I, myself, like fumbles

[SangoProduction]

Unlike what seems to be the common consensus on this site, I like fumbles. No, it's not for mechanical reasons, but because it makes the martial classes a bit more interesting. Rather than just swinging your sword ad infinitum, something actually happens every once in a while (indeed, depending on the DM, what happens can be quite amusing, and breaks up the tedium that is D&D combat).
Sure, you've got crits, but normally, even with the more creative of DMs, it's just more damage, and is no more interesting than just hitting the target (unless they used something like http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/tools/critical-generator).

[Renen]

If you want martials to be exciting, get tome of battle. If you want martials to do their job of swinging the sword even worse by stabbing themselves and dropping it, use fumbles.

[atemu1234]

Alright, good for you.

[Rhyltran]

Isn't there another thread that's kind of just like this?

[eggynack]

There are plenty of ways to make melee combat less boring that don't involve completely random, completely external things that act in a completely detrimental way to those who use it. I agree, standard melee combat is super boring, but any fix should really be none of those things I just said, or at least as few of them as possible. Tome of battle is a great method, but really, just about any method would be better than standard critical fumbles.

[Psyren]

I like the idea of fumbles, but most attempts at executing them are too harsh. My guidelines for fumbles would be:

1) Fumbles must be confirmed, much like crits.
2) To confirm a fumble, the player has to miss by 5 or more on the confirmation roll.
3) Fumbles apply to NPCs too.
4) The penalties should be short duration, minor debuffs at best. Things like sickened or shakened for a round or two, falling prone or dropping your sword in your square are okay. Things like hacking off your arm, impaling yourself, breaking your sword or hurling it across the room from you are not.
5) Use a deck/system that allows casters to fumble as well, even if only on attack roll spells. (Though if you're okay with the additional work, you can cause all kinds of spells to fumble, simply by using rules like mishaps or spellblights.)

[Yahzi]

a bit more interesting
By the same logic, I assume you apply a fumble rule to all spellcasting, since casters a) traditionally suffered from magic gone wrong, b) roll dice less often and thus need higher percentage of fumbles to create "interest", and c) bending the rules of reality ought to be more error-prone and dangerous than swinging around sharp bits of metal.

[Eldaran]

Why not give them interesting bonuses rather than interesting penalties?

[Brookshw]

Isn't there another thread that's kind of just like this?

Two others in fact.

[atemu1234]

Shouldn't this be in one of the other current fumble threads? I'm just not feeling it here.

[Mendicant]

Here's a really great way to get all the benefits of fumbles without punishing anyone: when one of your players rolls really badly, like a 1 or a 2, and that bad roll results in a failure because they don't meet the DC, just describe it in a funny way. Bam, good fumble rules.

[Xervous]

Just because self medication feels good doesn't mean... well...

Kids, don't do fumbles

[Occasional Sage]

Fumble rules are interesting.

They provide interesting results to rolls for martial characters, when those rolls are low. They then punish the characters that are lowest-tier.

Honestly I tend to enjoy fumble rules, and find the results of them fun, in my current game. However, our one primary caster engages in melee regularly and fumbles as much as our martials.

Generally, fumble charts are harmful to the people who are lowest-tier and least able to compensate for the punishment the chart inflicts. Don't do it.

[SowZ]

This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes, as it doesn't actually provide any meaningful choices.

[OldTrees1]

This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes, as it doesn't actually provide any meaningful choices.

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun (http://imgur.com/IGkG2U5)".


@OP
Good for you. Continue to have fun! I recommend adding critical tables that are similarly structured(qualitative differences rather than mere damage multiplication).

[eggynack]

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun (http://imgur.com/IGkG2U5)".

Or, more accurately, it's a way of saying that fumble rules don't actually expand the options associated with melee combat. Because it doesn't. I don't think there's much disputing that. If you want to make a class interesting to play, the best way is to give it things to do that are interesting.

[Kaidinah]

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun (http://imgur.com/IGkG2U5)".


@OP
Good for you. Continue to have fun! I recommend adding critical tables that are similarly structured(qualitative differences rather than mere damage multiplication).
And don't forget spell fumble tables. Every time you cast a spell, roll a d20. On a 1 you have to make a concentration check or lose your spell. If you pass, you keep the spell but you get some other random effect from spell failure table.

[OldTrees1]

Or, more accurately, it's a way of saying that fumble rules don't actually expand the options associated with melee combat. Because it doesn't. I don't think there's much disputing that. If you want to make a class interesting to play, the best way is to give it things to do that are interesting.

Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes. Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does. Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No. Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion? That comic is more accurate than it looks at first glance.

[Kaidinah]

Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes. Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does. Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No. Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion? That comic is more accurate than it looks at first glance.
It does feel completely unfair to force fumbles onto just the weakest character type in the game, instead of to all character types. Hence my post. We really do need a good spell fumble table.

[The Evil DM]

It does feel completely unfair to force fumbles onto just the weakest character type in the game, instead of to all character types. Hence my post. We really do need a good spell fumble table.

Second Ed Tome of Magic, Wildsurge table. roll d100, apply random effect.

[SowZ]

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun (http://imgur.com/IGkG2U5)".


@OP
Good for you. Continue to have fun! I recommend adding critical tables that are similarly structured(qualitative differences rather than mere damage multiplication).

