Nat 1 rolled with multiple attacks

[Scottlang]

I've been listening to a pod cast, glass cannon, and I also played this way, but the players said otherwise...

If you have more than one attack, and roll a natural 1,do you loose the rest of your attacks, or does it mean that just that attack misses??

[Karl Aegis]

You just miss.

[the_david]

You just miss that one attack.

[Eldariel]

It could be a result of a critical fumble, but not in the default game. Critical fumbles are a rather poor optional rule in the game, where extra bad stuff happens on natural 1. It's a bad rule because the probability doesn't decrease with level and the more attacks you roll the higher the chance you roll one is; as the game progresses damage by giving you more attacks, this thus means that a higher level character has a higher chance of fumbling each round which is both, nonsensical and annoying (depending on the exact nature of the fumbles of course).

[KillianHawkeye]

Critical fumbles are a distressingly common house rule. :smallsigh:

[Manyasone]

We've always played like this. Ever since second edition. You roll a 1, that's it, turn's over

[Necroticplague]

A natural 1 is always a miss on an attack roll. No more, no less.

[Arbane]

We've always played like this. Ever since second edition. You roll a 1, that's it, turn's over

Good idea. Iterative attacks are far too powerful.

(The Bad GM levitates into the sky while throwing lightning bolts.)

[Afgncaap5]

Well, while it's true that rolling a natural 1 doesn't stack, for a table that wishes to keep this rule but also make it more likely for their progressively-skilled characters to not be penalized so much, I like the rule about giving a Reflex save with a set DC as an option for people to avoid the fumble.

A fun side-effect of this is a rare instance of an eventuality where the baseline rogue and ranger have an edge over both the bulkier fighters and the magical wizards.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You just miss. The only difference between a natural 1 and any other roll that's too low to beat the targets AC is that a natural 1 always misses, even if it would otherwise beat the target AC.
Everything else is a houserule.

And critical fumbles are an abomination.
It's already hard to play the "legendary warrior" archetype in D&D without being overshadowed by the spellcasters, but it becomes absolutely impossible if 1 out of every 20 strikes results in dropping your weapon, stabbing yourself in the foot, cutting out your own eye or similar idiocy.

[Pleh]

Critical fumbles are fun if and only if your table enjoys not taking the game too seriously and can laugh when it gets someone killed.

[Manyasone]

Good idea. Iterative attacks are far too powerful.

(The Bad GM levitates into the sky while throwing lightning bolts.)

To each his own, mate...Also I fail to see how fumble rules make a bad DM, but anyway

[NOhara24]

To each his own, mate...Also I fail to see how fumble rules make a bad DM, but anyway

They don't automatically make a bad DM per se, but they're a huge red flag. Mostly because the people with fumble rules tend to go to extremes and pull shenanigans like "Oh, you rolled a 1? That means you critical hit a member of your own party." or "You chop your own hand off." or something silly like that. They add nothing to the game, but take a lot away from it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

To each his own, mate...Also I fail to see how fumble rules make a bad DM, but anyway

They punish weaker classes while possibly leaving stronger ones untouched, can lead to trained superhuman warriors kill themselves fighting practice dummies, and generally add a lot of silliness to the game. I have personally never seen a fumble rule I liked and no one I have ever seen use them I have regarded as a good DM. I am sure exceptions exist but I have yet to encounter them.

[Pleh]

They punish weaker classes while possibly leaving stronger ones untouched, can lead to trained superhuman warriors kill themselves fighting practice dummies, and generally add a lot of silliness to the game. I have personally never seen a fumble rule I liked and no one I have ever seen use them I have regarded as a good DM. I am sure exceptions exist but I have yet to encounter them.

Well, it's clearl that fumbles are meant to counter balance the Critical Success. If 1 in 20 hits can be a miraculous success even when it should normally be impossible, it's logical that another 1 in 20 be inexplicable failure.

One could argue that removing fumbles ought to compel us to remove criticals as well. Obviously, the counter argument would be that crits are core rules while fumbles are optional, but there's merit also in considering every rule to be optional.

Then, as people have mentioned, both crits and fumbles have strong impact on caster/noncaster power comparability. Considering the disparity, it's probably best to choose the most favorable outcome for noncasters possible.

But the counter is that, once again, not every table experiences the balance and power that this forum tends to predict. Therefore, at certain tables, fumbles don't skew the encounters as much as the forum would typically predict.

Overall, fumbles are not a good rule for the average table, but it shouldn't be considered a universally bad rule. Because it depends.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Well, it's clearl that fumbles are meant to counter balance the Critical Success. If 1 in 20 hits can be a miraculous success even when it should normally be impossible, it's logical that another 1 in 20 be inexplicable failure.
Critical hits made by players are already balanced by critical hits made against players. There's nothing more to balance.

From another angle, consider: you can become immune to critical hits, and whole types are immune by default. Can you become immune to fumbles?

[Ellrin]

One in twenty attacks is an inexplicable failure. You miss, no matter what, which is exactly the opposite of the other one in twenty, where you hit no matter what. Sure, you have a chance of doing extra damage on a Nat 20, but that doesn't mean that a Nat 1 should completely wreck a multi-action-dependent character's turn every time it comes up, let alone cause even further harm. That's not balancing outcomes, it's just punishing attack-dependent characters for even having a chance of doing extra damage.

[zergling.exe]

Well, it's clearl that fumbles are meant to counter balance the Critical Success. If 1 in 20 hits can be a miraculous success even when it should normally be impossible, it's logical that another 1 in 20 be inexplicable failure.

One could argue that removing fumbles ought to compel us to remove criticals as well. Obviously, the counter argument would be that crits are core rules while fumbles are optional, but there's merit also in considering every rule to be optional.

Then, as people have mentioned, both crits and fumbles have strong impact on caster/noncaster power comparability. Considering the disparity, it's probably best to choose the most favorable outcome for noncasters possible.

But the counter is that, once again, not every table experiences the balance and power that this forum tends to predict. Therefore, at certain tables, fumbles don't skew the encounters as much as the forum would typically predict.

Overall, fumbles are not a good rule for the average table, but it shouldn't be considered a universally bad rule. Because it depends.

A roll of 1 (auto missing, colloquially called a fumble) is the equivalent of a 20 (auto-hit, threaten critical hit). A critical fumble's equivalent is rolling 3 20s in a row for an instant kill.

The main difference is that most of the time, DMs will replace fumbles with critical fumbles, causing you to have a 1 in 20 chance of catastrophe while having a 1 in 400? chance of miracles. Some DMs will include critical fumbles on a 3 1s in a row system along with the 3 20s. That's fine.

[Florian]

It´s so stupid, it actually hurts: The more experienced the fighter, the higher the chance of fumble. Bob the 20th-level dual-katana-wielding god of death has an 8 times higher chance for a fumble then Bob, 1st level.

[Deeds]

I used to be a DM who used fumbles and I've been a player where a DM used fumbles. It was entertaining and hilarious for a few sessions. However, as mentioned in other posts, eventually it doesn't make sense for my now level 6 fighter to accidentally drop/throw his sword more often thanks to his newfound expertise.

The most ridiculous highlight was a monkey once fumbled and accidentally pulled its own arm off. Immersion. Lost.

The fumble rules remind me of my groups initial thoughts on the Precise Shot feat. For awhile, bowmen without Precise Shot automatically hit their ally when they failed to hit an enemy. Someone pointed out that the best way to optimize a ranged character was to dump DEX, do not get proficiency with a bow, and shoot at your tanky full plate fighter while they fight bad guys. The crappy home rule was shortly dropped. :smallwink:

[Karl Aegis]

So, the grell who brings all its tentacle attacks to bear bounces off someone's armor on the first attack and then just freezes despite the fact that all the tentacles are in motion. How does that make any sense?

