Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Pond Fool 04-24-05, 02:59 AM	I have always enjoyed using detailed Critical/Fumble tables, usually of my own design and never very good. Does anyone have or know of good ones that might work with third edition?
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-24-05, 03:47 AM	The tables in the 2nd edition "Player's Option: Combat & Tactics" could work pretty well, I think.
GaffeR 04-24-05, 06:03 AM	I play in a 2nd ed. campaign with those critical fumble rules and they seem to work pretty well. Well, they work pretty well for a rule i absolutely despise. I mean honestly, the better fighter you are the more attacks a round you get. the more attacks a round you get the more likely you are to hurl your weapon across the battle field. Ergo, the better fighter you are the more likely you are to critically miss. :mad: *sigh* but i digress. I'd use that 2nd ed. table as eliza suggested.
Vahenir 04-24-05, 06:45 AM	Indeed. Torn Asunder by Bastion Press is an awesome treatment of Critical Hits. Opinionated Statement Time: Critical Fumbles are a really aweful idea. The thought of a trained -warrior- dropping his weapon, or stabbing himself because of an unlucky die-roll is so painfully ludicrous. Personally, I would never agree to even consider playing in a game that used Critical Fumbles. And I'd be severely tempted to punch that DM directly in the face. But that's just me. Continue with the thread.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-24-05, 07:52 AM	Well, some sort of fumble rule should be in effect for balance issues if you're going to allow critical hits.
SkyDrake 04-24-05, 08:02 AM	Automatically missing on a natural 1 more than balances criticals, considering that crits already help the monsters more than the PCs. You also need compensate for the fact that with critical fumble rules, the higher your bab goes (ie, the better you are at fighting) the greater the chance of fumbling you have.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-24-05, 08:08 AM	Automatically missing on a natural 1 more than balances criticals, considering that crits already help the monsters more than the PCs. You also need compensate for the fact that with critical fumble rules, the higher your bab goes (ie, the better you are at fighting) the greater the chance of fumbling you have. Automatically missing on a natural 1 balances automatically hitting on a natural 20. Critical hits are entirely separate.
SkyDrake 04-24-05, 08:10 AM	If I roll a natural 20, with all my attack mods added, I'm probably going to hit anyway, regardless of weather its an auto hit or not. So nat 20 auto hits don't really do anything much.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-24-05, 08:25 AM	If I roll a natural 20, with all my attack mods added, I'm probably going to hit anyway, regardless of weather its an auto hit or not. So nat 20 auto hits don't really do anything much. Right, and if you roll a natural 1, add bonuses, etc. you're probably going to miss anyway, unless you're fighting something really easy, in which case I don't know why a DM would make the players go through that encounter. (party of 18th-level characters takes a journey, DM starts rolling random encounters) DM: "Okay. On the third day of travel, nearing sunset, you encounter... (rolls) a band of... (rolls) 2 ogres! Uh... yeah. You kill them. Whatever. Actually, they probably run away at the sight of you, but still, whatever."
SkyDrake 04-24-05, 08:36 AM	Ok, fair point. But what about the fact that the more skilled at combat you get (higher bab, more attacks), the more likely it becomes that you fumble.
Catra 04-24-05, 08:55 AM	Er, how does that work? I'm level 12* and I've only had, like, two critical fumbles, compared to about 20 criticals. Either I'm just lucky, or you guys suck at rolling dice. Usually, when I do crit fumble, my DM says "you swing, but your sword gets stuck in the ground" or "you slash, and *thunk*, your sword is imbedded in the tree." Stuff like that. Usually only takes one round (and one AoO) to fix. *I started the game at level 10, now I am level 22.
Lazzmaniandevil 04-24-05, 11:42 AM	I think that fumbles are fun because they add an element of unpredictability to the game. I do agree however that a high-level fighter shouldn't have a greater fumbling chance just because he has more attacks. I am currently trying to work a system that could be used in my 3.5 game. Basically, a natural 1 would means a "potential fumble", just like a natural 20 means a threat and not necessarely a critical. You would have to confirmed the fumble with an attack roll (always at your max bonus, but always with your dex modifier instead of strenght), even if it was your third attack of the round. If you succesfully hit, you have avoided the fumble and combat continue normally. The confirmation roll also determine how severe your fumble is. If your confirmation roll miss by 1, it would be something really minor like: "you end your attack movement in a position from which it will be very difficult to make your next attack - -2 to your next attack". If your confirmation roll miss by 15 or more, it would be something more major like: "you tear your rotator cuff and suffers 2d4 damage and -4 to all attacks and skills with that hand for 2d4 days". That's probably the more severe fumble I will have, as I think that over-exagerated fumbles (like "you accidently slice your own throat and die") wouldn't add any fun to the game. This system would take into account the "more attacks = more fumbles" problem as a high-level fighter is less likely to miss his confirmation roll at his max bonus than a low-level fighter. Even if he do miss, he wouldn't miss by much and would only get minor consequences. It also takes into account, by using the opponent's AC in the confirmation roll, the fact that the harder it is to hit an opponent, the more likely you are to take risks and therefore, the more likely you are to fumble.