If you find it fun, great! I've used fumbles before and they can be fine. But I just don't see how they make martial characters more interesting to play. The OP is welcome to argue why, but I don't see that it adds interest to the player of the martial character. At best, it adds interest to everyone at the table equally by throwing in something amusing. But making a class more interesting to play, to me, implies giving that class more options/choices/things to do.


Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes. Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does. Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No. Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion? That comic is more accurate than it looks at first glance.

When will the presence of fumble rules change what a martial class does in combat except make him weigh the benefit of not attacking at all? As a Fighter, generally speaking, I can attack or not. Fumbles rules will not change which attack I use. At most, they might make me say, "Well, we are likely going to win without my intervention, is it worth the risk of ganking myself?" If the only choice added is, "Should I engage with the game or not?" I wouldn't call that a meaningful choice. Again, it is fine if you enjoy the random variable of fumble rules. I'm not at all saying your playstyle is fun. I'm saying that the argument, "It makes the martial class more interesting to play," is a false reason. Just like if someone said, "We don't use Psionics," that would be fine. There are several reasons a table might not use Psionics. But if someone said, "We don't use Psionics because it is so much more powerful than traditional magic," I'd point out that this is not a valid argument.

[OldTrees1]

It does feel completely unfair to force fumbles onto just the weakest character type in the game, instead of to all character types. Hence my post. We really do need a good spell fumble table.

I agree although for a different reason.

I don't think people that like fumble tables are that concerned about balancing. I think they find fun in fumbles regardless of the balance impacts. People that enjoy similar things tend to group together. Thus it is likely that if a group likes melee fumbles, then they are likely to also like caster fumbles.


If you find it fun, great! I've used fumbles before and they can be fine. But I just don't see how they make martial characters more interesting to play. The OP is welcome to argue why, but I don't see that it adds interest to the player of the martial character. At best, it adds interest to everyone at the table equally by throwing in something amusing. But making a class more interesting to play, to me, implies giving that class more options/choices/things to do.
If you think "If the OP finds it fun, great!" then you don't want to say "This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes" since that implies "If the OP finds it fun, terrible!". I suggested "I don't understand how that makes martial characters more interesting to play, would you please explain?" instead. The first is an accusatory tone while the second is an honest questioning tone.

[eggynack]

Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes.
But it's completely out of the player's control, so it doesn't really alter what you do as a fighter. It just means that some arbitrary hardship befalls the character.

Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does.
I don't really see how.


Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No.
Didn't say it was, but typically, there are better ways to accomplish the thing you're doing with traditional fumble rules. In this case, the better way is probably more complicated melee rules, like ToB, or perhaps something like the "interesting times" variant that was proposed in the other threads.

Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion?
Yes, saying that this ruleset fails to accomplish the thing it was proposed to do to a meaningful extent is a crucifixion. The proponents of fumble rules are victims of the highest order, especially in this case.

[SowZ]

If you think "If the OP finds it fun, great!" then you don't want to say "This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes" since that implies "If the OP finds it fun, terrible!". I suggested "I don't understand how that makes martial characters more interesting to play, would you please explain?" instead.

Sure, I could have phrased it in a more passive way. If the OP wants to explain why it makes the martial characters more interesting to play, they are welcome to explain. I just can't see how it makes the class more interesting to play, since the only choice I can see it providing is, "attack or don't attack," and actively not participating is of course more boring.

Let's take a game with guns that is a percentile system. There might be a situational fumble where on a 1, certain guns jam. But guns like revolvers and double barreled shotguns and bolt action rifles have no such fumble. That actually adds a meaningful decision, so I don't really mind it. But, "on a 1, roll on a table where you might shoot yourself," doesn't really add a meaningful choice. As eggynack said, it doesn't really accomplish the goal of making playing a gunfighter more interesting.

[OldTrees1]

But it's completely out of the player's control, so it doesn't really alter what you do as a fighter. It just means that some arbitrary hardship befalls the character.

I don't really see how.Consider different types of terrain and obstacles/hazards. Those are hardships that are out of a player's control but there existence increases the variety and number of meaningful choices since 2 squares are no longer equivalent.


Yes, saying that this ruleset fails to accomplish the thing it was proposed to do to a meaningful extent is a crucifixion. The proponents of fumble rules are victims of the highest order, especially in this case.
I used hyperbole, but that does not change the fact that certain forum members were reacting with hostility towards someone stating a mere personal preference in their thread made for the sole purpose of merely stating their personal preference. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that?!

[SowZ]

Consider different types of terrain and obstacles/hazards. Those are hardships that are out of a player's control but there existence increases the variety and number of meaningful choices since 2 squares are no longer equivalent.


I used hyperbole, but that does not change the fact that certain forum members were reacting with hostility towards someone stating a mere personal preference in their thread made for the sole purpose of merely stating their personal preference. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that?!

The terrain thing is not the same. You actively choose how to deal with the terrain. Is it worth it to take three turns to close distance, or should I switch to my longbow? Can I use the terrain to my tactical advantage against the enemy? Are there things I have to mitigate the terrain difficulty? You can plan based on the terrain. You cannot make active choices regarding fumbles. If, say, there was a house-rule where a player could choose to do a 'desperate gambit' which guaranteed max damage roll, or halved ranged penalties, or allowed the player to roll two d20s and take the highest, but on a 1 the character would have to roll on a fumble chart, that would be a meaningful decision which would keep the element of randomness and risk but also increase a player's options.

