Post/Author/DateTime	Post
KBSSAUM 10-04-05, 12:04 AM	My experienced DM likes to use some terrible house rule. If you roll a 1, not only you miss the attack, but you also drop your weapon. I said this rules does not exist, it's bad, it's broken, it's not funny and it sucks, but he said he likes it and will keep it, no matter if all the group won't like it. :rolleyes: I tried to be smart, i said my character would wear some locked gauntles, but than he said 1=flat footed. I said I get some lvls of barbarian to get uncanny dodge, he said 1=fall prone, we continued and he just said, 1= something terrible will occur.... I used all my logical, realistic, statistic, game balance, funfactor arguments but he didn't agree at all. :mad: I said than I would become a wizard, spells caster roll almost no d20, so almost no "funny cheese fumbles". He said ok... I'm just not happy with it, can u help me, what smart solutions could you guys come to solve or just to show him in-game how this rule is awful, anything, HELP, i need somebody, HELP! :weep:
Salla 10-04-05, 12:19 AM	Simply put, if your entire group hates the rule as much as you do, the DM won't have a group. Simply have everybody state that they will not play under such a ridiculous, imbalanced, unfair rule. You've already tried logic and common sense, and your pleas have fallen on deaf ears. If everybody agrees, just tell him so; if he says, despite your unified front, that the rule stands, don't play; one of you lot can start running instead. :)
FlameLover 10-04-05, 12:26 AM	There is only one thing you can do with a DM like that, find a new one. The DM has *completley* missed the point of being a DM and playing D&D, and i doubt that they'll change. You could try running it yourself like Salla suggested but i think there is a good chance he'd be a right pain being a player too.
Gemstone 10-04-05, 12:45 AM	My experienced DM likes to use some terrible house rule. If you roll a 1, not only you miss the attack, but you also drop your weapon. I said this rules does not exist, it's bad, it's broken, it's not funny and it sucks, but he said he likes it and will keep it, no matter if all the group won't like it. :rolleyes: I tried to be smart, i said my character would wear some locked gauntles, but than he said 1=flat footed. I said I get some lvls of barbarian to get uncanny dodge, he said 1=fall prone, we continued and he just said, 1= something terrible will occur.... I used all my logical, realistic, statistic, game balance, funfactor arguments but he didn't agree at all. :mad: I said than I would become a wizard, spells caster roll almost no d20, so almost no "funny cheese fumbles". He said ok... I'm just not happy with it, can u help me, what smart solutions could you guys come to solve or just to show him in-game how this rule is awful, anything, HELP, i need somebody, HELP! :weep: As a minor step towards betterment, you could always ask him to make a fumble chart, where you roll 1d20+BaB. The higher value, the better (for the players of course)
KBSSAUM 10-04-05, 01:01 AM	The problem is the group is just me, another friend and the DM. 3 guys... The DM and us have being playing form long long years, but recently, the DM created another group of 4 newbies, and an experienced Vampire player friend of him, total 6 people. He uses this rule with them too. OF course... 4 newbies and a vampire player have no notion of game balance. Then he said to me: If I stop DMing, who is gonna lose more? I was really sad about that, and I'm really thinking about quiting it.... but not without teatching him a good lesson first, and create some in-game trap, or twist his rule to use it against him, to laugh out loud and shout: Gotcha!!!! all that before leaving the table for good!
ScipioX 10-04-05, 01:21 AM	The problem is the group is just me, another friend and the DM. 3 guys... The DM and us have being playing form long long years, but recently, the DM created another group of 4 newbies, and an experienced Vampire player friend of him, total 6 people. He uses this rule with them too. OF course... 4 newbies and a vampire player have no notion of game balance. Then he said to me: If I stop DMing, who is gonna lose more? I was really sad about that, and I'm really thinking about quiting it.... but not without teatching him a good lesson first, and create some in-game trap, or twist his rule to use it against him, to laugh out loud and shout: Gotcha!!!! all that before leaving the table for good! Sounds like you guys have some serious issues besides a simple disagreement over a rule.
incubus 10-04-05, 01:33 AM	Point out that his creatures have to be flat-footed every time they roll a 1 in combat. And take quickdraw.
