Fumble, any way to get arround?

[citabogue]

Hi, iam currently a level 6 rogue with 3 attacks/round and i'll soon have my 4th and 5th and actually not that happy about it. My group wants to use fumble but they completely ignore the rules for fumbles in DMG 28 that let you take a DC 10 dex check to avoid fumbling. So everytime i roll a 1 i cry. Is there any way to get around this or i re-roll into a spell caster?

[Necroticplague]

And you've hit upon why this forum tends to react very poorly to fumble rules.

Probably best to just play a spell caster and use AoEs, so it's your opponents that have the chance of fumbling, not you. Less drastically, you could try picking up luck feats to let you re-roll when you roll a fumble.

[Stealth Marmot]

At least you have a high dex from being a rogue so you probably have a 30% chance or less to fumble even when you roll a 1.

Theoretically.

In reality, you have a 100% chance to fumble every time it matters. Because the universe hates us.

[Arbane]

Talk to the GM, and explain you wanted to play the Three Musketeers, not the Three Stooges.

What fumble rules are he using? Because someone on the forum came up with a very good playtest for fumble rules.


Also, I suspect Andreaz was alluding to the fairly well-known proposal for judging critical fumble tables: "Have a group of 20 Warrior 1s attack adjacent straw dummies with swords for 1 minute. If by the end of that time any Warriors are dead, missing limbs, or otherwise seriously injured, the DM must butter his fumble rules and eat them." (If you like, you can repeat the experiment with 20 Fighter 20s, but this time butter is not allowed.)

[Fuzzy McCoy]

There is, if you don't want to create a new character, gloves of fortunate striking, mantle of second chances, and the luckblade all offer the ability to reroll a natural 1 one/day.

There's also the luck domain, if you multiclass into cleric, and lightning recovery, an iron heart maneuver from the ToB, achievable through either multiclassing as a warblade at 9 (not before!) or the martial study feat several times.

There's also the luck feats, which include both a feat to turn a 1 into a 20 1/day and the ability to reroll an attack by spending a luck point. There is an item in the complete scoundrel/champion (don't remember which?) that also gives you a luck point.

[Darrin]

Hi, iam currently a level 6 rogue with 3 attacks/round and i'll soon have my 4th and 5th and actually not that happy about it. My group wants to use fumble but they completely ignore the rules for fumbles in DMG 28 that let you take a DC 10 dex check to avoid fumbling. So everytime i roll a 1 i cry. Is there any way to get around this or i re-roll into a spell caster?

1) Better Lucky Than Good (Complete Scoundrel). Expend one luck reroll as a swift action to treat a natural "1" on an attack roll as a "20". Requires two other luck feats, and can only be used once per round. Given it takes three feats, considered a lousy investment of resources.

2) Aura of Perfect Order (Tome of Battle). Once per round, treat any d20 roll as an "11". This is difficult to get unless you have a large number of Crusader levels. Only works for one attack.

3) Tell your group that you personally will not be using the fumble rules, either when you roll or when something attacks you.

4) Propose the following: Every time a player rolls a "1", they put a dollar in the "Fumble Jar". At the end of the night, whoever put in the most $ takes home the jar. After cleaning them out, ask them again if the fumble rules are "fair".

[citabogue]

At least you have a high dex from being a rogue so you probably have a 30% chance or less to fumble even when you roll a 1.

Theoretically.

In reality, you have a 100% chance to fumble every time it matters. Because the universe hates us.

No, that's the major problem. I pointed out the DC 10 Dex check Fumble rule and the group refused to use it. Right now if i roll 1 i fumble no Dex check allowed.

[Stealth Marmot]

No, that's the major problem. I pointed out the DC 10 Dex check Fumble rule and the group refused to use it. Right now if i roll 1 i fumble no Dex check allowed.

Go for the fumble jar idea proposed. If the jar fills, you can hit the DM with it.

You might be tempted to make a smaller jar, but remember that means it hits less hard.

[JNAProductions]

Talk to the DM and other players OOC, explain how it hits you harder than anyone else.

You say you have 3 attacks a round? That's an attack every two seconds. So it takes...

28 seconds to have a greater than 50% chance of fumbling.
54 seconds to have a greater than 75% chance.
1 minute 30 seconds to have a greater than 90% chance.

You're 6th level? So you're already PAST the level where Wizards can FLY. And you, just whacking a training dummy, would accidentally trip like an idiot with a 90% chance in under two minutes.

I'm an untrained level 1 commoner, probably-I wouldn't do that.

Anyway, point is, explain that it's really dumb.

