Losing weapons in battle

[dtilque]

In the 1067 thread, some people pointed out that by D&D rules, Roy shouldn't have dropped his sword. That's no doubt true (I don't play, so I'll take their word for it), but the author of this strip does not let the rules get in the way of the story he's telling. And it turns out that dropping weapons in battle in this strip is actually fairly common. I went back to strip 928 and tabulated all the dropped weapons in battle from that point forward:

928 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0928.html) Roy sword
929 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0929.html) Belkar 1 knife
931 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0931.html) Laurin staff, Tarquin sword
933 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0933.html) Julio sword, Tarquin knife
934 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html) Haley knife, Tarquin knife
972 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0972.html) Bandana short sword (recovered immediately)
978 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0978.html) Haley knife
996 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0996.html) Belkar 2 knives
1003 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1003.html) Durkula staff
1006 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1006.html) Roy sword
1061 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1061.html) frost giant axe

(I didn't count a couple times when a weapon was deliberately thrown away.)

The dropping of weapons seems to be a visual sign that a character has taken a major hit. Or some other major factor (distraction, surprise) was involved. Obviously this is more important to telling the story than adherence to D&D rules.

[ShadowSandbag]

INteresting. Also its not too uncommon for their to be house rules about dropping weapons, I think there might even be a variant rule in the DMG. I know there have been critical failures in just about every game i've been in, and usually dropping your weapon is among the possibilities.

[Morquard]

931 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0931.html) Laurin staff, Tarquin sword

Well to be totally accurate, it was Roy's sword again ;)

[ScaredHobgoblin]

In the group I play with, getting a crit fail on an attack roll either means you hit an ally or drop your sword. And personally I don't mind that weapons get dropped a lot, as for the most part it doesn't seem to be that much of an inconvenience.

[Draconi Redfir]

i think the big thing about people loosing weapons when they shouldn't have according to the rules is easily explained with this.

This is not a game.

this is a world.

a world where game rules happen to apply.

Just because the game rules say smacking you upside the head won't make you loose grip on your weapon, doesn't mean you're going to have a magical grip on it if i smack you upside the head. From their perspective the characters are as real as you or me, any logic you can apply to yourself can also be applied to them.

[hroþila]

Critical failures sound completely stupid to me (not a D&D player). Are you telling me a trained warrior is going to mess up like 5% of their blows? Not merely miss, but potentially end up on America's Funniest Home Videos? I don't see it.

[Quild]

In the group I play with, getting a crit fail on an attack roll either means you hit an ally or drop your sword. And personally I don't mind that weapons get dropped a lot, as for the most part it doesn't seem to be that much of an inconvenience.

My paladin can make up to three attack in a full action. He also has an extra attack (Boots of speed) and cleave/great cleave.

So 5 attack rolls in a turn are a thing that happens on regular basis. Whenever you roll 5d20, you have 22,6% chances of having one or more 1 in it.

An automatic miss on a 1 may not be a big penalty because you'd need a big bab to pass the target's AC, but losing your full attack because you failed on of your first hit is too much of a penalty. Injuring your friends? No way.
It would mean that the more your fighter is trained, the more he's likely to fumble. Yeah...

[Morquard]

Critical failures sound completely stupid to me (not a D&D player). Are you telling me a trained warrior is going to mess up like 5% of their blows? Not merely miss, but potentially end up on America's Funniest Home Videos? I don't see it.

We once had a similar rule for Nat 1 as we did for Nat 20, you needed to confirm it. Roll a Nat 20, you automatically hit, but roll to confirm it and hit, it's a critical hit. Roll a Nat 1, you automatically miss, but confirm it by missing again, it's a critical miss.

[Haluesen]

Critical failures sound completely stupid to me (not a D&D player). Are you telling me a trained warrior is going to mess up like 5% of their blows? Not merely miss, but potentially end up on America's Funniest Home Videos? I don't see it.

There was an optional rule in one book where, instead of automatically missing, a nat 1 counts as a -10 to your attack bonus only and a nat 20 counts as a +10 to the attack bonus. So a highly trained warrior could roll bad but still hit basic low-level enemies just fine. I've never seen the rule used, but I like it personally.

[snowblizz]

Are you telling me a trained warrior is going to mess up like 5% of their blows?

Funnily enough the corrected human error rate for cognitive actions is about 4%. The crude way to put it in layman's terms is that 4% of your output when typing will be wrong, even when actively looking for and avoiding errors. It had some implications for computer science, programming and so on which is where I saw it studied/collated. To err is human indeed.

[hroþila]

Funnily enough the corrected human error rate for cognitive actions is about 4%. The crude way to put it in layman's terms is that 4% of your output when typing will be wrong, even when actively looking for and avoiding errors. It had some implications for computer science, programming and so on which is where I saw it studied/collated. To err is human indeed.
Yeah, but then 4% of the time I'll make a typo, I won't choke on the keyboard. :smalltongue:

[snowblizz]

Yeah, but then 4% of the time I'll make a typo, I won't choke on the keyboard. :smalltongue:

Roll badly enough on the dice and you might!


More seriously though, mistakes happen, no matter how trained one is. This is what such rules try to emulate. I know in table-top miniature wargaming there is a similar disussion since some system include critical failures to better cater to such things happening in real battles, and to "simulate" the Command and control issues a real commander has as compared to God-Vision (tm) of a table-top commander.

Where we end up on the frequency/severity scale varies.

Ofc, again IRL warriors carried back-up weapons in case they broke or lost their main weapon. A mounted knight could even have 5-6 ones they'd be expected to possibly need.