[Nupo]

It appears most of you who condemn fumble rules have played in campaigns where they were very poorly executed. If you allow a reflex save to avoid fumbling, higher level characters will fumble far less than low level ones. Yes, they will be rolling more 1's due to the greater number of attacks per round, but due to their high save modifiers they will fail very few, and therefore actually fumble very seldom. Also most people make the mistake of having fumbles be catastrophic. Things like cut your own head off, or other crazy stuff like that. If instead they are more realistic things like being dazed for one round, the whole system will be an enhancement to the game rather than an absurd detraction. I have used some form of fumble rules for over 35 years and have seen my share of poorly executed ones. I still use them however because if done well they make the game both more fun, and more realistic.

[Karl Aegis]

Game hasn't been out for 35 years. You're using rules from a different game.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's nothing fun or realistic about "oh hey, you're an elite swordsman, but you're too stupid to hold on to your sword for more than 5 minutes at a time or not hit yourself in the head with it when you swing".
Unless we're talking about comedy/slapstick campaigns i'd expect my primary melee character to be capable of basic competence in his field.

That idiocy aside there's also no equivalent for spellcasters. Melee doesn't need any more handicaps, no matter how flavorful people think they are.

[NomGarret]

Were I to use them, it would be something minor, such as -2 to hit until start of next turn and/or require all attacks in a sequence to be nat 1 for catastrophically bad effect.

[Arbane]

It appears most of you who condemn fumble rules have played in campaigns where they were very poorly executed. If you allow a reflex save to avoid fumbling, higher level characters will fumble far less than low level ones. Yes, they will be rolling more 1's due to the greater number of attacks per round, but due to their high save modifiers they will fail very few, and therefore actually fumble very seldom. Also most people make the mistake of having fumbles be catastrophic. Things like cut your own head off, or other crazy stuff like that. If instead they are more realistic things like being dazed for one round, the whole system will be an enhancement to the game rather than an absurd detraction. I have used some form of fumble rules for over 35 years and have seen my share of poorly executed ones. I still use them however because if done well they make the game both more fun, and more realistic.

So you add a few more dice-rolls before you punish the fighter for not being a spellcaster. Awesome. What have you got so wizards can turn themselves into newts by accident?

I have heard of a grand total of one RPG session where a fumble made things better: Sameo. (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo)

[Calthropstu]

I have no problem with critical failures as long as they follow the same rules for critical hits.
But it should be appropriate. Lose your next attack roll would be better than "end turn." Otherwise this greatly affects fighters and monks.

[Zaq]

It appears most of you who condemn fumble rules have played in campaigns where they were very poorly executed. If you allow a reflex save to avoid fumbling, higher level characters will fumble far less than low level ones. Yes, they will be rolling more 1's due to the greater number of attacks per round, but due to their high save modifiers they will fail very few, and therefore actually fumble very seldom. Also most people make the mistake of having fumbles be catastrophic. Things like cut your own head off, or other crazy stuff like that. If instead they are more realistic things like being dazed for one round, the whole system will be an enhancement to the game rather than an absurd detraction. I have used some form of fumble rules for over 35 years and have seen my share of poorly executed ones. I still use them however because if done well they make the game both more fun, and more realistic.

Or we could, you know, not have to implement houserules to protect ourselves from our houserules.

[lagninja]

Game hasn't been out for 35 years. You're using rules from a different game.

DnD has been around for 43 years at this point. I don't know where you are getting that it is less than 35 years old from.

[zergling.exe]

DnD has been around for 43 years at this point. I don't know where you are getting that it is less than 35 years old from.

D&D has had 5 distinct rulesets. To say they are all the same game is disingenuous. 1st edition has many different rules than 2nd, which is different from 3rd, etc. etc.

[JNAProductions]

More than 5, actually.

Anyway, as has been said, you just miss with the attack that rolled a 1. If more happens than that, that is a houserule, and you should discuss it with your DM.

[Pleh]

Critical hits made by players are already balanced by critical hits made against players. There's nothing more to balance.

From another angle, consider: you can become immune to critical hits, and whole types are immune by default. Can you become immune to fumbles?

As was mentioned, if you have a static reflex save against fumbles, you eventually become effectively immune.

Likewise, if fumble rules are in play, it ought to hit monsters as often as pcs.


A roll of 1 (auto missing, colloquially called a fumble) is the equivalent of a 20 (auto-hit, threaten critical hit). A critical fumble's equivalent is rolling 3 20s in a row for an instant kill.

The main difference is that most of the time, DMs will replace fumbles with critical fumbles, causing you to have a 1 in 20 chance of catastrophe while having a 1 in 400? chance of miracles. Some DMs will include critical fumbles on a 3 1s in a row system along with the 3 20s. That's fine.

You're right that the main problem is abuse of the rule.

[Coretron03]

As was mentioned, if you have a static reflex save against fumbles, you eventually become effectively immune.
What if you fumble the reflex save?

Likewise, if fumble rules are in play, it ought to hit monsters as often as pcs.
Because screw Hydra's, Right? High cr hydras should have a 50/50ish to lose their turn, thats just common sense.

Plus, your orginal justification of balancing out crits is now null because your adding a new rule that applies to both PC's and monster so its less balance and more "I want this rule".

[legomaster00156]

Assuming a REF modifier high enough to pass the check 95% of the time, a natural 1 would mean you just rolled two natural 1's in a row, a 1/400 chance just like rolling 2 20's. In that case, I would say that yes, you do critically fumble under that set of houserules.

[Pleh]

What if you fumble the reflex save?

I think the first part of using fumble rules is knowing how far to use them. If you just make it as bad as it can be at every opportunity, you're doing it wrong.


Because screw Hydra's, Right? High cr hydras should have a 50/50ish to lose their turn, thats just common sense.

That's an oddly specific critique. If a rule only really has a problem with one application in the game, that's better than most rules. Just leave a footnote in the rules about the problem and a recommended fix.


Plus, your orginal justification of balancing out crits is now null because your adding a new rule that applies to both PC's and monster so its less balance and more "I want this rule".

Was fumble designed to only apply to players and never monsters? I have never seen it played that way. That IS a terrible rule. Player attacks shouldn't be subject to fumbles if the carbon copy npc version is not. That's just a bad rule.

Thankfully, I've seen fumbles apply to monsters MORE often than players.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, the best fumble rules I've seen only allow an enemy to make an opportunity attack, if you CONFIRM a fumble. (Applying to enemies of course too.) So you just overextend yourself or something, leaving an opening an enemy can exploit. But, if there's no enemies to exploit the mistake, it's easy to recover from, and does you no harm.

This also helps, because it's not fun to have an enemy kill themselves by rolling a 1. I don't want to hear the story about how the brave, mighty heroes went to fight the Death Knight, and then the Death Knight accidentally stabbed himself. That's just lame.

[Psyren]

Our group allows fumbles but we require confirmation, and you can use Hero Points to negate them. Allows for some of the drama (and comedy) that fumbles can bring, but drastically reduces the chances of one actually occurring from being a 1 in 20 problem.

[Arbane]

A while back someone came up with the best way to playtest fumble rules:


20 level 1 warriors (or 20 level 20 fighters) with swords will beat on straw dummies for 10 minutes. The dummies do not fight back or take any action.
If at the end of that time any of the test subjects are dead or dying, the GM has to butter their fumble rules and eat them.

