Crit. Fumble System that Favors High Level Chars. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Crit. Fumble System that Favors High Level Chars. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
StoneStokes
02-28-07, 10:09 PM So there have been a lot of various Critical Fumble threads floating about. I decided to create an easy to use system that remedies the number one complaint about critical fumble systems, and I will demonstrate that this system remedies the complaint.

The Complaint:
"Any critical fumble system causes high-level characters to fumble more often than low-level characters, so commoners look heroic, and heroes don't."

The Fix:
On any attack roll (including spells requiring an attack roll), a natural 1 threatens a critical fumble. To confirm, the player rolls a Base-Attack-Bonus check against DC 22 (the reason for this number will become apparant). That is, they roll 1d20+BAB. If the roll meets or exceeds 22, then there is no critical fumble. If they fail, they fumble their weapon (or spell components), and may make no more attacks with that weapon for the rest of the round (characters fighting with two weapons may still make attacks as normal with their other weapon). A natural 1 always fails, and a natural 20 always succeeds.

The Proof:
Now many of you might think, "but since high level characters have more attacks per round (using Full Attack), they have a greater chance of having a critical fumble."

This is actually true in some cases! However, that is not the important point. (I explain why at the end).

The probability of a critical fumble in a round is irrelevant. What really matters is the expected number of attacks per round! If a level X+1 fighter still is expected to make more attacks than a level X fighter, then the level X+1 fighter will still do more damage, and appear more heroic than the level X fighter.

Indeed, here are the expected numbers of attacks per round by BAB:

BAB. Expected Number of Attacks Using Full Attack

0.953
0.953
0.955
0.958
0.960
1.889
1.896
1.904
1.911
1.918
2.852
2.867
2.882
2.896
2.911
3.877
3.901
3.926
3.950
3.975

You will notice that at every level the fighter will be expected to make more attacks than at the previous level (except at level 2, which is identical to level 1).

It should also be pointed out that when comparing the results for the standard attack action, they are also heavily in favor of the high level characters:

BAB. Expected Number of Attacks Using Standard Attack

0.9525
0.9525
0.9550
0.9575
0.9600
0.9625
0.9650
0.9675
0.9700
0.9725
0.9750
0.9775
0.9800
0.9825
0.9850
0.9875
0.9900
0.9925
0.9950
0.9975

You see here that 1st-level fighters will lose about 4.75% of their standard attacks, and 20th-level fighters will lose about 0.25% of their standard attacks.

Why is the probability of a fumble not important?
As I said earlier, the probability of a fumble is not important, rather the total expected number of attacks is. To try to convince you that this is the case, I will resort to analogy.

Consider an auto race between two drivers: myself (a driver of average skill), and Mario Andretti (a driver of tremendous skill). Consider also that the course we are driving has a dangerous turn (Turn 1). If Mario Andretti is going four times as fast as me, that gives him four times as many opportunity to crash in Turn 1. However, if his probability of crashing there is relatively much lower than mine, he can be expected to do more laps before crashing there -- even if his total probability of crashing there is much higher than mine over the course of an hour. He would therefore win the race, because the total number of laps is what is most important here.

Cheers,
StoneStokes
Seeker95
03-01-07, 09:21 AM I prefer the following:

Roll a 1: Critical Fumble Threat.
Re-roll.
If the new roll misses: Critical Fumble Confirmed.
See chart* for result.

This makes the odds of threatening the same for all characters per hit attempt -- 5% (1 in 20). But the odds of confirming the fumble depend on your relative attack ability compared to the defenses of your opponent, just like it works with critical hits.

*I have seen many different charts, and have not found the one that best suits me, but have liked most of them well enough.
Nom
03-01-07, 09:26 PM Issue 1: Your table is flawed. Under your rules, a character with only 1 attack per round loses nothing (remember, they would have missed anyway) except AoOs.