[littlebum2002]

Critical failures sound completely stupid to me (not a D&D player). Are you telling me a trained warrior is going to mess up like 5% of their blows? Not merely miss, but potentially end up on America's Funniest Home Videos? I don't see it.

Right? High level D&D characters are comparable to superheroes. Can you imagine how useless Batman would be if his tools failed 5% of the time? Or how stupid Superman would look if his flight only worked 95% of the time?

[Dr.Zero]

Right? High level D&D characters are comparable to superheroes. Can you imagine how useless Batman would be if his tools failed 5% of the time?

Up here, you seem ironic, but...



Or how stupid Superman would look if his flight only worked 95% of the time?

Well, if 1/20 Superman behaved like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uq1KWrT9js), yes, he would look quite stupid, still being totally OP compared to a normal human.

(And the realistic equivalent is an expert soldier that 1/20 loses his gun or shoot himself on his foot :smallbiggrin: still deadly dangerous 19/20, still moronic and unexpected 1/20).

So now I'm honestly confused if you were trying to be ironic or not. :smallbiggrin:

[littlebum2002]

Up here, you seem ironic, but...



Well, if 1/20 Superman behaved like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uq1KWrT9js), yes, he would look quite stupid, still being totally OP compared to a normal human.

(And the realistic equivalent is an expert soldier that 1/20 loses his gun or shoot himself on his foot :smallbiggrin: still deadly dangerous 19/20, still moronic and unexpected 1/20).

So now I'm honestly confused if you were trying to be ironic or not. :smallbiggrin:

I'm being totally serious. Adventurers are supposed to be the most highly trained warriors (or wizards, or thieves) on the planet; so much so that they are often compared to superheroes. To say that the most talented warrior on the planet will drop his sword on 5% of his swings is absurd. To say that Batman and Superman (and any other superhero and, by extension, most high-level adventurers) haven't developed their abilities beyond a 95% confidence interval is equally absurd.

[Alias]

For a long time I've just had a roll of 1 provoke an attack of opportunity from the target. It ups the tension but doesn't make the fighter look like a blithering idiot either.

[Peelee]

Critical failures sound completely stupid to me (not a D&D player). Are you telling me a trained warrior is going to mess up like 5% of their blows? Not merely miss, but potentially end up on America's Funniest Home Videos? I don't see it.


I'm being totally serious. Adventurers are supposed to be the most highly trained warriors (or wizards, or thieves) on the planet; so much so that they are often compared to superheroes. To say that the most talented warrior on the planet will drop his sword on 5% of his swings is absurd. To say that Batman and Superman (and any other superhero and, by extension, most high-level adventurers) haven't developed their abilities beyond a 95% confidence interval is equally absurd.

Any problems on the other side of it? Say, an untrained level 1 Commoner landing a particularly hard punch 5% of the time on a high level Monk?

[Dr.Zero]

I'm being totally serious. Adventurers are supposed to be the most highly trained warriors (or wizards, or thieves) on the planet; so much so that they are often compared to superheroes. To say that the most talented warrior on the planet will drop his sword on 5% of his swings is absurd. To say that Batman and Superman (and any other superhero and, by extension, most high-level adventurers) haven't developed their abilities beyond a 95% confidence interval is equally absurd.

Ah, ok: it was the "useless" on Batman failing 1/20 that misleaded me.
I completely agree.

[littlebum2002]

Any problems on the other side of it? Say, an untrained level 1 Commoner landing a particularly hard punch 5% of the time on a high level Monk?

I mean, it depends. If we're talking just about unarmed people fighting, then yeah, it could happen. But will someone armed with a crappy rusty sword ever be able to land a hit on someone in full plate mail? I wouldn't think so, although I don't know enough about armor to speculate.



Ah, ok: it was the "useless" on Batman failing 1/20 that misleaded me.
I completely agree.

I guess "useless" was a bit of an overreaction but, yeah, if Batman is constantly fighting these brutal enemies and 5% of the time his super technological escape plan didn't work, he would one day be taken out, and that would be sooner rather than later.

[Rogar Demonblud]

To be blunt, I've found the game improves when you remove crits (hit or miss) from the game. It takes away some of the WOW! factor, but it also keeps idiots from charging a dragon at level three because 'Hey, I can get a crit! The dice owe me!'

[Peelee]

I mean, it depends. If we're talking just about unarmed people fighting, then yeah, it could happen.

You know we're basically talking me vs. Bruce Lee here. I think you're being pretty optimistic.

[Quild]

Any problems on the other side of it? Say, an untrained level 1 Commoner landing a particularly hard punch 5% of the time on a high level Monk?


I mean, it depends. If we're talking just about unarmed people fighting, then yeah, it could happen. But will someone armed with a crappy rusty sword ever be able to land a hit on someone in full plate mail? I wouldn't think so, although I don't know enough about armor to speculate.

Critical hit are a guaranteed hit and chances of additional damages.

A low level who manages a critical hit on something much stronger than himself is still likely to be unable to confirm it or still will deal low damages compared to the creature's HP.
And that's provided there's no DR involved.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You know we're basically talking me vs. Bruce Lee here. I think you're being pretty optimistic.

You vs Bruce Lee, by D&D rules:
Most likely version:
Bruce Lee wins Initiative, due to Dex-based bonuses.
Bruce Lee does a full attack, reducing your HP to 0.
You never get a chance to hit him.

Unlikely version:
You somehow win initiative - probably due to surprise.
You try and fail to hit his very high Dex-based AC
Bruce Lee does a full attack, reducing your HP to 0.
You never get a chance to hit him.

