Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darkuwa 09-11-06, 02:39 AM	roll a 1 on attack whose bab <= 10, roll another d20: 1: something bad happens 2-10:miss, lose rest of your turn 11-19: regular miss 20: glancing strike, deal 1/2 damage as subdual (lose bonus damage from sneak attack and power attack) something bad 1d6: 1: opponent deals damage to your weapon as if succeeding on a sunder attempt 2: hit ally within range, if none within range hit self 3: fall prone 4-5: lose grip on weapon, falls in random square 6: your offbalance, flat footed till your next turn.
draustinan 09-11-06, 03:19 AM	no critacisms of your rules exactly there prety good and arent too terebly punishing, but im generaly against critical fumbles because i just cant see the 10th level fighter swing at the kobold and end up droping his sword or hiting himself. it just sounds kinda stuped imho.
a_psh 09-11-06, 04:01 AM	You said PEACH, so here we go...roll a 1 on attack, roll another d20:The higher level you are, the more often you'll critically miss. A high-level fighter is four times more likely to trip or drop his sword or skewer an ally than a low-level one. 2-10:miss, lose rest of your turnPenalizes characters with multiple attacks. 20: glancing strike, deal 1/2 damage as subdual (lose bonus damage from sneak attack and power attack)The new damage takes time to compute and this result almost never comes up. It's also really bland when it does come up. And it means that sometimes you can only hit on a 20 or on a 1, which is weird. Ditch it. 1: opponent deals damage to your weapon as if succeeding on a sunder attemptHow do you resolve this when the opponent isn't just a guy with a sword? What happens if you fumble against a caster or an archer? 2: hit ally within range, if none within range hit selfThere is a 1:120 chance of this happening. That's ridiculously high for "friendly fire". This kind of rule in particular is what causes people to absolutely hate "critical miss tables". 3: fall prone 4-5: lose grip on weapon, falls in random squareThese are functionally similar to "lose your turn", which already happens a lot. Same problem about gimping high-level characters applies here, too.
enlightened 09-11-06, 04:06 AM	It was a stupid critical failure chart that drove me to start DMing. I joined a group in high school and the DM brought out his little chart that he was so proud of. We played a couple of sessions with it. It sucked and we told him to stop using it. He refused. So I invited everybody over to my house instead the next week and I started to DM.......with no stupid critical failure chart. So basically I was able to steal all of the players over the damned thing because he was too stubborn to stop using it. I recommend you don't use a critical failure chart.
a_psh 09-11-06, 04:17 AM	I recommend you don't use a critical failure chart.Seconded. If you really obsessively need more randomness and a table of some kind, spend your time making some kind of critical hit table instead. Then PCs might at least cheer a bit when they splatter their enemies.
Fargren 09-11-06, 10:34 AM	There is a 1:120 chance of this happening. That's ridiculously high for "friendly fire". Actuallt, 1:2400, you have to roll 1, 1, 2. IO still don't like fumbles, but these are one of the least sucky I've seen.
True Cavalier 09-11-06, 11:27 AM	The only critical failure thing I am thinking of using is making players "clobbered*" on their next turn if they critically miss. Details do not matter - maybe his sword got stuck deep in the wooden wall and he had to pull it out, or his enemy stepped on his sword's tip with his metal boot, or he parried it away with his shield, or the fighter just lost his position with a deep thrust and had to rebalance himself, losing some time. I generally let players describe their own actions, anyway. *Only able to take a standard action.
Darkuwa 09-11-06, 12:03 PM	Our group has 2 DM's ones me the other has critical fumbles that he just makes up on the spot and something horrible happens every time you roll a 1. I'm just trying to make it a little more standardized and less mean.
058 09-11-06, 04:18 PM	A Critical Miss is the opposite of a natural twenty, quite obviously: Something amazingly good happens on a twenty, so conversely something amazingly bad has to happen on a one. It seems rather fair to me; I usually give the enemy an attack of opportunity against players who roll natural ones, though it can often result in a different outcome if it's relating to the area or story. Speaking of Critical Misses, I've a question: Why is it that you must confirm a Critical Hit(natural twenty is an automatic hit, but you have to roll above your target's AC again in order to deal double damage), but not a Critical Miss? It seems that it would be fair either to make you confirm both, or neither. I usually play with a natural twenty ending up as a Critical Strike no matter what.
a_psh 09-11-06, 05:42 PM	Something amazingly good happens on a twenty, so conversely something amazingly bad has to happen on a one.Why? If you have a chance of winning $10,000,000 in the lottery, does that mean there should be a chance of losing $10,000,000, too? Skilled swordsmen don't drop their damn swords.