Issue 2: The character who makes more attacks has more to lose. For example, on your table a character with BAB 10 loses ~ 4.1% of their attacks (and thus mean damage) while a character with BAB 11 loses ~ 4.8%. Similarly, a character with 1 attack who fumbles loses nothing, while a character with 4 attacks who fumbles on the 1st attack loses 3 attacks. Losing 3 attacks is a much larger tactical disadvantage than losing 1.

Issue 3: You fail to deal with the "spellcaster vs fighter" problem. I fail to see how adding a mechanic that penalises weaker classes with a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level is a good rule.
StoneStokes
03-02-07, 03:08 AM Issue 1: Your table is flawed. Under your rules, a character with only 1 attack per round loses nothing (remember, they would have missed anyway)

That's correct, the updated table follows:

BAB. Expected number of attacks using Full Attack

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.963
1.965
1.968
1.970
1.973
2.926
2.933
2.940
2.948
2.955
3.926
3.940
3.955
3.970
3.985

...except AoOs.
Well, that's something. :)

Issue 2: The character who makes more attacks has more to lose. For example, on your table a character with BAB 10 loses ~ 4.1% of their attacks (and thus mean damage) while a character with BAB 11 loses ~ 4.8%. Similarly, a character with 1 attack who fumbles loses nothing, while a character with 4 attacks who fumbles on the 1st attack loses 3 attacks. Losing 3 attacks is a much larger tactical disadvantage than losing 1.

Expected mean damage still increases between 10th and 11th levels because the expected number of attacks still increases. Your argument parallels the argument that flat taxes (where everyone pays the same rate) are unfair to the wealthy because they would pay more (when in fact they are unfair to the poor because they keep less).

Issue 3: You fail to deal with the "spellcaster vs fighter" problem. I fail to see how adding a mechanic that penalises weaker classes with a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level is a good rule.
I never claimed I would deal with the "spellcaster vs fighter" problem.

I don't know what you mean about "a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level ..." Please explain.

Cheers,
StoneStokes
Nom
03-02-07, 08:41 AM I don't know what you mean about "a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level ..." Please explain.Your tax analogy is a good one. As the character passes over each breakpoint where they gain an additional attack, the % penalty increases (since they lose an extra attack). It then decreases again due to BAB. Although looking at your table suggests that the 15->16 cut-off isn't so bad.

The bigger problem is that at low levels, where physical attacks dominate, you apply no penalty, but then as magical attacks become more powerful you start to penalise physical attackers. This works in exactly the opposite way that it should.
Stormonu
03-02-07, 03:27 PM Roll a 1: Critical Fumble Threat.
Re-roll.
If the new roll misses: Critical Fumble Confirmed.
See chart* for result.

We do similar. If the Critical Fumble is confirmed, it simply provokes an Attack of Opportunity. No charts to mess with.

The system favors ranged attackers and spellcasters, but since there is no mechanic for muffing a spell anyway, that's a bit of a moot point.
MerlintheTuna
03-02-07, 03:41 PM Expected mean damage still increases between 10th and 11th levels because the expected number of attacks still increases.Now, typically I try to avoid involving anything made by K, as his crunch is made of fail and lose. Nevertheless, his fluff is occasionally on the ball, and I think this is a useful comparison.Most importantly, the inverse of Evil is not Good. It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that. This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds is such an unsatisfying read… you can't just take the material in the Book of Vile Darkness and multiply by negative one to get Good.Just as doing a lot of carpentry will not make Jimmy's cannibalism more acceptable, doing more damage will not make Regdar more heroic if it involves stabbing himself in the foot more often than the Joe McPeon would. You can't just say "Dealing damage is heroic, taking damage isn't" and try to use that as justification for yet another simplistic and poorly thought out fumble system. Fumbles are a scenario where failures reflect a lot more than successes in terms of how heroic someone seems. Damage is, for the most part, irrelevant, because they look like morons when they impale themselves no matter what else happens in the battle.

