Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jotii 03-23-06, 06:49 AM	I've found a lot of different critical hit and critical fumble tables, with various degrees of fatality. Since our group started just a few weeks ago, it would really help if I could get some opinions from you experienced DMs and players. Thank you in advance.
Illion the Red 03-23-06, 08:36 AM	I've found a lot of different critical hit and critical fumble tables, with various degrees of fatality. Since our group started just a few weeks ago, it would really help if I could get some opinions from you experienced DMs and players. Thank you in advance. My advice: Stay as far away from critical fumbles tables as is humanly possible. A 1 is a miss. That's it. Leave it at that. Compare a 1st level commoner to a 20th level fighter. The commoner has a 1/20 chance of rolling a 1 in a combat round. The fighter has 4 attacks, and therefore 4 chances to roll a 1 in a combat round. To make these 1s any worse than a miss, makes things much worse for the fighter who will (according to my rudimentary understanding of statistics) roll a 1 at least once every 5 rounds. The commoner, on the other hand would need 20 rounds to roll a 1. Anything that increases randomness, decreases the PCs chances of a good outcome. There are limitless monsters - if one fumbles, there are twenty more who could take its place. If a PC fumbles, there is no one else to take the PCs place.
Jacman 03-23-06, 09:39 AM	Our group uses this simple rule: a natural 20 counts as a 30 a natural 1 counts as a -10 this way high level characters still have a chance of hitting a very low lvl character, but a very low level character will find it more difficult to hit a high level character.
BW0222 03-23-06, 09:41 AM	Jotii, I'll agree with Illion. Typical combat last 5-10 rounds. Depending upon levels, you likely make about 20 rolls during a typical combat -- skill checks, saving throws, attack rolls, threat confirmation rolls, grapple checks, etc., etc. Chances are you get one or maybe two critical hits in. Changes are that the bad guys get one against you also. The problems with critical failures on a 1... First, they are going to occur. You might average one critical per creature per combat (which requires a second roll) so you are definitely going to average one or two critical failures. Second, they are far more deadly than being hit by critical hit. If you drop your weapon, you get an AoO picking it up, you miss an attack, you could easily lose the weapon (fighting on a boat, near a cliff, etc.), folks could grab the weapon, etc. If the party drops their only silvered weapon... the werewolves will obviously slaughter them. If the rogue rolls a 1 on a tumble check and ends up prone in front of the dire wolves... he is pretty much dead. Combat suddenly become a game of avoiding failures rather than hoping for successes. I'd rather the bad guy drops his weapon than me scoring a critical -- a) it get a free shot when he picks it up, b) he loses his multiple attacks, c) I can sunder/kick aside/stand on his weapon, etc. Third, it makes mundane things impossible. If you swim 500' or climb a 500' cliff, it doesn't matter how good you are, simple statistics say you are going to drown or fall, if you can't take a 10. Forth, it makes folks look like bafoons. 5th-level folks can't make it through 30 seconds of combat without dropping weapons, 10th-level rogues who can't climb, 20th-level rangers who look at a boat 500' away and say it is an impossible swim, etc.
Jotii 03-23-06, 09:55 AM	I see the general consensus is that critical failure is a bad idea. What about a critical hit table? The number of crits would average about one per party per encounter. Players are cheered up when they do crit, but as you all have mentioned, monsters' crits are lethal to the PCs. Perhaps I could use different charts for PCs and monsters? If the rogue rolls a 1 on a tumble check and ends up prone in front of the dire wolves... he is pretty much dead. Combat suddenly become a game of avoiding failures rather than hoping for successes. I'd rather the bad guy drops his weapon than me scoring a critical -- a) it get a free shot when he picks it up, b) he loses his multiple attacks, c) I can sunder/kick aside/stand on his weapon, etc. Third, it makes mundane things impossible. If you swim 500' or climb a 500' cliff, it doesn't matter how good you are, simple statistics say you are going to drown or fall, if you can't take a 10. Forth, it makes folks look like bafoons. 5th-level folks can't make it through 30 seconds of combat without dropping weapons, 10th-level rogues who can't climb, 20th-level rangers who look at a boat 500' away and say it is an impossible swim, etc. Just as 20 does not indicate success, 1 does not lead to critical failure when it comes to skills.