058 09-11-06, 07:09 PM	That's totally irrelevant. Accidents happen to everyone, and that's what natural ones represent. I'm rather good at walking, but that didn't stop me from slicing my foot open on a tree root last week--that's the equivalent of a natural one. No matter how skilled you are, you can always make a mistake, or something else out of your favour can happen.
Kethka 09-11-06, 07:42 PM	That's totally irrelevant. Accidents happen to everyone, and that's what natural ones represent. I'm rather good at walking, but that didn't stop me from slicing my foot open on a tree root last week--that's the equivalent of a natural one. No matter how skilled you are, you can always make a mistake, or something else out of your favour can happen. You hurt yourself once out of every twenty times you walk somewhere? ..ouch
058 09-11-06, 08:16 PM	In combat, the chance of making a mistake is amplified. After all, there's not exactly a penalty for rolling a natural one on a Spot check(apart from absolutely not seeing whatever it is), but if you make a bad enough mistake in a fight, you're prone to get stabbed. As an example, when I cut my foot, I was backing away from a pal of mine, as we were having us a swordfight with those plastic extendable light-sabers. That would be considered, in D&D, a "combat situation", and I rolled a natural one on whatever check I was making; he wasn't close enough to get an "attack of opportunity", and I wasn't swinging at him, so there's no reason for me to drop my weapon, hence the environmental happenstance of there being a root where my foot was going.
Fargren 09-11-06, 10:08 PM	A Critical Miss is the opposite of a natural twenty, quite obviously: Something amazingly good happens on a twenty, so conversely something amazingly bad has to happen on a one. A critical hit does double dama,ge so it's like an extra attack(sometimes it deals a bit more, but the fact that you have to confirm makes up for this, statiscally). A 1 is always a miss, so you are losing the attack, because it misses. Ther's no need to add anything to it, it's allready the exact opposite.
Darkuwa 09-11-06, 10:09 PM	I changed it so that only attacks with BaB less than or equal to a 10 can have something bad happen.
058 09-11-06, 10:36 PM	No, anything less than your target's AC is a miss, which is(obviously) the opposite of a hit. A natural twenty is a chance to deal extra damage; a natural one, then, should be and is a bad happenstance to make up for this. Can't have one good thing without one bad thing; see? The question was, why do you have to confirm critical hits but not critical misses? Either neither or both, I say.
Darkuwa 09-11-06, 11:15 PM	No, anything less than your target's AC is a miss, which is(obviously) the opposite of a hit. A natural twenty is a chance to deal extra damage; a natural one, then, should be and is a bad happenstance to make up for this. Can't have one good thing without one bad thing; see? The question was, why do you have to confirm critical hits but not critical misses? Either neither or both, I say. My system does ask you to confirm it.
a_psh 09-12-06, 12:58 AM	Can't have one good thing without one bad thing; see?Again, why? Critical hits aren't just dumb luck. They represent a semi-random collection of favorable circumstances, yes, but the very fact that you have to confirm them and that you can get special training to get better at causing them and that it's easier to crit with some weapons than with others indicates that, well, every combatant is basically trying to make every hit a critical. I understand that this is the random house rules board so people will have all kinds of house rules up here, which is why I'm not going on a tangent about why critical misses don't make a lot of sense in D&D's abstract combat. (But what about screwing up majorly in combat because you trip on a root or whatever? Well, when you just missed 3 times and then your opponent rolled a crit, that's not an altogether terrible simulation of tripping on a root.) Symmetry arguments, however, really don't apply here. (One argument to take into account, though: it should always be harder to get a critical miss than a critical hit. You're actively trying to land one and avoid the other, after all.)
enlightened 09-12-06, 01:50 AM	Critical hits = fun for the players Critical misses = NOT fun for the players There is a reason that critical misses appear in the core rules as a variant rule (Page 28). I think the whole critical miss chart thing is a phase that some DMs go through.