Gemstone 10-04-05, 02:05 AM	I was really sad about that, and I'm really thinking about quiting it.... but not without teatching him a good lesson first, and create some in-game trap, or twist his rule to use it against him, to laugh out loud and shout: Gotcha!!!! all that before leaving the table for good! Not to be recomended. This will make you into the problem, not him. Have you tried to talk with him outside game balance? Have you tried to see it from his view? Perhaps the other players are fine with him having that house rule. I have plenty of house rules myself (some of them is quited disliked, but I've added them to put some flavour into the campaign world) so I can easily see why he wants something bad to happen when you roll a natural '1'. You do get a critical chance when you get a natural '20', so why not have a fumble chance when rolling a natural '1'? I use that rule myself, but Im not that harsh. Often letting players make silly things, without any game effect, such as scarring oneself on the chin, making a flip flop with his blade, hitting his friend for no damage etc.
Someone 10-04-05, 11:55 AM	I agree that the biggest complaint would be "does it apply equally to the monsters?" Because of this rule, the next dragon you face better flip over prone when it rolls a 1. Also, why does the DM insist on having 2 groups? Why doesn't he try to consolidate the two of you into the larger group (or vice versa)? Or is he intentionally keeping the "noobs" segregated so that noone in that group will contradict him or point out his houserules like you do?
Thorak 10-04-05, 11:56 AM	Fumbling houserules aren't innately bad. We use one, and it's amusing. We've got some complications to it beyond merely 1=fumble, though. First, you have to confirm, just like with a crit. In this case, if you miss on the confirm, you fumble, if you hit, you don't. This means, at high levels, it will be harder to fumble against low-AC opponents, which sort of makes sense. Second, we've got a table. Mostly so there's no chance of the DM either being too kind or too mean. When you fumble, you roll the effects. Some are minor, essentially just a miss, others are nasty. The party Rogue just critted himself with his crossbow a couple sessions ago. Third; natural weapons and unarmed strikes don't fumble. They just miss. This is here because it dropping the weapon's irrelevant, and it seems ridiculous that you could accidentally hit yourself for serious damage. Not that any of these are necessary, though I strongly suggest at least the confirming rule.
TrustTymora 10-04-05, 11:59 AM	Yes what a bad bad rule. I feel sorry for you. Any DM who puts a house rule that makes the hero of the game get worse as they gain in power is just out to lunch. A first level fighter drops his sword on average once in 20 rounds of combat(not to mention that a lot of battles don't take 20 rounds) but a 20th level fighter drops it 4 times as often so once in every 5 rounds of combat(many battles last at least 5 rounds) he drops it....haha haha. I just couldn't play with a DM that thought a fumble rule made sense for any reason - game flavor or not. Simply thank the DM for all the good times but that you don't see it being that much fun for you anymore with the new rule and leave. Let him know that should he drop the rule to give you a call (I suspect you will be getting that call sooner or later). The game is about being a hero, fighting off monsters and villians, slaying the dragon, etc. etc. It is not a comedy - use fumble rules if your running some kind of weird commedy DnD game. Read some books how often does the hero drop his sword, damage himself with it, etc. etc. Watch some movies are the heros dropping their sword every battle because on average that is what a 20th level fighter in a campaign that has this rule will be doing. Really I just laugh at a fumble rule. If he wants you to drop your sword then tell him to start using the disarm rules, grease spells, etc. etc. but having you do it every combat just because you get lots of swings is complete non-sense. TT
JoshuaWilhoyte 10-04-05, 12:02 PM	We do something similar, but we have a second roll to "confirm" the fumble. If the second roll is a natural 10 or higher, or if the # rolled on the second die with your bonuses woule be a success, then it's not a fumble. To deal with it as a player, get Quick Draw and carry a few extra weapons. Or play someone like a Wizard where none of your spells require a to hit roll. But if you do decide to quit the game, don't cause a ruckus for the other players. That's just you being as bad or worse than he is.
Ithamar 10-04-05, 12:10 PM	I used to use a fumble system, but decided against it not that long ago. When you think about it, as a character advances in skill, they should fumble their weapon less and less. However, under the fumble system, the more often you attack, the more likely you are to drop your weapon. A 20th Level Fighter specialized in 2 Weapon Fighting, 1 weapon of speed, will get 8 attacks per round. Statistically speaking, after 3 rounds this incredibly experienced, battle hardened fighter, will have dropped his weapon at least once. It is ridiculous to penalize fighters in this way. Show you DM this thread and try to get him to change his mind. At least come up with a fumble alternative where maybe instead of dropping the weapon you just lose your action for that round or something. Even that is unreasonable, but its better than losing your weapon all the time.