You have done nothing new, and not much right. I advise going back to the drawing board if you, for reasons completely beyond my comprehension, absolutely insist that your character must occasionally eviscerate themselves.
Silversheen197
03-02-07, 04:40 PM This is why I use this method for "critical fumbles": a nat. 1 is treated as a -5. If that plus your modifier to attack rolls is still negative, you fumble (lose additional attacks with that weapon for a round), otherwise, if it is 0 greater, it's only a miss.
In intense battles, mistakes are bound to happen, but as many people in these debates have stated, trained fighters make these mistakes much less often. This way, as long as you have a +5 or greater (which is pretty easy to have, even at low levels), you have almost no chance to fumble.

:twocents:
StoneStokes
03-02-07, 10:47 PM Now, typically I try to avoid involving anything made by K, as his crunch is made of fail and lose. Nevertheless, his fluff is occasionally on the ball, and I think this is a useful comparison.Just as doing a lot of carpentry will not make Jimmy's cannibalism more acceptable, doing more damage will not make Regdar more heroic if it involves stabbing himself in the foot more often than the Joe McPeon would. You can't just say "Dealing damage is heroic, taking damage isn't" and try to use that as justification for yet another simplistic and poorly thought out fumble system. Fumbles are a scenario where failures reflect a lot more than successes in terms of how heroic someone seems. Damage is, for the most part, irrelevant, because they look like morons when they impale themselves no matter what else happens in the battle.

You have done nothing new, and not much right. I advise going back to the drawing board if you, for reasons completely beyond my comprehension, absolutely insist that your character must occasionally eviscerate themselves.

I'm guessing you haven't read my original post. I have no other explanation as to how you might be under the impression that I have suggested that characters who critical fumble strike themselves.

I give Nom much credit for at least debating the system I presented on its merits.
StoneStokes
03-02-07, 10:49 PM This is why I use this method for "critical fumbles": a nat. 1 is treated as a -5. If that plus your modifier to attack rolls is still negative, you fumble (lose additional attacks with that weapon for a round), otherwise, if it is 0 greater, it's only a miss.
In intense battles, mistakes are bound to happen, but as many people in these debates have stated, trained fighters make these mistakes much less often. This way, as long as you have a +5 or greater (which is pretty easy to have, even at low levels), you have almost no chance to fumble.

:twocents:
This seems resonable, but I would like to look at the numbers a bit.
StoneStokes
03-02-07, 10:58 PM Your tax analogy is a good one. As the character passes over each breakpoint where they gain an additional attack, the % penalty increases (since they lose an extra attack). It then decreases again due to BAB. Although looking at your table suggests that the 15->16 cut-off isn't so bad.
I understand now. I still maintain that looking at what is taken away is the wrong point of view. Instead, one must look at what is kept. I am under the impression that I won't be able to change your mind on this, and I really have no deep need to, so I won't try.

The bigger problem is that at low levels, where physical attacks dominate, you apply no penalty, but then as magical attacks become more powerful you start to penalise physical attackers. This works in exactly the opposite way that it should.
This is a valid point. I don't agree with it completely, but I will take it into consideration.

Cheers,
StoneStokes
Seeker95
03-03-07, 09:23 AM We do similar. If the Critical Fumble is confirmed, it simply provokes an Attack of Opportunity. No charts to mess with.I like this a lot!
Otto the Bugbear
03-03-07, 10:33 AM Another system, for reference. (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/criticalhitsandfumbles)
MerlintheTuna
03-03-07, 10:53 AM I'm guessing you haven't read my original post. I have no other explanation as to how you might be under the impression that I have suggested that characters who critical fumble strike themselves."Stabbing one's self in the face" is just a general way of referring to fumble systems. The same principle stands for tripping, dropping your weapon, having your helm spin around and block your view, or however you justify this. You're attacking a detail without addressing the concern. When you fumble, you look like a doofus, no matter how impressive the rest of your attacks are for the encounter. The other PCs won't be saying "It looked tough, but Tordek pulled through in the end," it'll be "Pfft. Remember that time Tordek bashed his head on his own shield and stunned himself? HILARIOUS."