058 09-12-06, 07:34 AM	I have to disagree there. Some of the most fun we've had in a campaign has been because of a couple of natural ones; imagine, hanging rather far down a chasm, dangling from a rope, with a Druid holding on above you and a Str 9 Wizard the one anchoring the rope to the edge of the chasm, all because of three silmultaneous natural ones. While you're actively trying for a crit, as is your foe actively trying to prevent you from getting one: hence the difficulty. Anyone could make a critical hit against an immobile target, hence the coup de grāce ability; when your foe is moving and defending, it's not quite so easy. Making you have to confirm your Critical Misses takes them town to the same statistical probability as Critical Hits; thus, balanced.
Lesuit 09-13-06, 06:07 PM	I use a critical miss/fumble rule. Generally if you roll a natural 1, roll again, if you don't hit at least AC10 (with mod's) you fumble. Fumbles vary depending on GM mood and what seems interesting or plausible. I have used the following: -- Drop or throw weapon -- Suffer attack of opportunity -- Lose next attack -- Trip (REF SV to not fall) -- Do damage to weapon -- Deal damage to self -- Deal damage to ally I also use primitive firearms in the campaign (muskets), so the critical miss/misfire range is expanded for those weapons. CJ
GnomeBarbarian 09-13-06, 07:06 PM	AS far as crit miss charts go i think its pretty good. the only thing i dislike is the glacing strike, I mean that means you are better off rolling a 1 than rolling any other miss. Example AC 24 with a attack bonus of say 12 you are better off rolling a 1 than rolling an 11 or under.
chava 09-13-06, 08:31 PM	Speaking of Critical Misses, I've a question: Why is it that you must confirm a Critical Hit(natural twenty is an automatic hit, but you have to roll above your target's AC again in order to deal double damage), but not a Critical Miss? It seems that it would be fair either to make you confirm both, or neither. I usually play with a natural twenty ending up as a Critical Strike no matter what. With the groups that I play with we have two ways to 'confirm' a critical miss (dpt on dm). 1) If you roll a 1 for a critical miss, then roll to hit again (with same bonuses/penalties that your roll would have had, if you hadn't rolled a 1) if that would hit then no critical fumble, if it wouldn't critical fumble (which does cause bringing out the critical hit/critical fumbles percentile chart from Dragon magazine in the '80s) 2) If you roll a 1 for a critical miss, then your character must make a Reflex save (DC set by GM for mitigating circumstances) and if you fail the Reflex save the miss is considered a critical fumble and you then have a chance to hit yourself, a friend, or something similar (I think the DM rolls percentile for that game... can't remember)
Zersch 09-15-06, 10:16 AM	Critical hits aren't just dumb luck. They represent a semi-random collection of favorable circumstances, yes, but the very fact that you have to confirm them and that you can get special training to get better at causing them and that it's easier to crit with some weapons than with others indicates that, well, every combatant is basically trying to make every hit a critical. Actually, critical hits ARE just dumb luck. You do and can have conditional and situational modifiers and penalties that apply to your roll. When it comes down to it, yes it is dumb luck whether you roll a 1 or a 20 on the die in the first place. Even with an increased threat range on a weapon, you are still bowing to the randomness of the roll. I would agree with 058, some of the best situations are drawn even more taught when you do apply the potential for a critical miss to a situation. My group even goes so far as applying them to skill checks as well (minus the critical threat aspect). It's fun to know that your character can easily overlooked something if they roll a 1 on a Spot check. One argument to take into account, though: it should always be harder to get a critical miss than a critical hit. This makes no sense to me. You still have a 5% of the die landing on any one of the 20 possible numbers on the die. With knowing that no matter what your modifiers are being applied, it still comes down to the chance of the throw. What, why, and how come to mind as to where this thought came from. Skilled swordsmen don't drop their damn swords. Using 058's example of what happened to him in real life is a good one. Are skilled swordsman in complete control of their environment at all times? No. These character's go into places and situations that they have no control over. So, whether a swordsman is skilled or not, there is truly still a good chance that they COULD drop their weapon, strike an ally, lose their footing, you name it, many possiblities are relevant. The higher level you are, the more often you'll critically miss. A high-level fighter is four times more likely to trip or drop his sword or skewer an ally than a low-level one. I may be showing my age on this on, but I don't follow this. If you have a high level fighter who is having difficulty hitting a target by that margin of error, may I suggest it's time for new dice? I like Darkuwa's chart. I probably wouldn't use, since my group has a pre-established crit fumble rule in place. It's not overtly complicated, and if one decides to use critical fumbles, let'em. This chart might be just right for them, or a launching point into creating their own. True, critical fumbles aren't for everyone, but I do admire the attempt and the yeilded result.