Or, more angrily:


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

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



Our group allows fumbles but we require confirmation, and you can use Hero Points to negate them. Allows for some of the drama (and comedy) that fumbles can bring, but drastically reduces the chances of one actually occurring from being a 1 in 20 problem.

Can I suggest the opposite approach, as seen in Legends of the Wulin? On a 1, the player CAN fumble, but they GET a Hero Point if they choose to do so.

[Nupo]

The solution is simple. If your group comes up with a set of fumble rules you like, use them. If not, don't.

[Psyren]

Can I suggest the opposite approach, as seen in Legends of the Wulin? On a 1, the player CAN fumble, but they GET a Hero Point if they choose to do so.

Mechanically I can see how that boosts the player's agency, but it's a bit hard for me to justify fluffwise. The more you fail the better your reward?

[Florian]

The more you fail the better your reward?

Basic principle of story focused system like Fate or HEX. (But those focus on the spotlight and not on the individual step-by-step actions)

[Psyren]

I guess. Those don't sound appealing to me, but to each his own.

[Florian]

I guess. Those don't sound appealing to me, but to each his own.

Interesting. You know, people socialized with d20 generally seem to have a problem with those systems. What you wrote about your style so far, tho, indicates that you´re actually quite compatible with them.

[Psyren]

Interesting. You know, people socialized with d20 generally seem to have a problem with those systems. What you wrote about your style so far, tho, indicates that you´re actually quite compatible with them.

I probably wouldn't mind it (with friends) but my preference is for rules-heavy systems with minutiae that I can memorize, and painstakingly detailed combat engines. I do prefer the focus on step by step actions over broader cinematic flair.

I do like some clauses within those rules that give the GM some wiggle room (e.g. Dominate Person's "obviously self-destructive" clause, Planar Binding's "unreasonable commands" clause, and Teleport's "strong physical energy" clause, all of which require GM adjudication) but for the most part, I want characters (and monsters!) to clearly know what they can do, without having to describe it and then ask for permission first because there is no clear rule.

My ideal game would have a level of rules specificity approaching Magic The Gathering, where the cards are written in a level of legalese that approaches pseudocode. Then the more powerful effects like binding and teleportation would have a couple of these clauses that let the GM keep them in check in specific situations as needed; situations that a Big Bad could reasonably know about and plan around.

[Karl Aegis]

DnD has been around for 43 years at this point. I don't know where you are getting that it is less than 35 years old from.

We're on the third edition forum. Not the OD&D, AD&D 1st Edition, BECMI, AD&D 2, D&D 4e, or D&D 5e forums. They are seven different games produced by more than one company. Third edition is less than twenty years old.

[Arbane]

Mechanically I can see how that boosts the player's agency, but it's a bit hard for me to justify fluffwise. The more you fail the better your reward?

If someone's going to be suffering for the group's entertainment, it's only right to reward them for it.

[Psyren]

If someone's going to be suffering for the group's entertainment, it's only right to reward them for it.

"Suffering" is more than a bit melodramatic, but whatever.

In practice the fumble rarely actually happens (read: is confirmed), it's more of an oh crap moment. Monsters tend to get more attacks anyway.

[Telonius]

I use fumbles in my games ... but only on my side of the screen, and only for mooks. Fumbles are for Random Guard #4 accidentally clocking his friend with a warhammer. They aren't for PCs or boss fights.

[Pleh]

I just remembered something I forgot to mention earlier.

"Why would missing one attack cause you to lose the rest of your attack actions?"

Also presented as, "A Grick attacks with all its tentacles, one of them rolls a Fumble. Why do the rest of them no longer get to make an attack roll even though the appendages were already physically in motion?"

I did have an argument against this thought: it's because making multiple attacks per round requires a certain amount of coordination.

I play several musical instruments. My experience on the Drum Set is likely the best analog to making multiple physical attacks in a single round. The thing about playing the drum set well is being able to react and follow what's going on around you in an active musical scenario. Combat has some similarities. You're taking your trained responses in a combat situation and applying them to the active combat in front of you. Every time you make iterative attacks or a series of Natural attacks, it's a bit like a drum solo. You aren't making a series of individual attacks, but performing a series of interconnected movements. Each attack is not actually unrelated to the others. If you miss a beat in your sequence, it throws off the rest of the sequence.

Should you absolutely lose the rest of your attacks? Maybe only if you Confirm a Critical Fumble. It is possible while playing drums to miss the beat and quickly react to your own mistake to pick it back up before you fall completely out of time. But sometimes it DOES happen that you miss a beat and it throws you completely out of time with the other players.

Translating this into D&D, I would say that the Grick's tentacles still "attack" but they aren't getting an attack roll because they have automatically missed. Those extra attacks were interdependent on each other to attain a certain level of speed AND precision. When the fumble interrupted, the rest of them were operating on a failed precision. While they probably didn't just stop moving, they probably lacked the accuracy and speed necessary to hit their intended targets and failed to deal lethal damage.

The Grick's muscles had a spasm in response to the mistake and failed to correct the mistake before the attack was complete.

---

This answer doesn't satisfy "But why punish martials when casters already are ahead?" but it wasn't meant to answer that question.

I think if you're using these Fumble rules, you should likely force casters to make Concentration checks for EVERY spell they cast (both PCs and NPCs and monsters) so the chance to Fumble becomes universal.

[JNAProductions]

This answer doesn't satisfy "But why punish martials when casters already are ahead?" but it wasn't meant to answer that question.

I think if you're using these Fumble rules, you should likely force casters to make Concentration checks for EVERY spell they cast (both PCs and NPCs and monsters) so the chance to Fumble becomes universal.

One roll per turn (one spell) for the most part, or anywhere from 3 (+6 BAB, basic TWF) to 7 or more rolls?

5% chance of the caster goofing per turn.

But, with more rolls per turn that the martial gets...



Number Of Attacks
Chance Of Fumble


2
9.75%


3
14.26%


4
18.55%


5
22.62%


6
26.49%


7
30.17%


8
33.66%



Couldn't go beyond 8 because Anydice pooped out. But as you can see, Martials have nearly DOUBLE the chance with just two attacks, and while it increases more slowly after that, 4 attacks (the bare minimum for most 16th level characters) has more than triple the chance of fumbling.

[Psyren]

Couldn't go beyond 8 because Anydice pooped out. But as you can see, Martials have nearly DOUBLE the chance with just two attacks, and while it increases more slowly after that, 4 attacks (the bare minimum for most 16th level characters) has more than triple the chance of fumbling.

Which is why, if you fumble at all, you should require confirmations - which lowers the odds per swing significantly below 5%.

[JNAProductions]

Which is why, if you fumble at all, you should require confirmations - which lowers the odds per swing significantly below 5%.

I am not going to calculate that-that's too complicated for my tastes.

But that'd actually be a good way to hit casters harder than martials-a Nat 1 on a Concentration check just fumbles, but martials get confirmation rolls.

Edit: I do not advocate that-I do not like fumbles. But it's an idea.

[Gildedragon]

I just remembered something I forgot to mention earlier.

"Why would missing one attack cause you to lose the rest of your attack actions?"

Also presented as, "A Grick attacks with all its tentacles, one of them rolls a Fumble. Why do the rest of them no longer get to make an attack roll even though the appendages were already physically in motion?"

I did have an argument against this thought: it's because making multiple attacks per round requires a certain amount of coordination.