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StoneStokes 02-28-07, 10:09 PM	So there have been a lot of various Critical Fumble threads floating about. I decided to create an easy to use system that remedies the number one complaint about critical fumble systems, and I will demonstrate that this system remedies the complaint. The Complaint: "Any critical fumble system causes high-level characters to fumble more often than low-level characters, so commoners look heroic, and heroes don't." The Fix: On any attack roll (including spells requiring an attack roll), a natural 1 threatens a critical fumble. To confirm, the player rolls a Base-Attack-Bonus check against DC 22 (the reason for this number will become apparant). That is, they roll 1d20+BAB. If the roll meets or exceeds 22, then there is no critical fumble. If they fail, they fumble their weapon (or spell components), and may make no more attacks with that weapon for the rest of the round (characters fighting with two weapons may still make attacks as normal with their other weapon). A natural 1 always fails, and a natural 20 always succeeds. The Proof: Now many of you might think, "but since high level characters have more attacks per round (using Full Attack), they have a greater chance of having a critical fumble." This is actually true in some cases! However, that is not the important point. (I explain why at the end). The probability of a critical fumble in a round is irrelevant. What really matters is the expected number of attacks per round! If a level X+1 fighter still is expected to make more attacks than a level X fighter, then the level X+1 fighter will still do more damage, and appear more heroic than the level X fighter. Indeed, here are the expected numbers of attacks per round by BAB: BAB. Expected Number of Attacks Using Full Attack 0.953 0.953 0.955 0.958 0.960 1.889 1.896 1.904 1.911 1.918 2.852 2.867 2.882 2.896 2.911 3.877 3.901 3.926 3.950 3.975 You will notice that at every level the fighter will be expected to make more attacks than at the previous level (except at level 2, which is identical to level 1). It should also be pointed out that when comparing the results for the standard attack action, they are also heavily in favor of the high level characters: BAB. Expected Number of Attacks Using Standard Attack 0.9525 0.9525 0.9550 0.9575 0.9600 0.9625 0.9650 0.9675 0.9700 0.9725 0.9750 0.9775 0.9800 0.9825 0.9850 0.9875 0.9900 0.9925 0.9950 0.9975 You see here that 1st-level fighters will lose about 4.75% of their standard attacks, and 20th-level fighters will lose about 0.25% of their standard attacks. Why is the probability of a fumble not important? As I said earlier, the probability of a fumble is not important, rather the total expected number of attacks is. To try to convince you that this is the case, I will resort to analogy. Consider an auto race between two drivers: myself (a driver of average skill), and Mario Andretti (a driver of tremendous skill). Consider also that the course we are driving has a dangerous turn (Turn 1). If Mario Andretti is going four times as fast as me, that gives him four times as many opportunity to crash in Turn 1. However, if his probability of crashing there is relatively much lower than mine, he can be expected to do more laps before crashing there -- even if his total probability of crashing there is much higher than mine over the course of an hour. He would therefore win the race, because the total number of laps is what is most important here. Cheers, StoneStokes
Seeker95 03-01-07, 09:21 AM	I prefer the following: Roll a 1: Critical Fumble Threat. Re-roll. If the new roll misses: Critical Fumble Confirmed. See chart* for result. This makes the odds of threatening the same for all characters per hit attempt -- 5% (1 in 20). But the odds of confirming the fumble depend on your relative attack ability compared to the defenses of your opponent, just like it works with critical hits. *I have seen many different charts, and have not found the one that best suits me, but have liked most of them well enough.
Nom 03-01-07, 09:26 PM	Issue 1: Your table is flawed. Under your rules, a character with only 1 attack per round loses nothing (remember, they would have missed anyway) except AoOs. Issue 2: The character who makes more attacks has more to lose. For example, on your table a character with BAB 10 loses ~ 4.1% of their attacks (and thus mean damage) while a character with BAB 11 loses ~ 4.8%. Similarly, a character with 1 attack who fumbles loses nothing, while a character with 4 attacks who fumbles on the 1st attack loses 3 attacks. Losing 3 attacks is a much larger tactical disadvantage than losing 1. Issue 3: You fail to deal with the "spellcaster vs fighter" problem. I fail to see how adding a mechanic that penalises weaker classes with a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level is a good rule.