Crit version:
You somehow win initiative - probably due to surprise.
You crit, managing to lay a punch on him. It barely scratches his HP pool
Bruce Lee does a full attack, reducing your HP to 0.
You got your crit, did close to nothing.

Yeah, all those seem plausible. The thing is, you could have laid a punch on Bruce Lee: if he was looking the other way, and not expecting it. And if the stars align, he may have even felt it. He would've still mopped the floor with you regardless, though.

Grey Wolf

[Darth Paul]

....will someone armed with a crappy rusty sword ever be able to land a hit on someone in full plate mail?


Absolutely. It's how the English won some of their major battles during the Hundred Years' War (for instance, Crecy and Agincort). The lightly armed archers (common mercenary men-at-arms) shot down the horses of the French knights, then often tripped up the heavily armored and unmaneuverable knights and killed them with sword or dagger thrusts through the joints of their armor or the visors of their helmets. This would easily be interpreted as a critical.

I don't think a 5% fumble chance is unreasonable. In the heat of combat, even with highly trained troops, friendly weapons are almost as dangerous as hostile ones. Weapons can be dropped, knocked out of hands, parried and deflected in unexpected directions, and broken; friends can get between you and your target unexpectedly. Things go wrong.

[Morty]

Taking what's already an extremely poor combat system and adding another layer of random failure is a very bad idea. Automatic failure on a 1 is enough - although also pretty superfluous in case of attack rolls. If your enemy is so much weaker than you'd otherwise hit them on a natural 1, then they stand no chance either way. At best, they have a chance to get away.

A warrior losing their sword is a natural thing to happen in some cases. But then, in a game, it's rather questionable to deprive a character that the system already goes out of its way to trip up at every opportunity of their main tool. One they've probably sunk a decent chunk of their wealth into. Here, it's happening in a story, not a game. There's no player behind Roy who might feel like they're being unfairly treated.

Particularly since applying a rule saying that a warrior can drop their weapon on a critical failure wouldn't result in a situation we see here, anyway. Roy would have dropped his sword, or done something similar, while swinging at Tarquin. Or Durkula. Or earlier during the fight with the giants. Because there's a 5% chance it'd happen, regardless of circumstances. If you want a moment like that to happen in a game, you'd need to let either the players, or the DM, or both, decide when it happens.

[hroþila]

Absolutely. It's how the English won some of their major battles during the Hundred Years' War (for instance, Crecy and Agincort). The lightly armed archers (common mercenary men-at-arms) shot down the horses of the French knights, then often tripped up the heavily armored and unmaneuverable knights and killed them with sword or dagger thrusts through the joints of their armor or the visors of their helmets. This would easily be interpreted as a critical.
The lightly armed English archers would have been roughly the same level as the French knights, and they were very well equipped and highly trained themselves. No rusty swords or level 1 Commoners here. They didn't fumble into those victories (which, by the way, often had more to do with prepared field defenses than with anything else), nor into killing the knights through the gaps in the armour and the visors. Those weren't criticals, those were coups-de-grace.

I mean, realistically, the only way you're going to wound someone in plate armour with a sword is by doing exactly what you described. Is it a critical, or a mere hit, since it means you actually bypassed the enemy's AC? The D&D HP system breaks down if you look at it closely enough. There's this idea that HP represent your resilience in combat through a combination of actual physical robustness, skill, experience and luck, but then healing potions and spells are a thing and that's kinda contradictory.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say anymore.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I think you just argued for replacing HP with something more like a VP/WP mechanic.

[Snails]

Let me add a clarification. When I said, in the other thread...

I have a pet peeve about Roy dropping his sword at dramatic moments, as, in the context of D&D, it plays into the Dumb Fighters stereotype.

...I was overstating my position. I would not say that Roy should absolutely never ever ever lose his weapon. I do dislike how Roy loses his weapon so astoundingly easily. In this recent case, Roy is not merely dropping his sword to the ground, but apparently chucking it a 30 foot distance.

As for Fumble rules, I am open to the discussion but I would first ask: What are you trying to accomplish?

Because I cannot help but notice that, as a practical matter, it seems to a phoney kind of realism that hugely penalizes melee specialists and everyone gets to ignore. Logically speaking, any PC or NPC could, in the heat of battle, completely muck things up with a nervous twitch.

How about that Fireball going in completely the wrong place 5% of the time, eh? How about 5% of all spells going completely off the rails and doing something insanely unintended? After all, magic is supposed to be this awesome exercise of will with dangerous forces; isn't in keeping of magic occult and powerful that it not be a fully reliable technology?

[Finagle]

Critical hits got their start in wargaming. For example, at the Battle of Pearl Harbor the USS Arizona took a critical hit (bomb fell directly into in the magazine) and exploded. Critical hits really don't have any place in melee combat.

AD&D and Basic D&D didn't have them. RuneQuest did, however, and I think D&D got jealous. A "natural 20" didn't count for anything extra, and they wanted some chrome rules for extra damage. It provides more excitement for every roll of the d20. The mental reward is the same as slot machines and other Skinner boxes give. People become more excited about tasks that offer random reinforcement.

"In other words, if a rat touches a button with his nose and gets a pellet every time, he’ll like the task, but if he only gets a reward now and then, he’ll be addicted to it. It’s counterintuitive." (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102892869601/random-reinforcement)

[littlebum2002]

You know we're basically talking me vs. Bruce Lee here. I think you're being pretty optimistic.

A silver dragon vs Bruce Lee? No contest.