I play several musical instruments. My experience on the Drum Set is likely the best analog to making multiple physical attacks in a single round. The thing about playing the drum set well is being able to react and follow what's going on around you in an active musical scenario. Combat has some similarities. You're taking your trained responses in a combat situation and applying them to the active combat in front of you. Every time you make iterative attacks or a series of Natural attacks, it's a bit like a drum solo. You aren't making a series of individual attacks, but performing a series of interconnected movements. Each attack is not actually unrelated to the others. If you miss a beat in your sequence, it throws off the rest of the sequence.

Should you absolutely lose the rest of your attacks? Maybe only if you Confirm a Critical Fumble. It is possible while playing drums to miss the beat and quickly react to your own mistake to pick it back up before you fall completely out of time. But sometimes it DOES happen that you miss a beat and it throws you completely out of time with the other players.

Translating this into D&D, I would say that the Grick's tentacles still "attack" but they aren't getting an attack roll because they have automatically missed. Those extra attacks were interdependent on each other to attain a certain level of speed AND precision. When the fumble interrupted, the rest of them were operating on a failed precision. While they probably didn't just stop moving, they probably lacked the accuracy and speed necessary to hit their intended targets and failed to deal lethal damage.

The Grick's muscles had a spasm in response to the mistake and failed to correct the mistake before the attack was complete.

---

This answer doesn't satisfy "But why punish martials when casters already are ahead?" but it wasn't meant to answer that question.

I think if you're using these Fumble rules, you should likely force casters to make Concentration checks for EVERY spell they cast (both PCs and NPCs and monsters) so the chance to Fumble becomes universal.

Don't forget not meeting AC isn't just missing, ie a natural 1 doesn't mean that the attack didn't connect. To roll bellow AC also includes the attack hitting but not piercing the armor.

[Karl Aegis]

The grell (Lords of Madness Page 108, also in the Monster Manual) gets 11 attacks and is CR 3. I'd love to see how these things eat anything when they spin out and start flopping around uselessly before getting to their bite attack more than a reasonable amount of time. Even paralyzed prey they are holding in their tentacles has a good chance of never seeing the bite attack.

[JNAProductions]

43.12% chance of rolling a 1 each turn for that.

[Necroticplague]

Couldn't go beyond 8 because Anydice pooped out. But as you can see, Martials have nearly DOUBLE the chance with just two attacks, and while it increases more slowly after that, 4 attacks (the bare minimum for most 16th level characters) has more than triple the chance of fumbling.

Trick I've learned for Anydice 'count' function (what I assume you're using): Splitting up the dice pool end up with the same results, but somehow takes less time for Anydice to do. so '[count {1} in 11d20]'= 'no result, takes to long', but '[count {1} in 5d20]+[count {1} in 6d20]'=results.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Which is why, if you fumble at all, you should require confirmations - which lowers the odds per swing significantly below 5%.
Confirmation doesn't address the problem, which is that more attacks = more likely to Buster Keaton your attack routine. It just lowers the overall chance a bit.

[Pleh]

The grell (Lords of Madness Page 108, also in the Monster Manual) gets 11 attacks and is CR 3. I'd love to see how these things eat anything when they spin out and start flopping around uselessly before getting to their bite attack more than a reasonable amount of time. Even paralyzed prey they are holding in their tentacles has a good chance of never seeing the bite attack.

A perfect example of blowing it out of proportions.

A grell is not required to use all 11 attacks. They can still use the single attack. How do they eat anything? The same way any animal eats: by being careful to hunt they weakest prey they can manage.

Why go after the armored and well trained human fighter when regular animals never level up?

This happens when we conflate mechanics with narrative props.

We only ever assume monsters actually eat things because they often don't exist in the world long enough to trigger the starvation rules (which technically only deal nonlethal damage, by the way).

The Grell rolls a critical fumble and loses all 11 attacks while trying to catch a common house cat? Clearly, the cat managed to slip the trap and leap just out of the Grell's reach. A lucky (for the cat) stroke of fate.

Far from being beyond the realm of what can be believed.

Remember also that unless the Grell has Pounce, they have to Full Attack to use all those 11 attacks, which means they already have their prey more or less cornered (or they themselves are on the defense) since they don't have to move anywhere before attacking.

Bad Game Design? Perhaps, but not necessarily bad for Role Playing.


43.12% chance of rolling a 1 each turn for that.

Sure, but a Nat 1 is still only an automatic miss unless you're forgoing Confirmations and go straight to Automatic Critical Fumbles. If you use Confirmations, they still won't necessarily lose the rest of their attacks.

But even if they do lose attacks that often, your numbers don't seem to be taking into account WHEN in the 11 rolls the Nat 1 occurs. It almost hurts nothing if the Nat 1 is the last attack, since no other attacks are left to be lost. Your 43.12% chance is for the Nat 1 to happen anywhere in the 11 separate rolls, am I right?

Blowing it out of proportion.

[Karl Aegis]

Did you just do a complete 180? The grell missed a beat so the cat did something miraculous? Like, say move ten feet away from the grell outside of the grell's reach, only to return to the same exact square it occupied before the grell started the attack. The grell has the same chance to flop around uselessly attacking a cat as it does attacking a gargantuan sized object. AC 1 vs AC 14. Same chance. The object doesn't do anything, the grell just screws up and loses the rest of its turn. Unless objects can suddenly move out of the way of incoming attacks "because role play".

[JNAProductions]

1/3 chance of losing at least 3 attacks, given my math up above. That's pretty significant.

[Psyren]

Confirmation doesn't address the problem, which is that more attacks = more likely to Buster Keaton your attack routine. It just lowers the overall chance a bit.

Well, obviously the more frequently you do something the more likely it is that you will get more of the possible outcomes from the result set (including that one). That's just math.

I think though that - for those who want fumbles regardless - reducing the chance from 5% for a single swing to, say, 1% per entire attack routine is a reasonable goal.

For those who don't like fumbles, that's totally okay - but clearly there is a demand for this sort of thing when companies can even pack their fumble rules into a deck and sell them. No amount of physical violence against GMs (threatened or otherwise) seems to be making a dent in that. So I'd rather make the system better than scrap it entirely.

[Pleh]

Did you just do a complete 180? The grell missed a beat so the cat did something miraculous? Like, say move ten feet away from the grell outside of the grell's reach, only to return to the same exact square it occupied before the grell started the attack. The grell has the same chance to flop around uselessly attacking a cat as it does attacking a gargantuan sized object. AC 1 vs AC 14. Same chance. The object doesn't do anything, the grell just screws up and loses the rest of its turn. Unless objects can suddenly move out of the way of incoming attacks "because role play".

1. The target doesn't need to move at all for an attack to miss.

When we say, "miss," in game mechanics, we're talking about producing a particular effect: a strike that deals damage. If the attack fails to strike or deal damage, it's a "miss." No need for the cat to move for the attack to simply fail. It can still do *something* even if it fails to do what was intended.

2. The attack can still miss even if the target is incapable of moving.

Attacking inanimate objects still requires a roll, because it's just as much about how and where you strike as it is about managing to strike them at all.

3. Dex to AC explicitly implies that the target is attempting to avoid or mitigate damage.

The target has approximately 2.5 ft of movement in each direction to dodge without leaving it's occupied square. Incoming attacks do not cover that whole area (or they would be area attacks).

A grell with 11 attacks could suffer a dextrous cat ducking and weaving past each tentacle (without leaving its occupied square) because it fumbled its attack, throwing itself off its own timing and telegraphing its movements.