Darkuwa 09-15-06, 03:13 PM	I may be showing my age on this on, but I don't follow this. If you have a high level fighter who is having difficulty hitting a target by that margin of error, may I suggest it's time for new dice? I also altered it so that he can only get one on his attacks that have a bab less than 10.
058 09-15-06, 04:23 PM	Ah...I had also been wondering about the reason for the increased chance, and now I see that it's because of the increased number of attacks per round. Well, think of it this way: If you swing at an enemy three times, each of those swings has the potential for disaster, either leaving yourself open to enemy attack, or some other happenstance.
Trevan0 09-16-06, 02:30 AM	A legion of archers firing at the enemy must be really funny to watch in a world with critical fumbles.
a_psh 09-16-06, 01:19 PM	This makes no sense to me. You still have a 5% of the die landing on any one of the 20 possible numbers on the die. With knowing that no matter what your modifiers are being applied, it still comes down to the chance of the throw. What, why, and how come to mind as to where this thought came from.A "critical hit" is an outcome you are trying to make happen with every swing you take: a hit to the vitals or as close as you can land one. A "critical miss" is an outcome the likelihood of which you are trying to minimize: screwing up and having your opponent beat the crap out of you because of it -- or, even worse, screwing up and beating the crap out of yourself. The probabilities of the two should not be equal any more than the probabilities of hitting a bull's eye and shooting yourself in the foot should be equal. Using 058's example of what happened to him in real life is a good one. Are skilled swordsman in complete control of their environment at all times? No. These character's go into places and situations that they have no control over. So, whether a swordsman is skilled or not, there is truly still a good chance that they COULD drop their weapon, strike an ally, lose their footing, you name it, many possiblities are relevant.The D&D combat system is abstract. Missing a lot already represents some of that. Terrain rules already represent losing your footing. As far as striking allies or dropping weapons, I don't care about someone's anecdote about tripping on a root: in real life, you're sure as hell more focused on the battle than you are on walking when you're just stumbling around in the woods. Moreover, in real life, swordsmen who drop their swords die. Quickly and painfully. Looking at more realistic systems than D&D, where there is a lot of swordplay and you can one-hit-kill someone with a sword, a "botch" or "fumble" on your combat rolls usually does nothing more than increase your opponent's success a little bit, unless it happens on a very risky maneuver. If you're going to introduce a critical miss chart, you might as well make an actual critical hit chart to go along with it. Otherwise, you've got characters doing all kinds of screwball things to themselves but unable to do anything cooler than "I got double my usual damage!" to the enemy. Hardly thrilling. I may be showing my age on this on, but I don't follow this. If you have a high level fighter who is having difficulty hitting a target by that margin of error, may I suggest it's time for new dice?Does it make sense that he'll drop his sword more often if he tries to strike a guy in full plate than if he tries to strike a guy in chain armor? Well, think of it this way: If you swing at an enemy three times, each of those swings has the potential for disaster, either leaving yourself open to enemy attack, or some other happenstance.That's covered by the multiple attack rolls already, though. It's the reason a low-level character only gets one attack every six seconds: he could make a lot more physically, but then he'd be leaving himself open to a lot of counterattacks. That justification breaks down when you think about cases other than two guys fighting with swords, but that's the nature of all D&D combat anyway.
a_psh 09-16-06, 01:44 PM	Don't get me wrong. This is one of the saner critical miss tables I've seen. It's just that "well, you need one of these in order for there to be symmetry in the game" is a poor reason to drop one in, especially since there's no real symmetry between a chart of random effects and a simple damage multiplier. Moreover, critical misses should be less likely than critical hits.
Kethka 09-16-06, 03:59 PM	[combat] must be really funny to watch in a world with critical fumbles. Fixed. ;)
058 09-16-06, 04:52 PM	Maybe your DM needs fixing. When someone gets a crit in our games, it's never "Oh, yay, I did double damage!" It's more likely to be something like, "You forego the use of your sword and simply shove him off the cliff". Everyone makes mistakes, some more severe than others. Without a Critical Miss being implemented, then all of your mistakes have the same outcome--"Oh, I missed, but that's OK, because it's just a miss and I can try again next round." While you may be actively trying for a critical hit, your opponent can be trying equally hard to make you screw up. The concentration of battle often takes your mind off of your surroundings, causing you to have a chance to slip up. Critical misses are, well, critical. They work both ways, as well; your enemy is exactly as likely to make a Critical Miss as you are. If you make it less likely to roll a Critical Miss than a Critical Hit, that's perfectly fine, the point I'm making is that without them, battle is more bland.