[OldTrees1]

The terrain thing is not the same. You actively choose how to deal with the terrain. Is it worth it to take three turns to close distance, or should I switch to my longbow? Can I use the terrain to my tactical advantage against the enemy? Are there things I have to mitigate the terrain difficulty? You can plan based on the terrain. You cannot make active choices regarding fumbles.

Depending on the content of the fumble table, you have just described a fumble table. However since this is the 3rd thread I doubt you will actually consider this point. Goodbye.

[eggynack]

Consider different types of terrain and obstacles/hazards. Those are hardships that are out of a player's control but there existence increases the variety and number of meaningful choices since 2 squares are no longer equivalent.
Their existence is out of player control, but the way you can deal with them tend to offer some tactical complexity, both because you know about the terrain before you encounter it, and because there are a few different ways to deal with them. For example, with a large patch of difficult terrain, you can move through it, or take one or two paths around it. Choices, right there. By contrast, a rule that causes you to hit yourself or an ally doesn't really expand options. There's no way around it, and the way to deal with the aftermath is incredibly straightforward. The same is the case with most fumbles. A bad thing happens, and then that's it. No options involved.


I used hyperbole, but that does not change the fact that certain forum members were reacting with hostility towards someone stating a mere personal preference in their thread made for the sole purpose of merely stating their personal preference. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that?!
I'm aware that it was hyperbole, but I still think it absurd even in non-hyperbole form. The only thing you've pointed to is, "This doesn't add options," and that strikes me as ridiculously far from hostile.

[SowZ]

Depending on the content of the fumble table, you have just described a fumble table. However since this is the 3rd thread I doubt you will actually consider this point. Goodbye.

How are terrain disadvantages at all a fumble table? I am talking about terrain disadvantages with consistent penalties that I can account for and mitigate. A fumble table inherently adds random penalties. How are these at all the same? I don't understand what you are saying. Some fumble tables change the terrain and add terrain disadvantages? Some fumble tables force you to switch to your longbow? What do you mean?

Also, because I haven't changed my mind to agree with you, I am closed off to the idea?

[OldTrees1]

Also, because I haven't changed my mind to agree with you, I am closed off to the idea?

I was referring to how this forum's argumentation becomes more and more irrational, misrepresenting, and stubborn the deeper/longer an argument goes on. Since it is on the 3rd thread it is not worth my time.

[SowZ]

I was referring to how this forum's argumentation becomes more and more irrational, misrepresenting, and stubborn the deeper/longer an argument goes on. Since it is on the 3rd thread it is not worth my time.

You can always leave the thread. You don't have to precede your exit with passive-aggressive arguments implying other people aren't listening to anyone. No need for that.

[eggynack]

You can always leave the thread. You don't have to precede your exit with passive-aggressive arguments implying other people aren't listening to anyone and so you are above it all. No need for that.
Indeed. I've moved up the quantity of fumble rule types I'd be cool with from one to three since these threads. Standard all-downside no choice fumble rules just aren't going to join that set though.

[SowZ]

Indeed. I've moved up the quantity of fumble rule types I'd be cool with from one to three since these threads. Standard all-downside no choice fumble rules just aren't going to join that set though.

Yeah, I never would have thought of allowing a chance for fumbles on desperate ploys that give the player a bonus without these threads.

[Fredaintdead]

While I personally wouldn't use Fumbles, I feel like they can be done right with a bit of thought, and this pretty much requires you to do custom fumbles on the fly, along with balancing this by making crits the same. So when a fumble or a crit happens, it's special and fun, but that fumbles don't feel like too much of a punishment (i.e. you die, your main weapon is gone forever, etc, etc), and crits don't feel like too much of a reward (i.e. insta-win the encounter). To me, this likely works better in a less serious campaign, where you can bring a great deal of humour and silliness into both the fumbles and the crits, but I don't see why it wouldn't work anywhere else.

[The Insanity]

I, myself, don't corelate "failure" with the word "interesting".

[Renen]

Fumble rules: a more fun and exciting way to... fail.

[SangoProduction]

It does feel completely unfair to force fumbles onto just the weakest character type in the game, instead of to all character types. Hence my post. We really do need a good spell fumble table.

Hmm. I did leave out that I like to use rules for fumbles for spells (also known as Wild Magic) as well... That was my bad.

[SangoProduction]

Fumble rules: a more fun and exciting way to... fail.

Indeed. It's quite boring when you always win.

[Renen]

Oh that was sarcasm on my part. You don't ALWAYS win. You have failure on nat 1, and anything below target AC.
Now, if you want variety, don't make failure MORE punishing. Let mundanes play ToB classes. Suddenly they have SO many options that you don't need them to drop their swords to generate excitement.
And mages don't need any more excitement, they can warp reality.

[The Glyphstone]

I thought the go-to method for casters fumbling was a scaling chance to summon Orcus.

[YossarianLives]

I thought the go-to method for casters fumbling was a scaling chance to summon Orcus.
No, Orcus only appears when the DM arbitrary decides he does.