And once again, if only Hydras and Grell are unfairly hindered by this, put a footnote in the fumble rules to warn DMs about the problem so they can balance without throwing out a mechanic the table wants to play with.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Pleh, are you seriously arguing that a grell can fail to strike a cat so badly it simply stops hitting at all? And not just that, because the cat's is interchangable for literally any other target. Hitting the broad side of a barn (negative AC, in other words) gives you exactly the same change to fumble and lose your remaining 1-10 tentacle attacks. A grell can, apparently, fail to hit a barn so badly, its tentacles simply become unusable for about five seconds, and this happens regularly. As in, if you take thirty seconds to observe a grell flailing at a barn, you will see random pauses as it untangles its tentacles. And these are intelligent creatures with above-average dexterity.

Fumble on a natural 1 - with attack loss - gets more unrealistic the more attacks you have, and it's already unrealistic with just one attack. Basically, you are taking away from immersion to add... extra bad luck? What a good idea.


(and if you want grells to have fewer attacks, just take them away entirely, don't use fumble rules)

[Pleh]

Let's take this in steps. I feel there is a progression of thought to be expressed on my part.


Pleh, are you seriously arguing that a grell can fail to strike a cat so badly it simply stops hitting at all?

Well, if we boil it down to a yes or no answer, then my answer would be "yes." Within the spectrum of statistics and things that can mathematically happen, the idea of a Grell's attack missing so badly as to cause the rest of its attacks to miss their target for 6 seconds is really not the worst probability I've ever seen.

Like I said with my Drum Performance analogy, it is possible to miss so badly to throw yourself off for a few seconds. Part of being a skillful performer is being able to quickly recover from such mistakes just as much as being skilled enough to seldom make them to begin with. In fact, it's most musicians have more skill at smoothing over mistakes rapidly and organically than those that have skill to play every song in their repertoire perfectly every time.


And not just that, because the cat's is interchangable for literally any other target. Hitting the broad side of a barn (negative AC, in other words) gives you exactly the same change to fumble and lose your remaining 1-10 tentacle attacks. A grell can, apparently, fail to hit a barn so badly, its tentacles simply become unusable for about five seconds,

I'll take it from this point, because the next point you make is actually a separate, if related, point.

I'll repeat that "missing" an "attack" in D&D doesn't necessarily mean you fail to touch the target. It means your attack was ineffective at dealing damage, whether due to flailing through the air, getting obstructed by some other object, or just landing in a less lethal manner than intended.

Have you ever done the chore of chopping wood? Attacking the broad side of a barn is more or less similar as it is an inanimate wooden target.

There is some skill required in chopping wood. Not every attack from every angle returns the same wood-splitting results. If you're an inch off center, you could have an uneven split, only managing to chip off a corner of the log. If you try to miss the knot in the grain, but miss and hit the knot, it's like striking the plate of the armor rather than the weaker chink. Your attack still lands, it's just ineffective and the resistance of the armor throws off your momentum. Sometimes this DOES force you to stop and reset your attack stance, even if you had a good rhythm going before that moment.

I'd imagine a barn wall would have similar problems in attacking it. You want to strike in a manner than would leverage the tentacle's strength against the barn wall's structural integrity. If you fumble your attack roll, it could mean all the strikes land, but they aren't hitting at the exact angle they were planning for and result in dealing no significant damage to the wooden structure.

This is because the remaining attacks were not separate attacks from the one that failed. They were a sequence of movements designed to work together. Like the dwarven blacksmiths in the Hobbit trilogy movies, hammering away in perfect sequence with one another. If one of them messed up, the others couldn't necessarily just keep going, they were depending on each other to get it right every time.

Now to your other point:


... and this happens regularly. As in, if you take thirty seconds to observe a grell flailing at a barn, you will see random pauses as it untangles its tentacles. And these are intelligent creatures with above-average dexterity.

This is an example of a bad DM adjudication of the rule. First, if you use the "confirmation" rules, the likelihood goes down rather significantly. If you use the "reflex save vs fumble" rules, the above-average dexterity of the creature will play out in reducing the likelihood of this happening.

But last and most importantly, what kind of crazy idiot continues flailing at an obviously ineffective strategy? What idiot, while trying to chop wood quickly, just keeps hammering away ineffectively rather than stepping back and slowing down to heighten their effectiveness?

When the Grell failed the first flurry, if the barn was not beginning to crumble, it might try a second time just to consider bad luck. If it happens more than once in 30 seconds, the DM should use that creature's intelligence to change tactics and switch to single attacks or even raw strength checks to break objects. If they're really intelligent, maybe they would question the idea of trying to break the wall in the first place rather than find another way around it?

Finally, another person mentioned having 20 fighters attacking practice dummies who take no actions and wait until they all die from their self-inflicted injuries. Once again, this is a failing of the DM to adjudicate. For one thing, it IS possible to hurt yourself while learning how to swing a sword. It is unlikely to instantly chop your head off, though, so if the Fumble Table says that must happen, the DM ought to step in and say, "No, that has no reasonable chance of happening in a scenario where the Fighter is only practicing, rather than actually fighting an enemy that is trying to kill him and forcing him to attempt maneuvers that literally risk his life".

At my tables, whenever players roll a 1, I first consider if they were attempting anything that might merit a more drastic consequence than simply missing their opponent. Swinging a sword at an enemy? Nah, I don't think they need any more punishment than missing their chance to deal damage. They weren't upping the ante at all, they were just trying to play the cards dealt to them.

But say they were trying to free a friend from an enemy that was pinning their friend? I might have them confirm the fumble, but there's a good reason to suspect they could miss and unintentionally harm their friend. They knew ahead of time that such risks were going to be taken in their choice of action and now fate has played its own cards.

Most often my players actually fumble when I hear an expectation in their response to their own roll that it probably should be ruled a fumble (as if they might be grateful, but feeling a bit coddled if it weren't). By contrast, when I can hear in their voice that it would really bug them to fumble right then and there, I mentally argue with the rules to see if I can't find a loophole that could mitigate the problem. Heck, one time a player at my table fumbled trying to shoot a grappling hook to the roof, attempting to indiana jones away from the fight. But tripping on his face didn't feel right, so I instead had the ceiling fall on everyone. Both sides of the combat took damage, but the players at the table thought it was awesome to have "failed-to-win."

Using Fumble rules is often an exercise in creative DMing. You have to know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em. Know when to walk away. Know when to run.


Fumble on a natural 1 - with attack loss - gets more unrealistic the more attacks you have, and it's already unrealistic with just one attack. Basically, you are taking away from immersion to add... extra bad luck? What a good idea.


(and if you want grells to have fewer attacks, just take them away entirely, don't use fumble rules)

You know what I think is unrealistic? Unlimited Wish. If you're gonna get a magic wish, you should darn well at least be at the mercy of cosmic forces that will do everything in their power to interpret your wish badly and screw you over in the process.

I'm not saying Fumble OUGHT to be part of every game or even any game. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be so bad for games as naysayers are saying. All the examples I've seen about how bad Fumble rules are demonstrate that no one has tried to use creative thinking to interpret the outcome in a more sensible manner than trying to conjure the worst probable-to-slightly-improbable manner. I mean, tangled tentacles? Are we playing Toon Mechanics here?

Having Fumble rules at the table doesn't (and shouldn't) mean the DM can't override them in specific circumstances (the DM is supposed to be the interpreter for what the dice are saying, anyway). Somebody mentioned getting or using Hero points against fumbles, which is a mechanic for letting players do the same thing.

Remember, the DM is the referee. It's not a foul if the ref doesn't say it is. Even if the table said "fumble rules" at the start of the campaign, no roll is a fumble until the DM officially declares it to be one.

Yes, it has been abused and badly used in too many games. Tables that don't know how to tailor the effects of fumble to make the game more fun rather than less shouldn't use it at all.