TrustTymora 10-04-05, 12:13 PM	I used to use a fumble system, but decided against it not that long ago. When you think about it, as a character advances in skill, they should fumble their weapon less and less. However, under the fumble system, the more often you attack, the more likely you are to drop your weapon. A 20th Level Fighter specialized in 2 Weapon Fighting, 1 weapon of speed, will get 8 attacks per round. Statistically speaking, after 3 rounds this incredibly experienced, battle hardened fighter, will have dropped his weapon at least once. It is ridiculous to penalize fighters in this way. Show you DM this thread and try to get him to change his mind. At least come up with a fumble alternative where maybe instead of dropping the weapon you just lose your action for that round or something. Even that is unreasonable, but its better than losing your weapon all the time.I was editing my post as you put this up stating basically the same thing. Right on the money.
tarkin 10-04-05, 12:13 PM	The DMG has a rule in it, but he left out the check The actual rule listed in the core book reads like this: On a natural one rolled on a attack with a weapon, roll a DEXTERITY CHECK, DC = 10. If you fail, you drop a weapon.
tui 10-04-05, 12:15 PM	Definitely either figure it out outside of a gaming session, or learn to live with it. And as long as enemies suffer the same consequence it isn't particularly unbalanced. Just get quickdraw and draw a new weapon, rather than trying to pick up your weapon and suffer an AoO. If the result is your opponents becoming flat footed, take some levels in a class with sneak attack. My current group requires a DC 10 Reflex save to avoid dropping your weapon on a natural 1.. At early levels it was a bit annoying, but now it almost never happens (except when rolling two 1s in a row!). Using BAB is probably a better modifier, though, since you'd think a fighter would be less likely to fumble a longsword than a rogue would. It certainly does add a little amusing spice to combat (and anything else that requires a d20 roll, like throwing a grappling hook and dropping the end of the rope your supposed to hold onto, resulting in your hook and rope sailing off in some random direction); hopefully you and your DM can come to some sort of compromise on his house rule.
Beware of Kobold 10-04-05, 12:27 PM	not only is a 1=fumble-with-no-confirm-check a very un-fun rule for the players, it also makes high level heroes look like incompetent idiots (as well as making the DM an incompetent idiot for using such a rule). Think of this: A high level fighter gets 4-5 attacks (depending on level and spells etc.) each turn. That's a 1 in 4 or 5 chance to drop his weapon each turn so a high level fighter making a full attack each turn will be dropping his weapon EVERY 24 SECONDS. This is utterly unrealistic. The higher level you become the more likely you are to drop your weapon? Tell this information to your DM and tell him you think his stupid rule ruins the game for you and you will be quitting if he doesn't change it.
TrustTymora 10-04-05, 12:30 PM	And as long as enemies suffer the same consequence it isn't particularly unbalanced. Just get quickdraw and draw a new weapon, rather than trying to pick up your weapon and suffer an AoO. If the result is your opponents becoming flat footed, take some levels in a class with sneak attack.This is not true. It is not balanced. A rule that makes combat more random hurts the PCs more than it hurts their enemies(pg28 DMG). What don't you guys get? This game is about heros not about people running around dropping swords. If you want to add spice to the game then do it creatively as a DM not by implementing some rule that causes the PC's hero to behave like a fool. That is not the vision of the player when he creates his HERO that is going out to save the world. And I don't see how any of them would like it. All this rule can do is cause hard feelings....wait until the HERO dies because of it and then ask the player how exiting that was and wasn't it cool that your guy did that. Give me a break. And having to waste precious feats and carry all kinds of extra gear because of the rule that is better off not being part of the game.....wow sounds like fun. TT
rampant 10-04-05, 12:57 PM	get your dm to read this thread he will very quickly either change the rule or confirm your fear that he is another one of those ******* dm's who believe the only purpose of a warrior type is to gaurd the spell casters
mikey_ak 10-04-05, 01:03 PM	Not that it was really asked for, but here's the way I always handled natural one's. You automatically miss, no matter what you were trying to hit. Next, there needs to be a confirmation roll, just like with critical hits only in the opposite direction. If the second roll would miss your target, then your turn is now over. If you had extra attacks waiting to be made, you don't get them. If you haven't moved yet, you don't get to. No dropped weapons, no hitting oneself in the leg, no falling down or any other such sillyness. There is still a significant penalty, if your DM thinks one is required, but it falls into the realm of mere annoyance rather than stupidity.