PossiblyInsane 03-23-06, 10:12 AM	while crit hit tables and fumbles are not being supported here, i like them fumbles have made my encounters pretty hair raising For example, On of my friends was about to attack a prone warrior when he swings and his sword sticks in the wall. so what does he do? He tumbles past them, draws his dagger and stabs a halfling which is about to kill the bard. Crits are fun too because who doesent like to lop someones arms off?
WeZil 03-23-06, 10:19 AM	Not to mention they can leave some pretty brutal features on your character if YOU get hit by them. In our eberron campaign, our rogue got his eye ripped out by a dire tiger thanks to the crit table. He lived through the ordeal and got an eyepatch. From that day on, everybody we talked to was like "Woah, what happened to your eye!" And he'd make up some wild story. It was actually pretty fun. EDIT: Not to mention that my Scout once shot a goblin straight in the eye, then made use of the goblin's lower spot check to get the untrained barbarian to sneak up behind him and push him over the edge of the wall.
BW0222 03-23-06, 10:48 AM	Jotii, >I see the general consensus is that critical failure is a bad idea. What about >a critical hit table? Why? There is already a mechanism for this. Anything else slows down the combats, gets into strange effects, and really doesn't add much to the game. Hit points are already abstracted. Body parts, penalties, etc. make the game way too complicated and adds a level of realism you really don't want. Having a 10th-level fighter hoppling around or a rogue unable to use an arm, get boring mighty quickly. >Perhaps I could use different charts for PCs and monsters? I don't recommend it. It cheapens the combat to give PCs an unnatural advantage which NPCs/monsters don't have. How much enjoyment do you get from winning a chess game where your pawns get two moves per turn? If you want something to give them an edge -- which you shouldn't need because as a DM you can (without anyone knowing) scale back the encounters they face -- you can go with something like the old RPGA rewards. For example, once per session give out a "+1 to any d20 roll" card to the best roleplayer for that evening. Or you can look at Action Points used in some campaigns.
Jotii 03-23-06, 10:57 AM	Jotii, >I see the general consensus is that critical failure is a bad idea. What about >a critical hit table? Why? There is already a mechanism for this. Anything else slows down the combats, gets into strange effects, and really doesn't add much to the game. Hit points are already abstracted. Body parts, penalties, etc. make the game way too complicated and adds a level of realism you really don't want. Having a 10th-level fighter hoppling around or a rogue unable to use an arm, get boring mighty quickly. I'd say critical hit tables add a lot to the game. Even if I try to spice the regular critical hits up, it feels so artificial when "the ranger's spear rips the troll's skin apart and opens a horrible flesh wound in its leg" but the only effect in the game is that the troll took three times the damage. Also, it prevents long battles from getting boring. >Perhaps I could use different charts for PCs and monsters? I don't recommend it. It cheapens the combat to give PCs an unnatural advantage which NPCs/monsters don't have. How much enjoyment do you get from winning a chess game where your pawns get two moves per turn? If you want something to give them an edge -- which you shouldn't need because as a DM you can (without anyone knowing) scale back the encounters they face -- you can go with something like the old RPGA rewards. For example, once per session give out a "+1 to any d20 roll" card to the best roleplayer for that evening. Or you can look at Action Points used in some campaigns. I will look into the Action Point system. Thanks.
Bob Loblaw 03-23-06, 11:11 AM	There are plenty of reasons not to use fumbles or critical hit tables. However, I think in the end, you should ask your group if they think it would be fun. I know my group loves it. They find the fumbles fun and critical hits to be an integral part of our game. So far, no one I have ever gamed with has said that they don't want the tables. There are plenty of people who do not, so I suggest talking to your group to see what they think.
mountc 03-23-06, 11:43 AM	I don't use a fumble table, but I do make them roll a dex check. If they pass a DC10 dex check, nothing happens. If they fail, they drop the weapon. That's the only fumble. Critical hits though, I took the older Rolemaster tables and converted them to use with 3.5. My players like them. It doesn't extend combat and meshes pretty well.
