what would you think of a "d4 of fate"?

[kladams707]

Something my dm threw in for flavor.

We all know that a natural 1=auto failure in 3.5 and such. Sometime ago, he decided to us this "d4 of fate" when a nat 1 occurs in certain situations, such as in combat. 4 fates would be chosen, and assigned a number (1-4), you roll and w/e number you get is the fate assigned.

Ex: you're in melee combat. you roll a 1. Time for the d4 of fate.
1. You drop your weapon
2. You somehow manage to damage yourself
3. The enemy gets a hold of your weapon
4. you merely miss.

Granted, none of them are good, but a lot times the fates can be interesting for the imagination. Like if our monk rolls a 1 on his unarmed attack and rolls a 2 on the fate.

[Starsinger]

Something my dm threw in for flavor.

We all know that a natural 1=auto failure in 3.5 and such. Sometime ago, he decided to us this "d4 of fate" when a nat 1 occurs in certain situations, such as in combat. 4 fates would be chosen, and assigned a number (1-4), you roll and w/e number you get is the fate assigned.

Ex: you're in melee combat. you roll a 1. Time for the d4 of fate.
1. You drop your weapon
2. You somehow manage to damage yourself
3. The enemy gets a hold of your weapon
4. you merely miss.

Granted, none of them are good, but a lot times the fates can be interesting for the imagination. Like if our monk rolls a 1 on his unarmed attack and rolls a 2 on the fate.

To me fumbles are an obnoxious mechanic, not only do you roll a natural 1 but you have to look like an ass after doing so? No thanks. On that end, if it wasn't specifically about fumbles, that'd be a neat idea.

[hamishspence]

Not that difficult: bashing your knuckles/foot on the surrounding area seems easy way to do it. When playing a monk someone has cast fly on, or one underwater, could be trickier: pulled muscles? Barked shin on enemy armour?

[AstralFire]

I've never cared for fumble tables myself unless in a comedy system.

[kladams707]

"Not that difficult: bashing your knuckles/foot on the surrounding area seems easy way to do it"

WHen I say 'manage do damage yourself' I mean damaging yourself using yor own weapon on your own body.

"On that end, if it wasn't specifically about fumbles, that'd be a neat idea."

Well he does usually throw us a bone, but the 4 in my example was covering the auto fail.

[kladams707]

I've never cared for fumble tables myself unless in a comedy system.

I think it's good for our group b/c the laughter keeps us awake along w/ the caffeine.

[hamishspence]

applying full weapon damage seems a little mean for just a fumble. And its hard to hit yourself with unarmed strike. So, went with allowing person to describe damage as them bashing their unlucky limb against something.

As for weapons, thats trickier, and can look sillier than the unarmed strike examples given: maybe overswing, nasty cut/bash on lower leg.

[Random NPC]

I like this, but I would change it a little bit. In my game, I handle fumbles differently. Fumbles are not something silly, but tactical errors on your part. A poorly swung Axe may put you in a position where you can't defend yourself properly (-2 AC), or maybe the enemy has combat advantage against you, or even worse, you provoke an attack of opportunity.

So, I would handle this with different results.

1. Provoke Attack of Opportunity
2. You grant combat advantage to your target
3. You have an AC penalty of -2
4. You just miss

[Sstoopidtallkid]

See, the problem with all of that is, you get worse as you level. A fighter at level one is going to have 1 attack a round, with an occasional AoO. An 11th level Fighter is going to have 3 attacks on a full attack, not counting Haste, Speed Weapons, the Whirling Frenzy Barb variant, TWF, and Spiked Chain AoO-mania. Figure 2 full-attacks a combat, and the Fighter is probably crit-failing once a day at high levels, whereas the same Fighter failed once every 3 days at low levels. And really, people, do Martial classes need more nerfs?

[Adumbration]

I like the way my DM handles it. If you roll one, you roll a dexterity check DC 5. If you fail that - or roll 1 again - you drop your weapon, fall prone or something on that train of action.

[drengnikrafe]

I personally have taken up a d100 as the fate-decider. Something does "very well" or "very poorly", and so I roll a d100 to decide it's luck. Lower is worse.

