar in the DMG that offers them as a variant.

Thanks! That does seem to cover it.

I had seen it discussed before, but forgot it existed.

It seems to be less RAW vs Reality and more RAW vs Non-RAW, but it is still appropriate.

[Talakeal]

It seems like this topic comes up every couple of months. Once again I will put in my two copper pieces.

Fumbles are a good thing. If they are done right they break up the monotony of the game, upset the status quo, and can be used to enhance any mood the DM wants; frustration, fear, tragedy, or comedy. Many of my most memorable experiences at the gaming table resulted from a fumble.

Now, PF did not do them right. They are really random and pervasive, and punish melee more than spell-casters. At the very minimum I would require a confirmation role and ONLY have them apply on the character's first attack when using the full attack action. You also need a DM who is willing to use some imagination and discretion when applying them rather than blindly following the cards.


Also, I must ask, is it really that hard to drop a weapon? I haven't done much fighting, but I find that when I am doing other tasks I drop something fairly often, particularly if I am distracted or under stress. Why are weapons so different?



I have been using fumbles in my house rules / homebrew system for almost 20 years now and have never had any of the problems that people in this thread are describing. However, I will use Seerow's litmus test of an untrained commoner attacking a dummy with a long sword for 10 minutes to test my system:

First off, it shouldn't happen, because the fumble rules only apply in dramatic circumstances and training would be handled by a single role rather than each attack. I am not sure if a litmus test that requires one to intentionally misuse the system is valuable, but lets assume I do it anyway:

In that ten minutes there is about a 1 in 3 chance of the commoner injuring them self, an ally, or damaging their weapon. The odds of them killing someone are much smaller, less than 1%.

Note, however, that this requires someone who has no training whatsoever and merely average stats, is using a standard quality long-sword (a rather heavy and unwieldy weapon for a beginner, and why is someone who is so inexperienced using a sharpened metal weapon to begin with?), and requires them to be going all out striking as hard and as fast as they can for a full ten minutes rather than taking time and effort to strike carefully. Honestly in these conditions they are at a higher risk of injuring themselves from fatigue than they are with their weapons as ten minutes of nonstop attacking is a pretty good workout for a seasoned athlete, let alone an untrained schlub.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Also, I must ask, is it really that hard to drop a weapon?

Yes. In a combat situation (even a sport combat situation) your attention is on four things: your positioning, your enemies' positioning, you weapon, and your enemies' weapons. If you lose your weapon, you're going to be in SERIOUS trouble. Add to that the fact that weapons are designed to be easy to hold, and the fact that the user is usually skilled in the weapon in question.

It's rare to drop your weapon randomly. Heck, it's often hard to disarm someone who knows what they're doing.

[SowZ]

It seems like this topic comes up every couple of months. Once again I will put in my two copper pieces.

Fumbles are a good thing. If they are done right they break up the monotony of the game, upset the status quo, and can be used to enhance any mood the DM wants; frustration, fear, tragedy, or comedy. Many of my most memorable experiences at the gaming table resulted from a fumble.

Now, PF did not do them right. They are really random and pervasive, and punish melee more than spell-casters. At the very minimum I would require a confirmation role and ONLY have them apply on the character's first attack when using the full attack action. You also need a DM who is willing to use some imagination and discretion when applying them rather than blindly following the cards.


Also, I must ask, is it really that hard to drop a weapon? I haven't done much fighting, but I find that when I am doing other tasks I drop something fairly often, particularly if I am distracted or under stress. Why are weapons so different?



I have been using fumbles in my house rules / homebrew system for almost 20 years now and have never had any of the problems that people in this thread are describing. However, I will use Seerow's litmus test of an untrained commoner attacking a dummy with a long sword for 10 minutes to test my system:

First off, it shouldn't happen, because the fumble rules only apply in dramatic circumstances and training would be handled by a single role rather than each attack. I am not sure if a litmus test that requires one to intentionally misuse the system is valuable, but lets assume I do it anyway:

In that ten minutes there is about a 1 in 3 chance of the commoner injuring them self, an ally, or damaging their weapon. The odds of them killing someone are much smaller, less than 1%.

Note, however, that this requires someone who has no training whatsoever and merely average stats, is using a standard quality long-sword (a rather heavy and unwieldy weapon for a beginner, and why is someone who is so inexperienced using a sharpened metal weapon to begin with?), and requires them to be going all out striking as hard and as fast as they can for a full ten minutes rather than taking time and effort to strike carefully. Honestly in these conditions they are at a higher risk of injuring themselves from fatigue than they are with their weapons as ten minutes of nonstop attacking is a pretty good workout for a seasoned athlete, let alone an untrained schlub.

