Anyone tried adding damage of equipment to Fumble/Critical chart?

[arkieNork]

Caveat here: I am aware that Fumbles are not official rules

Also, in my game a Fumble has to be 'confirmed' with a second attack roll at maximum attack bonus. So if full attack action is +15/+10 and a nat on either attack is rolled, attacker rolls a second time with +15 and the fumble is confirmed if that misses second roll is also a 'miss'. I like this because it makes chance of fumble scale down with attacker's skill and up with the AC of the target

That said, I am considering adding a bit more grit and risk to the game by including possible damage to equipment as result of critical hits and fumbles. It bugs me that my players get to have their magic stuff indefinitely with little to no chance of loss despite all the horrible stuff I throw at them. Especially after I have to describe for hundredth time how the monster's attacks got around tank's half plate but I can never use 'this time, the claw just punched right through'.

The indestructibility of that +2 half plate is genuinely costing me sleep.

My idea for a solution to my problem:

Right now I use a 1d100 crit table - on a roll of 01 to 62, it's just standard increased damage. On 62 to 100 one of the 1x damage multiplies is converted into a Called Shot from this https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots/

I am thinking adding a 12% chance on that table that the strike's damage instead gets applied to a piece of worn armor same as if it was an energy spell effect and target rolled a 1 on save. That seems like it would add realism, except that in a life or death fight that might basically negate a winning strike. Than again, even an easy fight now risks a pricey repair bill.

For Fumbles I currently have a 1d105 table that I have to roll digitally - thinking of putting 5 entries of 'roll normal damage to your weapon', 5 more of 'max damage to your weapon, reflex 15 to 30 to avoid', 5 more of 'roll your crit damage to your weapon, reflex 15 to 30 to half'

Anyone here have those kind of rules? how did it turn out?

[Biggus]

Fumbles are a variant rule (DMG p.28). I use a Str or Dex check (depending on the weapon) vs DC10 to confirm the fumble; if they fail it's a minor fumble, if they roll another 1 it's a major fumble.

Minor fumbles are either lose your next attack this round or if it's your last attack you take a -2AC penalty to the next attack against you this round (if you're not attacked before your next turn, you got away with it).

Major fumbles are a d6 roll:

1) drop weapon
2) fall prone
3) hit ally
4) hit self
5) throw weapon or break bowstring
6) damage weapon (roll full normal damage)

If the rolled result doesn't apply, you get the next lowest result that does apply. So for example if you get "hit ally" and there's no ally in range, you fall prone instead.

It's worked well so far, it adds an extra frisson of fear to rolling a 1 but it's rare enough to get a major fumble (especially at higher levels) that it doesn't detract from the fun. I know some people hate fumbles with a passion but I've had no complaints from my players.

I've never used a critical hit table in D&D (although I do allow another roll for extra damage if they get a 20 on both the attack roll and confirmation roll), all that occurs to me right now is that you'll need to include alternatives to armour damage for enemies which don't wear armour.

[Troacctid]

I think the baseline assumption is that equipment is being worn down over time, but that PCs do enough regular maintenance that it never gets bad enough to affect the item's functionality unless the enemy deliberately targets the item (or a fumble is rolled on a saving throw).

Personally, from a story standpoint, I much prefer the idea that a nat 1 misses the target completely, which raises the question of how exactly stabbing into empty air is supposed to cause your weapon to break. What is it breaking against?

[Biggus]

Personally, from a story standpoint, I much prefer the idea that a nat 1 misses the target completely, which raises the question of how exactly stabbing into empty air is supposed to cause your weapon to break. What is it breaking against?

You miss the part of your enemy you were aiming for and instead hit the most heavily-armoured part of them? Or hit your own armour? Or a nearby wall/rock?

Personally it makes more sense to me that a nat 1 means "you got your attack completely wrong" rather than necessarily meaning "it misses the target completely".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yay! another way to screw over weapon-users while leaving casters sitting pretty! How dare they think they get to have nice things!

[Troacctid]

You miss the part of your enemy you were aiming for and instead hit the most heavily-armoured part of them? Or hit your own armour? Or a nearby wall/rock?