But then, that also led a chimera who got 1 (on the 20) and 1 (on the 100) to killing itself, and it is largely DM discression, but...

I think this "d4 of fate" could be very useful.

[hamishspence]

White Dwarf battle report worded it as Archaon hitting himself over the head with his own sword. However said weapon is a very unfriendly Daemon sword: it seems harder to explain away a 20th level fighter doing this with his own weapon.

[Talya]

White Dwarf battle report worded it as Archaon hitting himself over the head with his own sword. However said weapon is a very unfriendly Daemon sword: it seems harder to explain away a 20th level fighter doing this with his own weapon.

I have decided i'm not a fan of a fumble mechanic. Heck, even if you force a "confirmation" roll on a fumble (roll two 1s, you are going to drop your sword/hit an ally/etc.), the chance is way too high. It needs to be more like a 1 in a few thousand chance, not 1 in 20, 1 in 80, or 1 in 400.

[Vortling]

I'm generally opposed to fumble systems in any RPG that intends to be heroic. I'm also opposed to anything that makes for extra rolling. There's plenty of time being take up by rolling as it is.

[hamishspence]

and the thing is, players will always be seeing more fumbles than monsters. so, in general, any fumble mechanic will penalize players, not adversaries. Reasons to include it: realism, in circumstances where you would expect some form of "fumbling" Or, to level the game out a little.

[Hal]

The d4 is a terrible die for this if you're intent on a fumble system. What you have there is that you only have a 25% chance of the normal system coming into effect, but a wopping 75% chance that something BAD is about to happen to you. Dropping your weapon is bad. Hitting yourself is worse, depending your level. But your enemy grabbing your weapon? There are lengthy and complicated mechanics involved in that, and it should not be so simple.

[Kurald Galain]

Hitting yourself is worse, depending your level.

Well, yes. Aside from that, I do believe that anyone who has ever really [i]used[i] a sword can attest that the concept of stabbing yourself with your own weapon is completely ridiculous.

[Neon Knight]

PCs are already incompetent enough. They don't need any extra help.

[monty]

If you do that, though, you have to call it the "d4 of f8."

[Talya]

If you do that, though, you have to call it the "d4 of f8."

There is no circle of hell deep enough for you.

[AstralFire]

There is no circle of hell deep enough for you.

Get in line, ma'am; I declared my intent to get revenge on him months ago.

Also, I think this is pretty deep: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93516

[monty]

Also, I think this is pretty deep: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93516

Looks comfy.

[Behold_the_Void]

I'm really not a fan of d20-based fumble rules, rolling a 1 is bad enough as is, tacking on arbitrary penalties designed to further screw over a character just tends to frustrate me. In 3e games that employed fumble rules, I almost always will play a caster so it never comes up if I play at all. In a 4e game with them, I wouldn't even consider it.

Shadowrun seems to handle it pretty well though, so I don't mind systems like that.

[kladams707]

"PCs are already incompetent enough. They don't need any extra help."

Hmmm, given one player's character turnover, that's especially true.

[Mewtarthio]

Well, yes. Aside from that, I do believe that anyone who has ever really [i]used[i] a sword can attest that the concept of stabbing yourself with your own weapon is completely ridiculous.

It gets even worse when they're wielding polearms.

[Jack_Simth]

Get in line, ma'am; I declared my intent to get revenge on him months ago.

Also, I think this is pretty deep: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93516

You'll want this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89352).

[AstralFire]

You'll want this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89352).

>.>

<.<

I still say it's overpowered for a ninth level spell (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4969826&postcount=21)...

[Jack_Simth]

>.>

<.<

I still say it's overpowered for a ninth level spell (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4969826&postcount=21)...
As opposed to WotC published things like Mindrape, which not only gets rid of them for good, but turns them into an ally?

And they CAN be rescued - it just takes a lot of work.

[AstralFire]

As opposed to WotC published things like Mindrape, which not only gets rid of them for good, but turns them into an ally?

And they CAN be rescued - it just takes a lot of work.

Well, it's not like WotC has kept things strictly within the realms of balance, either. Miracle is a 9th level.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, it's not like WotC has kept things strictly within the realms of balance, either. Miracle is a 9th level.
And Shades does Trap the Soul with no materials cost - which puts them in a little itty bitty gem, which you can then drop in whatever hard-to-reach spot you like. Thus you can likewise put something permanently out of reach.