[Renen]

No. Orcus is ALWAYS there. Orcus just randomly decides to let you perceive him, right before your death, to make you feel like you have a chance to get away. He's nice like that.

[Brookshw]

I thought the go-to method for casters fumbling was a scaling chance to summon Orcus.

Nah, that's just a mangled forward ported and obscure rule from 2e where you could explicitly screw up summoning a dretch and get a pit fiend. The rule originally was isolated to hades' 1st layer. Now its just a forum urban legend.

[Andreaz]

Indeed. It's quite boring when you always win.Except fumbles don't fix the "you always win" problem you mention, since you need to fail to fumble in the first place.
Fumbles only make that fail harder. That's not "adding more options", that's restricting options. As said above, with fumbles the only thing it really gives the players is the question "should I even bother?"

You want to add interesting options to the players? Give them more options, not less. You want to do more than swing a sword? Look at tome of battle and path of war. Move your allies, move your enemies. Hit an enemy so hard he's scared. dash across the battlefield, slashing everyone in the way, blink out of existence and reappear behind the victim. Throw this bastard on that other bastard. Kill someone so hard they can't be resurrected without a Wish. Block off a dragon's breath to protect those behind you, dodge an ogre and roundhousekick him in the back so hard he drops silly on the ground.

[Renen]

Nah, that's just a mangled forward ported and obscure rule from 2e where you could explicitly screw up summoning a dretch and get a pit fiend. The rule originally was isolated to hades' 1st layer. Now its just a forum urban legend.

I think you missed the joke. Though the explanation about past editions was good, so I'll let this slide :smalltongue:

[Brookshw]

I think you missed the joke. Though the explanation about past editions was good, so I'll let this slide :smalltongue:

No. I just consider it to be in poor taste. Glad you appreciated the explanation.

[Ken Murikumo]

All the groups i played in have used fumble rules. I "grew up" with it and thought nothing of it.

We do: roll 1 is an auto miss. Roll again, if that's a 1, then you hit and do damage to yourself as you would an enemy. Roll again (if the previous roll was a 1) and at that point if you roll a 1, the powers at be demand your death; you die, no save. HOWEVER, the reverse is also true with rolling a 20. If 20, then auto hit, roll again. If the confirm is a 20, then its crit max damage, roll again. If that is also a 20, then whatever you hit dies (no save), regardless of how powerful and/or godlike the entity is. For triple 1s and 20s, we generally use "divine intervention" as an excuse. Meteors, large rocks, stray cannon fire, all seem to aid in the destruction.

I've been playing for 8+ years now and seen only one (final boss) killed in one hit because a triple 20 (he was crushed by a meteor). and 2 NPCs killed by triple 1s. Despite the statistics that could be mathematically stated, it's never been a real problem. There have been plenty of double 1s and 20s on both sides, and my group seems to enjoy it.

[Andreaz]

All the groups i played in have used fumble rules. I "grew up" with it and thought nothing of it.

We do: roll 1 is an auto miss. Roll again, if that's a 1, then you hit and do damage to yourself as you would an enemy. Roll again (if the previous roll was a 1) and at that point if you roll a 1, the powers at be demand your death; you die, no save. HOWEVER, the reverse is also true with rolling a 20. If 20, then auto hit, roll again. If the confirm is a 20, then its crit max damage, roll again. If that is also a 20, then whatever you hit dies (no save), regardless of how powerful and/or godlike the entity is. For triple 1s and 20s, we generally use "divine intervention" as an excuse. Meteors, large rocks, stray cannon fire, all seem to aid in the destruction.

I've been playing for 8+ years now and seen only one (final boss) killed in one hit because a triple 20 (he was crushed by a meteor). and 2 NPCs killed by triple 1s. Despite the statistics that could be mathematically stated, it's never been a real problem. There have been plenty of double 1s and 20s on both sides, and my group seems to enjoy it.Your rules essentially say that if you gather an army of three thousand warriors, to clash against another three thousand, 15 of them will harm themselves at any given instant. And that every minute another 8 of them will kill themselves. If those thousands of warriors are very experienced (bab 6), these numbers will nearly double.

Yeah, the odds are low for hte players that they'll not see it. It's still a thing that a) happens more often as people get better, which is counter to the very idea that the character is actually getting better and b) still punishes classes that are weak far more than it punishes classes that are stronger. I don't need to personally suffer from a bad rule to dislike a bad rule.

[Talakeal]

So I was playing Mage last night and I couldn't help but thinking to myself "Man, this sure would be boring without botches." Basically we spent the entire session climbing a giant staircase up the side of a mountain. That's it, just periodically rolling athletics tests. Yet, because we have fumble rules, something as simple as climbing a mountain turned into a fun and challenging session.
My first Mage game with this group we were exploring a haunted house and I fumbled my Awareness (basically ESP) test and as a result went physically blind for the session. That REALLY amped up the fear, tension, and sense of danger.
I have so many fun stories about times when a fumble made the game more fun or interesting, and I can't recall any times when they actually caused my to get frustrated or mad, or even when another player got mad about them.

Now, I make use of fumbles in my own system, Heart of Darkness, in the following way:

Every task in the game, including spell casting and damage, is handled by a d20 + modifier vs. difficulty roll.

If you fail a test by 20 or more you fumble. Likewise if you succeed by 20 or more you get a critical.