Personally it makes more sense to me that a nat 1 means "you got your attack completely wrong" rather than necessarily meaning "it misses the target completely".
If an enemy has a +2 Dex bonus, a +2 shield bonus, a +4 armor bonus, and a +4 cover bonus to AC for a total of 20, I would say that a 1–9 misses completely, a 10–11 is dodged, a 12–15 glances off their armor, a 16–17 is blocked by their shield, and an 18–21 is blocked by cover.

I'm not the only one who does this, right?

[Condé]

Answering the title only.

"No, because I don't want my players to leave the table."

[arkieNork]

If an enemy has a +2 Dex bonus, a +2 shield bonus, a +4 armor bonus, and a +4 cover bonus to AC for a total of 20, I would say that a 1–9 misses completely, a 10–11 is dodged, a 12–15 glances off their armor, a 16–17 is blocked by their shield, and an 18–21 is blocked by cover.

I'm not the only one who does this, right?

I do that too. Started early in our campaign because our cleric said he would put Zap Traps on a tarp and nail it over his shield. We were tracking when any natural attack hit his shield and rolled for how many zap traps it would trigger. I made him keep track of daily spell slots during downtime, how much silver dust he carriers around with him and include Mending for the tarp.

Around level 8 he got tired of keeping track and stopped doing that.

But I kept tracking the AC bands for each type of protection to help me come up with descriptions of how combat was going. It also seriously bugs me how useless shields are in dnd compared to real life. In HEMA sparring, a kite shield takes like 9 out of 10 attacks. In dnd, barely anything hits the + 2AC of that shield. I think our cleric got a total of 11 points of damage out of that zap trap idea over the entire game.

[Buufreak]

Or hit your own armour?


I would love to see how someone could swing so horrible with a weapon that they manage to strike themselves, especially with a straight line or thrusting weapon.


If an enemy has a +2 Dex bonus, a +2 shield bonus, a +4 armor bonus, and a +4 cover bonus to AC for a total of 20, I would say that a 1–9 misses completely, a 10–11 is dodged, a 12–15 glances off their armor, a 16–17 is blocked by their shield, and an 18–21 is blocked by cover.

I'm not the only one who does this, right?

I absolutely do this. Describing it as making contact but glancing off vs hitting true but to minimal effect are great ways to illustrate the mechanical side of being 1 or 2 off from breaking AC, or even discovering something has DR.


Answering the title only.

"No, because I don't want my players to leave the table."

I originally popped in for this, but also to argue the logistics: I've used firearms my whole life, being in a military family. I was taught safety at home and in school. There is absolutely no reason that I have a 5% chance to shoot so poorly that I end up spinning in a circle and shooting the people standing behind the range line.

[Metastachydium]

I would love to see how someone could swing so horrible with a weapon that they manage to strike themselves, especially with a straight line or thrusting weapon.

The thrusting weapon having reach can make that even juicier ("yes, you did just hit yourself with a longspear, but that doesn't mean you can hit adjacent opponents with it; stop being absurd!").

[Biggus]

Answering the title only.

"No, because I don't want my players to leave the table."

Been doing this for the last three and a half years, not had a single complaint from any of my players. It's not bad DMing, it's entirely a matter of taste.


I would love to see how someone could swing so horrible with a weapon that they manage to strike themselves, especially with a straight line or thrusting weapon.


Speaking personally, I've managed hit myself at least as often as I have my opponent, although I'll admit I have a Dex of about 4. Not with a polearm though to be fair.

[Satinavian]

Yay! another way to screw over weapon-users while leaving casters sitting pretty! How dare they think they get to have nice things!Well, fumble rules would at least also work on all rays and all touch attack spells and one probably could extend it to spell resistance as well. Oh, hit yourself with shivering touch ? what a pity.

Not that i would want to use fumble rules.

[Troacctid]

Hitting yourself accidentally makes a lot of sense with chain weapons, double weapons, or weapons you aren't proficient with, but it's pretty nonsensical with most anything else, IMO.