I have done various forms of fighting for six years, including a little bit of real weight blunted longsword full-on sparring, (kicks, tackles, pommel strikes all a go. Really chaotic stuff that is probably the best representation to a real world swordfight without actually being in danger.) I've never just dropped my sword. Not once. I've been disarmed. I've tripped and fallen many times. But my weapon doesn't just sail out of my hand. Most of my experience is with spear, though, and some longsword, so I have two hands on my weapons. But I can't remember ever seeing a rapier or even foam fighting single sticker throw their weapon after whiffing.

Also, a longsword is not unwieldy or heavy. It is like three or four pounds, very well balanced, and very elegant. I can swing it faster and with more precision than I could a shortsword. Beginner's probably won't be practicing with live steel, true. They will probably use either Feders, (training swords,) blunted swords, or dusak. But real medieval training manuals and recreations show us that longsword fighting was known for incredible speed, (way faster paced than original trilogy lightsaber duels,) an immense amount of theory behind the various stances and swings, and it was known for intense precision.

[Talakeal]

Yes. In a combat situation (even a sport combat situation) your attention is on four things: your positioning, your enemies' positioning, you weapon, and your enemies' weapons. If you lose your weapon, you're going to be in SERIOUS trouble. Add to that the fact that weapons are designed to be easy to hold, and the fact that the user is usually skilled in the weapon in question.

It's rare to drop your weapon randomly. Heck, it's often hard to disarm someone who knows what they're doing.

That just seems really bizarre to me. Just to take an example, painting miniatures, I usually drop something (a model, a brush, a paint pot) about once every session or two. Doing carpentry I drop my tools fairly often, and when I am transporting a large number of small objects I drop something fairly frequently. Heck, I would say I drop my car keys, wallet, or my phone just taking them out of my pocket and using them at least once a week.

Now, I am not claiming to be the most coordinated guy, but it just seems bizarre to me that when you are in a high tension situation and actually banging your tools against another person (who is doing the same to you) it becomes far easier to hold onto something.

[SowZ]

That just seems really bizarre to me. Just to take an example, painting miniatures, I usually drop something (a model, a brush, a paint pot) about once every session or two. Doing carpentry I drop my tools fairly often, and when I am transporting a large number of small objects I drop something fairly frequently. Heck, I would say I drop my car keys, wallet, or my phone just taking them out of my pocket and using them at least once a week.

Now, I am not claiming to be the most coordinated guy, but it just seems bizarre to me that when you are in a high tension situation and actually banging your tools against another person (who is doing the same to you) it becomes far easier to hold onto something.

I did carpentry for eight years and dropped sanders and grinders all the time. I drop my cell phone on a weekly basis. And yet I've never dropped a sword or spear in combat after over swinging. Of course, I don't hold my car keys or cell phone in two hands with a grip especially designed for a hand to comfortably and strongly grip it. Point is, if I have never dropped my sword in six years, why would a professional and heroic soldier ever do it during the course of adventuring?

Also, I have seen swords drop during a parry, but even that is very rare. I'd say you'd need like 4 1s in a row if we are being realistic and talking about trained warriors. I've only done it a handful of times and have swung various weapons tens of thousands of times, at least. Disarming someone who is using a rapier or something is hard. Intentionally disarming a trained soldier who is two handing a weapon is even harder. My experience is a a mix of wood/bamboo, foam, fiberglass, and steel weapons fighting.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

That just seems really bizarre to me. Just to take an example, painting miniatures, I usually drop something (a model, a brush, a paint pot) about once every session or two. Doing carpentry I drop my tools fairly often, and when I am transporting a large number of small objects I drop something fairly frequently. Heck, I would say I drop my car keys, wallet, or my phone just taking them out of my pocket and using them at least once a week.

The grip you're using on your wallet / keys / phone / paintbrush / model is very different from the grip you'd use on a tool that you KNOW is going to be impacting an opponent's body / armor / weapon. Again: I've lost my weapon maybe a half dozen times in 13 years of fencing, only once on an attack (and that was due to the immensely flexible nature of a competition foil: it wouldn't have happened with a rapier). I've never once dropped my machete or hatchet when clearing brush or trees. I never once dropped a weapon in boffer-style combat throughout college, nor my staff during jodo practice. I've never fumbled and dropped or unstrung my bow when doing archery, and the only string break was due to me not checking it beforehand. The only time I've cut myself doing any of this was once when a hunting knife I was using to cut wood slipped on the wet bark.