Trevan0 09-16-06, 07:09 PM	If you make it less likely to roll a Critical Miss than a Critical Hit, that's perfectly fine, the point I'm making is that without them, battle is more bland. Somehow, knowing that my level 20 fighter is 4 times more likely to stab himself in the foot than a level 1 fighter (and god forbid those poor Two Weapon Fighters) doesn't make battle any more fun. And rolling 6 checks to make sure I don't stab myself in the foot doesn't sound fun either.
Kethka 09-16-06, 08:30 PM	Somehow, knowing that my level 20 fighter is 4 times more likely to stab himself in the foot than a level 1 fighter (and god forbid those poor Two Weapon Fighters) doesn't make battle any more fun. And rolling 6 checks to make sure I don't stab myself in the foot doesn't sound fun either. Don't forget monks. Poor guys get 5 chances per round to punch themselves in the face at level 20. That's a 25% chance every six seconds that they are using their flurry of blows. Because they have a 3/4 BAB they are that much more likely to miss any kind of "punch self in face" confirm roll. I guess they really need to work on that "superior discipline" that monks are supposed to have, huh?
Fargren 09-16-06, 09:50 PM	And don't forget how much haste sucks.
a_psh 09-16-06, 10:18 PM	Maybe your DM needs fixing. When someone gets a crit in our games, it's never "Oh, yay, I did double damage!" It's more likely to be something like, "You forego the use of your sword and simply shove him off the cliff".No, sorry. You're saying that folks should just fluff up critical hits to be cool while sticking with the simple-yet-boring mechanics of normal critical hits. Why doesn't this apply to critical misses, too? Everyone makes mistakes, some more severe than others. Without a Critical Miss being implemented, then all of your mistakes have the same outcome--"Oh, I missed, but that's OK, because it's just a miss and I can try again next round."By that same token, you could say that some wounds are more severe than others. Everyone can be disemboweled in one blow, so, clearly, we need to have a mechanic that makes it so that anyone can, potentially, be disemboweled in one blow. Yet, without a critical wound table being implemented, all of your criticals just do some extra damage. So, for variety's sake, we should have a chart with all kinds of intereting wounds on it, shouldn't we? (Well, that might be a good idea in a system that wasn't as heavily dependent on the abstract mechanics of hit points as D&D, but it certainly works poorly in D&D.) While you may be actively trying for a critical hit, your opponent can be trying equally hard to make you screw up. The concentration of battle often takes your mind off of your surroundings, causing you to have a chance to slip up. Critical misses are, well, critical. They work both ways, as well; your enemy is exactly as likely to make a Critical Miss as you are.From a rules perspective, randomness hurts the PCs. One of the reason most D&D players try to avoid things like critical wound tables, for example, is that an orc who gets his arm chopped off is not gonna matter after the end of the encounter anyway, whereas a PC who gets his arm chopped off is now missing an arm. This kind of stuff can make combat quite fun and narratively interesting, but it doesn't fit together well with the abstractions inherent in D&D combat. If you make it less likely to roll a Critical Miss than a Critical Hit, that's perfectly fine, the point I'm making is that without them, battle is more bland.Depends on what the alternative to bland is. For example, if PCs dread critical misses/hits and grumble about how insane or byzantine your new rules are, you've replaced "bland" with "annoying", which is worse than bland. If you can make it fun... sure, whatever, throw 'em in, though do realize that critical misses further disadvantage weapon-users compared to casters. "They're fun" or "they make combat deadlier" are good reasons to use critical miss tables. "They're more realistic" or "you need them to balance critical hits" are poor reasons to use critical miss tables.