Sluagh 10-04-05, 01:28 PM	Fumbling houserules aren't innately bad. We use one, and it's amusing. We've got some complications to it beyond merely 1=fumble, though. First, you have to confirm, just like with a crit. In this case, if you miss on the confirm, you fumble, if you hit, you don't. This means, at high levels, it will be harder to fumble against low-AC opponents, which sort of makes sense. That's kind of what we do, except it's a 1 followed by another 1 or a 20, it changes with the DM. The main danger that comes into play is the possibility of a magic weapon breaking... Also the DMG has a variant fumble rule in it: on a 1, make a DC10 Reflex check or fumble. It's in one of the bottom right of p.28
arbanafal 10-04-05, 02:07 PM	If he is really persistent and let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're the only one with a problem about this rule: See if there is a compromise. In AD&D we used a similar ruling. Which we stopped using in 3rd edition (we found it lame after years of fumbling) Our rule was a little different. A roll of 1 just caused you to lose your next attack, with the DM having to try to figure a in-game way to describe this mishap. The ingame effects weren't that great, and sometimes it gave some good laughs. But evyone has to agree with the rule. Another compromise could be that on a roll of 1, you have to roll another d20. Another 1 would mean a critical failure (e.g. weapon drop). The chances are smaller, while still giving the flavor of bad luck happining to everyone. The advantages of comprising in the beginning, is that it will make it easier to talk to your DM about including the rule at all. Instead of being opponents you will both shape the game. Try it...it will work. And if not... :weep:
bob_the_great 10-04-05, 02:20 PM	i play an ad&d game where the dm plays 1=fumble, no confirmation roll. so far it has worked wonderfully for us, as he likes to use big creatures with multiple attacks and they seem to fumble a lot. it is stupid to begin with, worse w/o a second check. try to sell him on a 2nd check since he won't budge on the fumble idea. or maybe you lose your next attack: a 1st level fighter loses his next turn while a 20th level just loses an iterative attack. a 20th level fighter should not drop his sword more often than a 1st level.
jaelis 10-04-05, 02:20 PM	Yes, there's nothing horribly wrong with fumble rules (though the OP's implementation sounds lamer than most, since it lacks a save or a confirm). However, I do think there is something wrong with a DM imposing fumble rules (or other house rules) over a player's objections. It does depend on the other player's feelings about it, but if neither of them like fumbles, then I think the DM should play it the way they want.
Rulebook 10-04-05, 02:37 PM	we use a botch confirm system roll a 1: Lose the rest of your turn, and roll again roll a second 1: drop your weapon, roll again roll a third 1: anybody this unlucky deserves to die. auto-die. its in converse to our crit system though 1st 20: auto threat 2nd 20: auto crit (regardless of if you could confirm) 3rd 20: the gods love you, and your luck is rewarded, auto-kill but mind you, these are all in a row, so you have to roll 3 of either to get the auto-die/kill. it works pretty well for us.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-04-05, 02:44 PM	Critical Fumble rules are usually disproportionate to critical hit rules. If he makes you drop your weapon on a 1, he ought to let you instant kill on a double 20.
Trusk 10-04-05, 03:26 PM	Fumble rules are good for monsters and bad for Pc. First, most monsters don't use dropable weapons. Second, if an enemy fumbles, he dies faster. OK. If a PC fumbles, he dies faster. NOT OK. In my game, I don't use fumble rules.
BeyondFated 10-04-05, 03:38 PM	The Critical Fumble rule that I use is that on a natural 1, the creatuer you attacked may get an AoO, if it still could/wishes too. This affects the monsters too, so it's bad for both sides equally.