Side note-what HAPPENS on a fumble?

[Big Fau]

Your friends want to incorporate a rule that fundamentally screws you if you don't alter your build? Explain that to them exactly like that. If they insist, multiclass into Cleric and Warblade, pick up the Luck and Pride domains along with the Lightning Recovery maneuver, and stock up on magic items that allow you to reroll (or give you AoEs). Don't spend feats to avoid fumbles, as those are far more expensive in the long run than levels or GP.

[citabogue]

Side note-what HAPPENS on a fumble?

Last fumbles : our barb's fire sword slipped off of his and and landed on the next room through a fire door. When we finally reached to it, it was being eat by small constructs. After that i accidentally stabbed our wolf companion and since he wasn't expecting that he was considered flat-footed and took a sneak attack damage taking half his hp down in one shot + attacked me on his turn thinking i was betraying him and since my character has some kind of poisonous blood, our wolf got a disease unabling him to use his bite attack for the rest of the donjon until we could heal him at town.

Bad enough?

[Arbane]

Last fumbles : our barb's fire sword slipped off of his and and landed on the next room through a fire door. When we finally reached to it, it was being eat by small constructs. After that i accidentally stabbed our wolf companion and since he wasn't expecting that he was considered flat-footed and took a sneak attack damage taking half his hp down in one shot + attacked me on his turn thinking i was betraying him and since my character has some kind of poisonous blood, our wolf got a disease unabling him to use his bite attack for the rest of the donjon until we could heal him at town.

Bad enough?

Sounds pretty bad to me, but I'm not generally a fan of Happy Fun Miserable Failure Hour.

I'd recommend pointing out that spellcasters can't fumble, and ask for some spell-malfunction rules for them. No reason not to spread the pain.

[Pleh]

Last fumbles : our barb's fire sword slipped off of his and and landed on the next room through a fire door. When we finally reached to it, it was being eat by small constructs. After that i accidentally stabbed our wolf companion and since he wasn't expecting that he was considered flat-footed and took a sneak attack damage taking half his hp down in one shot + attacked me on his turn thinking i was betraying him and since my character has some kind of poisonous blood, our wolf got a disease unabling him to use his bite attack for the rest of the donjon until we could heal him at town.

Bad enough?

No matter how bad the fumble, I'd never make the sneak attack go through. That's just a low blow and only justifiable for the sake of comedy. Sneak Attack is Precision Damage. You aren't supposed to accidentally deal precision damage unless you are already performing surgery.


Talk to the DM and other players OOC, explain how it hits you harder than anyone else.

You say you have 3 attacks a round? That's an attack every two seconds. So it takes...

28 seconds to have a greater than 50% chance of fumbling.
54 seconds to have a greater than 75% chance.
1 minute 30 seconds to have a greater than 90% chance.

You're 6th level? So you're already PAST the level where Wizards can FLY. And you, just whacking a training dummy, would accidentally trip like an idiot with a 90% chance in under two minutes.

I'm an untrained level 1 commoner, probably-I wouldn't do that.

Anyway, point is, explain that it's really dumb.

Side note-what HAPPENS on a fumble?

To be fair, if a level 1 commoner was trying to make 45 precision attacks in a minute and a half... they might just trip over themselves.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Last fumbles : our barb's fire sword slipped off of his and and landed on the next room through a fire door. When we finally reached to it, it was being eat by small constructs. After that i accidentally stabbed our wolf companion and since he wasn't expecting that he was considered flat-footed and took a sneak attack damage taking half his hp down in one shot + attacked me on his turn thinking i was betraying him and since my character has some kind of poisonous blood, our wolf got a disease unabling him to use his bite attack for the rest of the donjon until we could heal him at town.

Bad enough?

How did you aim to a weak spot if it was a fumbles?
There should not be any sneak attack damage.

[Uncle Pine]

Dip Cleric (which is good enough on its own they made a whole handbook on it), choose "survival of the cunning" as your ideal, take the Luck domain and pick the Imbued Healing feat. Now everytime you cast cure light wounds on yourself you'll be immune to fumbles for a whole minute.
It's a level and feat tax, but it gets the job done and it's something you can actually roleplay. Of course the best scenario would be to talk your DM into not using fumbles, but here I'm assuming it won't work.

[Khedrac]

As a mitigation tactic, as the DM this:

"A natural 20 is not an automatic critical, so why is a natural 1 an automatic fumble?"