I don't think the weapon damaging itself on a critical fumble improves verisimilitude, if improving verisimilitude is the goal. There are simply too many situations where it doesn't make sense. It's a modifier I would apply to specific weapons or materials that are especially brittle to represent their unusual fragility—not to a sword that is magically enhanced to be stronger than steel. Or maybe I might make it an effect that happens sometimes when you fail to penetrate an enemy's DR, because attacking with an ineffective weapon and having that weapon chip or shatter against the golem's natural armor is, like, a trope that you see a lot in popular fiction—but that shouldn't happen on a nat 1, because missing the enemy's touch AC means you didn't even land the attack on their armor, you just whiffed completely.

A free sunder attack as a possible outcome in a critical hit table is a lot more reasonable from a verisimilitude perspective, and I wouldn't have any objections to it.

[Buufreak]

I don't think the weapon damaging itself on a critical fumble improves verisimilitude, if improving verisimilitude is the goal.

For this it would depend entirely on the weapon itself. For example, Dark Sun 4e has rules for breaking weapons on natural 1s or 20s, but the important thing there is most weapons in the setting are made from scavenged bones and while useful, aren't nearly as sturdy as anything made of metal.

[arkieNork]

There is absolutely no reason that I have a 5% chance to shoot so poorly that I end up spinning in a
circle and shooting the people standing behind the range line.

To clarify the title's question and the details in the opening post, I am not proposing a chance to hit self on a fumble.

On a fumble, I am proposing for there to be a chance for you to damage your weapon, not hit yourself. And not a flat 5%, it would be 5% times your possibility of missing the attack at your maximum attack bonus. I've not really considered firearms for this. I guess with early era fire arms, it would be like you incorrectly loaded the weapon in your rush, or jostled the cartridge out of position after loading it and got a misfire.

On a related note, on my fumble results table I do have a chance to hit an ally but only if that ally is engaged in melee with the target or is providing partial for a ranged attack.

[Buufreak]

To clarify the title's question and the details in the opening post, I am not proposing a chance to hit self on a fumble.

On a fumble, I am proposing for there to be a chance for you to damage your weapon, not hit yourself. And not a flat 5%, it would be 5% times your possibility of missing the attack at your maximum attack bonus. I've not really considered firearms for this. I guess with early era fire arms, it would be like you incorrectly loaded the weapon in your rush, or jostled the cartridge out of position after loading it and got a misfire.

On a related note, on my fumble results table I do have a chance to hit an ally but only if that ally is engaged in melee with the target or is providing partial for a ranged attack.

My example is anecdotal, and a bit of a generalization. But the point stands that people who are well proficient in using a weapon, has more that a +0 for a BAB, and has the right to call them (insert class name here) should be able to use the weapon properly without some silly misfire chance. Missing, yes, that is a thing. Even the best warriors in the world still miss. But believing someone made it past squire and still needs to be watched after because he tends to accidentally maim friends is just foolish to me.

Another example from real life experience: I was a Scout. Part of that was getting a "Totin Chip," which is a badge that represents your training and knowhow with bladed items. It took months of practice, written tests, and showing not only safe usage but proper handling of knives, hatches, and axes before you are allowed to even have a pocket knife at events or trips. It is all to instill into the person the training that a "fumble" isn't going to happen. To carry was an earned privilege, not a gods given right. They same goes for knighthood. You earn your stripes. You earn your way up until you can ride and wield.

Final thoughts: would you ask a player to roll to make sure he put his armor on right and not backwards or upside-down?

[arkieNork]

But believing someone made it past squire and still needs to be watched after because he tends to accidentally maim friends is just foolish to me.

Historically in medieval battles it took a lot of training for people to fight in formation and avoid hurting friendlies. Rome had to re-design their legionaries armaments specifically around that problem and their soldiers had to be taught a specific combat style in formation.

And Romans only had to fight other humans, whose movements are relatively easy to predict for other humans. In DnD you are fighting in close quarters, often in unfavorable, cramped conditions against all kinds of monsters.

I think you are grossly misapplying the training of a Scout to not hurt himself while cutting down a tree, to something like trying to engage in melee combat with a werewolf inside a crowded tavern room.