Kozeljnik 10-04-05, 03:57 PM	My DM rules it like this: if you roll a 1, then you roll a DC10 DEX check. if you're successful, you just lose the rest of your round. if you fail, things happen. My dwarf fighter/cleric had an urgrosh. it went flying three times in one session, before an ogre's club went flying through his head. those spiked gauntlets were the best investment i made in his (too short) life
Plothos 10-04-05, 04:09 PM	I don't see any reason to add a fumble rule except to add flavor to combat. That can be done without hurting the PCs. When I DM, a 1 is just an exceptionally bad or inept failure. The orc was bobbing and weaving and your greataxe swung about a foot over his head: he paused for a second and tilted his head with a "oh, come on" look on his face. Far as I'm concerned, that's all a 1 should mean, unless circumstances are against you: say you're fighting in sleet or something, in which case the weapon might slip, or you're trying to open a window silently and accidentally drop it, so that is falls down hard and shatters, alerting everybody in hearing. Rolling a 1 is painful enough without disarming the PCs.
rkr1970 10-04-05, 04:20 PM	In actual combat, a fumble is more often a situation where one has gotten off balance (by hitting the wall or floor, slicing with too much force through empty air, misjudging the distance between themeslves and the target, etc.). The way I resolve this is to have the player (or monster) who rolled the natural 1 immediately roll a Reflex save with the opponent's touch AC as the DC. If they make the save, it's not a fumble as they were able to use their opponent to stabilize their footing. If they fail, then for every point they miss the DC by, this is a point off of their initiative for this entire combat, since they will have to spend an extra moment or two recovering from an over-thrust or a misstep. If they roll a 1 on the Ref save, then they are eligible for an immediate AoO, only from the opponent they were attacking, for having over-extended themselves and given their enemy an easy opening. I know it's not "realistic", but neither is the critical system. This way, the worst that happens is that an enemy gets an extra attack. More often, you've only lost your place in the initiative order. Unpleasant, but seldom devastating.
Satori 10-04-05, 04:24 PM	This happens a lot during one of my campaigns. Its an old rule, but many of us old guys like the fumble/critical rule. Last gaming session, my monk ended up breaking both of his hands by rolling two "1"s in a row...with a total of 10 subdual damage. OW! It was fun, though. I ended up fumbling on a kick and breaking my toe while the rogue whip user fumbled and dropped her weapon. We had a ramshackle, Three Stooges esque group with a disarmed rogue and a martial artist with one leg. I ended up head butting an evil dark elf to death. To be honest, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. If it bothers the group that much, then someone certainly needs to talk to the DM about it.
Tenreo 10-04-05, 08:20 PM	A thought: When you role to confirm the fumble, I believe the best thing tod do would be to add you HIGHEST BAB to the role, and if it beats the AC, the fumble is just a miss. Slightly offsets the problem of higher level charecters fumbling more.
Gemstone 10-05-05, 12:52 AM	As a minor step towards betterment, you could always ask him to make a fumble chart, where you roll 1d20+BaB. The higher value, the better (for the players of course) Woozza :P What I said a few posts ago
FlameLover 10-05-05, 01:41 AM	Yeah, i like the idea of a fumble but at high levels full-BAB characters should rarley if every fumble. Making a BAB check (d20 + BAB) consulting a table from 1 to 40 would be good with stuff like 1 hitting yourself, 2-5 dropping your weapon, 5-10 losing all attacks for the round, 15 losing current attack, etc. Rolling a 1 should mean you automatically miss but just how devastating that is should be based on BAB. Really a level 20 Fighter should never fumble, they are legendary by that level and it just ruins the game when the worlds champion fumbles when attacking a goblin :|
Gemstone 10-05-05, 08:03 AM	I use the following table 1d20+BAB 1-2 With a powerful swing with your arms, you... hit the nearest friend, roll for normal damage 3-5 Hit yourself, roll for normal damage 6-10 What you do, is so utter strange and laughable that it looks quite good... You lose grip of your weapon. unless you carry something to prevent it, it falls to the ground 11-15 You scar yourself on your weapon somehow. -3 penalty to all cha based skills for one day 16-20 Scary... you fail to attack anymore this round 21-25 You disrupt your friends with your attacks. they take -1 penalty on their attack rolls vs. your opponent until your next turn 26-30+ Nothing happens. it's just a miss