In this recent case, Roy is not merely dropping his sword to the ground, but apparently chucking it a 30 foot distance.

I don't think he's chucking it, I think it got knocked out of his hand and the airship moved out from under it. Like if you leaned out the window of your car when it's going 50MPH and threw a tennis ball 1' in the air: you're not gonna catch it.

[Peelee]

You vs Bruce Lee, by D&D rules:
Most likely version:
Bruce Lee wins Initiative, due to Dex-based bonuses.
Bruce Lee does a full attack, reducing your HP to 0.
You never get a chance to hit him.

Unlikely version:
You somehow win initiative - probably due to surprise.
You try and fail to hit his very high Dex-based AC
Bruce Lee does a full attack, reducing your HP to 0.
You never get a chance to hit him.

Crit version:
You somehow win initiative - probably due to surprise.
You crit, managing to lay a punch on him. It barely scratches his HP pool
Bruce Lee does a full attack, reducing your HP to 0.
You got your crit, did close to nothing.

Yeah, all those seem plausible. The thing is, you could have laid a punch on Bruce Lee: if he was looking the other way, and not expecting it. And if the stars align, he may have even felt it. He would've still mopped the floor with you regardless, though.

Grey Wolf

And if Bruce Lee was not looking the other way, and expecting it? We could say the Bruce Lee offers to take no action the first round (ie he let's me go first), so that him winning initiative is taken care of. Is the crit scenario still plausible (compared to, let's say, a trained fighter losing his sword in the middle of abattle on an airship that hits a significant bump)?

Also, i choose to believe that he would use his Unarmed Strike feature to deal subdual damage at no penalty. :smalltongue:

[Snails]

Critical hits make a lot of sense in many wargames. It is always possible for one lucky bomb to sink a battleship or carrier. It is always possible that one volley of musket fire kills the top officers in a battalion, leaving the unit ineffective until re-organized at the end of the day.

IMHO one of the main strengths of D&D is that its ablative hit points system is a very efficient method for playing a cinematic high fantasy game. How good it really is for such a genre is beside the point. Most players find the "bang for buck" in terms of bookkeeping effort to be attractive.

In fact, this simplicity is so attractive that most D&D gaming groups resist efforts to add any kind of Wound systems, something that could add quite a big dash of "realism" at very modest bookkeeping costs.

In recent editions, D&D did include a Critical Hit system, but it is a pretty mild and simple system that basically says "You do doubleish damage. Booyah!" Most players seem to think that is a plus in terms of the cinematic drama they crave.

My biggest criticism of Critical Fumble systems is it is adding a very phoney kind of realism on top of a system that is designed to not be realistic in that way. Are you sure you are really playing the right game? Because there are many other RPG game systems out there. It feels to me like a DM is having an argument with himself what kind of game he really wants to play. After all, it is possible to simply play low-level D&D, where you do not need any threat beyond just bad runs of luck to keep the game gritty.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Because I cannot help but notice that, as a practical matter, it seems to a phoney kind of realism

Ever read Military Maxims?

"If you drop your gear, your weapons and ammo will end up at least twenty feet away, while your canteen and spare socks will be right at your feet."

And I agree in re: magic, which is why Concentration and other tricks to turn spells into early 21st Century level technology in terms of reliability went bye-bye.

[Darth Paul]

"If you drop your gear, your weapons and ammo will end up at least twenty feet away, while your canteen and spare socks will be right at your feet."
My favorite is "When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend."


And I agree in re: magic, which is why Concentration and other tricks to turn spells into early 21st Century level technology in terms of reliability went bye-bye.

They did? When did that happen? Isn't Elan failing his Concentration currently a plot point?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Sorry, I meant in my games. Was that not strongly enough implied?

[Cazero]

The biggest issue of crit fumbles on a 1 is how they make you more of an useless clown the higher your level (and number of attacks) is. You know, the exact opposite of what should happen as character skill increases.

About the Bruce Lee example : you forgot the case where Bruce Lee kicked himself in the jaw for some reason during his attack routine, wich is more likely than Peelee winning initiative.

[Darth Paul]

Sorry, I meant in my games. Was that not strongly enough implied?

I thought maybe it was something that happened in 5th edition. I've skimmed the book but not to any great extent and haven't played by those rules yet, I'm sure things were changed that I don't know about.

The main thing I'm aware of is that dwarves, halflings and gnomes move 25 feet instead of just 20.

[Morty]

The lightly armed English archers would have been roughly the same level as the French knights, and they were very well equipped and highly trained themselves. No rusty swords or level 1 Commoners here. They didn't fumble into those victories (which, by the way, often had more to do with prepared field defenses than with anything else), nor into killing the knights through the gaps in the armour and the visors. Those weren't criticals, those were coups-de-grace.

I mean, realistically, the only way you're going to wound someone in plate armour with a sword is by doing exactly what you described. Is it a critical, or a mere hit, since it means you actually bypassed the enemy's AC? The D&D HP system breaks down if you look at it closely enough. There's this idea that HP represent your resilience in combat through a combination of actual physical robustness, skill, experience and luck, but then healing potions and spells are a thing and that's kinda contradictory.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say anymore.

Trying to model real-life battles using D&D combat rules is an exercise in futility.

[Peelee]

The biggest issue of crit fumbles on a 1 is how they make you more of an useless clown the higher your level (and number of attacks) is. You know, the exact opposite of what should happen as character skill increases.

About the Bruce Lee example : you forgot the case where Bruce Lee kicked himself in the jaw for some reason during his attack routine, wich is more likely than Peelee winning initiative.

