change of requirements for gaming due to 4e?

[Akisa]

I was wondering has anyone starting to lower their requirements and are considering joining campaigns they would have otherwise avoid? Prior to the announcement of 4E I avoid the following like they were the plague; roll for attributes, fumbles and DMs who take nerf bats to classes (even if I'm not in the mood to play em).

Now I'm considering joining games were you roll for attributes. The reason I avoided in the past because there is usually power gaps between players (someone with high stats and other with low). Also you can't decide what type of character you want to play until after you roll your stats. For example let's say you want to play a monk but instead roll a 18, 11, 10, 12, 9, 11 now you can't play a monk instead you're forced to play a SAD.

As for DMs who love the nerf bat I'm still slightly avoiding but I'm starting to be more receptive. The reason for avoiding them is that I'm afraid of a controlling DM aka a conductor. Sure there are some games imbalances but players and GM should be working together. Please note I said I'm afraid and not saying it's 100% certain.

As for fumbling I'm still steadfast against them.

P.S. Invade if for reason you can't tell I'm ranting because 4E is taking away potential player pool.

[FMArthur]

Fumbles are not for serious campaigns. At all. It's hilarious if D&D is just a small part of what is essentially a social gathering. I've had more than one well-built character kill himself with a sword swing in each scenario (one was a critical hit, one was an auto-kill!).

[skywalker]

I don't understand why 4e is causing you to do this?

[Myatar_Panwar]

I think that she is trying to say that 4e is lowering her expectations as to what to expect in a game of D&D.

And why can't fumbles be involved in "serious" campains. In fact, how do you define a "serious" campain? Im curious.

(no I don't use fumbles, but I think it could be a funny addition)

[Dhavaer]

I don't understand why 4e is causing you to do this?

Me neither. Also, is this for 3.x games in particular?

[Tsotha-lanti]

And why can't fumbles be involved in "serious" campains. In fact, how do you define a "serious" campain? Im curious.

Go figure. BRP (the system behind Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, and RuneQuest - all games as serious as you can get) includes them by default.

The OP is a great non-sequitur, though.

[thegurullamen]

I read it as a scarcity of 3.x games leading to a forced tolerance of the unwanted characteristics.

If that's the case, then no, nothing much has changed for me, but then again, I've been in an RPG dry spell since May.

[Behold_the_Void]

Bah, gotta agree with the fumble thing. I can't stand fumbles on a 1. It just doesn't strike me as particularly heroic. At all. Or even marginally sensible.

[Kiara LeSabre]

Bah, gotta agree with the fumble thing. I can't stand fumbles on a 1. It just doesn't strike me as particularly heroic. At all. Or even marginally sensible.

I used to think the same, but then I tried, experimentally, swinging a stick around. For some reason, no matter what I did, I managed to beat myself over the head with it, stumble and fall, or fling it far away about 1 out of every 20 swings. It's a good thing I rolled a 1 on damage that time I hit myself, or I might have wound up at negative hit points and dying.

[Talic]

Bah, gotta agree with the fumble thing. I can't stand fumbles on a 1. It just doesn't strike me as particularly heroic. At all. Or even marginally sensible.

Because there are no heroic tales where the gun jams at the worst possible moment, or someone stumbles on a rock (cough cough Troy cough cough).

[NPCMook]

My current DM has decided to do this, and we are running a 4e adventure, some of the players rolled stats while 3 of us chose to buy stats because we wanted a real feel for the new system. The DM not only brought in a fumble chart, but brought in 3.5 Critical cards, so each time someone rolls a Crit, we have to stop determine what type of damage it is, depending on the weapon it can take several minutes since the player using a sword might debate on whether to say he's slashing or piercing.

Sure it adds a little flare, emphasis on little, to the game, but having half the party scrounge around because the other half kept rolling 1's while the DM kept hitting Nat20's. We had 1 character death, and the wizard was out for almost the entire fight thanks to him fumbling on an Icy Ray. The Character death wasn't that bad and in fact great timing since that player would no longer be joining us due to school starting again.

[Kiara LeSabre]

Because there are no heroic tales where the gun jams at the worst possible moment, or someone stumbles on a rock (cough cough Troy cough cough).

Exactly. And if you haven't noticed, it always happens no less than 5% of the time, too. Like you've probably noticed that you'll never see Zorro get through 20 sword swings without tripping and falling flat on his face or something.