StoneStokes 03-02-07, 03:08 AM	Issue 1: Your table is flawed. Under your rules, a character with only 1 attack per round loses nothing (remember, they would have missed anyway) That's correct, the updated table follows: BAB. Expected number of attacks using Full Attack 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.963 1.965 1.968 1.970 1.973 2.926 2.933 2.940 2.948 2.955 3.926 3.940 3.955 3.970 3.985 ...except AoOs. Well, that's something. :) Issue 2: The character who makes more attacks has more to lose. For example, on your table a character with BAB 10 loses ~ 4.1% of their attacks (and thus mean damage) while a character with BAB 11 loses ~ 4.8%. Similarly, a character with 1 attack who fumbles loses nothing, while a character with 4 attacks who fumbles on the 1st attack loses 3 attacks. Losing 3 attacks is a much larger tactical disadvantage than losing 1. Expected mean damage still increases between 10th and 11th levels because the expected number of attacks still increases. Your argument parallels the argument that flat taxes (where everyone pays the same rate) are unfair to the wealthy because they would pay more (when in fact they are unfair to the poor because they keep less). Issue 3: You fail to deal with the "spellcaster vs fighter" problem. I fail to see how adding a mechanic that penalises weaker classes with a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level is a good rule. I never claimed I would deal with the "spellcaster vs fighter" problem. I don't know what you mean about "a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level ..." Please explain. Cheers, StoneStokes
Nom 03-02-07, 08:41 AM	I don't know what you mean about "a scaling penalty that approximately increases as they increase in level ..." Please explain.Your tax analogy is a good one. As the character passes over each breakpoint where they gain an additional attack, the % penalty increases (since they lose an extra attack). It then decreases again due to BAB. Although looking at your table suggests that the 15->16 cut-off isn't so bad. The bigger problem is that at low levels, where physical attacks dominate, you apply no penalty, but then as magical attacks become more powerful you start to penalise physical attackers. This works in exactly the opposite way that it should.
Stormonu 03-02-07, 03:27 PM	Roll a 1: Critical Fumble Threat. Re-roll. If the new roll misses: Critical Fumble Confirmed. See chart* for result. We do similar. If the Critical Fumble is confirmed, it simply provokes an Attack of Opportunity. No charts to mess with. The system favors ranged attackers and spellcasters, but since there is no mechanic for muffing a spell anyway, that's a bit of a moot point.
MerlintheTuna 03-02-07, 03:41 PM	Expected mean damage still increases between 10th and 11th levels because the expected number of attacks still increases.Now, typically I try to avoid involving anything made by K, as his crunch is made of fail and lose. Nevertheless, his fluff is occasionally on the ball, and I think this is a useful comparison.Most importantly, the inverse of Evil is not Good. It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that. This is why the Book of Exalted Deeds is such an unsatisfying read… you can't just take the material in the Book of Vile Darkness and multiply by negative one to get Good.Just as doing a lot of carpentry will not make Jimmy's cannibalism more acceptable, doing more damage will not make Regdar more heroic if it involves stabbing himself in the foot more often than the Joe McPeon would. You can't just say "Dealing damage is heroic, taking damage isn't" and try to use that as justification for yet another simplistic and poorly thought out fumble system. Fumbles are a scenario where failures reflect a lot more than successes in terms of how heroic someone seems. Damage is, for the most part, irrelevant, because they look like morons when they impale themselves no matter what else happens in the battle. You have done nothing new, and not much right. I advise going back to the drawing board if you, for reasons completely beyond my comprehension, absolutely insist that your character must occasionally eviscerate themselves.