I watched quite a lot of HEMA - the risk of hitting allies is not small. Just as the Romans had that problem, so do people today in team competitions - people have to train with specific tactics, specific equipment, specific styles to be able to fight in close proximity to each other while minimizing (not avoiding) the chance of hurting each other. You cannot variety of weapons effectively if you are fighting in formation - pretty much anything that requires swinging goes right out. Only stabbing weapons are practical and only if a strict formation is maintained.

As a further example, go to any dojo for any major martial art. At a certain level of training you will be taught how to fight multiple opponents and whatever martial art you are doing, the primary tactic of all such training is repositioning and doing all you can to get your multiple opponents to interfere with each other.

All in all, the practical and historical evidence in favor of 'in melee, you might hit an ally on a fumble' is overwhelming. So much so, that I can't even fathom where the idea that you can have multiple people in melee without such risk could even ever come from.

There are so many scenarios in both history and easily attempted in real life that will immediately show that possibility to be not merely self-evident but in fact **highly likely**.

[icefractal]

If an enemy has a +2 Dex bonus, a +2 shield bonus, a +4 armor bonus, and a +4 cover bonus to AC for a total of 20, I would say that a 1–9 misses completely, a 10–11 is dodged, a 12–15 glances off their armor, a 16–17 is blocked by their shield, and an 18–21 is blocked by cover.

I'm not the only one who does this, right?Ditto, although personally I'd order it as:
Cover, Dodging (Dex + dodge bonuses), Deflection, Shield, Armor, Natural Armor
And I usually only make a distinction between "didn't even make contact" (stopped by cover / dodging / deflection) and "made contact but didn't connect enough to injure", unless it's particularly important what exactly was hit.


On weapons taking damage - I think this should vary by weapon durability. Like, you hit someone's armor badly with your sword and the edge chipped? Sure. You hit someone's armor badly with your solid iron tetsubo / greatclub and it broke? Uhhh, that doesn't sound right - certainly not with the same regularity at least. I mean for example, mining picks get used to hit stone hundreds of times a day without breaking.

Also, the enhanced durability of magic items (increased hardness and HP by enhancement bonus, IIRC) should have an effect. Someone using a harder-than-mithral enhanced sword should damage it much less often than someone using a poor-quality blade, for example. And an adamantine weapon? Should not be damaged unless you're hitting equally tough things with it - that's like adamantine's whole gimmick.

[Crake]

That said, I am considering adding a bit more grit and risk to the game by including possible damage to equipment as result of critical hits and fumbles. It bugs me that my players get to have their magic stuff indefinitely with little to no chance of loss despite all the horrible stuff I throw at them. Especially after I have to describe for hundredth time how the monster's attacks got around tank's half plate but I can never use 'this time, the claw just punched right through'.

The indestructibility of that +2 half plate is genuinely costing me sleep.

Keep in mind that magical gear has not only increased hardness, but also extra hit points. +2 breastplate is gonna have 14 hardness and 30 hp, so… unless your monster’s attack is doing at least 44 damage, its attack isnt getting through the tank’s +2 breastplate

[Gnaeus]

I would just add that hitting gear really hurts a lot of players. I would really rather you kill my character than destroy my prized item. Rerolling is fun. Playing the same character without your toy feels bad. Maybe if you were in a game with strict WBL rules and you knew you were just going to get that 20kgp back some way it might not be bad, or if fixing the damage was trivial. But in that case why even bother, and the only people who would be really impacted would be ones who had emotional connections to their weapons (Their grandfathers sword, the axe of the legendary Dwarf King, etc) and even then, only in a "Now you should feel bad
way.

[Jay R]

To answer the question in the thread title:

Yes, people have tried it. In 1977, The Arduin Grimoire had crit and fumble tables. The crit tables didn't mention weapons or armor, but the fumble table had the following:

Normal weapon shatters
Magic weapon breaks
As above, but for +3 and below

In 1980, the first published D&D Crit/Fumble Tables, in The Dragon #39, included the following possibilities:

For crits:

shield destroyed (no effect if no shield)
shield destroyed (roll again if no shield)

For fumbles:

weapon breaks (base 100% chance -20% for each “+” or ability of weapon

So, yes, people have tried it pretty much since fumble or crit tables existed.