[Tengu_temp]

And one out of twenty torpedoes shot by Enterprise explodes while still in the tube.

[Talic]

Exactly. And if you haven't noticed, it always happens no less than 5% of the time, too. Like you've probably noticed that you'll never see Zorro get through 20 sword swings without tripping and falling flat on his face or something.

Your sarcasm fails to impress.

The typical method for doing it in D&D (at least, the book method) requires a roll of 1 on the attack, FOLLOWED by a DC 5 dex check.

Now, particulary agile characters can catch themselves most of the time, and the REALLY quick ones can do it all the time, but the average person has about a 1% chance of fumbling.

Someone with a 14-15 dex? about a 0.5%.

So, if you figure that Mr. Hector had a 16 dex (0.25% chance of fumble), he'd make some sort of slip up on a 1 in 400 chance.

It should almost never be "hit yourself" unless the weapon is something like nunchucks.

But self disarms? Slipping and going to a knee (high ground bonus to opponent), load-and-fire weapon jamming? All within the bounds of common sense, and you'll even find that they can serve to increase dramatic tension, often as not.

So yeah, the blatant sarcasm? Not doing anything for your cause, and pretty much only coming off as disrespectful to those you talk to. It would have been at least forgivable, however, if you'd bothered to actually portray the mechanic you're ridiculing as if you knew it well enough to make an informed judgement on it.

[Frownbear]

So yeah, the blatant sarcasm? Not doing anything for your cause, and pretty much only coming off as disrespectful to those you talk to.

I think it's charming and witty, myself.

[kamikasei]

It should almost never be "hit yourself" unless the weapon is something like nunchucks.

I think this is how many people think of fumbles, though. The ridiculous scenarios whereby you can roll a one and chuck your sword at an ally or cut off your own leg.

[ghost_warlock]

Your sarcasm fails to impress.

The typical method for doing it in D&D (at least, the book method) requires a roll of 1 on the attack, FOLLOWED by a DC 5 dex check.

I've never heard of this method. The only way I've ever seen fumbles done in D&D was "Oops, nat1, I guess you're screwed."

[Frownbear]

Anyway, fumbles affect high-level characters more than low-level ones (a high-level TWFer might fumble every other round!), and slow down gameplay (and do 3.5 turns need to be any slower?!). I'm against them.

[Talic]

I think it's charming and witty, myself.

I generally consider the difference between wit and buffoonery to lie in knowledge of the subject matter.

Anyway, fumbles affect high-level characters more than low-level ones (a high-level TWFer might fumble every other round!), and slow down gameplay (and do 3.5 turns need to be any slower?!). I'm against them.

A high level TWFer needs an increasingly high dex to have his TWF feats. This lowers his odds, and eventually gets rid of them.

I've never heard of this method. The only way I've ever seen fumbles done in D&D was "Oops, nat1, I guess you're screwed."

I suggest consulting your DMG more closely for the specific alternate rule, in that case.

[ghost_warlock]

suggest consulting your DMG more closely for the specific alternate rule, in that case.

Which edition D&D? I have Basic, 2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5, and 4th.

[Talic]

Which edition D&D? I have Basic, 2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5, and 4th.

The one I'm specifically referencing is 3.5.

I mean really people, the mechanic works almost exactly like scroll mishap chances...

Or is that "not heroic" also?

I mean, trail rations aren't exactly "heroic", nor is the PC or BBEG getting hit by the triple 20 insta kill rule, or crafting alchemist's fire.

Not everything has to be comprised of epic win.

Heroes still eat, sleep, and go to the latrine.

[Zid]

Heroes still eat, sleep, and go to the latrine.

Preach it, brother! On the other hand, I´ve always liked the more "low-heroic" games. Games where five goblins with pointy sticks are still a challenge to a PC if he has to fight them alone.

[Kiara LeSabre]

The typical method for doing it in D&D (at least, the book method) requires a roll of 1 on the attack, FOLLOWED by a DC 5 dex check.

It would have been at least forgivable, however, if you'd bothered to actually portray the mechanic you're ridiculing as if you knew it well enough to make an informed judgement on it.

Oh, you mean the variant rule mentioned briefly on page 28 of the 3.5e DMG, wherein if you roll a one, you make a DC 10 Dexterity check to avoid a fumble?