Silversheen197 03-02-07, 04:40 PM	This is why I use this method for "critical fumbles": a nat. 1 is treated as a -5. If that plus your modifier to attack rolls is still negative, you fumble (lose additional attacks with that weapon for a round), otherwise, if it is 0 greater, it's only a miss. In intense battles, mistakes are bound to happen, but as many people in these debates have stated, trained fighters make these mistakes much less often. This way, as long as you have a +5 or greater (which is pretty easy to have, even at low levels), you have almost no chance to fumble. :twocents:
StoneStokes 03-02-07, 10:47 PM	Now, typically I try to avoid involving anything made by K, as his crunch is made of fail and lose. Nevertheless, his fluff is occasionally on the ball, and I think this is a useful comparison.Just as doing a lot of carpentry will not make Jimmy's cannibalism more acceptable, doing more damage will not make Regdar more heroic if it involves stabbing himself in the foot more often than the Joe McPeon would. You can't just say "Dealing damage is heroic, taking damage isn't" and try to use that as justification for yet another simplistic and poorly thought out fumble system. Fumbles are a scenario where failures reflect a lot more than successes in terms of how heroic someone seems. Damage is, for the most part, irrelevant, because they look like morons when they impale themselves no matter what else happens in the battle. You have done nothing new, and not much right. I advise going back to the drawing board if you, for reasons completely beyond my comprehension, absolutely insist that your character must occasionally eviscerate themselves. I'm guessing you haven't read my original post. I have no other explanation as to how you might be under the impression that I have suggested that characters who critical fumble strike themselves. I give Nom much credit for at least debating the system I presented on its merits.
StoneStokes 03-02-07, 10:49 PM	This is why I use this method for "critical fumbles": a nat. 1 is treated as a -5. If that plus your modifier to attack rolls is still negative, you fumble (lose additional attacks with that weapon for a round), otherwise, if it is 0 greater, it's only a miss. In intense battles, mistakes are bound to happen, but as many people in these debates have stated, trained fighters make these mistakes much less often. This way, as long as you have a +5 or greater (which is pretty easy to have, even at low levels), you have almost no chance to fumble. :twocents: This seems resonable, but I would like to look at the numbers a bit.
StoneStokes 03-02-07, 10:58 PM	Your tax analogy is a good one. As the character passes over each breakpoint where they gain an additional attack, the % penalty increases (since they lose an extra attack). It then decreases again due to BAB. Although looking at your table suggests that the 15->16 cut-off isn't so bad. I understand now. I still maintain that looking at what is taken away is the wrong point of view. Instead, one must look at what is kept. I am under the impression that I won't be able to change your mind on this, and I really have no deep need to, so I won't try. The bigger problem is that at low levels, where physical attacks dominate, you apply no penalty, but then as magical attacks become more powerful you start to penalise physical attackers. This works in exactly the opposite way that it should. This is a valid point. I don't agree with it completely, but I will take it into consideration. Cheers, StoneStokes
Seeker95 03-03-07, 09:23 AM	We do similar. If the Critical Fumble is confirmed, it simply provokes an Attack of Opportunity. No charts to mess with.I like this a lot!
Otto the Bugbear 03-03-07, 10:33 AM	Another system, for reference. (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/criticalhitsandfumbles)
MerlintheTuna 03-03-07, 10:53 AM	I'm guessing you haven't read my original post. I have no other explanation as to how you might be under the impression that I have suggested that characters who critical fumble strike themselves."Stabbing one's self in the face" is just a general way of referring to fumble systems. The same principle stands for tripping, dropping your weapon, having your helm spin around and block your view, or however you justify this. You're attacking a detail without addressing the concern. When you fumble, you look like a doofus, no matter how impressive the rest of your attacks are for the encounter. The other PCs won't be saying "It looked tough, but Tordek pulled through in the end," it'll be "Pfft. Remember that time Tordek bashed his head on his own shield and stunned himself? HILARIOUS."