But it's just another ingredient that can be used in the stew. If the players all agree that they want a Nat 1 to be the Fumble to the Nat 20's Critical, the DM just needs to be ready to use that spice sparingly and to use it with a spirit that makes playing the game more interesting rather than more harrowing.

[Deeds]

Is OP ok? Did he roll a 1 on replying?

[Karl Aegis]

Replace the barn with an equally large piece of tissue paper. How long will the tissue paper last versus the mighty Tarrasque?! DUN DUN DUN!

[Pleh]

Replace the barn with an equally large piece of tissue paper. How long will the tissue paper last versus the mighty Tarrasque?! DUN DUN DUN!

I do find it strange that you keep reaching for even greater extreme cases that have even less likelihood of ever being a real game scenario, forcing even more of the effort to go on the DM to adjudicate since we're fairly far off the rails of what the game was supposed to simulate.

If you're wanting to play Toon mechanics, anything goes, I guess.

I'll play this one for a bit with you.

1 "The Tarrasque full attacks the barn wall sized sheet of tissue paper. The Sheet of Tissue Paper is prone due to lacking the structural stability to hold itself upright, so the Tarrasque gets an unnecessary +4 to hit in melee."

2 "The Tarrasque rolls a Nat 1 to claw the sheet."

1 "Reflex Save DC 10 vs fumble"

2 "The Tarrasque rolls a Nat 1."

1 "The Tarrasque misses the tiny (relative to the Tarrasque) sheet. It instead sticks to the palm of his hand. Make a spot check to find it."

Do we need to keep going? I mean, at this point we've ignored the question of why a sheet of tissue paper the size of a barn wall exists and why a legendary Tarrasque would bother noticing its existence, much less trying to destroy it. But even with all that, rolling a Nat 1 fumble doesn't have to be ridiculous.

At least, not any MORE ridiculous than the scenario conjured ALREADY is.

[Karl Aegis]

You're questioning why a piece of tissue paper the size of a exists? We have PCs. We have Wizards. Sometimes we have PC Wizards. PC Wizards are not known to be responsible. See: Owlbears.

Also: Confirmed: Walls of tissue paper will inevitably stall the tarrasque long enough to evacuate the nearby town.

[Psyren]

Before the Tarrasque discussion devolves any further, I have a general question - for those who don't like fumble rules, is there any circumstance under which you'd allow them? I've heard one person say that if they player accepts the fumble result, they should get a Hero Point, otherwise it simply doesn't happen. Any other compromise positions like that?

[Pleh]

See, the existence of the town being evacuated wasn't mentioned. Likely the Tarrasque wouldn't bother interacting with the sheet of tissue paper if there was something else it would rather be doing. Also, if you can evacuate the town in the time it takes the Tarrasque to make a full attack and a spot check, evacuating the town really was never a problem to begin with.

I'm having a hard time believing you aren't being disingenuous and obtuse in your arguments, which I would count as a win for my argument if you have no other valid points to make.

[Barstro]

Before the Tarrasque discussion devolves any further, I have a general question - for those who don't like fumble rules, is there any circumstance under which you'd allow them?

Absolutely.

I adhere quite strictly to the adage that becoming more skilled should not make you more susceptible to failure. Iterative attacks are a result of becoming more skilled and the "realism" of trying to force more attacks in a round is adequately handled by -5 on future attacks, so I do not feel that "more likely to fumble" should come into play there.

Where I do feel that being more likely to fumble can come into play, even with a skilled fighter, is when the fighter is still doing something beyond his skill. Were it my table, I'd bring in fumbles like this;

Regular; Natural 1 simply misses (frankly, I'm not even a fan at that, since I'm not going to miss the barn 5% of the time, but I'll accept it).
For the opportunity to try "X", fumble rules come into play.

"X" is requesting some sort of DM fiat for what an attack will do;
I'm going to sweep my sword through the fire to send coals at his face,
I'm going to specifically make three high attacks so he raises his shield and then sweep the leg (and then paint the fence).

Basically, if someone wants to very rarely add something special that could conceivably take a Feat, I'd allow it with the risk that failure could become combat-ending.

[Gildedragon]

Before the Tarrasque discussion devolves any further, I have a general question - for those who don't like fumble rules, is there any circumstance under which you'd allow them? I've heard one person say that if they player accepts the fumble result, they should get a Hero Point, otherwise it simply doesn't happen. Any other compromise positions like that?

If my players (unanimously in regards to the martial ones) asked for them.
Fumbles hurt PCs a lot more than they do monsters.
As a player maybe I'd be OK with a fumble chart allowing different sorts of attacks on the PCmay
Nat 1 and confirmation? Roll 1d12:
1-6 allows an AOO, 7-8 allows a free trip, 9-10 a free disarm, 11 allows a free dirty trick, 12 allows an AOO with one being flatfooted
Something that made the the penalty a more interactive thing.

But I'd have to have it also apply to spellcasters in some way. Though maybe the hero point if fumbled being a martial exclusive makes things better?

[JNAProductions]

Another good idea with fumbles is that they can only ever apply on the first attack in a round. That way, iteratives don't affect your fumble chance.

[Karl Aegis]

Before the Tarrasque discussion devolves any further, I have a general question - for those who don't like fumble rules, is there any circumstance under which you'd allow them? I've heard one person say that if they player accepts the fumble result, they should get a Hero Point, otherwise it simply doesn't happen. Any other compromise positions like that?

Maybe if I could adopt a defensive stance or withdraw afterwards. Or negate the next a critical hit of my choice I would take in the future. Maybe.

[Psyren]

Regular; Natural 1 simply misses (frankly, I'm not even a fan at that, since I'm not going to miss the barn 5% of the time, but I'll accept it).

As Pleh mentioned though, a Nat 1 doesn't have to mean you missed the barn outright (i.e. swung through suddenly empty air as the barn mysteriously went ethereal); combat is an abstraction. It can mean a glancing blow. It can mean you hit a support strut instead of the actual wall. It can mean that on your last iterative, your sword briefly stuck in the barn's wood, and it took you the duration of the 1's iterative to yank it back out. And it can mean you stumbled, causing any of the previous or something else entirely.


If my players (unanimously in regards to the martial ones) asked for them.
Fumbles hurt PCs a lot more than they do monsters.
As a player maybe I'd be OK with a fumble chart allowing different sorts of attacks on the PCmay
Nat 1 and confirmation? Roll 1d12:
1-6 allows an AOO, 7-8 allows a free trip, 9-10 a free disarm, 11 allows a free dirty trick, 12 allows an AOO with one being flatfooted
Something that made the the penalty a more interactive thing.

But I'd have to have it also apply to spellcasters in some way. Though maybe the hero point if fumbled being a martial exclusive makes things better?

I'm not sure I agree they hurt PCs more. Monsters tend to get more attacks on average, both by purely outnumbering the PCs and by having more limbs, like the Grell mentioned earlier. So in terms of sheer math you're more likely to see more fumbles on the monster side. Of course, this means that monsters are more likely to get crits, but PCs can at least mitigate those (Fortification etc.)

I can see the value in the Hero Point addition if fumbles can't be applied to casters though.


Another good idea with fumbles is that they can only ever apply on the first attack in a round. That way, iteratives don't affect your fumble chance.

Or at least the highest BAB attacks (e.g. including the one from Haste, etc.) Those are arguably the ones where you're "swinging hardest" anyway.

Even if I applied it to iteratives, I would strongly consider letting you use your highest BAB/bonuses on the confirmation roll.