By D&D rules, I doubt that. What kind of bonus are you giving Bruce Lee to initiative here?

[KorvinStarmast]

Critical hits got their start in wargaming. For example, at the Battle of Pearl Harbor the USS Arizona took a critical hit (bomb fell directly into in the magazine) and exploded. Critical hits really don't have any place in melee combat.

AD&D and Basic D&D didn't have them. While the AD&D DMG explicitly made the case against them, critical hits were in the original game (specifically for aerial combat). Go to the original game (OD&D) page 27 of the third book (Wilderness and Underworld Adventures) and see the critical hit table. Also associated with OD&D, see Blackmoor (supplement 2) on pages 7-11 the "damage by hit location" combat system. It had a similar effect to "criticals" in a lot of ways, in terms of losing limbs or perhaps your head. We used it a few times and eventually dispensed with it as it took too much time. That was a very fiddly way to play that was discarded in the following edition. The Runequest system was very similar to that system about hit location. Also fiddly, but we got used to it in our Runequest campaign ...


RuneQuest did, however, and I think D&D got jealous. I don't think so. They'd tried it and it had not initially worked. But the a lot of players wanted something. Our table in 1977/1978 (the DM who ran the D&D games, I was the EPT DM) had a critical table that I think came from an early dragon magazine articles. (The one in Dragon #39 was published about two years later, and saw play at 1e table where I participated.) The DM required a "confirmation of a crit" after a 20 and then a percentile roll to see what horrible thing happened. (It was gory indeed).

A "natural 20" didn't count for anything extra, and they wanted some chrome rules for extra damage. It provides more excitement for every roll of the d20. The mental reward is the same as slot machines and other Skinner boxes give. People become more excited about tasks that offer random reinforcement. I agree with your assessment.

[Cazero]

By D&D rules, I doubt that. What kind of bonus are you giving Bruce Lee to initiative here?
I might have made a slight exageration here.
The point being, crit fumble rules somehow make Bruce Lee more likely to crit-fail than a random schmuck.

[Snails]

I do not think that Critical Hits are very important as a topic, regardless of whether or what kind you are or are not using.

Fumbles are a different story IMNSHO. Not only do they punish certain PCs disproportionately, if applied as advertised, but I believe they are usually not actually applied as advertised and fail to punish vulnerable NPCs to a comparable degree.

I have read dozens and dozens of player accounts of awesome combats where Fumbles arise as significant to the course of the battle, and I have never read a single tale involving a powerful enemy NPC fumbling when it might matter. That jibes with my personal experience at the gaming table, too. Yes, I have seen a few orcs drop their weapons. Yes, I have seen a BBEG fumble when cornered and already 90% dead. But, no, the NPC fumbles "mysteriously" do not apply to important NPCs when the result is in doubt.

The reasons are twofold: (1) Being a DM is hard, and it sure is convenient for "forget" a few rules like fumble rules for the NPCs, to cut down on the dice rolling. (2) DMs are inclined to think of making the combat "interesting". So wouldn't it be a shame if the Badass Bodyguard tossed his own intelligent acid-dripping lifestealing serrated greatsword into the lava before he even gets a chance to inflict some damage? Obviously, that is something that "should" be forgotten about, right?

In short, not only do I think that Fumble rules are a bad idea for a game, but most DMs accidentally or purposefully undermine whatever kind of legitimacy those rules might have held.

And, again, I see no reason that a Wizard cannot Fumble a Fireball and accidentally blast the bodyguard standing right in front of him in the back of the head. If we want to argue that in the heat of battle anything can happen, then in the heat of battle anything can happen.

[Snails]

BTW, it is unclear whether Roy even Fumbled an attack. Rather, as depicted, Roy Fumbled his Balance check. Roy is paused and saying "What?" (panel 14) in response to "BRACE FOR IMPACT!" (panel 13).

Generally speaking, Fumble rules for skill checks also do not exist in the core rules. There are specific "Critical Fail" rules for specific skills, i.e. UMD and disabling a trap.

Regardless, this depiction makes Roy look amazingly hapless. A skilled combatant knows that the ground is not their enemy, and getting knocked to the ground is not a big deal. Windmilling your arms to stay on your feet is a desperate move only for fights on cliff edges and rooftops. Windmilling your arms means you have no defenses; that makes you much more vulnerable than simply hitting the deck and giving ground while getting back up.

[GloatingSwine]

A silver dragon vs Bruce Lee? No contest.



I don't think he's chucking it, I think it got knocked out of his hand and the airship moved out from under it. Like if you leaned out the window of your car when it's going 50MPH and threw a tennis ball 1' in the air: you're not gonna catch it.

Only because a tennis ball is very light so wind resistance would affect it greatly.

Remember, when you throw the tennis ball in the air at 50MPH the tennis ball is moving at 50MPH as well. The only force acting on it to change its velocity is wind resistance, and that's a function of mass to surface area.

If threw a tennis ball up a foot at 50MPH on the moon with no wind resistance it would be no different from doing it standing still.

A greatsword is sufficiently massive that wind resistance is not going to affect it to anything like the same degree as a tennis ball, it's not going to change velocity much at all, it's just going to fall to the floor.

[KorvinStarmast]

BTW, it is unclear whether Roy even Fumbled an attack. Rather, as depicted, Roy Fumbled his Balance check. Good point.
Regardless, this depiction makes Roy look amazingly hapless. Yeah, and in some ways it takes us back to Miko loading the Order up in chains and heading to Azure City (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html): (Stupid Railroad Plot!)