9th level spells aren't balanced, but then, I also couldn't really think how to properly stat it up as an Epic spell, so....

[Lemur]

I'm not in favor of fumbling mechanics myself either, but if you really want to use it, I think you'd need something on the other end. So if a critical hit is scored, you get something like:

1- It's a normal critical hit
2- Half the base weapon damage is dealt as Str damage
3- Half the base weapon damage is dealt as Dex damage
4- The target is disarmed of a held weapon or item. If nothing is being held, one of the target's natural weapons (determined randomly) is rendered unusable for the duration of the encounter.

Or something similar. Even then I still probably wouldn't like the system, but maybe others who really need more randomness in the game would like it.

[Neon Knight]

I'm not opposed, however, to a D20 of destiny.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not in favor of fumbling mechanics myself either, but if you really want to use it, I think you'd need something on the other end.

The point is that there already is something on the other end.

[FelixZ]

3. The enemy gets a hold of your weapon.

Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself! :smallbiggrin:

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

not a bad idea. It does set things in stone though.

I like the crit and fumble cards from Game Mastery, though. Sometimes they don't make any sense depending on the situation, but they are still funny.

[Proven_Paradox]

The way I do fumbles is that I treat every roll of 1 as a -10. If this puts the total result below zero, they roll a confirmation roll. Absolute worst result is they drop their weapon or fall prone, and that's if the confirm is less than 5. Doing that avoids the problem of "you get worse as you level," at least somewhat. I suppose you could still have an attack bonus of less than 10 on your primary attack when you get to a level high enough to have multiple attacks--though if that's the case you're probably doing it wrong or otherwise just don't care.

[RS14]

See, the problem with all of that is, you get worse as you level. A fighter at level one is going to have 1 attack a round, with an occasional AoO. An 11th level Fighter is going to have 3 attacks on a full attack, not counting Haste, Speed Weapons, the Whirling Frenzy Barb variant, TWF, and Spiked Chain AoO-mania.
I agree, but a possible solution is to only apply critical failures to the lowest iterative attack. The player can forfeit that attack if they're that frightened of hitting themselves, but in general, their critical failure chance stays the same.

[icefractal]

People seem to get this idea that a natural 1 is "rare", and so having crazy **** happen when one is rolled makes sense. Well, I'm here to say: Natural 1's are not some rare event! If you have four people fighting with two attacks/round, then you'll get a natural 1 every 15 seconds, on average. Yes, people fumble - but not that often. The chance should be more like 1 in 1000 than 1 in 20.


To put things in perspective, you have 200 archers. For every minute they spend firing at an advancing army:
* 25 of them drop their bows.
* 25 of them injure themselves (often fatally).

If the army takes five minutes to reach you, almost half your archers will be dead or seriously wounded - by their own fumbles, before it gets there. Does that seem like a good result?

[Zocelot]

These are the rules I use.

A natural 1 is automatically a miss. Roll again. If you hit their defense, it's just a miss. If you miss, you take a penalty to your next attack . If you roll another natural 1, you hurt yourself/drop your weapon.

[Artanis]

I still don't get why people think that it's so easy to hurt yourself in combat, even with "need two natural 1s" systems.

Take a look at an ancient battle, The Battle of Issus. Under a system requiring two natural 1s in a row to hurt yourself, that's still more than three hundred and fifty TRAINED SOLDIERS hurting THEMSELVES every SIX SECONDS.

Want relative numbers instead? Alright, here it is: if a person hurts himself on consecutive natural 1s, then in just forty minutes a force, ANY force, is going to have two-thirds of their people hurt themselves.

[Kurald Galain]

I still don't get why people think that it's so easy to hurt yourself in combat, even with "need two natural 1s" systems.
Those are probably the same people who made the sling in 3E do so little damage - because they thought it was a Dennis the Menace sling, rather than a combat sling.

Accidentally shooting yourself with your own longbow is even more ludicrous than unintentionally stabbing yourself with your own sword. Sure, you can hit your wrist with the string if you're Doing It Wrong, but that won't kill you, it just hurts like hell.