[Pugwampy]

I think fumbles add to the fun . DM monsters also suffer fumble penalties . I am an open screen DM so no hiding my rolls .

My favorite DM who introduced me to DND 3.0 had basic fumble rules of Bowstring breaks , or weapon goes flying out my hand or you fall on your butt. Spend a round to recover . Make a DEX check to avoid .

I improved on that . Normal weapon smashes to pieces . Magic weapon goes flying out your hand . Magic Bow string breaks . Monks fall on their butt . Destroyed weapons are nothing as long as you have a spare. Quickly replaced by magic weapons anyways

Make a 50/50 roll to avoid . Not everyone has DEX , Not all fails are DEX related .


I even introduced but only voluntary . Damage magic crits 2x or fumble damages mage . Quite a few wizard players are willing to risk the dreaded 1 for a chance of a 20 roll 2x spell damage .

I tried making a more complex fumble table once but i found that simple is best .



I would just add that hitting gear really hurts a lot of players. I would really rather you kill my character than destroy my prized item.

Amen brother

[JNAProductions]

Something I wrote about for a 5E Fumble System (never used, because blech, but in theory) was the following:

-A Fumble can only occur on the first significant d20 roll of a turn. So, first attack, first save, or similar-this is so Fighters with three attacks don't Fumble more often than an inexperienced, one attack Fighter.
-If you roll a Fumble, also roll 1d6. You only Fumble if the result is greater than Proficiency bonus, which scales from 2 to 6 over 20 levels.

As you get more experienced and better, you Fumble less.

[glass]

[
Fumbles are a variant rule (DMG p.28). I use a Str or Dex check (depending on the weapon) vs DC10 to confirm the fumble; if they fail it's a minor fumble, if they roll another 1 it's a major fumble.
One display of clown-shoes incompetence every 400 rolls on average is far too many IMNSHO. Especially considering that high-level martials will rattle through those 400 rolls much quicker than their lower-level brethren.


DM monsters also suffer fumble penalties.No, they do not, for a whole boatload of reasons. Firstly because each monster makes a tiny fraction of the rolls that each PC makes. Secondly because many monsters do not use weapons or armour. Thirdly because, even for those few that do, what happens to them after the encounter rarely matters (whereas for a PC having their 120-grand Holy Avenger destroyed is crippling).

[Crake]

I even introduced but only voluntary . Damage magic crits 2x or fumble damages mage . Quite a few wizard players are willing to risk the dreaded 1 for a chance of a 20 roll 2x spell damage .

Magic crits are already a thing. If a spell has an attack roll, it can crit and deal double damage.

[rel]

Ah, fumbles.
I've used them in D&D analogues, especially in OSR style systems as well as a number of custom systems.
Fumbles aren't inherently bad rules, they aren't inherently good rules. What they are is very powerful. They can greatly change the look, feel and focus of the game in a way few other mechanics can.

I'll leave aside a broader examination of fumble rules, and focus on the OP's specific question of fumble based equipment damage in 3.x. Specifically 3.x D&D campaigns as described in published adventures and organised play. (As opposed to D&D as played in peoples home games, the acted games of designers and content creators, imagined games based on the DMG's guidelines, etc.). For brevity I will describe such games as Default D&D, since it is otherwise difficult to decide on a shared baseline experience for discussion.

Fumbles damaging equipment means that equipment CAN be damaged. The flow on effects depend on the specific implementation, here are a few points to consider in no particular order:

- Equipment is a big part of a characters power in Default D&D. breaking an item means a character can potentially become vastly less effective, to the point that they struggle with even trivial combat challenges.

- Equipment is also a big part of the loot adventurers get in Default D&D, which can either be used by the PC's, or sold for additional equipment. As such the PC's getting less loot could once again find themselves struggling.

- This makes equipment damage a tactic that disproportionately affects the PC's, since NPC's are often equipment independent and are unlikely to show up lacking gear in subsequent encounters no matter what the C's do.

- how easy the damage is to recover from is also relevant.
+ If broken equipment can be trivially repaired by anyone all it does is modify peoples stats and tactics for a fight.
+ If repairs require a specific power, e.g. mending or ranks in craft blacksmith then a PC or ally with said skills needs to be included, complicating character building.
+ If a broken item must be replaced then the normal assumptions of WBL and expected PC equipment at a given level in Default D&D are entirely subverted.