See if you can persuade the DM to require a confirmation roll on fumbles the same way there is on criticals, e.g. roll to attack again and a miss confirms the fumble, it's not a 'less bad' a system as the Dex check, but it is better than nothing. Ask to automatically confirm criticals if the DM says "no".

[animewatcha]

Instead of trying to prevent them, why not encourage them a bit. What about suggesting to DM that fumble rules carry over to all d20 rolls. Reality breaking can be adapted to the situation..

Whether yes or no to extension of fumble, if OP is willing to scrap his rogue a bit. Can we build the OP a 'character of fortune'. That is, the character himself is 'protected a bit' through rerolls. However, his main theme is maximize the number of fumbles. to make the DM AND other players wind up rerolling enough times that fumbles have more of a chance for happening.
Player A rolls a 19 and is about to confirm a crit against a bugbear. OOPs due to misfortune, Player A needs to rerolls that 19. A 1? Time to bust out the fumble.

If have to, maybe 'help them' by making items for party that lets them reroll attack rolls, but rolls of 1 have to be stood by.

[RolkFlameraven]

As a mitigation tactic, as the DM this:

"A natural 20 is not an automatic critical, so why is a natural 1 an automatic fumble?"

See if you can persuade the DM to require a confirmation roll on fumbles the same way there is on criticals, e.g. roll to attack again and a miss confirms the fumble, it's not a 'less bad' a system as the Dex check, but it is better than nothing. Ask to automatically confirm criticals if the DM says "no".

This. My group has used fumbles for years but there has always been a confirmation roll using 3.X. If a 20 isn't an auto crit why on earth would a one be an auto fumble? Then again our rules for a fumble are simply "you get no more attacks this round" barring a double or triple 1. So we don't have people killing themselves, friends or tossing their sword halfway across a room all the time like we did when we were 15 and thought it was funny.

Now is everyone in the group save you happy with fumbles or is it just the DM? If it's just you then you are kind of stuck so long as you want to play with this group and a caster sounds like your best option. However if that barb is unhappy too, well it's more than possible that others don't like them but don't want to speak up. Talk to the others and bring this to the DM. If more than half the group is unhappy they should back down, or step aside.

[bekeleven]

Just keep fumbling until you've "accidentally" killed every other member of the party.

Then take their stuff and retire.

[Shackel]

If everyone else in your group is fine with fumbles, I second just requesting that natural 1s need to be confirmed in the same way as natural 20s. At least from there, amping up your to-hit is much easier than getting rerolls and luck feats, and it supplies more tension when you roll a 1 rather than dread/apathy when you have to roll at all.

[Pugwampy]

My Fave DM used basic fumble rules . I tried avoiding fumbles using locked gauntlets although my DM made me fall on butt because the weapon dragged me down . So my weapon never ever dropped but i was prone when I crit failed . I not sure that was a good trade .

Try locked gauntlets ?



I was never impressed with ye olde make dex check or drop your weapon fumble rules . Just makes everyone want a high dex . This should be fair to all weapon wierdo,s outside of your AB points .

My rules are high/low roll check after you roll one . 50/50 chance.
If its a low roll the weapon is smashed and destroyed if its a normal weapon .
Magic weapons are tossed across the battlefield in whatever wind direction I roll . Magic weapons are invincible and cannot break .

The only flaw with this is the master work weapons. I tend to avoid masterwork weapons in my games . Too expensive to just smash but in theory they are normal weapons .

Weapons breaking in the middle of a fight is sick fun for everybody .


My big Orc boss is about to finish off a loser player , DM crit fail and axe head pops off its handle falling and slicing off orc toe ..... Players are whooping with glee.

Revenge Dm time : Player crit fails and his magic weapon goes soaring in the air . My weakest and most useless monster grabs it and runs off into the bushes while showing the hero the middle finger .

My players got around that by asking the spell chucker to cast magic weapon on their arms and artillary to keep them from breaking.
They also always carry spare weapons

[Aotrs Commander]

I - coming from Rolemaster - and my group are not adverse to fumbles. Fumbles often lead to the most memorable and hilarious moments, more so than criticals.

We have experimented with many options over the years, but the one we currently use is if you roll a natural 1, you roll again, and then the DM (usually me) decides (depending on how bad your roll was and how nasty he's feeling) what happens, with the majority of the time being "you just miss badly." (Rolling two 1's in a row means trouble, though, especially if you are, for example, attempting to shoot past one of your comrades...) Harder rules than that tended to noit make them better. DM fiat allows the DM to take pity on your if the party is in a real bind... And occasionally provide some amusments when the combat is hailriously one-sided the other way. (Such as the time the party fighter (5th-6th level or something) managed to slice himself badly twice with his own sword and deal more damage to himself than the huma skeleton he was trying to fight could EVER have done...!)