SureFoot 10-05-05, 11:32 AM	I'd like to return to the issue at hand--how to handle the DM who dictates such a rule over the reasonable objections of a long-standing player (presumably friends), partly by distilling some of the previous arguments together. -point out that factors that increase the randomness of combat are generally beneficial to the underdogs (the monsters) and detremental to those favored to win (the PC's) (someone already cited the DMG page) -point out the fact that as iterative attacks come into play, the liklihood of dropping a weapon in a single combat increases. This leads to the counterintuitive (and utterly stupid) result of a higher level fighter dropping his weapon MORE OFTEN than a green one. If you've ever watched olympic level fencing, for example, you KNOW that these "high level fighters" almost never drop their weapons, even though the exchanges they engage in are FAR FAR faster and more furious than beginners' (who drop them with alarming frequency!!). -someone made the excellent point that it's far more common for monsters to not use weapons that can be dropped, and the DM is therefore required to make rule modifications (or else be utterly unfair). -politely ask the DM to tell you on what basis he's implimenting this rule, given the *facts* above. Did he do any research, or just pull it out of his butt? -point out that a 1 is an auto-miss; why isn't that bad enough? -point out the variant rule in the DMG about critical fumbles which allows for a Dex check (or some of the variants on this board which allows for a "BAB check" or Ref save) to avoid the fumble. You might also state that, if he allows for a critical fumble on a simple roll of a 1, he should argue why he DOESN'T require that a natural 20 is automatically a critical hit. That's an incongruity that doesn't make sense to me . . . -point out that house rules which add complexity to combat are usually bad things (and this one is--the DM has to come up with different rules for different situations, or institute a chart, meaning more die rolls and more looking stuff up). KISS--make a 1 an auto-miss and be done with it. -if all else fails, you can politely tell him that you simply don't want to play with a DM who makes capricious, draconic, and ill-advised house rules which hurt the players, then seek another group. (I'm exaggerating, but not lying) You may want to part with a punch in the grundle. :D good luck.
Nayk 10-05-05, 01:40 PM	Simple rule would be to get your fumble as many times as you get attack. A fighter level 1 : 1 = fumble A fighter level 6 : two 1s in a row = fumble A cleric level 7 : 1 = fumble A cleric level 8 : two 1s in a row = fumble A fighter level 20 : four 1s in a row = fumble Nayk
ccwebb 10-06-05, 12:19 AM	I've been DMing many years now. I've learned the most important rule of all: People do not like to lose. That's why we throw the controler after we fail at our favorite gamecube/xbox/playstation game. Thats why RPG stop suddenly... so on and so forth. Keep it fun. Rolls of 1, suck. Make them re-roll. Look away and 'not see it'. If they roll a 1 several times in a row, OR the PC is not being fun, then the rule of 1 comes to play.
evangelion1010 10-06-05, 04:12 PM	Yea. Your DM needs to realize that as a result of this rule, you'll start to be worse off in combat than a pesant. No, seriously, your level 25 barbarian fighter of awesomeness drops his sword at least once per 5 rounds on average. My DM has something similar... basically a 1 stops any further iterative attacks...which is horrible for throwers, since i get 8-9/round usually. And a 1 on a UMD check results in the item blowing up. Even if you could take a -15 on the check and STILL activate it normally per the DMG (we're epic level). Of course its not balanced, because at epic, if you want to spend a round using a wand, and invest ranks in UMD, you should still have a 1 in 20 chance of having a wand of magic missle explode. Now, she does this to prevent characters from being 'broken by using 9th level scrolls/staffs'... despite the fact that they're 1) expensive (though not too bad at epic) 2) Vastly inferior to the party's casting, since they tend to have casting levels of 35+ for their prime spells, and any creature she throws at us typically passes any save of 30+ on a natural 2., and have spell resistance. Basically it's valid at low levels, but i've never liked auto hit/fail measures in D&D. By level 5-10, the fighter should never drop his sword unless he's fighting a superior foe and gets disarmed. I think rolling a d10, and adding/subtracting that number on a 20/1 makes for a far realistic experiance. Heck, allow 2 consecuative 10's to be a trippling or quadrupling. Just don't allow the epic evil guy to miss 1 in 20 pesant he's attacking, and then drop his sword and fall backwards.
Cindre2000 10-07-05, 10:57 PM	Skills do not have an auto fail. Rolling a 1 on any skill does not mean that it blows up in your face.