Mufflon 03-23-06, 12:07 PM	As is stated by many previous posters have established a level 20 Fighter would have a greater chance of fumbling than a level 1 commoner. There is, though, an easy way to remedy this. If one of the PC:s (or an NPC) roll a one have them confirm the Fumble in the same way as a Critical Hit is confirmed. The PC (or the NPC) make another roll against the target's AC, if this roll is a miss then the attack is Fumbled, if the second roll is a hit then the attack is just a normal miss.
BW0222 03-23-06, 12:48 PM	I'd say critical hit tables add a lot to the game. Even if I try to spice the regular critical hits up, it feels so artificial when "the ranger's spear rips the troll's skin apart and opens a horrible flesh wound in its leg" but the only effect in the game is that the troll took three times the damage. Also, it prevents long battles from getting boring. The DM can always describe the action. A normal crit can be described as either "The troll takes 34 points of damage." or "Your spear lands between the plates of his armor, drives through his leg, and the point comes out the other side." You don't need a table to make it sound exciting. However, if you do have a table... you immediately add the following problems: a) More time. It's another role at the table. More look-ups, more things to discuss, etc. b) You need rules for effects. What does hitting someone in the leg mean -- is he slower? What about the head, eyes, arm, etc. How does healing remove these affects. All this just slows down combat, adds a lot of unneeded rules. c) This leads to balance. We can't kill a dragon, but after 30 hits he still have 400hp but he is blind, slowed, can't fly, etc., etc. This is worse on PCs who have lots of hit points, but end up similiarly crippled. I have 90hp, take 14 from a dagger crit to my hand, and now I can't use my two-handed sword? d) You need lots of special rules for non-humaniods. How does a four legged creature react to one leg crit? 3/4 movement? How about jump checks, balance checks, can they still run? How about a snake which has no legs, a swimming creature, flying critters, or folks with 30 legs? Are vermin as badly affected? e) It removes realism, since it is arbitrary. I can fall off a 50' cliff -- take 80hp of damage, stand up and walk away. I can be hit by magic missiles, fireballs, etc., etc. and no effect other than damage. Yet, someone hits me for 13hp of damage from a rapier and suddenly I'm crippled or have some penalty. f) It makes (particularly high level) folks subject to silly penalties. 10th-level folks spending half the adventure unable to walk, wield weapons, etc. g) Hit points are already simulated and abstracted. The effects of damage are abstracted based on how many hit points you have. If you have 80hp, the first 70 points of damage you taking aren't massive cuts and hits -- even if they are criticals, falls off buildings, being hit by a ballista, etc. You honestly can't take 8 arrows in the heart without dying, while your first level friend can only take 1. It is assumed that the first seven arrows never hit anything vital due to luck, skill, dodging, some help from above, etc. If a rogue does 30hp of damage in a sneak attack -- on a first-level PC it is something like... "The rogue moves up behind you, grabs your head, pulls it back, and ... puts his knife through your windpipe." However, the same hit against a 10th-level PC is more like "The rogue moves up behind you, grabs your head, pulls it back, and ... you twist out of the way to avoid the hit, getting a small scratch on your arm." Only when you are down to 10hp would the rogue's sneak attack actually hit something truely vital. By making up tables you remove the ability to abstract the effects and provide explainations of the actual results of the hits. This removes much of the ability to arbitrarily describe things as they should be in order to keep some suspention of disbellief. No one can honestly describe a 15th-level fighter with six arrows in his chest, two spears through his throat, a crossbow bolt in his groan, etc. while keeping a straight face. You need the ability to describe the first 90% of his hit point losses as "minor hits" to maintain some believablity. Honestly, there is nothing which critical hit tables provide which a good DM description can't simulate. And the DMs description gets to be based on the actual results.
Vyvyan Basterd 03-23-06, 01:13 PM	I'd say critical hit tables add a lot to the game. Even if I try to spice the regular critical hits up, it feels so artificial when "the ranger's spear rips the troll's skin apart and opens a horrible flesh wound in its leg" but the only effect in the game is that the troll took three times the damage. Also, it prevents long battles from getting boring. I will look into the Action Point system. Thanks. Do a search for Adventure Deck. I starting using this deck in my latest campaign and it has added some interesting flavor to the game. The players feel like they control some of the plot twists by playing these cards. The cards have also saved their bacon a few times.