[Joerg]

In this case, the ship was decelerating and the sword continued to move at almost the same velocity, so it moved faster than the ship.

[Snails]

GloatingSwine is correct about the wind. Wind sufficient to make a hunk of metal move enough that we care would force all the bipeds to cling to rails and make Balance checks to traverse the deck.

[Snails]

In this case, the ship was decelerating and the sword continued to move at almost the same velocity, so it moved faster than the ship.

That cannot explain a significant sideways motion. It could only explain why the sword ended up more forward than we first expected.

[Darth Paul]

Generally speaking, Fumble rules for skill checks also do not exist in the core rules. There are specific "Critical Fail" rules for specific skills, i.e. UMD and disabling a trap.

Regardless, this depiction makes Roy look amazingly hapless. A skilled combatant knows that the ground is not their enemy, and getting knocked to the ground is not a big deal. Windmilling your arms to stay on your feet is a desperate move only for fights on cliff edges and rooftops. Windmilling your arms means you have no defenses; that makes you much more vulnerable than simply hitting the deck and giving ground while getting back up.

Obviously the Giant uses the same house rule we do: "1 is always a critical failure, no matter the skill. Something horrible happened."

Sure, the ground is your enemy. One of the last things you want to do, in real life or in D&D, is fight from a prone position in melee combat. By D&D rules, you have penalties to hit, your opponents have bonuses. Standing up again provokes attacks of opportunity (and even though Roy got a C- in that class, he should know that). This is one area where D&D rules are a pretty close approximation of real life. (Also, where did you see windmilling?)

[Quild]

Good point. Yeah, and in some ways it takes us back to Miko loading the Order up in chains and heading to Azure City (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html): (Stupid Railroad Plot!)

Just in case, you might be interested by this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?6495-Order-of-the-Stick-November-II/page17&p=291639#post291639).

[Snails]

(Also, where did you see windmilling?)

Windmilling is my best explanation for the large lateral velocity imparted to the sword. Perhaps such did not happen, but that leaves the situation much more difficult to explain.

If we examine #1066 and #1067, we can see that the ship is somewhere between 80 feet and 100 feet wide. Look carefully at the spacing of the people by the helmsman and the vertical posts of the railing -- that suggests the planks on the main deck are roughly 5 feet wide, as the upper deck between the stairs must be at least 35 feet.

The giant Roy trips on had fallen near the centerline of the deck, thus Roy must have tossed his sword some 30-40 feet distance to reach that rail. It looks like less because The Giant cleverly uses a forced perspective trick to hide the long arc of the sword.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Windmilling is my best explanation for the large lateral velocity imparted to the sword. Perhaps such did not happen, but that leaves the situation much more difficult to explain.

Alternative: the ship moved laterally when it hit the mountain. The sword performed a perfectly normal parabolic trajectory, during which the ship moved some 20 feet sideways, causing the sword to not fall in the same relative location of the deck Roy occupies.

GW

[Dr.Zero]

Alternative: the ship moved laterally when it hit the mountain. The sword performed a perfectly normal parabolic trajectory, during which the ship moved some 20 feet sideways, causing the sword to not fall in the same relative location of the deck Roy occupies.

GW

Another alternative it's that we are messed up by the fact that the strip is 2D and without perspective, but in the 3D world Roy is facing us at 45 degrees (either from the start or he spins because of the falling) and the sword flied, following a perfect parabola, but diagonally since the start.


s <- sword
\
\ <- reader perspective
\
\
x <- Roy, spinning because of the bump and falling 45 degrees toward his right


In the stick comic is hard to guess if Roy is facing the giantess, or has spun to the right of 45 degrees or more.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just in case, you might be interested by this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?6495-Order-of-the-Stick-November-II/page17&p=291639#post291639). I'd have been a lot more interested if he had specified what levels they all were (I know that Miko is of higher level) but thanks all the same for the link.

[Morquard]

Belkar is supposedly level 12 at this point, Ranger 11/Barbarian 1. "Even that last d12 HD can't make up for 11 levels of d8+Con." At this point in time the Order was still pretty much the same level.

Miko is between level 12 and 16 most likely, but possibly even higher (if she has more than two monk levels)

[Quild]

This made me realize that Miko has 9 feats listed in the geekery thread. So she must be level 15 at least. Two of these feats are only shown in 461 (Improved Unarmed Strike and Cleave), so we can assume she was at the very least level 14 while fighting The Order.

[KorvinStarmast]

16 makes sense for being the top Sapphire Guard paladin, fighting wise, and the whooping she put on the Order when they first met.

[Magesmiley]

Clearly Roy needs to invest in a locking gauntlet. And I'm sure that there's a joke in there somewhere that Belkar could make if he did get one.

[Hackman]

Regardless, this depiction makes Roy look amazingly hapless. A skilled combatant knows that the ground is not their enemy

Roy has had a different experience :P

[nyjastul69]

I always read these strips as a stunning like effect in 3.5 rules terms.

[gooddragon1]

It's surprising these people have never heard of string technology (http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=_wVlCiUh3Qw&p=n#/160;172) (Warning: Contains Traces of Batman).

[Snails]

Roy has had a different experience :P

Um...er...uh...cannot argue with that! :smalltongue:

[ghoul-n]

The first time we ever see anyone dropping a weapon is as far as #11 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html), where the party loses their weapons due to Unholy Blight application.

As there is nothing in description that would suggest any effect on being able to hold a weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm, it merely sickens its target on failed Will save), we probably can safely assume that people in-comic drop their weapons when it's the most realistic outcome minding the circumstances, even if specific spell or ability descriptions say nothing on the matter.