We also state, however, that you can only fumble on the first attack you make in a round, so character with ten attacks around are not more penalised.

I would recommend that as a suggestion for your group, at the very least.

[Stealth Marmot]

As a mitigation tactic, as the DM this:

"A natural 20 is not an automatic critical, so why is a natural 1 an automatic fumble?"

See if you can persuade the DM to require a confirmation roll on fumbles the same way there is on criticals, e.g. roll to attack again and a miss confirms the fumble, it's not a 'less bad' a system as the Dex check, but it is better than nothing. Ask to automatically confirm criticals if the DM says "no".

That's actually how I work fumbles in.

It actually gives better fighters or attackers with better chances to hit less chance of fumbling than the wizard shooting the crossbow and praying for a natural 20.

[CharonsHelper]

This. My group has used fumbles for years but there has always been a confirmation roll using 3.X. If a 20 isn't an auto crit why on earth would a one be an auto fumble? Then again our rules for a fumble are simply "you get no more attacks this round" barring a double or triple 1. So we don't have people killing themselves, friends or tossing their sword halfway across a room all the time like we did when we were 15 and thought it was funny.

That's not so bad - though I'd point out that it still makes TWF have even more issues than it already does since they're the most likely to have to stop swinging.

[Telonius]

You could play a Knight,and invest heavily in shields, armor, and items that give you Miss Chance. Then, sit back and enjoy the show. The more attacks your enemies have on you, the more likely they are to obliterate themselves. This works best with a "Saint Bertold (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=5998772&postcount=2)" sort of build, though more levels of Knight means your challenges are harder to resist. In any case, the key is not to do things that require attack rolls at all.

[Vizzerdrix]

Im rather sure you are allowed to willingly lower your outcome on a d20 roll. Either slip while shaving and roll up a brand new force missile mage, or start using enemies as your weapons.

Better yet, get as many braid blades as you can for extra attacks and tpk the party in a single round.

[nyjastul69]

Im rather sure you are allowed to willingly lower your outcome on a d20 roll. Either slip while shaving and roll up a brand new force missile mage, or start using enemies as your weapons.

Better yet, get as many braid blades as you can for extra attacks and tpk the party in a single round.

I haven't seen this as a rule. Can you point out your source citation please?

[Crake]

You can just put it down to an ultimatum for your DM. Say "I'm not willing to play if we're using this rule because it doesn't enhance my gaming experience" and put the ball in the DM's court. If he's so adamant about using a bad rule that he's willing to let a player walk away from the table because of it, then I say those aren't really people you want to be playing with anyway. More than likely though, if the DM sees you're serious about it, he'll stop using the rule. Pretty much everyone around my table has done that at some point or another, and when the DM sees that it's really doing nothing but reducing a player's fun, then, at least in my anecdotal experience, he will give in and stop using the rule.

One of the examples that actually comes to mind is when a DM suggested using fumble rules, I just flat out said "Look, if we're using fumble rules, you guys can have fun, but I'd rather just not play". The other example was a different player doing the same thing with the triple natural 20 insta-kill rule that we wanted to run, because he's lost a character to that in the past and going from full to dead in the first round of combat didn't do much for his enjoyment of the game.

[Vizzerdrix]

I haven't seen this as a rule. Can you point out your source citation please?

If I could remember where I saw it I would gladly tell you. Maybe it was only in referance to save?

[nyjastul69]

If I could remember where I saw it I would gladly tell you. Maybe it was only in referance to save?

One can voluntarily fail a save. I've never heard of a rule that allows one to lower a roll though.

[Necroticplague]

In any case, the key is not to do things that require attack rolls at all.

On that note, a Dragonfire Adept can go their entire career without ever making an attack roll quiet easily.

[RolkFlameraven]

That's not so bad - though I'd point out that it still makes TWF have even more issues than it already does since they're the most likely to have to stop swinging.

True enough, but TWF is just bad enough to begin with that it doesn't pop up often at our table now days.

[druid zook]

I absolutely hate fumble rules. Groups who have them are mathematically challenged. Did the Romans drop their swords all the time? They used to fight for hours! Is my 20th-level Fighter supposed to be at risk of dropping his weapons 5% of the time? It's not like the dragon he's fighting is at the same risk. Does the dire wolf have a 5% chance of its teeth falling out?