Kursk 04-24-05, 01:03 PM	The ones from Arduin are intersting if deadly.
Vahenir 04-24-05, 06:56 PM	Yeah.. Critical Fumbles do not balance Critical Successes. With a natural 20, you're probably going to hit -anyway- even if it wasn't automatic. With a natural 1, not only are you missing all the time (regardless of other modifiers) but you're ALSO going to do something idiotic like drop your weapon, or stab yourself, or something. Can you imagine a trained soldier accidently cutting himself with his sword while fighting a 1st level commoner? It's idiotic. But in any event, if a natural 1 was simply always a miss, THAT would be balanced with a natural 20 always being a success. But adding in the possibility of adverse effects is -not- balanced. It's unfair and stupid. Not to mention, as was already stated, it's ridiculous that a 20th level Fighter has a HIGHER chance of missing and hurting himself or losing his weapon (or whatever) than a 1st level commoner does. It's not balanced at all. Critical hits favour the enemies, not the PCs. Critical fumbles favour the enemies, not the PCs. Including Critical Fumbles is a ludicrous and non-functional way to try to 'balance' natural 20's. Natural 20's don't even NEED to be balanced. It's a little perk for rolling a 20. You have a 1 in 20 chance of getting it.. so why is it so "unbalanced" not to do anything with natural 1's? Can't -anything- in D&D just be a fun little thing that you get sometimes, rather than being perfectly balanced to sometimes be really awesome, and sometimes really suck? That's not fun, it's retarded.
twad 04-24-05, 07:01 PM	The tables in the 2nd edition "Player's Option: Combat & Tactics" could work pretty well, I think. those are deadly for the critical hits.. but i dont remember that there was fumbles.
Nitneuq Onitnarat 04-24-05, 07:05 PM	A rule I use to represent skilled fighters being unlikly to acidently try out sword-swallowing: A 1 isn't always a fumble; after you roll the 1 you roll a d20, and if that d20 beats your BAB you fumble. that way a L20 fighter can't fimble but a first level wizard always will (assuming he rolls a 1).
Vahenir 04-24-05, 07:38 PM	Quentin Tarantino backwards, huh?
GaffeR 04-24-05, 07:59 PM	damn, beat me to it. clever
chocobochicken 04-24-05, 10:23 PM	I have a thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=396753) up on Regdar's Repository about critical failures, covering some of the things mentioned here. Even with a DC 15 Reflex save, the chances of fumbles still increase as a fighter gains levels, due to the extra attacks. But after over three years of personal experience playing with rules like these, I just don't like them. They make my character feel more like an inept, clumsy NPC and less like a hero.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-24-05, 11:40 PM	Ok, fair point. But what about the fact that the more skilled at combat you get (higher bab, more attacks), the more likely it becomes that you fumble. That's perfectly fair, because the more skilled at combat you get, the more likely it becomes that you score critical hits as well.
chocobochicken 04-25-05, 12:05 AM	That's perfectly fair, because the more skilled at combat you get, the more likely it becomes that you score critical hits as well. Ouch! Okay, step outside the perspective of balance for a second and look at it from a perspective of character development. Should a level 20 fighter be botching things and dropping his weapon at a higher frequency than a level 1 fighter? I have a hard time swallowing that idea. Realistically, as a fighter trains in combat he should become more proficient and better, not more [/I]extreme[/I] and unpredictable. The opportunity to improve his success in critical hits should be his given right, because he's trained hard to earn it. If every character improvement by level had to be balanced with some character-nerfing flaw, then we might as well just stay at level 1. Also, don't confuse the odds of rolling a natural 20 with the odds of getting an actual critical hit. They're not the same. As a fighter gains more iterative attacks, he has more chances to roll a natural 20, but to confirm the threat as an actual critical hit, he has to roll again to beat the creature's AC. On those extra attacks made at hefty penalties, this isn't quite as likely to happen. In contrast, you can always roll a natural 1 and miss. If those natural 1s automatically become fumbles, then the rate of increase in fumbles will easily supercede the rate of increase in critical hits. Some people try to fix this by confirming a critical fumble with another roll against the creature's AC just like a critical hit, but with extra attacks made at -5/-10/-15 penalties, it's still easier to fumble. The end result is that combatants risk adverse consequences for fumbles just by taking a chance to get an extra regular hit, turning full attack actions into a joke.