Zersch 09-16-06, 10:26 PM	Again, let's remove all the modifiers and penalties that can be associated with the die roll. Follow me here, focus on just the die. You roll it, and a number pops up. Any number between 1 and 20. There is nothing you can do, within the realm of physics, that shall allow you to alter the outcome of a random variable. Unless you are using loaded dice. So when this happens, a 1 or a 20 pops up, how do your conditional and situational modifiers apply? They don't. Plain and simple. This all happens BEFORE these effects can be applied in any way, shape, or form. So, following that, let's look here next. If, with a critical hit, you know what outcome you are going to get. As you say, you are striking at a vital or sensitive point on your opponent. You know that a critical hit will do this. It is signified by the fact that you are able to do double your damage against them. So, with critical hits, the outcome is known. A vital strike=doubles damage. A known cause and effect. Why then should the opposite NOT hold true? If the outcome of a critical strike is a KNOWN CONSTANT (i.e., more damage) why should the outcome of a critical miss (a complete opposite) NOT hold true as well? That an UNKNOWN VARIABLE outcome is suddenly about to happen. In addition Darkuwa posted this in a houserules section. I don't recall any portion of his original statement being that anyone needs this particular critical miss chart, or any chart critical miss for that matter. Darkuwa's chart simply tried to quantify this unknown variable in a semblance that he enjoys and decided to share with us.
a_psh 09-16-06, 10:33 PM	In addition Darkuwa posted this in a houserules section. I don't recall any portion of his original statement being that anyone needs this particular critical miss chart, or any chart critical miss for that matter. Darkuwa's chart simply tried to quantify this unknown variable in a semblance that he enjoys and decided to share with us.That's why I said I actually like his chart, for the most part, like three times now. It's also why I gave specific notes on which parts were too much or too bland (e.g. the half damage thing is annoying to calculate, seldom comes up, and is really unimpressive when it does, so it shouldn't be in there). That's why I'm mostly disagreeing with 058's statement that "Something amazingly good happens on a twenty, so conversely something amazingly bad has to happen on a one" (from post 9, emphasis mine), because I see that logic as just plain faulty. From a purely aesthetic perspective, however, I think an actual critical miss table is kinda silly unless you have a critical hit table as well. If your group likes risks and random chance, might as well have unpredictable amazingly good results to go with the unpredictable amazingly bad ones.
a_psh 09-16-06, 10:36 PM	Again, let's remove all the modifiers and penalties that can be associated with the die roll. Follow me here, focus on just the die. You roll it, and a number pops up. Any number between 1 and 20. There is nothing you can do, within the realm of physics, that shall allow you to alter the outcome of a random variable. Unless you are using loaded dice. So when this happens, a 1 or a 20 pops up, how do your conditional and situational modifiers apply? They don't. Plain and simple. This all happens BEFORE these effects can be applied in any way, shape, or form.Except a critical must also: a.) be a hit (automatic if a 20, otherwise you actually have to hit the AC) b.) be confirmed Therefore, all things considered, a more skilled character isn't just hitting more often than a novice, he's also critting more often, too. Consider also keen weapons or the Improved Critical feat, which let you greatly extend the range of die values that count as crits. If you can make entire builds around maximizing your ability to crit, I wouldn't say that critical hits are just dumb luck.
coppro 09-16-06, 10:37 PM	Make critical misses like critical hits - on a natural 1, roll again. If you fail the attack, you're *insert penalty here*.
Zersch 09-16-06, 11:07 PM	This is true, but it doesn't really answer the gist of my comment. I'm still gonna say that that original, first die roll is the one I'm looking at. Also, I'm not just talking about the high end of the die (the 20), I'm talking about the low end (the 1) as well. Besides, we are talking about critical misses as well here. Feats and magical enhancements, again, won't help if you roll that 1. And also, if you do have any of these and you roll a 1, wouldn't it make you smile just a little to know that you have spent all of that on your character and your dice has STILL betrayed you? I know I would laugh my head off if that situation happened to me. Additionally, I will agree with you, there is nothing that says something bad HAS to happen, but yes, I do feel that something bad SHOULD happen. If you are willing to go through the process of critical threat and then critical strike, then why should you not do the same for the opposite? Coppro, how about simply losing your attacks for the round?
Trevan0 09-16-06, 11:57 PM	Additionally, I will agree with you, there is nothing that says something bad HAS to happen, but yes, I do feel that something bad SHOULD happen. If you are willing to go through the process of critical threat and then critical strike, then why should you not do the same for the opposite? Because either you have wasted time rolling to find out nothing happened, or you have skilled fighters critically failing more than unskilled fighters. Some people think that critical failures add fun to the game. This is wonky silly fun, but it's fun nonetheless and I can see how others might like it. I prefer a more serious game though, a game of non-stabbity-face.
Darkuwa 09-17-06, 04:23 AM	If any more people say a high level fighter is 4x more likely to get a crit miss than a level 1 I will ask the thread be closed. With my rule after level 10 a fighter can only crit miss on secondary attacks wheras a non-epic wizard will always have the chance if he decides to swing his quarterstaff.