Not to say that nobody EVER has used a specific Disarm move that does just that (i.e.: Nale vs Malack).

[KorvinStarmast]

The biggest issue of crit fumbles on a 1 is how they make you more of an useless clown the higher your level (and number of attacks) is. You know, the exact opposite of what should happen as character skill increases. Yeah, that's part of why we stopped doing it. The fighters and others in melee got penalized out of proportion to others. (Then again, spell fizzles from taking damage were frustrating for magic users ... but that at least accounts for outside agency (the enemy fighting you) rather than you doing something pointlessly bad).

Trying to model real-life battles using D&D combat rules is an exercise in futility. Yeah. Even Chainmail was only OK at battle emulation. (It was still fun, back when we played it).

[Peelee]

Yeah, that's part of why we stopped doing it. The fighters and others in melee got penalized out of proportion to others. (Then again, spell fizzles from taking damage were frustrating for magic users ... but that at least accounts for outside agency (the enemy fighting you) rather than you doing something pointlessly bad).

Your mages never chose spells with attack rolls?

[KorvinStarmast]

Your mages never chose spells with attack rolls? Are you aware that spells with attack rolls is a comparatively recent invention? With the exception of the blue book/Holmes Magic Missile, which required an attack roll ...)

5e uses Cantrips as the 'weapon attack' for a magic using class. That is not how Cantrips started. They started as little minor magics/utility spells that cost you a 1st level spell slot just to have. They were great for RP and social play ... and in second edition, they weren't even specified. (Which they had been in the UA for 1e). 3d edition put a lot more meat on those bones ... anyway, spells with an attack roll were rarely considered worth the effort. In 5e, I have found a few that are worth it, when you can get your DC high enough.

[Peelee]

Are you aware that spells with attack rolls is a comparatively recent invention?

"Comparatively" being the operative word here, I'm assuming. Anyway, I take your point.

[Nupo]

Yeah, that's part of why we stopped doing it. The fighters and others in melee got penalized out of proportion to others.
We still use it, but have a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid fumbling. High lever characters get such good saves that they very rarely fumble. We learned long ago that if all natural 1's are fumbles that it happened too often. Allowing the save has made a nice balance.

[KorvinStarmast]

We still use it, but have a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid fumbling. High lever characters get such good saves that they very rarely fumble. We learned long ago that if all natural 1's are fumbles that it happened too often. Allowing the save has made a nice balance. Seems a decent mod to account for skill as level goes up ... but one can still have one of those real bad days. (Which sometimes make for insanely good stories ...)

[War-Wren]

Many moons ago, I ran a game using the Rolemaster System. Very detailed character generation, causing hours of paperwork and headaches, but producing very details characters with most nuances being covered.

Part of the system included a number of Critical and Fumble charts, again, insanely detailed. There were slashing, impact, piercing, fire, shock and so on. Even Tiny creatures were included.

If a crit or a fumble was rolled the player or GM would then roll on the appropriate chart (d100), to see what the effect was.

It kept criticals and fumbles unusual and random, as your critical could do an extra few HP damage, give you a bonus to your next attack, stun your opponent for a round, disarm them, or even decimate their head in such a terrible way that everyone--including yourself--within a 10' radius is stunned for a round at the horror :smalltongue:

Conversely, the fumbles were fun too, giving rise to misfooting which reduced AC, a particularly stunning block which rattled you, or even breaking your weapon.

At all times the GM was encouraged to adjust and modify the result as appropriate, but it seemed to go down well with the group, especially the mage of the group who, several times got a critical on his fireball that turned everything within the radius to ash. He very quickly earned the nickname 'Artillery', standing at the back and launching devastating spells over the top :smallbiggrin:

So yeah, personally, I loved the critical/fumble charts, even though they shot me in the foot a few times!

On another note, the main thing I got from this thread was that Peelee is going to kick Bruce Lee's butt! When!? Where!?? How much are the tickets!? :smallwink:

[multilis]

Funnily enough the corrected human error rate for cognitive actions is about 4%. The crude way to put it in layman's terms is that 4% of your output when typing will be wrong, even when actively looking for and avoiding errors. It had some implications for computer science, programming and so on which is where I saw it studied/collated. To err is human indeed.
" it in layman's terms is that 4% of your output when typing will be wrong" that is not true for trained typist, similar not true for a musician playing an instrument, etc. (It would be extremely noticed if in a concert a wrong note was hit 4% of time, etc) A trained typist is very close to 100%, very easy to prove in simple typing test.

Every time you make an error it makes the next error easier. Every time you do things right it makes doing it right next time easier, becomes automatic reflex rather than thinking.

On "average" 4% could be correct, as much of what we do is not well tuned automatic reflex, some things can't be because of changing nature of job.

[Snails]

The 4% number does not really mean anything without a clear context. It is not as if I incorrectly add or multiply numbers 4% of the time; I am very numerate and my error rate is far below 1%.

An expert musician misses notes far far below the 1% for pieces they know. But if you ask them they could point out the 3 notes out of 500 that they thought could have been timed and bent to be more beautiful.

The core rules already include a floor miss rate of 5%. So, whether or not that 4% error rate number is correct, it is irrelevant to a discussion about Critical Misses or Fumbles.

It is not as if 5% of the time the typist makes a Fumble, and then if they roll a 013 on the Rolemaster chart, they pick up the typewriter and throw it across the room.