The Pond Fool 04-25-05, 01:38 AM	Excellent! Thank you all for responding to this thread. This was just the response I was hoping for! I also have mixed feelings about using Fumbles, but my groups and I have too much fun with them to throw them out. We just always look to improve them. Thank you for suggesting the tables from Skills and Powers - I had forgotten about those and now I will return to them for ideas. What I do is create detailed tables for fumbles and criticals which are based on a percentile roll and that roll is modified by factors such as class, level, situation, etc. Thus, a weapon fumble by a well-trained fighter is very unlikely to be very bad (but sill maybe.) Anyway, we like it, although I do understand and appreciate all your input. Thanks!
Night_Fall_2 04-25-05, 02:47 AM	My group has always used the Critical Hit table from Sadistic Dungeon Master Syndicate (http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/stonekeep/25/sdms.htm). It is a pretty large list with different tables for different types of weapons. It is definatly worth taking a look at.
Lina_Inverse 04-25-05, 03:17 AM	critical hit tables do not work D&D 3rd edition. it favours the get more critical weapons,which are currently balenced with the get bigger critical weapons. critical fumble tables dont work because ******* it there stuipid to begin with.people do not drop there swords or whatnot unless there horrible untrained.they certinly shouldnt be dropping them more often as they get better.
boredgremlin 04-25-05, 03:39 AM	That's perfectly fair, because the more skilled at combat you get, the more likely it becomes that you score critical hits as well. This one is easy. The way i do it a fumble costs you one attack. Balances criticals pretty well. You arent hurting yourself or breaking your weapon or anything tragic. You just got a little off balance and lost an attack. with a good description its kinda fun.
Vahenir 04-25-05, 03:51 AM	BoredGremlin: That's actually a really good idea. And to be honest, it's probably the -only- good idea for Critical Fumbles I've ever heard. And definitely the only one I don't outright hate. But how do you handle critical fumbles with characters who only have one attack per round? A reduction in their movement rate for that round (to represent being off-balance)?
Gloriam Etriae 04-25-05, 12:54 PM	Check out the variant fumble rules on p. 28 of the DMG. A critical fumble can be represented by unlucky events like the fighter gets his sword stuck in the corner of the wall/brace/pillar because the bad guy ducks out of the way at the last minute, or he loses his balance on a slippery patch of floor or a loose patch of earth, or he misjudges the position of his opponent's shield and gets a stinger in his hand/wrist/forearm that causes him to drop his weapon. The variant RAW say nothing about damaging one's self with a fumble, and the DC for the "avoidance" check is quite low (since I cannot find the rule in the SRD, I won't go into specifics about it). Okay, someone who has studied statistics more than I have correct me, but even with four attacks in a round, a fighter rolls a 1, on average, 4 times out of 80 results (if I did my calculations right, there are 160,000 possible combinations of results on four 20-sided die rolls, and 8,000 of those combinations have at least 1 result of 1). Now, my extensive knowledge in calculus tells me that's still a 5% chance of automatic failure, exactly the same as with a 1st-level fighter. Now, given a static DC for the confirmation of the fumble, the chance of failing the avoidance check will, at the very least, remain static (barring the permanent loss of an attribute). More likely is the fact that characters tend to improve their attributes as they increase in levels, either via "natural" (i.e., every 4th level) or magical means. Therefore, the assertion that the fighter's chance of fumbling increases with the greater number of attacks is simply inaccurate. Barring cataclysm (i.e., permanent ability score loss), it will, at worst, remain statistically the same, and will most likely decrease as the character gains levels. Now, what fumbling does is add a problem result to combat that will cause the character to lose the remainder of his attacks and force him to burn (at least) a move action to recover. That effectively eliminates the character from the remainder of the round in which he fumbled, and possibly provokes an attack of opportunity on the next round as the character recovers. Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so NPCs and monsters would also be subject to these failures. Personally, I like the extra flavor it adds to the game (and I never have the PCs injure themselves via a fumble -- I injure them enough as it is without it ;) -- I only put them at a slight disadvantage, or, on very rare and dramatically-appropriate occasions, I might give them a chance to injure a teammate). But, the rule just doesn't appeal to everyone, and the DMG lists it as a variant rule; so, obviously, you don't have to use it.
