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.

[AstralFire]

You'll want this.

>.>

<.<

I still say it's overpowered for a ninth level spell...

[Jack_Simth]

>.>

<.<

I still say it's overpowered for a ninth level spell...

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....