1s and 20s explode, meaning if you get one you roll another dice and add / subtract it, so in affect you have a 1+ confirmation = fumble 20 + confirmation = crit

Generally you only roll once per action. Iterative attacks and the like aren't in the system, so if you are rolling multiple dice it is because you are doing something extreme like whirlwind attacking, casting a "quickened"
spell, or trying to do to things at once, which means you realistically would have a higher chance to screw up.

Every ability in the book has a suggested fumble. The Game Master is free to alter them to maintain realism and the mood.

Fumbles (and critical rolls) only apply to NPCs if they are directly targeting the players or it is dramatically appropriate. Likewise you don't need to test for actions which are not dramatically interesting.

The suggested fumble for a roll to hit is testing for damage against yourself, a nearby ally, or a nearby bystander. This could represent shooting yourself in the foot, or more likely a friendly fire accident or overexerting yourself and pulling a muscle. The odds of actually killing yourself or an ally in this manner are very tiny, but not completely impossible.

The suggested fumble for a damage roll is having your weapon knocked from your hand.

Instead of the usual fumble result the player can choose to make a durability test on the tool they are using. This has a chance of damaging the tool, which inflicts a penalty on all rolls until it is repaired, and if the durability test is also fumbled (a very unlikely event but again possible) the tool breaks.

Players can voluntarily fumble on any roll to add +1 to it, possibly turning a success into a failure or a normal success into a critical success. This decision is made after rolling.

Players receive a number of rerolls equal to their charisma modifier each session. If they really don't want to fumble they can and should use these to avert it.

I have been using these rules for years, and they are originally adapted from my AD&D house rules. I have had no problems, and I find they allow several very useful features:

1: They create novelty and drama in an organic way.
2: The game world more closely resembles reality, as people make mistakes and make the situation worse all the time IRL.
3: They allow the game master to alter the mood as appropriate. The ability to control how a fumble happens and is described allows the GM to lighten or darken the mood of the scene immensely.
4: They serve as a soft level system / role protection. As my system does not have class or levels fumbles make people think twice about attempting something they have no idea how to do just for the hell of it. Although if you are playing a more pulpy / MacGyver type of game I can see how this would be a downside.


Now, if I ran a seriously 3.X game I would probably adapt these fumble rules to it, but there are several major challenges to doing so, most notably:

1: Iterative attacks and two weapon fighting screw with things.
2: Spell casters don't have to roll to cast their spells, so fumbles only make the power gap wider.
3: There is no mechanism for rerolls or any other form of narrative control, which makes the players feel helpless.

[Renen]

Yeh. Perfect rules example. Fail spot check, turn blind

[SowZ]

All the groups i played in have used fumble rules. I "grew up" with it and thought nothing of it.

We do: roll 1 is an auto miss. Roll again, if that's a 1, then you hit and do damage to yourself as you would an enemy. Roll again (if the previous roll was a 1) and at that point if you roll a 1, the powers at be demand your death; you die, no save. HOWEVER, the reverse is also true with rolling a 20. If 20, then auto hit, roll again. If the confirm is a 20, then its crit max damage, roll again. If that is also a 20, then whatever you hit dies (no save), regardless of how powerful and/or godlike the entity is. For triple 1s and 20s, we generally use "divine intervention" as an excuse. Meteors, large rocks, stray cannon fire, all seem to aid in the destruction.

I've been playing for 8+ years now and seen only one (final boss) killed in one hit because a triple 20 (he was crushed by a meteor). and 2 NPCs killed by triple 1s. Despite the statistics that could be mathematically stated, it's never been a real problem. There have been plenty of double 1s and 20s on both sides, and my group seems to enjoy it.

I once swung my (real, not training,) sword a thousand times in one day as part of an endurance challenge. Little did I know, I should have stabbed myself two or three times and had a 1 in 8 chance of decapitating myself.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like the idea of fumbles, but most attempts at executing them are too harsh. My guidelines for fumbles would be:

1) Fumbles must be confirmed, much like crits.
2) To confirm a fumble, the player has to miss by 5 or more on the confirmation roll.
3) Fumbles apply to NPCs too.
4) The penalties should be short duration, minor debuffs at best. Things like sickened or shakened for a round or two, falling prone or dropping your sword in your square are okay. Things like hacking off your arm, impaling yourself, breaking your sword or hurling it across the room from you are not.
5) Use a deck/system that allows casters to fumble as well, even if only on attack roll spells. (Though if you're okay with the additional work, you can cause all kinds of spells to fumble, simply by using rules like mishaps or spellblights.)

I played in a game where the DM used "you drop your weapon" as a fumble, and falling prone if dropping it was impossible (like an unarmed monk). Those absolutely are harsh effects! In my case it was a high level game and I made a guisarme-using tripping dervish. DM forgot to tell me there were fumble rules till I rolled my first 1, which due to a slow pace and lots of noncombat scenarios and some sheer dumb luck, no one rolled a nat 1 in combat after I joined until 2 months in, when we were facing large numbers of foes...the very thing my character was supposed to be good at, having lead armies and fought in many wars.