chocobochicken 04-25-05, 01:07 PM	Okay, someone who has studied statistics more than I have correct me, but even with four attacks in a round, a fighter rolls a 1, on average, 4 times out of 80 results (if I did my calculations right, there are 160,000 possible combinations of results on four 20-sided die rolls, and 8,000 of those combinations have at least 1 result of 1). Now, my extensive knowledge in calculus tells me that's still a 5% chance of automatic failure, exactly the same as with a 1st-level fighter. Your calculations are correct in that a fighter consistently has a 5% chance of automatic failure per roll. But the fighter with four attacks will have a greater chance of automatic failure per round, because he has four rolls per round, for a total 20% chance of failure each round. No calculus necessary. The following is taken from my Regdar's Repository post: The most common form of the critical fumble rule requires a player to roll a Reflex save of DC 15 whenever a player rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll. If the player fails the save, he drops his weapon and must make a move action to retrieve it (monks and other applicable characters might fall prone instead). There are many other variants I’ve either played or seen on these boards, sometimes involving dexterity checks or even negating the save completely. Yet without such a save, the chance of dropping a weapon actually increases as a character attains higher levels due to additional attacks. Even with a dexterity check, nothing changes because the score does not increase at a comparable rate, if at all. The Reflex save evens the score a little bit, but not by enough to make a difference. Imagine a fighter in full platemail who receives no dexterity bonus because of an average score. At 1st level he has a 5% chance to roll a natural 1 on his only attack, and a 70% chance of failing the Reflex save. This computes to a small 3.5% chance the fighter will drop his weapon in any given round. Now at 6th level he still has a 5% chance for a natural 1, but only a 60% chance to fail the save thanks to an increased base save. However, since he has two attacks, the total result is doubled and he now has a total 6% chance of dropping his weapon in a round! By level 20, this has increased to 8%, and that’s not even accounting for extra options like Great Cleave or Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Thus, the fighter, the master of martial weaponry, will drop his precious +5 vorpal greatsword right into the hands of his enemies every few battles while a decent rogue only drops his rapier if he ever rolls two natural 1s in a row (a 1 in 400 chance).
Gloriam Etriae 04-25-05, 02:47 PM	Your calculations are correct in that a fighter consistently has a 5% chance of automatic failure per roll. But the fighter with four attacks will have a greater chance of automatic failure per round, because he has four rolls per round, for a total 20% chance of failure each round. No calculus necessary. Actually, you're completely off on that assumption. Look at the math again. You roll four d20s. Four d20s have 160,000 different combinations of results (20x20x20x20). Now, you're looking for a single "1" result on any of the four dice (it doesn't matter which die). The number of occurrences of at least one "1" is 8,000 (1x20x20x20). (Remember, it doesn't matter if there's more than one result of "1;" we're looking for at least one automatic miss in the round.) So, as the math shows, statistically, a character will get a "1" on at least one of his four attack rolls 8,000 times out of 160,000 attempts, or 5% of the time.
chocobochicken 04-25-05, 04:09 PM	Four d20s have 160,000 different combinations of results (20x20x20x20). Now, you're looking for a single "1" result on any of the four dice (it doesn't matter which die). The number of occurrences of at least one "1" is 8,000 (1x20x20x20). You're wrong, but I'm going to try it from your angle anyway. 1x20x20x20 only brings the results in which the first roll comes up as a 1, despite the results of the remaining rolls. To receive the number of occurences where a 1 occurs on any roll, we have to add 1x20x20x20 + 19x1x20x20 + 19x19x1x20 + 19x19x19x1, or 29,679, which is 18.5% (I think that's right, but I'm not entirely sure). Okay, not exactly 20% anymore, but a heck of a lot more than 5%. And on many of those instances, you'd have rolled more than one 1 within the round! Seriously, take a look at what you're suggesting. Common sense alone should tell you you're way off base here. If it's true that you have a 1 in 20 chance of rolling a 1, and you've rolled 20 times just for fun, statistics would indicate that you have probably rolled that 1 by now. But per your belief, the simple act of a fighter making more attacks in one round -- which has nothing to do with the physical orientation of the die -- alters the consequences. You now only have a 1 in 20 chance over four rolls instead of over one. By this argument, I would have to roll the die 4 times over 20 rounds, or 80 times, to come up with a 1. :rolleyes: Edit: updated my math to account for instances where more than a single 1 occurs in a given round.