- If fumbles are the only way equipment can be damaged, then they become a disproportionately powerful effect. For example, I could see high defense characters deliberately provoking attacks of opportunity from enemies to try and cause a fumble, or PC's building their characters to employ single large attacks or non-attack spells and effects to try an avoid fumbles themselves.
And these are just examples of course, whether or not they are relevant at your table or can be mitigated, doesn't mean they or other similar things aren't issues to consider.

[Pugwampy]

No, they do not, for a whole boatload of reasons. Firstly because each monster makes a tiny fraction of the rolls that each PC makes. Secondly because many monsters do not use weapons or armour. Thirdly because, even for those few that do, what happens to them after the encounter rarely matters (whereas for a PC having their 120-grand Holy Avenger destroyed is crippling).


1. I dunno what tiny fraction of combat rolls means . I am doing no less attack rolls

2. Uhhh monk crit fail ?

3. Perhaps you should reread my post ? I dont destroy magic weapons.

[Crake]

1. I dunno what tiny fraction of combat rolls means . I am doing no less attack rolls

They said EACH monster. You as the DM make just as many attack rolls, sure, but for each individual enemy, they make only a fraction of the rolls as they party, because most of the time theyre only around for 1 encounter.

[Buufreak]

They said EACH monster. You as the DM make just as many attack rolls, sure, but for each individual enemy, they make only a fraction of the rolls as they party, because most of the time theyre only around for 1 encounter.

Ergo, each individual monster has a miniscule number of rolls and by extension crits and fumbles when compared to the (more than likely) long career of a PC.

[Pugwampy]

Yeah....still dont understand . Just becuase i use monster A once only ?

Monster B in next session same crit rules . Monster C in 3rd session , same crit rules ...

What permanent scar does a player suffer that Monster A escapes because monster died and his problems are over ?

[JNAProductions]

Yeah....still dont understand . Just becuase i use monster A once only ?

Monster B in next session same crit rules . Monster C in 3rd session , same crit rules ...

What permanent scar does a player suffer that Monster A escapes because monster died and his problems are over ?

First off, if many monsters don't need gear. So equipment being damaged doesn't even apply.
But if an NPC does need gear, and they get it broken via a Fumble, they're screwed for the rest of their life. That is, about 12-18 seconds, usually.
If a PC gets gear broken, they're screwed till they can get it fixed or replaced-which is either trivial to do (meaning that the Fumble is basically irrelevant) or actually difficult to do (in which case, they'll be significantly less effective for at least a couple of encounters).

[Crake]

First off, if many monsters don't need gear. So equipment being damaged doesn't even apply.
But if an NPC does need gear, and they get it broken via a Fumble, they're screwed for the rest of their life. That is, about 12-18 seconds, usually.
If a PC gets gear broken, they're screwed till they can get it fixed or replaced-which is either trivial to do (meaning that the Fumble is basically irrelevant) or actually difficult to do (in which case, they'll be significantly less effective for at least a couple of encounters).

Dont forget that gear broken by the NPC is gear that the players lose out on as well

[JNAProductions]

Dont forget that gear broken by the NPC is gear that the players lose out on as well

Ah, good point.

[Crake]

What permanent scar does a player suffer that Monster A escapes because monster died and his problems are over ?

Looking like a total stooge. Monsters die and disappear from thought, but humiliation from being a seasoned warrior for example, and being unable to hold onto your weapon for some dumb reason, that sticks.

[Pugwampy]

Looking like a total stooge. Monsters die and disappear from thought, but humiliation from being a seasoned warrior for example, and being unable to hold onto your weapon for some dumb reason, that sticks.

1 round . The player or monster is inconvenienced for 1 round .

Have you never dropped anything or fell on your butt for no real reason by accident in a stress free environment ?

[icefractal]

Yeah, but not every 40 seconds or so, which is what happens in the simple "1 means crit fail" implementation for characters who have three attacks a round. It gets even worse with more attacks.

Now if you add a confirmation roll, or require double-1, the numbers get more reasonable.