Yes, I admit, I never noticed that variant rule before. Frankly, like ghost warlock, I've never seen any DM use fumbles in any fashion but "oops, natural 1; you hit yourself in the foot," and certainly I've never seen one use that optional rule, which apparently you haven't either if you saw it being applied as a DC 5 check.

Okay, so in the hands of all three DMs who use that variant fumble rule as written, the average person (Dex 10) fumbles one out of every 40 swings, meaning dragons accidentally bite themselves or claw their own wings off 2.5 percent of the time. The rest of the time, it's one in 20. Is that really a terribly important distinction?

[Tengu_temp]

triple 20 insta kill rule

Isn't this an optional rule that isn't even official, just widely-used? It also works against the players, too, because it means every blow at the character has a 1/8000 chance of one-shotting it. If you got attacked 5500 times during your career, there's a 50% chance one of those attacks one-shotted you. Even if most of these attacks were pinecones falling from trees at your head.

[Kiara LeSabre]

Isn't this an optional rule that isn't even official, just widely-used? It also works against the players, too, because it means every blow at the character has a 1/8000 chance of one-shotting it. If you got attacked 5500 times during your career, there's a 50% chance one of those attacks one-shotted you. Even if most of these attacks were pinecones falling from trees at your head.

This made me laugh so hard, I'm tempted to add it to my signature.

[Frownbear]

I mean, trail rations aren't exactly "heroic", nor is the PC or BBEG getting hit by the triple 20 insta kill rule, or crafting alchemist's fire.

You're right, they're not.
The triple-20 house rule is a bad hous erule. I'd never make PCs track trail rations.

[Talic]

Oh, you mean the variant rule mentioned briefly on page 28 of the 3.5e DMG, wherein if you roll a one, you make a DC 10 Dexterity check to avoid a fumble?

Yes, I admit, I never noticed that variant rule before. Frankly, like ghost warlock, I've never seen any DM use fumbles in any fashion but "oops, natural 1; you hit yourself in the foot," and certainly I've never seen one use that optional rule, which apparently you haven't either if you saw it being applied as a DC 5 check.

Okay, so in the hands of all three DMs who use that variant fumble rule as written, the average person (Dex 10) fumbles one out of every 40 swings, meaning dragons accidentally bite themselves or claw their own wings off 2.5 percent of the time. The rest of the time, it's one in 20. Is that really a terribly important distinction?

Depends. Those fumble rules do certainly leave a bit open to what a fumble entails, and are generally for experienced GMs. For example. It's rather difficult to hit yourself, unless you're using a weapon easy to lose control of... Such as, say, nunchucks, a flail, a spiked chain, or the like.

However, in armor, it's very possible for a joint in the armor to lock up (auto-miss as normal, future attacks with that arm have a -1 penalty, until you take a move action to unstick it).

If people have been wounded, it's quite possible to slip on blood (drop to 1 knee, opponents get high ground advantage until you take a move action to stand).

Crossbow? Jams. Unusable until you reload it, per the crossbow's reload time.

Dragon? Misses, enemy, over-reached. Treat as entangled for 1 round.


The "oh, you miss, you hit yourself" is probably the least imaginative answer for a rule that CALLS for imagination, and making stuff up.

As for the correction? I'd say missing an entire step is a great deal more severe than getting a detail of the step incorrect. And yes, it does make a difference, especially when you keep fumble effects largely minor. In that case, they can add flavor and tension when they happen.

[Frownbear]

Because what third edition needs is more things to track!

[Tsotha-lanti]

Exactly. And if you haven't noticed, it always happens no less than 5% of the time, too. Like you've probably noticed that you'll never see Zorro get through 20 sword swings without tripping and falling flat on his face or something.

Man, sarcasm is one thing, but now you're messing with statistics.

Even with 50 repetitions, you've still got an 8% chance or so to not get a single nat 1.

In games like GURPS and BRP, the odds of fumbling tend to be 1% to 5%, and older RQ versions, for instance, have fumble tables - drop your weapon, helmet slips on your eyes, etc.

[Kiara LeSabre]

Man, sarcasm is one thing, but now you're messing with statistics.

A statistician is a person who will stick his head in a freezer and his feet in an oven and tell you that, on the whole, he's perfectly fine.

Even with 50 repetitions, you've still got an 8% chance or so to not get a single nat 1.

I wonder what the odds are of actually rolling 50 consecutive 1s?