Zersch 09-17-06, 08:22 AM	Darkuwa, you're right. A least for my part, I do apologize for my part in the sidetracking of your questions here. So, here ya go... If you roll a 1 on an attack, and your BAB is equal to or lesser than 10, you have scored a critical error. In order to see if what has happened, use the following chart: 1: You opponent has dealt damage to your weapon as if succeeding on a sunder attempt. 2: You hit ally within your threat range. If none are near you, you lose your grip on your weapon and it lands within 5 feet of you. 3: You fall down, and are prone 4-5: You lose your grip on weapon, and it lands 5-feet away 6: You are flat footed till your next turn 7-15: Miss, lose rest of your turn 16-20: Regular miss, no additional penalties This will eliminate an additional roll, as you can see, and it still follows the basic premise of what you have. If you leave/place/put the bulk of the special modifiers up near the top, I see no problem with this. As many of us know, the mid-range numbers are most typically what you’ll see landing. As somewhat pertinent to the side conversation, 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s are not all that easy to achieve. Also, you might possibly place some of these special failures at the high end of your chart. It should be hard to get a twenty as well. To assuage a_psh’s concerns that I have actually INCREASED the character’s chance of dropping their weapon, I’m still good with it. You say abstraction of combat, I say cinematic combat. Either way, in D&D if you drop your weapon, intentionally or not, doesn’t really matter. Your character should be able to withstand a few swipes in their direction in time to pick it back up. As per this… Glancing strike, deal 1/2 damage as subdual (lose bonus damage from sneak attack and power attack) This, I would actually remove. I would agree with a lot of the other posters that this might be a bit complicated. If you insist that you would like to have this in, I would houserule it in this way: If we take the fact that 10 is the basis for AC, and let’s say you are wearing full plate. Now your Dex mod doesn’t really matter, you only get a +1. So, let’s assume that you get it. So your AC (as given by your base + Dex mod) is 11. The armor provides a +8 to AC. Effectively, the full plate protects you from AC 12 to AC 19. Anything in that range (with the exception of weapons that have an increased threat range) would be considered a glancing blow. Now, truly this does mean, you have hit your opponent and done no damage, but if you want, change it your idea. Hope that helps Darkuwa.
Zersch 09-17-06, 10:48 AM	Because either you have wasted time rolling to find out nothing happened, or you have skilled fighters critically failing more than unskilled fighters. I have seen a sentiment similar to this before, and I must say, I do not understand it all. To say that rolling dice in a game where rolling dice is half of what you do to further it, how can this be a waste of time? I have heard the same person in game say, "Come on, combat is taking WAAAAY too long. Can this be over soon?", and then a couple of hours later say, "Come on, can't we get into a FIGHT or something? I'm tired of all this talking." So, when something bad might happen, it's a waste of time, but when something good may happen, it's okay? Some people think that critical failures add fun to the game. This is wonky silly fun, but it's fun nonetheless and I can see how others might like it. I prefer a more serious game though, a game of non-stabbity-face. I would agree, our group has some serious, serious individuals (the kind that border on scary sometimes), and we have jokers in the group as well. Definently an interesting mix. I personally am one of the more middle-ground people of the group (well, one of two anyway). But I do lean toward the fun, jokey side of it all. I have enough "real life" in my real life, and I like to get away from that with my games.
Sphyre 09-19-06, 04:29 AM	When implementing a critical fumble system one needs to ask a few questions: Do you care about your players? If not then you probably shouldn't be DMing in the first place. Do your players think that as they level up and increase their BAB (Combat accuracy) they should be better at avoiding fumbles, as opposed to the inverse? (Which most critical fumble systems have) Do you want to take the time to make a balanced mechanic that is fair, that will be used very rarely, since critical fumbles should be overall exceptionally rare, moreso as you get better, level up and hone your skills. If you said 'yes' to all of those, you might be a canidate to make and/or use a fumble system. If you said 'no' to any of these, you should probably not implement a critical fumble system, and will probably peeve anyone who is logical-minded and understands how you're screwing them statistically by implementing such an unfair rule. I helped otto the bugbear fine tune his system a while back, regardless of the fact that I personally, treat natural ones as a simple miss; that's penalty enough in my opinion. If you're interested in seeing the fundamental statistical challenges in making a fumble system that is at least SOMEWHAT fair to the players, then hop on over to this thread.