Plothos 10-08-05, 12:51 AM	Heck, allow 2 consecuative 10's to be a trippling or quadrupling. Just don't allow the epic evil guy to miss 1 in 20 pesant he's attacking, and then drop his sword and fall backwards. Yeah, I like the variant where a 1 = -10 and a 20 = 30, but doesn't imply anything more than that. This way you can hit and miss outside of your lot in life, but not too far outside.
Beware of Kobold 10-08-05, 05:22 AM	My DM has something similar... basically a 1 stops any further iterative attacks...which is horrible for throwers, since i get 8-9/round usually. And a 1 on a UMD check results in the item blowing up. Even if you could take a -15 on the check and STILL activate it normally per the DMG (we're epic level). Of course its not balanced, because at epic, if you want to spend a round using a wand, and invest ranks in UMD, you should still have a 1 in 20 chance of having a wand of magic missle explode. Now, she does this to prevent characters from being 'broken by using 9th level scrolls/staffs'... despite the fact that they're 1) expensive (though not too bad at epic) 2) Vastly inferior to the party's casting, since they tend to have casting levels of 35+ for their prime spells, and any creature she throws at us typically passes any save of 30+ on a natural 2., and have spell resistance. I love this because it's just further proof of the old addage "House Rules are the result of ignorance of the Actual Rules combined with a massive ego." or the short version: Ignorance + God Complex = House Rules.
Darth_Azalin 10-08-05, 08:56 AM	Well basically if theres a critical hit there should be a critical fumble... But too actually critical hit you must hit within the threat range and then just hit... So it would be equally possible if that you rolled a "1" you should have to roll another "1" to drop your weapon.
Plothos 10-08-05, 08:59 AM	I love this because it's just further proof of the old addage "House Rules are the result of ignorance of the Actual Rules combined with a massive ego." or the short version: Ignorance + God Complex = House Rules. Ignorance + God Complex ==> House Rules House Rules =/=> Ignorance + God Complex
Ricohard_Draconis 10-08-05, 09:29 AM	Fumbling houserules aren't innately bad. We use one, and it's amusing. We've got some complications to it beyond merely 1=fumble, though. First, you have to confirm, just like with a crit. In this case, if you miss on the confirm, you fumble, if you hit, you don't. This means, at high levels, it will be harder to fumble against low-AC opponents, which sort of makes sense. Second, we've got a table. Mostly so there's no chance of the DM either being too kind or too mean. When you fumble, you roll the effects. Some are minor, essentially just a miss, others are nasty. The party Rogue just critted himself with his crossbow a couple sessions ago. Third; natural weapons and unarmed strikes don't fumble. They just miss. This is here because it dropping the weapon's irrelevant, and it seems ridiculous that you could accidentally hit yourself for serious damage. Not that any of these are necessary, though I strongly suggest at least the confirming rule. we do this but we just have a confirmed crit fumble result in a dropped weapon.
Demon Lightfoot 10-08-05, 10:38 AM	Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, critical fumbles/hits. Speaking as a player and a DM, I've loved 'em, ever since "Good Hits and Bad Misses". They add some drama, humor and unpredictability to combat. I've modified the old charts a bit so that a creature with natural attacks who fumbles, since they can't actually lose their weapon, would instead slip, trip, fall, miss and strike a wall, floor, tree, stalactite, door, column, etc, and lose an attack, be stunned for a round or two, be flat-footed and so on. We've all seen similar things happen in TV shows, cartoons and movies (humorous and "serious"), so why not in our games? I've been damaged by critical fumbles and saved by them, as a player; who doesn't love it when the enemy slips on a pool of blood, slamming his sword into a wall and snapping it off at the hilt? Or when the minotaur gets his horns stuck in a tree-trunk? Hell, I've seen someone in a RL fight miss a swing and bang his forehead on the edge of a door and stun himself. Funny stuff, especially since he thought of himself as a read badass.
Darth_Azalin 10-08-05, 11:56 AM	I actually love the tables out of Players Options/DM Options Which rule was it that a 1 took away the highest number rolled if you had more than one attack?