That said, sometimes you're stuck playing with stupid rules. Get locking gauntlets. Try weapon crystal of return. Put mucho ranks into Use Magic Device and get wands of spells with weapon-like effects with durations, such as Blade of Pain and Fear--try dropping that!

The main thing is to stay positive and come up with good solutions. It doesn't hurt to try negotiations to amend the rules as suggested in this thread. Good luck.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Last fumbles : our barb's fire sword slipped off of his and and landed on the next room through a fire door. When we finally reached to it, it was being eat by small constructs. After that i accidentally stabbed our wolf companion and since he wasn't expecting that he was considered flat-footed and took a sneak attack damage taking half his hp down in one shot + attacked me on his turn thinking i was betraying him and since my character has some kind of poisonous blood, our wolf got a disease unabling him to use his bite attack for the rest of the donjon until we could heal him at town.

Bad enough?
Those are ridiculously awful fumbles. They're insane, mean-spirited, and cripplingly unfun even by fumble standards. That's not "comedy," that's cruelty. How do the other players feel about them-- is it just the DM, or are most of the players fans of "haha, you rolled badly NOW SUFFER" gameplay?

In any case, I think Crake has the right approach here-- bluntly tell the DM "no, I will not use these fumble rules. I've tried and they're making me miserable." If they don't at least discuss how to improve things, walk. From the descriptions you posted, I'm not inclined to be generous towards the DM in the first place...

[Ellrin]

I'm kind of curious how the DM handles his own fumbles. Are they as catastrophic for the NPCs as yours appear to be for you and/or your party? In my opinion, rules for penalizing failure, beyond the simple dearth of success, only work if they hit everyone equally--other players and DM alike.

As an alternative to the ultimatums people are suggesting, assuming your DM and party all want to keep rolling with the existing fumble rules, I'd point out that concept of equality in failure, and ask that the rules at least be adjusted so that the other players and the NPCs all share in the same chance of failure that you do. Anything less is pretty plainly punishing particular players, and if a DM is made to recognize that and still refuses to change his stance, he shouldn't be DMing.

[CharonsHelper]

True enough, but TWF is just bad enough to begin with that it doesn't pop up often at our table now days.

I'm not sure about 3.5, but I know that in Pathfinder at high levels you can get about 20% more DPR than with two-handed combat for a martial*. But - that's IF you get a full attack and IF they don't have damage reduction, and ignores the 3 feat cost. But - it still has an edge.

*Unchained Rogue gets even better than 20% if they get SA, especially with Debilitating Injury

[Stealth Marmot]

Those are ridiculously awful fumbles. They're insane, mean-spirited, and cripplingly unfun even by fumble standards. That's not "comedy," that's cruelty. How do the other players feel about them-- is it just the DM, or are most of the players fans of "haha, you rolled badly NOW SUFFER" gameplay?

In any case, I think Crake has the right approach here-- bluntly tell the DM "no, I will not use these fumble rules. I've tried and they're making me miserable." If they don't at least discuss how to improve things, walk. From the descriptions you posted, I'm not inclined to be generous towards the DM in the first place...

It may seem like a petty thing to leave over, but the truth is sometimes you have to identify potential problems before they happen later. A DM who is unwilling to admit mistakes, change custom rules that make the players feel like they aren't having fun, or listen to reasoned requests won't become reasonable later. I know from experience the pain of having to leave a game you are entrenched in, and it is better to figure out where the problems will be coming from before they happen and get out before you invest too much mental, physical, and emotional energy into it.

That said, if the DM is otherwise reasonable and just seems to love his fumble quirk, it IS something you can work around by shifting strategies.

[citabogue]

Just keep fumbling until you've "accidentally" killed every other member of the party.

Then take their stuff and retire.

Was actually my next plan lol. The player (not DM) that is FOR fumbles without a save is our mage. I thought i could just stand by him 100% of the time and striking monsters as they get to him and pretty much one or 2 shot him ''accidently'' which would be even easier since i sneak attack my allies on fumbling.

[martixy]

Was actually my next plan lol. The player (not DM) that is FOR fumbles without a save is our mage. I thought i could just stand by him 100% of the time and striking monsters as they get to him and pretty much one or 2 shot him ''accidently'' which would be even easier since i sneak attack my allies on fumbling.

That's devious and is the absolute correct approach. After it loses its novelty, follow Crake's advice.

Another option is to propose better ones. I, for one, firmly believe there are ways to salvage fumble rules.

In fact hold on, I'll go post them in the homebrew forum and come back to link.

Edit:
Here's the LINK (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520500-Non-awful-fumble-rules&p=21886057#post21886057).