Thanks to the number of attacks, AoOs, bonus trips from Cause Overreach tactic of Elusive Target, and the fact that tripping involves potentially double the attack rolls of attacking normally, I was making 20+ attack rolls each turn. And I was fumbling every single turn. I'd draw backup weapons and in a few seconds drop those as well on an AoO. I stopped bothering to use the tripping I invested so much into out of fear of dropping my freaking weapon. When you lose your weapon mid-full attack, you instantly lose the rest of your turn as you have no move actions left. Then next turn you need a move to pickup (and provoke an AoO! yay!) your weapon or draw a crappier copy if you have any, and again cannot full attack. Combats only last a few rounds, that's pretty brutal!

I did at least get to make an awesome snide fourth wall-breaking comment in character. I considered purchasing locked gauntlets to hold onto my weapon, but decided against it because then I'd start falling down all the time. The DM got pretty upset at me humorously pointing out how stupid his fumble rules were in-character. :smallbiggrin:

I was ready to drop the character despite really enjoying playing as her due to the fumble rules in favor of a God Wizard who'd never make an attack roll to avoid the whole bs, but then he caved and dropped the fumbles. So yes, those stipulations are still REALLY BAD. Ironically, more so the higher level you are, which you'd normally think is when your character has become more competent.

And adding fumbles for casters, but only to attack roll spells? That's totally fair.... /heavy sarcasm
If anything, any spell should require 10 freaking fumble rolls, cause a martial can make way more attacks in a round than a caster can put out spells.

[Elbeyon]

:smallbiggrin: Stop carrying around slippery soap for weapons. I can only image this scene taking place like an old film were a person struggles for several minutes to hold onto a piece of soap with a laugh track in the background playing.

[Talakeal]

Yeh. Perfect rules example. Fail spot check, turn blind

Not spot, awareness. This is actually a pretty common trope in haunted house stories. If it was a "hack and slash win at all costs" game it would certainly suck and be unfair, but in a scary explore a haunted house game it served to enhance the mood and give an otherwise mostly harmless scenario a sense of real tension and danger.

[StreamOfTheSky]

:smallbiggrin: Stop carrying around slippery soap for weapons. I can only image this scene taking place like an old film were a person struggles for several minutes to hold onto a piece of soap with a laugh track in the background playing.

That's how I imagined it, too. It's why despite loving the character I wanted to stop playing as her. The fumbles were not only nerfing the hell out of her, they made it impossible for her to actually feel like the mass combat expert she was supposed to be. She was a level 17+ warrior but looked more inept than a chimp trying to fight with a stick of butter. It was just plain immersion-shattering.

[Giddonihah]

I use a fumble with confirmation system. I use no preset fumble effects, and make each one fit the situation.
Though initially I was only using it for enemies to spice things up, the players started to think they should be doing it too and I shrugged my shoulders and went along with it.

As a general rule for me a confirmed fumble can be extremely inconveniencing or deadly in the hands of an npc, but for players is more tame.
Its worked pretty well, fumbles are a thing of interest when a PC gets them, and a delight for the party when a monster stabs its foot or blows itself up.

Though honestly I wouldn't mind just having fumbles for monsters. But eh, advantage is easy enough to get for my players anyways.

[Elbeyon]

I've had a similar experience with an archer of mine that made lots of attacks per round. The result for a Nat 1 for me was that my character's bowstring broke. I picked up quick draw, literally littering the ground with broken bows throughout combat as my weapons became useless. After combat I'd go around picking up the bows and take out a large ball of bowstring to fix them all.

We (the group) said **** the story and our adventurer group went on a quest of mass destruction murder-killing everything to try to turn something into an unbreakable bowstring. The game did not improve in anyway by including fumble rules and was markable made worse. (The dm wouldn't pull out the rules even though all the players requested it. He was an good dm besides that sticky point.) Eventually after hunting the campaign world into its doom the group got an unbreakable string and the dm pulled out the fumble rules and has never used them again. (We were playing in a more prominent post apocalyptic world than normal dnd and the life was rare. The dm said that our excessive murder-killing of the entire ecosystem kicked out the last leg of the world and it would die. You heard it hear. Fumble rules kill planets.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

I had to deal with broken bow string bs in one of my first D&D games w/ my archer, too. It was ridiculous, really pissed me off. I also went with the "carry obscene amounts of bows" route. Because the string broke super easily, but it sure as hell wasn't quick to repair/replace. Even being new to D&D, I could tell the fumbling was stupid. I think I even asked if a line of archers fire in real life, do some of their strings break each volley (rhetorically, I knew damn well that doesn't happen).

[Sayt]

Unlike what seems to be the common consensus on this site, I like fumbles. No, it's not for mechanical reasons, but because it makes the martial classes a bit more interesting. Rather than just swinging your sword ad infinitum, something actually happens every once in a while (indeed, depending on the DM, what happens can be quite amusing, and breaks up the tedium that is D&D combat).
Sure, you've got crits, but normally, even with the more creative of DMs, it's just more damage, and is no more interesting than just hitting the target (unless they used something like http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/tools/critical-generator).

That fumble generator has "Dazed for 1d3 rounds" without a save. Just...wow. No, thanks.

[Chronos]

I like the little guy myself, and after all he's been through, all the hate he receives on message boards is totally unnecessary. But he prefers to go by Señor Vorpal Kickasso.