[icefractal]

I was thinking about what a more reasonable fumble system could look like, and considering what the opposite of critical would be. A critical hit, from an average weapon, does double damage - basically, it gives you one more attack. The opposite of an extra attack is not hitting yourself, it's getting one less attack. So, the system:

When you roll a natural one, roll a confirmation. If it misses, you are off-balance and your next attack automatically misses.

Advantages:
* Armies don't end up killing themselves with fumbles.
* People with more attacks/round aren't penalized - they fumble more often, but it has less effect on them.

Mandatory Chart (roll 1d4):
1 - You slip on the ground and your next attack misses.
2 - You strain your muscles slightly; your next attack doesn't hit.
3 - The enemy almost disarmed you, so your next attack is an automatic miss.
4 - Dirt gets in your eyes and makes you miss your next attack.

[random11]

Well, yes. Aside from that, I do believe that anyone who has ever really [i]used[i] a sword can attest that the concept of stabbing yourself with your own weapon is completely ridiculous.


Then you've never met me...
In real life, I'm a typical "natural 1" roller. Things have a tendency of breaking apart when I touch them, and I even manages to wound myself, twice, when making a chocolate cake that didn't require the use of a knife or an oven.
So trust me when I say that: You CAN wound yourself with a sword.

In game terms, it doesn't have to be literally stabbing yourself. It can be tripping and hitting your other arm, accidentally kicking a wall, or anything like that.
In a similar way, you can say that some successful sword attacks with low damage are actually kicks or punches given during the fight.


I just want to add that I never really liked the D&D fumble rules.
Fumbles can happen, but it doesn't seem likely that it will happen one every twenty attacks, 5% is just too often, especially for a trained hero.

[bosssmiley]

Something my dm threw in for flavor.

We all know that a natural 1=auto failure in 3.5 and such. Sometime ago, he decided to us this "d4 of fate" when a nat 1 occurs in certain situations, such as in combat. 4 fates would be chosen, and assigned a number (1-4), you roll and w/e number you get is the fate assigned.

Ex: you're in melee combat. you roll a 1. Time for the d4 of fate.
1. You drop your weapon
2. You somehow manage to damage yourself
3. The enemy gets a hold of your weapon
4. you merely miss.

Granted, none of them are good, but a lot times the fates can be interesting for the imagination. Like if our monk rolls a 1 on his unarmed attack and rolls a 2 on the fate.

See "RoleMaster". *That's* a proper fumble system. :smallwink:

[TwystidMynd]

I like this, but I would change it a little bit. In my game, I handle fumbles differently. Fumbles are not something silly, but tactical errors on your part. A poorly swung Axe may put you in a position where you can't defend yourself properly (-2 AC), or maybe the enemy has combat advantage against you, or even worse, you provoke an attack of opportunity.

So, I would handle this with different results.

1. Provoke Attack of Opportunity
2. You grant combat advantage to your target
3. You have an AC penalty of -2
4. You just miss

I think these penalties are less embarassing and would make me, as a player, less frustrated with rolling a natural 1. As-is, I feel like the "Nat 1" mechanic as an auto-miss is just fine; that's already plenty bad in most action-limited systems. DMs that feel like "that's simply not bad enough!" and tag on extra bad things that happen on a Nat 1 tend to frustrate me, because there's really no way I can be pleased with my character if I know he has a 5% chance of stabbing himself in the foot with his Spear when he's been training as a Spearmaster for 10 years. It makes me feel like my character is a joke, I play D&D for the Heroic-style role-playing. I enjoy silly role-play as much as the next person, but then I'll play Paranoia or Munchkin Cthulhu - not D&D, where I want my character to be deep, dynamic, and awesome.

[monty]

You need to be careful with your fumble systems, so you don't end up with something (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20051223.html) like (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20051224.html) this (http://www.goblinscomic.com/d/20051225.html).

[Nohwl]

i have always thought of pcs as trained warriors. they might auto miss on a natural 1, but dropping your weapon or hitting yourself with it shouldnt happen. even if you dont have proficiency with it.

[Telonius]

Auto-kill on triple 20's.
Fumble on triple 1's.

1/8000 chance seems reasonable to me.