These are NOT common occurrences: I'm not especially trained in anything but fencing, and I still don't drop things repeatedly or injure myself. About the worst that happens is I overswing or overstep or lunge too far and either open myself up a bit or unbalance myself a bit.

[SowZ]

The grip you're using on your wallet / keys / phone / paintbrush / model is very different from the grip you'd use on a tool that you KNOW is going to be impacting an opponent's body / armor / weapon. Again: I've lost my weapon maybe a half dozen times in 13 years of fencing, only once on an attack (and that was due to the immensely flexible nature of a competition foil: it wouldn't have happened with a rapier). I've never once dropped my machete or hatchet when clearing brush or trees. I never once dropped a weapon in boffer-style combat throughout college, nor my staff during jodo practice. I've never fumbled and dropped or unstrung my bow when doing archery, and the only string break was due to me not checking it beforehand. The only time I've cut myself doing any of this was once when a hunting knife I was using to cut wood slipped on the wet bark.

These are NOT common occurrences: I'm not especially trained in anything but fencing, and I still don't drop things repeatedly or injure myself. About the worst that happens is I overswing or overstep or lunge too far and either open myself up a bit or unbalance myself a bit.

Honestly, "You overstretch a muscle. Take -1 on attack rolls until any healing spell or a short rest," is a far more realistic fumble than "you drop your sword," but inconsequential enough that it is hardly worth bothering with. That's the issue with fumbles. Usually, it is either too punishing or makes the combatants seem totally inept, or it is so rare/minor to be a time waster. I don't mind more story based fumbles where a fumble adds a complication to the scene. That complication could be, say, "Your hatchet gets stuck in the zombie's head" or "your gun jams" as long as it isn't super common. And on rare occurrences where you are taking a big risk, the DM saying, "a fumble here might mean you hit your ally" is okay. Once in a super game, a teleporter tried to teleport into a moving cockpit. I told him calculating exactly where the cockpit will be is going to be hard and on a fumble, he might teleport right in front of the jet, (and go splat,) or right behind and get sucked in the turbine. He took the risk anyway, but that added a meaningful decision as opposed to adding variables that the PC has no control over. It's why I dislike fumble tables. They should be something relevant to the situation and a table just doesn't know when that is.

A fumble of, "You strike your ally" might be possible if your ally is disguised as the enemy or you've been partially blinded, but again I would warn the player of the risk of a fumble on such a roll. Just straight up super-fails 5% of the time I don't like.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Honestly, "You overstretch a muscle. Take -1 on attack rolls until any healing spell or a short rest," is a far more realistic fumble than "you drop your sword," but inconsequential enough that it is hardly worth bothering with. That's the issue with fumbles.

Yep. Pretty much.

Realistic fumbles with actual consequence might be things like this:


The opponent you attacked gets an attack of opportunity against you.
An adjacent opponent you did not attack gets an attack of opportunity against you.
The opponent you attacked may spend an Immediate action to make a disarm attempt against you.
The opponent you attacked may spend an Immediate action to make a trip attempt against you.
You are flat-footed against the next attack made against you.


Note that a Commoner will NOT succeed at most of these against a level 20 Fighter (even though he may get more chances), nor will a Training Dummy.

[Rhyltran]

That just seems really bizarre to me. Just to take an example, painting miniatures, I usually drop something (a model, a brush, a paint pot) about once every session or two. Doing carpentry I drop my tools fairly often, and when I am transporting a large number of small objects I drop something fairly frequently. Heck, I would say I drop my car keys, wallet, or my phone just taking them out of my pocket and using them at least once a week.

Now, I am not claiming to be the most coordinated guy, but it just seems bizarre to me that when you are in a high tension situation and actually banging your tools against another person (who is doing the same to you) it becomes far easier to hold onto something.

Realize that when holding car keys, brushes, and etc is different. They're small and usually you're holding them casually. Not only that but with brushes you're going to be delicate because you don't want to over-paint the model. A sword you're going to be holding tightly. You're not going to be holding it loosely in your hand. I've dropped pencils, heck I've dropped plates, and I've dropped my keys. I haven't dropped my sword not once in eight years of training.

If you take it seriously dropping your sword is most likely the equivalent of dying. If your life depended on you holding your keys I don't think you'd be likely to drop it either. I even cut through targets. I do a lot of Tameshigiri and never have I cut myself while doing cutting practice. It really doesn't happen as much as people think. There's Olympic Fencing and they don't lose their blades either. You train so you don't have these things happen.