[SowZ]

I had to deal with broken bow string bs in one of my first D&D games w/ my archer, too. It was ridiculous, really pissed me off. I also went with the "carry obscene amounts of bows" route. Because the string broke super easily, but it sure as hell wasn't quick to repair/replace. Even being new to D&D, I could tell the fumbling was stupid. I think I even asked if a line of archers fire in real life, do some of their strings break each volley (rhetorically, I knew damn well that doesn't happen).

And realistically, that adventurer shouldn't drop his sword due to one bad swing ever throughout his career. Fumble rules almost always reduce realism drastically. I've swung swords maybe hundreds of thousands of times. Never dropped it. I don't hit myself. I might hit an ally in a chaotic battle, but not in a small skirmish with only a couple allies to worry about.

For the triple ones=death rule, let us assume that you have 13 encounters per level and each encounter averages 6 rounds. Let's say it takes 1 round to close distance/notice the enemy/get set up, leaving 5 rounds of actual combat. To be conservative, we will assume you never have haste, never start in melee range, never have longer fights, (or shorter ones,) and let's say 3 of those encounters are resolved with 0 combat, leaving only 10 combats per level. Let us then assume you can only full attack 50% of the time rounded up. We will use Fighter McGee or any full BAB class with no extra attack abilities and no pounce to be conservative.

For level 1-5, that's 5 attacks per encounter. For levels 6-10, only 8. For 11-15, 11. For levels 16-20, 14 attacks. This is a fairly low estimate and most groups have more than 10 fights per level I think. Also, lot's of groups get off full attacks a lot and have long, epic fights that go 10+ rounds, at least occasionally. We will throw that out just to be merciful to the triple 1s houserule. Fighter McGee has a very typical 6 man party. He has his Barbarian friend who makes the same number of attacks, a rogue friend who uses TWF, (this means he should attack more, but since his BAB is lower and he has to move more to get flanks, we can be conservative and say he gets the same number of attacks,) a Wizard who almost never attacks so let's pretend like he never makes an attack roll, a Cleric who, between a lower BAB and spellcasting, makes one third the number of attacks rounded down, and a Ranger archer buddy who has Rapid Shot so he should get more attacks AND will get Full Attacks more since he is archery, (but since he casts spells occasionally, we will be extremely conservative and say that he gets the same number of attacks. I'm being way nice to you, triple 1s rule!)

If your party makes it to level 13 without someone having killed themselves, you are very lucky. If you make it to 18? Wow. By 20, odds are at least two members of the party are dead by their own sword. What can this possibly add to the game? I used to think this was a rule. It did come up once at level 4. I never cheat dice, but I thought it was so stupid, I told the player to re-roll because he 'dropped the die' the third time and it hadn't rolled, (which was true, but mostly me looking for an excuse not to have a player lose his first ever D&D character in such a stupid fashion. Also, how do you shoot yourself with a bow, anyway?)

Also, every other TWF Fighter will kill themselves by level 20.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Triple-20's = instant death is also a very bad houserule, it should be noted. How many mooks take swings at you throughout your career? One of them getting a 1 in 8000 chance is almost certain in a long term campaign.

[SowZ]

Triple-20's = instant death is also a very bad houserule, it should be noted. How many mooks take swings at you throughout your career? One of them getting a 1 in 8000 chance is almost certain in a long term campaign.

And for every mook that takes a swing at you, a PC takes a swing at it. Certain builds are actually more like than not to have killed themselves by the time they reach level 17 or so.

[Ken Murikumo]

Your rules essentially say that if you gather an army of three thousand warriors, to clash against another three thousand, 15 of them will harm themselves at any given instant. And that every minute another 8 of them will kill themselves. If those thousands of warriors are very experienced (bab 6), these numbers will nearly double.

Yeah, the odds are low for hte players that they'll not see it. It's still a thing that a) happens more often as people get better, which is counter to the very idea that the character is actually getting better and b) still punishes classes that are weak far more than it punishes classes that are stronger. I don't need to personally suffer from a bad rule to dislike a bad rule.

I would never roll iterative attacks for 3,000 warriors during a game, so this will never happen. I understand that THEORETICALLY this would be the case, but rolling a d20 20 times by no means guarantees you at least one "20". This essentially comes down to the argument of gameplay mechanics vs realism by fantasy standards. Do you think an expert swordsman has 20 degrees of precision as employed by the d20?

[Elbeyon]

I would never roll iterative attacks for 3,000 warriors during a game, so this will never happen. I understand that THEORETICALLY this would be the case, but rolling a d20 20 times by no means guarantees you at least one "20". This essentially comes down to the argument of gameplay mechanics vs realism by fantasy standards. Do you think an expert swordsman has 20 degrees of precision as employed by the d20?No, it doesn't guarantee it. It has at least a 65% chance of coming up at least once a turn. Is this 65% chance so rare that it won't see combat with an alarming frequency?

[Talakeal]

So I just played a game of Arkham horror for the first time, and in this game almost every time you fail a roll you suffer some rather severe consequences. Now THAT seemed like a slapstick comedy game, and if that is the sort of system the anti-fumble crowd is basing their views on I agree with them 100%.