[KorvinStarmast]

So yeah, personally, I loved the critical/fumble charts, even though they shot me in the foot a few times! 5e has a PC for you: Wild Magic Sorcerer. And for extra crispy, equip him/her with a Wand of Wonder. :smallbiggrin:

[War-Wren]

It is not as if 5% of the time the typist makes a Fumble, and then if they roll a 013 on the Rolemaster chart, they pick up the typewriter and throw it across the room.

No, no, no... a 13 on the Fumble chart for typing is simply stop for a breather... a 31 however is the typewriter suddenly shatters and you are stunned for the remainder of the round! :smallwink:


5e has a PC for you: Wild Magic Sorcerer. And for extra crispy, equip him/her with a Wand of Wonder. :smallbiggrin:

That sounds both awesome and terrifying... If I was still part of an RP group I would totally go for this :smallbiggrin: If I could find a GM crazy enough...

[Snails]

No, no, no... a 13 on the Fumble chart for typing is simply stop for a breather... a 31 however is the typewriter suddenly shatters and you are stunned for the remainder of the round! :smallwink:

Dang! I hope my players in my Secretaries & Salarymen campaign do not notice this. I would hate to have to retcon.

[Jasdoif]

Dang! I hope my players in my Secretaries & Salarymen campaign do not notice this. I would hate to have to retcon.I thought the "severance package" mechanic was specifically in the core rules to promote metagame acceptance of retcons?

[Snails]

I thought the "severance package" mechanic was specifically in the core rules to promote metagame acceptance of retcons?

Whew! Good catch. I sometimes forget how useful reading the fine print that comes on the boilerplate Employment Contract character sheet can be for the GM.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Is it weird that suddenly I want to see an actual rulebook for Secretaries and Salarymen? You could roleplay The Office.

Or maybe it's just what Saturday's date is, and my need for something fun to game with that day.

[Peelee]

I thought the "severance package" mechanic was specifically in the core rules to promote metagame acceptance of retcons?

That's for people who don't play with the at-will-gameplay books.

[kinem]

The weapon dropping in OOTS appears to happen not on a fumbled attack; instead it's a risk when a character is damaged a lot.

What house rule would best simulate this? Some possibilities are:

1. When you take damage above twice your level, you must make a reflex save or drop your weapon.

2. If you are critted, you must make a reflex save or drop your weapon. The problem with this is that we have seen weapon drops with spells that don't require an attack roll.

3. Once per combat, you can drop your weapons to take half damage from an attack.

4. All of the above :smallbiggrin:

[Snails]

5. When the silent mood music suddenly shifts from heroic to ominous, indicating a dramatic turnaround is occurring, the protagonist shall be amazed by the amazing event and drop his weapon.

:smallconfused:

I think you point, kinem, that it is not quite understandable as either a Critical Fumble or a Critical Fail is on target. It more often seems to be a side effect of something happening to Roy, not Roy's own effort going wrong.

I do wonder how often anyone else drops their weapons, but tracking something like that for numerous minor characters is probably beyond the reach of even the most stalwart banana.

[Jasdoif]

That's for people who don't play with the at-will-gameplay books.In an amateur-entrepreneur (amatreprenur) type of campaign, frequently. Above that landmark tier, though, typically there's some sort of severance package that comes with a clause nullifying it for voluntary termination (and possibly specific reasons for involuntary termination). The idea being that it's easier for the business to keep talented employees from switching companies for a Personal Gain bonus by offering freebies that don't have to be paid up front. (Secretaries and Salarymen assumes the existence of employee-profit-sharing programs as well, since it's easier to motivate players/characters if there's an observable connection between improved performance and enhanced compensation)


The weapon dropping in OOTS appears to happen not on a fumbled attack; instead it's a risk when a character is damaged a lot.

What house rule would best simulate this?Replace death by massive damage. Instead of making a DC 15 Fortitude save vs death if you take more than 50 damage in one hit, make a DC 10 (+1 per 10 points of damage) Reflex save or drop your weapon if you take more than 50 damage.

Death by massive damage is generally silly anyway; by the time you're being hit for 50 damage and the damage alone isn't killing you, getting 15 on a Fort save shouldn't be too hard (the Constitution bonus for more hit points also improves the Fort save, and high-hit-point classes normally have good Fort save progressions).

[KorvinStarmast]

Ok, so he dropped it again in strip 1069.
At least this time, there's a valid reason.
The Giantess just went all Nancy Lopez on his butt, and knocked him down the middle of the fareway.
Be he dazed, stunned, or whatever, at least that's a plausible Cause and Effect chain for weapon drop.

[GloatingSwine]

On Fumbles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wENxYDrbcQ8) from a martial arts/historical reenactment enthusiast.

Worth a watch.

[Snails]

On Fumbles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wENxYDrbcQ8) from a martial arts/historical reenactment enthusiast.

Worth a watch.

I certainly believe him. Whether you have the most appropriate weapon for your tactical situation is not something that D&D tries to model. There are game systems that get into reach/length in a detailed manner, but that is far to rules heavy for casual gamers.

What he is implicitly arguing is that if you do not have a viable physical counterattack to threaten the attacker with, then you are enormously easier to hit. D&D specifically ignores such considerations, presuming that not having a good weapon is its own reward.

BTW, this is also related to how D&D has always undermodeled the effectiveness of shields. Both because the shield can be used to control distance between combatants, and the shield makes it much easier to stand your ground in the face of attacks, thus not risk stumbling when you might otherwise need to make a quick few step backwards on a crowded battlefield.

[Stealth Marmot]

A silver dragon vs Bruce Lee? No contest.


Anything short of platinum is a curb stomp, and platinum would be an even match.