KangTheCallipygian 04-25-05, 04:17 PM	Remember, it doesn't matter if there's more than one result of "1;" we're looking for at least one automatic miss in the roundSo an experienced fighter makes a single fumble and 3 successful attacks in a round. Then in the next round he fumbles on all 4 attacks. You're saying these 2 situations aren't significantly different? I disagree; it's not the fighter's chances to fumble at least once per round that are a problem; it's their chance to fumble repeatedly. Kang
Catra 04-25-05, 05:23 PM	If you have four attacks, and the monster you're fighting has four attacks, does it really make that much difference? I think you are trying to make a big deal out of something that shouldn't be. It is the DM's responsibility to balance the game as balance is needed, in the way he or she sees fit; but I don't see this as a balance issue. I understand that some people are more 'talented' at rolling dice than others, but I ask you, sincerely, how many times have you seen a character die from a critical fumble? Maybe it's just me, but I've never died that way; on the contrary, my enemies seem to critical fumble more than I do. Unless this problem interferes with the campaign and is a constant annoyance, I don't see what the problem is. They add as much flavor (granted, a sour flavor) to the game as critical hits do (and to my knowledge, you only crit fumble on a natural 1). Also, a lot of weapons have a critical range lower than 20 (ex: 18-20) that can be increased (ex: 15-20), meaning that you critical much more of the time. I have no knowledge of critical fumbles working this way. There's also a feat for the Bard (or variant rule, or skill, or something. I don't know, I'm not a Bard) that lets you turn a critical fumble into a critical hit on a succesful d2 save. You could apply something like this. Say your party goes against a band of orcs. The party's archer takes out his favored deadly poisoned arrow, but in his excessive zeal to fire his prized posession, he fires too early [read: critical fumble], instead sending it into the eye of an orc who was about to smash the party Cleric to a pulp. "You saved my life!" "Uh, yeah, of course! Heh heh, that's, uh, exactly what I meant to do!"
DarknessEternal 04-25-05, 05:32 PM	There is a reason the designers of the game though an automatic miss was plenty of penalty for a "critical miss" and chose not to add additional critical mistakes on top of automatically missing. Why insist on tinkering with what works?
Hablo_the_Hand 04-26-05, 11:53 AM	here's an easier idea,........ when you roll a natural 20, add +10 to the roll. give the bonus to show precision and determination. give a -10 on a roll of a 1. so a 20th level fighter has a small chance of hitting, this leaves critical fumble/hits in better prospective. do what you want with the low end of it, but it dose balance out pretty well.
Vahenir 04-26-05, 07:07 PM	when you roll a natural 20, add +10 to the roll. give the bonus to show precision and determination. give a -10 on a roll of a 1. so a 20th level fighter has a small chance of hitting, this leaves critical fumble/hits in better prospective. do what you want with the low end of it, but it dose balance out pretty well. I don't think most people here have a problem with "automatic miss/automatic failure." I think most of the contention lies in the proposed Critical Fumble rules - making it so that not only do you miss on a 1, you also risk dropping your weapon, stabbing the party cleric in the eye, or cutting your finger off.
Hablo_the_Hand 04-28-05, 03:03 PM	most of my 2 cents basicly covers how a first level character might not hit a great red wurm on a crit., and a 20th level fighter might miss a tree on a critical miss. a more realistic look at it without having to make up and outcome or look to a chart. im all for the KISS method of roleplaying. later.
Finarin Panjoro 04-28-05, 03:19 PM	The high level fighter issue can be solved by ruling that you can only fumble on your lowest BAB attack of that round. So everyone regardless of level has 1 chance per round to fumble. Thus a fighter with four attacks has the same chance of fumbling as a wizard or a first level fighter. If the fighter only makes 3 attacks (doesn't use his lowest) then he can still fumble on the third attack. I'd still have them confirm the fumble (they roll again and if the attack would hit they don't fumble). This doesn't perfectly balance against crits which can happen on every attack, but crits are heroic, fumbles are not. You should probably also create a feat which completely removes the chance to fumble so that a trained fighter never has to worry about it.