[Rhyltran]

Unlike what seems to be the common consensus on this site, I like fumbles. No, it's not for mechanical reasons, but because it makes the martial classes a bit more interesting. Rather than just swinging your sword ad infinitum, something actually happens every once in a while (indeed, depending on the DM, what happens can be quite amusing, and breaks up the tedium that is D&D combat).
Sure, you've got crits, but normally, even with the more creative of DMs, it's just more damage, and is no more interesting than just hitting the target (unless they used something like http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/tools/critical-generator).

I made a post testing level 1 warriors hitting straw dummies 100 times each. 10 of them using that fumble generator. Of the 6 out of the 10 were no longer capable of fighting. Five died and one broke his sword. It's terrible.

[Renen]

1) Make bowstrings out of adamantine.
2) Shoot till you fumble
3) ???
4) Boast how you are strong enough to break adamantine with bare hands.

[NightbringerGGZ]

I like the idea of fumbles myself, but there are very few supporting mechanics for them in 3.5. I hate the fumble card decks that are out there, they're way too harsh. I also am not fond of GMs who make up fumbles on the spot, as I never see the same penalties applied to NPCs and opponents to same degree they're applied to heroes.

One of the few things Pathfinder firearm rules did well was create a fumble system, via misfires. Each gun has a base misfire range and there are supporting rules and options which increase and decrease the range. The penalties for a misfire are clearly defined, and thus can be balanced.

A system that was similar to that, applied to weapons, magic and skills would be an interesting addition to D&D.

[P.F.]

misfires

I played one of these, my very first Pathfinder character, as I recall, and it felt like my action was usually "I target the lead manticore and ... Click! ... spend the rest of my turn fixing my pistol."

[NightbringerGGZ]

I played one of these, my very first Pathfinder character, as I recall, and it felt like my action was usually "I target the lead manticore and ... Click! ... spend the rest of my turn fixing my pistol."

Well to clarify, I'm not saying that firearms needed misfires specifically, just that the way the rules are defined you know why your gun misfired and potentially exploded. This is as opposed to mechanics like fumble decks, where you can draw a card and randomly maul yourself.

[P.F.]

Well to clarify, I'm not saying that firearms needed misfires specifically, just that the way the rules are defined you know why your gun misfired and potentially exploded. This is as opposed to mechanics like fumble decks, where you can draw a card and randomly maul yourself.

Agreed, those fumble decks are awful. At least with my gunslinger I knew what to expect, and could potentially take action to avoid it. I had a choice to fire again and risk catastrophic failure, or spend my next turn fixing the gun instead of shooting it.

[atemu1234]

Agreed, those fumble decks are awful. At least with my gunslinger I knew what to expect, and could potentially take action to avoid it. I had a choice to fire again and risk catastrophic failure, or spend my next turn fixing the gun instead of shooting it.

I still don't like them. The only PF game I ever took part in ruled that Gunslingers use d20 Past weapons. It worked better.

[Andreaz]

This essentially comes down to the argument of gameplay mechanics vs realism by fantasy standards. Do you think an expert swordsman has 20 degrees of precision as employed by the d20?Do you think an expert swordsman, by no action or circumstance other than his own, looses his footing, drops his weapon, or nicks himself just about every other fight? Sometimes multiple times?
Do you think an expert swordsman commits more mistakes as he transitions from expert to master?
Do you think expert swordsmen kill themselves through sheer bad luck often enough every tribe, legion and army could conceivably have a full roster of sword-to-own-throat events?

My point with fumbles is, has always been and will always be twofold:
1) It makes not mechanical sense, much less no realistic sense. So both simulationist and simplified systems make no sense with fumbles
2) It doesn't add to the fun in general, for it takes a competence you bothered to develop and mocks it into nothing when it happens.

[Venger]

Do you think an expert swordsman, by no action or circumstance other than his own, looses his footing, drops his weapon, or nicks himself just about every other fight? Sometimes multiple times?
Do you think an expert swordsman commits more mistakes as he transitions from expert to master?
Do you think expert swordsmen kill themselves through sheer bad luck often enough every tribe, legion and army could conceivably have a full roster of sword-to-own-throat events?

My point with fumbles is, has always been and will always be twofold:
1) It makes not mechanical sense, much less no realistic sense. So both simulationist and simplified systems make no sense with fumbles
2) It doesn't add to the fun in general, for it takes a competence you bothered to develop and mocks it into nothing when it happens.

plus it penalizes the weakest characters in the game while leaving the strongest ones untouched, further widening the gap between casters and mundanes.

[atemu1234]

plus it penalizes the weakest characters in the game while leaving the strongest ones untouched, further widening the gap between casters and mundanes.

And the only argument for them is, "I had fun in a game that had them."

[Elbeyon]

And the only argument for them is, "I had fun in a game that had them."The chances are that the same or a greater amount of fun could have been generated with better rules.

[Venger]

And the only argument for them is, "I had fun in a game that had them."
yeah, there's probably some association fallacy going on there. if it was a fun game, then it was a fun game, you probably didn't enjoy it solely because of terrible rules that make mundanes kill themselves every fourth sword swing.


The chances are that the same or a greater amount of fun could have been generated with better rules.
absolutely.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: As there are several threads on discussing Fumbles now on this very forum, I'm going to start closing a few in favor of the older threads, to adhere to the One Thread, One Topic policy. Please feel free to carry on this discussion this in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?422127-Good-fumble-rules).