Waterhammer 10-10-05, 02:36 PM	It's pretty hard to hurt yourself with a cross bow. A spiked chain,now theres something dangerous:to you,your friends,and the monsters. If useing a fumble rule this should be taken into account. Also fumbles should more rare than 1in20 and character level must be factored in.
IceFractal 10-10-05, 02:58 PM	Your DM seems to be under some all-too-common myths about critical fumbles: 1) A "1" is very rare, so something outrageous should happen when you roll it. In fact, a "1" comes up 1/20 of the time, which is every 3-4 rounds at high levels. It isn't that rare! 2) A critical hit is some sort of doomsday device, therefore a critical miss should be equally bad. In fact, a critical hit is merely extra damage, usually just equal to one extra hit or less. Even with a scythe, it's only equal to three extra hits, and can be less in some cases. 3) A fumble should happen automatically, because the challenge was not to roll a 1. With a critical hit, you have to confirm it, the same thing should apply to any hypothetical fumble rules. 4) Fumbles are realistic, because people do make mistakes in the heat of battle. They do, but not that often. Does an experienced swordsman really drop their weapon, hit themself, or hit an ally every 18 to 24 seconds? If they did, armies would be impractical because the soldiers would do more damage to each-other than the enemy. 5) Fumbles are hilarious, and so should be added as much as possible. Sure, some people like them, but not everyone does; if the players all hate them, then they shouldn't be added, simple as that. Now as to my critical fumble rules. They're pretty simple and basically mirror the critical hit rules. How it works is that if you roll a 1, you automatically miss and have to roll a confirmation at the same bonus. If the confirmation hits, nothing else happens. If it misses, however, then you've fumbled. For most weapons, this means you automatically miss your next attack. For non-proficient or clumsy (wrongly sized) weapons, you miss your next two attacks. For improvised weapons, you either miss your next three attacks or suffer an effect based on the improvised weapon (a chair might break, for instance). You can describe this happening however you want. So for instance, a high level Fighter with 4 attacks starts attacking with a Spiked Chain, which he isn't proficient with. He hits the first time, but rolls a 1 the second time, and then misses the confirmation. He loses his other two attacks (two because he's non-proficient with a Spiked Chain), because he tangled the chain on a nearby tree. If he'd been using a longsword instead, he'd only have lost one attack and would have still had his last one left.
Deckeon 10-12-05, 09:07 AM	I have a DM that has managed to get his jollies when his players roll a 1, without penalizing(overly) game mechanically. My DM created a powerful weapon - a +3 Keen Scimitar of speed. The catch? Roll a 1 and the weapon Berates you. Ya capital "B". "Sensei" is very picky about whom wields him and just can't stand such ineptness. After a character accumulates 5 one's with him, Sensei refuses to be used by that particular incompetent-useless-wanker/nincomepoop....ever again. I am the second one in our party to wield this nasty little dealer of death, it is just too tempting, though i've only rolled a single 1 with him so far. The previous owner once rolled 3 one's in two rounds.(I think 4 attacks). That was very funny...to watch. He does not complement a critical no matter how much you brag about it. For some reason Sensei doesn't mind being droped(voluntarily), well ok he *****es a little, but roll a 1 and the little bastard never shuts up his little ego driven tirade. I'd *almost* rather roll on a fumble table...
Thaebius 10-13-05, 03:18 PM	I Really, Really like the idea of somehow incorporating touch AC (assuming you have critical misses at all, something I am not neccessarily an advocate of). It's used in ranged attacks into melee to determine if the cover really provided "cover", why not use it to determine if the miss really "missed"? As in, whether it struck the target, but was incapable of piercing armor (thus, can't really "whiff" on it) or whether he well and truly swung wild, completely botched it.
Keenath 10-13-05, 03:49 PM	5) Fumbles are hilarious, and so should be added as much as possible. Sure, some people like them, but not everyone does; if the players all hate them, then they shouldn't be added, simple as that. More to the point: If your players like playing the three stooges, let them PLAY that way. Let's not enforce it with the rules. Playing the fool is fun sometimes, but not everyone wants to do that. Furthermore, there really is no reason to make a mechanical rule to make sure that the buffoon acts like one. He's going to do it anyway! If there's a person playing the team clown, talk to the player. Let the DM have some control over when and how THAT PARTICULAR CHARACTER makes a mess of things. There is no reason to punish the entire team for the benefit of one jester.