DarknessEternal 04-28-05, 03:37 PM	You should probably also create a feat which completely removes the chance to fumble so that a trained fighter never has to worry about it. So, you're going to add a penalty that does not exist in the RAW, and then to compensate for that penalty, you're then going to add a new feat as well? Would you also chop off your own hand and be ok with this decision because you had some bandages on hand? You're going through an awful lot of trouble to break something that currently works.
Missing Minds 04-28-05, 03:54 PM	near as I can tell, the statics of the dice rolling good vs bad is the same for the characters as it is the monsters with the same number of attacks. (Unless you are using a computer to generate rolls. In which case, forget it.) So lets take another perspective this issue. A 1st lvl fighter, one on one, is going up against what? Kolbolds, orcs, goblins? It seems to be a common concensus that if the fighter fumbles its becuase of his lack of expernance. Fair enough. Now, later on, they get more skilled, get more attacks, and.... Oh yes, have to face much *greater* challenges. So now you have a 20 th lvl fighter with several attacks that goes against a (Oh.. I have no idea here as I dont' know near epic lvl crs at all) some high level demon (or angel for those on the other alignment side) who also has multipule attacks. Yes, your fighter is skilled, but that demon/angel has been around. Your *average* character (not the power gamers out there) is going to have a tough time and a real good fight on his/her hand that can go either way. With that much stress, its logical that mistakes happen, I don't care how good you think you are. So when the dice fail you... oops. (I'll grant you stick a 20th lvl fighter agaisnt a single orc and the fighter crit fumbles, it really does suck. Role playing I just put it down to the fighter being over cocky, or fate just really really favoring the orc.)
Hablo_the_Hand 04-28-05, 04:37 PM	So when the dice fail you... oops. (I'll grant you stick a 20th lvl fighter agaisnt a single orc and the fighter crit fumbles, it really does suck. Role playing I just put it down to the fighter being over cocky, or fate just really really favoring the orc.)[/QUOTE] now going back to what has been said time and again,......... if it works, dont fix it.
chocobochicken 04-28-05, 04:45 PM	In a balanced game, anything that can be used against the PCs will be used against the NPCs as well. So at the end of each session, count your kills. If the number of PC deaths is less than the number of NPC deaths, your game isn't balanced. :schemes:
Gold Katana 04-28-05, 04:58 PM	For 25 years, my group has used critical fumbles. I (DM) love them, the players love them. On a Natch 1, roll a D20, if the result is equal to or lesser than 20 - your level = critical fumble. It's applied equally to PC's and their foes. We don't care about the "reality" or the "my big bad fighter actually fumbles more!" arguments. They are fun and spontaneous. They are more than compensated by the glory of most battles. They encompass ALL that could go wrong in a fight - not just the combatant's martial prowess. Examples - slipping, tripping, sliding, other friends/foes interfering, dust in the eyes, having to sneeze, etc, ad nauseum.
Finarin Panjoro 04-28-05, 05:05 PM	So, you're going to add a penalty that does not exist in the RAW, and then to compensate for that penalty, you're then going to add a new feat as well? Would you also chop off your own hand and be ok with this decision because you had some bandages on hand? You're going through an awful lot of trouble to break something that currently works. Oh no, I'm definitely not adding anything of the kind. I think fumbles are a terrible idea and they'll never occur in any game I DM. I was just making a suggestion for the OP who definitely is planning to add a penalty that's not in the RAW and might like to provide his fighters with a way around it.
Catra 04-28-05, 08:10 PM	Er..If you think "balance" means "ideal conditions", then you are completely right. However, your definition of balance may need tweeking. Balance means, in short, that an just as many bad things happen as good things. The consequences of critical fumbles balance the benefits of a critical hit. A warrior is equally as likely to slip in the heat of battle as he is to luckily slice his opponent's neck open. Just as I'm as likely to make a typo as I am to type a whole paragraph without spelling errors, even though I can type with my eyes closed with a pretty high percent of accuracy. You can apply this to anything. You've been walking ever since you were old enough to, and you still trip sometimes. Some people trip more than others, but eneryone trips once in a while, wether on their shoelaces or just naturally tripping. You're also totally ignoring the fact that fighting makes you tired, and as the battle progresses, your rate of accuracy decreases. Basically, WoTC just translated luck into mechanics.
mystraca 04-28-05, 08:44 PM	I kinda like the way crits work in 3.x. fumbles hurt a character alot more then delivering a critical hit benifits them though. I think the auto miss is balance enough