However, there's still the problem that if a fumble eats a round (which most I've seen so or worse), then it makes "many attacks" a bad idea compared to "one big attack".

So the net result is that the agile duelist who's two-weapon fighting with a sword and buckler looks like a klutz compared to the reckless berserker charging around with a huge axe. And the more skilled they become, the worse the difference gets. Flavor fail.

One solution to both of these is that only the first attack each round has the possibility to fumble.

[Pugwampy]

Fumble is the opposite of critical strike . By your ....calculations ? ... thats a possible critical damage every 40 seconds too

Nobody has every complained but they did we will discuss and possibly remove it . My only rule is Have FUN .

And my games have never gone beyond lvl 12 before everyone is bored and we make a new campaign . At low levels fumble is pretty easy .

[Crake]

Fumble is the opposite of critical strike . By your ....calculations ? ... thats a possible critical damage every 40 seconds too

Nobody has every complained but they did we will discuss and possibly remove it . My only rule is Have FUN .

And my games have never gone beyond lvl 12 before everyone is bored and we make a new campaign . At low levels fumble is pretty easy .

It's much more plausible to swing a sword and catch someone in the neck every 400 attacks in combat, than it is to see your weapon go flying every 400 attacks.

[icefractal]

Fumble is the opposite of critical strike . By your ....calculations ? ... thats a possible critical damage every 40 seconds tooIt's not, though!

This often comes up in fumble discussions - people have this concept of "critical hit" in their head that would be like if the rules were:
"A critical hit means that you kill the enemy in one mighty swing, then the rest of the foes probably run the hell away."

But no, a critical hit* is effectively just one extra hit (better against DR, but worse if there's overkill). So a fumble that was "negative one hit" would be reasonable. In fact, I've proposed such a rule, but it doesn't seem to catch on because it isn't dramatic:

"On a nat 1 which also misses by 10 or more, the character is off-balance, and will automatically miss their next attack roll."

Dropping your weapon might be "one less hit" at low level, but as soon as multiple attacks are in the picture it's significantly worse. Breaking the weapon, hitting yourself, hitting an ally, or most of the fumbles results I've seen are much worse than "one less hit".

* Standard 20/x2 crit, because better crits represent weapons that are better at hitting weak points - nobody is going to create a weapon that's better at ****ing up.

[rel]

It's not, though!

This often comes up in fumble discussions - people have this concept of "critical hit" in their head that would be like if the rules were:
"A critical hit means that you kill the enemy in one mighty swing, then the rest of the foes probably run the hell away."

But no, a critical hit* is effectively just one extra hit (better against DR, but worse if there's overkill). So a fumble that was "negative one hit" would be reasonable. In fact, I've proposed such a rule, but it doesn't seem to catch on because it isn't dramatic:

"On a nat 1 which also misses by 10 or more, the character is off-balance, and will automatically miss their next attack roll."

Dropping your weapon might be "one less hit" at low level, but as soon as multiple attacks are in the picture it's significantly worse. Breaking the weapon, hitting yourself, hitting an ally, or most of the fumbles results I've seen are much worse than "one less hit".

* Standard 20/x2 crit, because better crits represent weapons that are better at hitting weak points - nobody is going to create a weapon that's better at ****ing up.

You could make a miss deal half damage, a crit deal double and a nat 1 (fumble) deal 0.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You could make a miss deal half damage, a crit deal double and a nat 1 (fumble) deal 0.

Since HP are not meat, you could make it so a crit deals double damage and a nat 1 deals negative damage (ie heals the enemy for the damage that would have been done).

[rel]

Since HP are not meat, you could make it so a crit deals double damage and a nat 1 deals negative damage (ie heals the enemy for the damage that would have been done).

You joke, but that's a lot more sensible than some of the fumble table results I've seen.

[Pugwampy]

You joke, but that's a lot more sensible than some of the fumble table results I've seen.

I tried that once . Whole 20 dice roll options

What i learnt was to keep the fumble as simple as possible . Nothing longer than 1 round and nothing more insane than fall on your butt, weapon breaks and weapon gets tossed .

Its just supposed to add to the fun and games . We laugh at each others fumbles .