[Trebloc]

I'd be happy for a fumble rule that applied equally to all classes, no matter how I spent my entire turn. So that means a hasted quad-wielding Thri-kreen has an equal chance to fumble as a single-attacking charging urber barbarian, which has an equal chance to fumble as a wizard casting magic missile, which has an equal chance to fumble as a cleric casting Heal.

I mean, it makes me laugh how it's always pointed out that martial classes already get the short end of the stick. Tack on any kind of fumble rules, no matter if they have to roll 10 1's in a row to fumble, it still ends up poking them in the eye because the already superior casting classes do not suffer this penalty at all. Why put in a rule that makes the "lesser" classes worse?

[Arbane]

I mean, it makes me laugh how it's always pointed out that martial classes already get the short end of the stick. Tack on any kind of fumble rules, no matter if they have to roll 10 1's in a row to fumble, it still ends up poking them in the eye because the already superior casting classes do not suffer this penalty at all. Why put in a rule that makes the "lesser" classes worse?

Because Realism.

Fighters are realistic, therefore everything that can go wrong in reality MUST have a chance of happening to them.

Wizards are not realistic, so magic Just Works with no problems.


But I'd have to have it also apply to spellcasters in some way. Though maybe the hero point if fumbled being a martial exclusive makes things better?

I'm perfectly OK with magic actually being dangerous and hard-to-control, but it would require major reworking of D&D's magic system. (Possibly for arcane magic only - the whole POINT of divine magic is that you're asking the god you serve to help you out, and even chaotic evil gods _generally_ don't hose their own servants just for laughs.)

And it would raise the obvious question of how any spellcasters survived their apprenticeship.

[Gildedragon]

And it would raise the obvious question of how any spellcasters survived their apprenticeship.
Most didn't

[WeaselGuy]

I just remembered something I forgot to mention earlier.

"Why would missing one attack cause you to lose the rest of your attack actions?"

Also presented as, "A Grick attacks with all its tentacles, one of them rolls a Fumble. Why do the rest of them no longer get to make an attack roll even though the appendages were already physically in motion?"

I did have an argument against this thought: it's because making multiple attacks per round requires a certain amount of coordination.

I play several musical instruments. My experience on the Drum Set is likely the best analog to making multiple physical attacks in a single round. The thing about playing the drum set well is being able to react and follow what's going on around you in an active musical scenario. Combat has some similarities. You're taking your trained responses in a combat situation and applying them to the active combat in front of you. Every time you make iterative attacks or a series of Natural attacks, it's a bit like a drum solo. You aren't making a series of individual attacks, but performing a series of interconnected movements. Each attack is not actually unrelated to the others. If you miss a beat in your sequence, it throws off the rest of the sequence.

Should you absolutely lose the rest of your attacks? Maybe only if you Confirm a Critical Fumble. It is possible while playing drums to miss the beat and quickly react to your own mistake to pick it back up before you fall completely out of time. But sometimes it DOES happen that you miss a beat and it throws you completely out of time with the other players.

Translating this into D&D, I would say that the Grick's tentacles still "attack" but they aren't getting an attack roll because they have automatically missed. Those extra attacks were interdependent on each other to attain a certain level of speed AND precision. When the fumble interrupted, the rest of them were operating on a failed precision. While they probably didn't just stop moving, they probably lacked the accuracy and speed necessary to hit their intended targets and failed to deal lethal damage.

The Grick's muscles had a spasm in response to the mistake and failed to correct the mistake before the attack was complete.

---

This answer doesn't satisfy "But why punish martials when casters already are ahead?" but it wasn't meant to answer that question.

I think if you're using these Fumble rules, you should likely force casters to make Concentration checks for EVERY spell they cast (both PCs and NPCs and monsters) so the chance to Fumble becomes universal.

So, while I do play an instrument (violin, for something like 20 years now), I also do something much more comparable to swordfighting than playing drums. That would be actual swordfighting. When wielding a single rapier, depending on my opponent's skill, I can land a "kill shot" maybe 50% of the time, if we are equally experienced (we play with blunted and tipped steel swords, made to a certain amount of flex, and we wear padded clothing and regulation fencing masks. A kill shot is a touch with the sword in a vital area of our opponent, with the approximate amount of force required to do lethal damage to said opponent). I can send maybe 2 or 3 accurate thrusts towards my opponent in about 6 seconds, but I make no assumptions that I am the equivalent of an 11th level fighter. Typically, my opponent will block or deflect 1 or all of those shots, at least one will be a feint, and the last will ideally connect with my opponent. On occasion, that connecting shot will be of enough force to "kill", and on occasion it will be called as "light", or may even catch only cloth, or not even strike true. Adding a weapon in my offhand, either another rapier, or a dagger, and I actually don't really increase the number of shots that I can throw in a given amount of time, but the percentage of "killing" blows also doesn't significantly increase.

So, all of that above is a typical attack routine with no fumbles. It also doesn't really cover critical hits, because those are kind of hard to measure in real life. I suppose the closest analogy for crits would be called shots, i.e. specifically aiming for the face or the hand or the toe, because of reasons, but I digress. This thread is about fumbles.

With regards to fumbles, I can count the number of times I've dropped either of my weapons, in 3 years of combat, on one hand. And to be honest, those mostly occur when there is a fouling of blades, or when my opponent has struck my hand, causing me to drop my own sword. I've never stabbed myself in the foot or face, nor cut myself with my own blades. I have stabbed myself in the thigh with the quillions on my dagger during a parry, but it was most certainly non-lethal, and did not hinder my combat prowess (it did hurt though). This is probably the most common occurrence of what might be considered a fumble amongst us swordfighters. Additionally, never have I seen a missed or blocked shot stop us from delivering a follow-up shot. It is actually drilled into us quite repeatedly to throw consecutive shots. 90% of our attack routines are either dual-tempo or tri-tempo (1-2, or 1-2-3). We attack while moving, both forwards, at an angle, and backwards. Heck, we throw shots as we're sitting down after getting legged.

I was going to make a point here, give me a second... bah-dum-tis

Oh yeah. For us, critical fumbles just pure don't exist. I have never seen a fighter significantly injure him/herself with their own weapon. I have seen their follies provoke a lethal response from their opponents though. So, if we're going to use critical fumbles, I think that it should be a result of the opponent capitalizing on our failure (such as, say, an attack of opportunity?).

All of that being said, I have played and used crit fumble cards, but the entire party agreed to them, and the DM used them for the enemy as well. They have the possibility to be fun, even if they make no sense.

RAW though, a 1 is just a miss for that attack.

[Barstro]

As Pleh mentioned though, a Nat 1 doesn't have to mean you missed the barn outright (i.e. swung through suddenly empty air as the barn mysteriously went ethereal); combat is an abstraction. It can mean a glancing blow. It can mean you hit a support strut instead of the actual wall. It can mean that on your last iterative, your sword briefly stuck in the barn's wood, and it took you the duration of the 1's iterative to yank it back out. And it can mean you stumbled, causing any of the previous or something else entirely.

I fully understand. But if I'm a skilled lumberjack standing in front of the side of the barn, I can take my time and hit it every single time at once per second. (I'm not a skilled lumberjack and I can do that). There's no glancing blow, hitting a strut is still a hit, and my axe is sharp and won't get stuck. Not 5% of the time, not 1% of the time.

Being said, I fully embrace the somewhat arbitrary -5 for each iterative. Trying to swing once every two seconds can certainly lead to some glancing blows, etc. But I think that is adequately covered by a roll of 5 on the third attempt that round.

I'm not challenging the rule. I think it is a passable abstraction for reality. I disagree with it, but I'm able to see why it can be considered fair and balanced.

That view does not carry over into Critical Failure, though.
A skilled person attacking a wall once per round should be (since we don't track endurance) 360 hits per hour.
Same person with three attacks per round would be 1080 attacks per hour and maybe 600 hit (fine)
Same skilled person attacking one per round with Critical Failures means 18 misses and probably losing a leg. I cannot get behind that unless the lumberjack is inexplicably flipping the axe before each swing.

[Pleh]

So, while I do play an instrument (violin, for something like 20 years now), I also do something much more comparable to swordfighting than playing drums. That would be actual swordfighting.

Snip

All of that being said, I have played and used crit fumble cards, but the entire party agreed to them, and the DM used them for the enemy as well. They have the possibility to be fun, even if they make no sense.

RAW though, a 1 is just a miss for that attack.

Oh sure, D&D combat is a pretty poor analogy for real combat whether you use fumbles or not.

After all, I could make the argument that you likely haven't been in a real "life or death" swordfight. You've used real fencing techniques in a sporting simulation. Who knows how many Critical Fumbles might have occured over your career with the adrenaline from your life literally hanging in the balance?

Do we have any active/veteran military and/or police officers who could talk about the problems of critical failures when you have the pressure of a real lethal encounter? That would be even more accurate. No matter how good paintball is at simulating a gunfight, it's not quite the same as knowing you could be dead in seconds.

This is where the game is *supposed* to break from realism. It's meant to simulate the fantasy of medieval fighting, not the reality. Fumbles are far more meant to represent narrative drama than realism, though they shouldn't be allowed to trample over suspension of disbelief.

My point was that fumbles are "believable enough" if you just aren't always making their results as 100% terrible as they can possibly be.

There has to be room for unrealistic problems to occur for heroes with unrealistic ability to overcome.

[Psyren]

I fully understand. But if I'm a skilled lumberjack standing in front of the side of the barn, I can take my time and hit it every single time at once per second. (I'm not a skilled lumberjack and I can do that). There's no glancing blow, hitting a strut is still a hit, and my axe is sharp and won't get stuck. Not 5% of the time, not 1% of the time.

Glancing blows and hitting struts might still be hits in the strictest sense of the word, but if they deal no real damage then in game terms they are indistinguishable from misses. And even veteran lumberjacks can get their axes stuck in wood temporarily.

So I'd say yes, Nat 1s can happen, regardless of skill.


I'm not challenging the rule. I think it is a passable abstraction for reality. I disagree with it, but I'm able to see why it can be considered fair and balanced.

That view does not carry over into Critical Failure, though.
A skilled person attacking a wall once per round should be (since we don't track endurance) 360 hits per hour.
Same person with three attacks per round would be 1080 attacks per hour and maybe 600 hit (fine)
Same skilled person attacking one per round with Critical Failures means 18 misses and probably losing a leg. I cannot get behind that unless the lumberjack is inexplicably flipping the axe before each swing.

18 misses, maybe not.
18 glancing blows out of 360+, I could see.
Losing a leg I agree would be unfair.

[Gildedragon]

Maybe this is where the 3d6 instead of 1d20 variant comes into play. If one is dissatisfied with sure misses being as common as sure hits and would prefer a bellcurve roll

[Barstro]

Maybe this is where the 3d6 instead of 1d20 variant comes into play. If one is dissatisfied with sure misses being as common as sure hits and would prefer a bellcurve roll

People do 3d6 for attacks? Never seen that in my gaming.

[WeaselGuy]

Oh sure, D&D combat is a pretty poor analogy for real combat whether you use fumbles or not.

After all, I could make the argument that you likely haven't been in a real "life or death" swordfight. You've used real fencing techniques in a sporting simulation. Who knows how many Critical Fumbles might have occured over your career with the adrenaline from your life literally hanging in the balance?

Do we have any active/veteran military and/or police officers who could talk about the problems of critical failures when you have the pressure of a real lethal encounter? That would be even more accurate. No matter how good paintball is at simulating a gunfight, it's not quite the same as knowing you could be dead in seconds.

This is where the game is *supposed* to break from realism. It's meant to simulate the fantasy of medieval fighting, not the reality. Fumbles are far more meant to represent narrative drama than realism, though they shouldn't be allowed to trample over suspension of disbelief.

My point was that fumbles are "believable enough" if you just aren't always making their results as 100% terrible as they can possibly be.

There has to be room for unrealistic problems to occur for heroes with unrealistic ability to overcome.

1) It's less fencing technique and more HEMA inspired, but that's just a technicality. You are correct in that I am not in a true life or death scenario while I am fighting. We do try to emulate pre-17th century fighting techniques and scenarios in our duels and melees (think Princess Bride), but there's only so much you can do when you know that you are wearing gear specifically made to prevent your death.

2) Of course, being active military, I also have gear designed to prevent my death when I get shot at, but it still f***ing sucks. But we're still trained to have faith in our equipment. The whole purpose of doing the gas chamber in basic training is to prove, in a non-lethal (yet still certainly uncomfortable) environment that yes, this piece of equipment will keep you alive. I've had rounds knock me on my ass after hitting my vest, and glance off my helmet, and you can be damn certain that it isn't any picnic. The ringing in your ears as an IED goes off nearby never really goes away, even years later. But we are trained to react and overcome, to have faith in our equipment, to have certain actions drilled into our muscle memory so that even with all of that going on, I can put 3 round bursts towards the enemy, drop the mag and draw a new one, and get it seated and a new round chambered, all without losing my head and getting myself or my buddy killed because I "fumbled". I might have a jammed weapon, or a melted barrel on a 249, but we train those instant fix drills into us to get our gear up and running again as fast and as smoothly as possible.

edit: All that being said, I actually think a 5% chance of my sword missing or not causing appreciable damage, or me missing or glancing my target with my M4, is probably lower than real life has shown me. So, in that aspect, the Nat 1 being an instant miss is fairly lenient. However, when you apply critical fumble chances on the same die roll, 5% is definitely too high. I have had a dagger break on me exactly 1 time in 3 years, out of incalculable uses with that dagger. And while I have had misfires and stovepipes, that percentage is still less than 5%, especially when you consider that I've been shooting for nearly 25 years.

[Psyren]

Dragon Age uses it exclusively.

But yeah, that would certainly make the fumble chance infinitesimal, especially if you require confirmations too.

[Gildedragon]

People do 3d6 for attacks? Never seen that in my gaming.
It's a variant in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm)

[Necroticplague]

I know of a dnd-based system that used a 2d10 for it's rolls, instead of a d20. Admittingly, 4e instead of 3.5e based, but still.

[Pleh]

I wonder if you could use the bell curve to balance caster disparity?

A houserule that says martial attacks and skills use 3d6, while using magic must roll concentration with 1d20 to represent that spectacular success/failure is more likely when meddling with greater power rather than harnessing your own natural skill.

[rel]

That is not a rule it is a house rule.
It is also a really stupid house rule roughly equivilant to 'The wizards entire web spell fizzles as soon as someone rolls a 20 on their saving throw.'

[Pleh]

That is not a rule it is a house rule.
It is also a really stupid house rule roughly equivilant to 'The wizards entire web spell fizzles as soon as someone rolls a 20 on their saving throw.'

With so many different fumble rules in the thread, all of them being optional or modified, I'm not sure whom you're talking to?

And a house rule is, by definition, still a rule. Just a different kind. We've been discussing the merits of house rules around fumbling for some time now.

[rel]

I was answering the OP's question.