Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alynn 01-25-05, 12:21 PM	Ok, I am currently coming up with my critical miss table (something I do to add a bit of randomness/oh sh*t factor to combat and crit misses), I have a few, but I wanted to see if anyone else has anything to add (and approximate percent I'll round everything to the nearest 5% so I can use 1 d20 to figure out the punishment) Anyway... the list of things that can happen are as follows. Weapon Breaks/bends bascially becomes useless: Really doesn't need an explanation.(10% 1-2 on die roll (I consider this the worst that can happen)) Hit self: Roll damage as normal and apply to self. (3-6 20% chance) Weapon is thrown in a random direction 5ft + 5ft/str mod min 5 feet: (so the stronger you are the harder you swing so the farther it will fly) reflex check to anyone in the path failed check takes damage and weapon stops there. (7-12 30% chance) Off balance: you lose any chance of making attacks of oppertunity, lose any SA's you may have left (which would only be 1) and are flat footed until the beginning of your next round. (13-19 35%) Lucky Break (5%, bascially you roll a 20) Thats the gist of it... but it seems kinda sparse... I'd like more random bad things to happen... does anyone else have any ideas?
Dungeon Penguin 01-25-05, 12:37 PM	Instead of having a 10% chance of a weapon being destroyed outright (which is really quite mean), why not just deal damage to the item as per a sunder attempt? This compensates for magical items, too, which will have more hitpoints than a basic item. Other than that, you could randomly apply damage to anyone withinin reach, causing you to hit an ally rather than your target, perhaps? Or, if using a ranged weapon, have the string snap and spend a full round action repairing it? Other than that, I don't have any ideas. Hope that helps.
Alynn 01-25-05, 12:59 PM	Hrm... I can split damage self/ damage ally (if no ally in range damage self)... Hrm... need to decide on a fair number of damage for a sunder.... 1d6+ str? I figure this has the same affect as you attack, and miss so bad you slam your weapon into a stone wall/tree/ or ground... possibly even something like (Weapon Damage + Str Mod) - Hardness = Damage which I think I like better. Because I do believe slamming a knife into a stone floor will hurt it more than a mace... and it will at least do 1 damage if the value of Damage is negitive... Yeah acutally I do like this idea much better. For a bow/crossbow I will say the string breaks on the weapon making it useless until it can be repaired.... I'll probably up the % of this happening though... as I believe you would have a better chance of hitting a floor or wall than you would hitting yourself...
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-25-05, 01:01 PM	Break an item in the inventory (potion, vials, etc) as the PC dislodge said item from his backpack and it fall. End un prone. thrown off balanced: make a five foot step in direction chosen by foe. you bump into an allie, giving him -2 Ac, -2 to hit
Asciiman 01-25-05, 01:44 PM	Okay just so I get this covered right. You are going to roll a D20 anytime a critical miss comes up eh? Well that is all well and good except it makes no sense. Consider a high level warrior with 4 attacks per round. what this means is one out of every four rounds he will have a critical miss on average. So once every 24 seconds, he hits himself with his weapon, breaks his weapon, throws his weapon out of his hand or goes off balance. Are you really that daft? A high level warrior is supposed to do these things LESS.... not more. I wouldn't use a single warrior under this system. I want my fighters to become martial powerhouses, not slapstick comedians. For godsake, even the wizard will look far better in melee. He'll screw up at least half as much and he is barely even trained for martial combat. As a rule, anything that increases randomness, is bad for a PC since they can only die once. So unless you stick mitigating factors on this, and you really should, it makes no logical sense and shouldn't be there.
Qual 01-25-05, 01:50 PM	Just some ideas: Create a list from ideas, ranging from "not too bad at all" all the way to "really really sucks". "Not too bad at all" 20 - you missed. Completely. That's all. I figure if you actually rolled a 20, you might as well get something for it. -Weapon stuck - str check to remove "Bad" - "-2" on next attack (stumbled) - "-2" on your AC until next round (left yourself open for attack) - Fumble - reflex save or drop Weapon "Really Bad" -Strike nearest PC -Strike self -Lose next action - automatically drop weapon "Really Really Sucks" -Weapon Breaks -Critical Strike on nearest PC. -Critical Strike on Self. Depends on how nasty you want to make it. You might also want to create seperate ranged (snapped string, harder to shoot self), melee, hand to hand (can't drop weapons when there are none) and maybe even Magic (just so that the magic users in the party don't feel left out). -Qual
Board_Rider 01-25-05, 02:05 PM	Well Asciiman beat me to it so I will just agree with him. This topic has come up a lot. Despite the fact that a Critical Miss chart really only ends up screwing the PC's in the end it also may slow down combat. As stated a Fighter will almost always get a "1" from time to time in combat. The less combat orientated Wizard on the other hand probably will not see so much of this chart. If you want it, go for it... the Players may grow tired of it though.
Alynn 01-25-05, 02:17 PM	Weapon Breaks/bends bascially becomes useless: Really doesn't need an explanation.(10% 1-2 on die roll (I consider this the worst that can happen)) Hit self: Roll damage as normal and apply to self. (3-6 20% chance) Weapon is thrown in a random direction 5ft + 5ft/str mod min 5 feet: (so the stronger you are the harder you swing so the farther it will fly) reflex check to anyone in the path failed check takes damage and weapon stops there. (7-12 30% chance) Off balance: you lose any chance of making attacks of oppertunity, lose any SA's you may have left (which would only be 1) and are flat footed until the beginning of your next round. (13-19 35%) Lucky Break (5%, bascially you roll a 20) Quoted to show comparison roll 1-4 20% chance of hitting weapon against a nearby hard surface (floor, ground, tree, pillar, etc.) for a modified sunder. Damage is defined as follows.(WeaponDamage + Str Mod) - Weapon Hardness = Damage to weapon Minimum of 1 damage. If the weapon is stringed weapon like a bow or crossbow, the string breaks taking one round to repair increase of 10% chance of this happening using sunder suggestion by DP roll 5-8 20% chance weapon will be thrown in a random direction 5ft+5ft/Str mod Minimum of 5 feet, anyone within the path of the weapon must made a Reflex save or take 1/2 the normal weapon damage and the weapon stops at that point of contact. Treat missle weapons as doing full damage. -10% chance of happening, added what happens with missile weapons roll 9-11 15% chance Hit self, Damage is weapon damage reflex save to see if you can avoid str damage addition (trying to stop the weapon from hitting you) Gives chance to take off str additional damage on reflex save 12-14 15% Chance of hitting anything within your threatened squares (except the intended target) this includes allies, if there are both allies and enemy in your threatened squares 25% enemy, 75% ally. Do damage as normal, if there are no accidental targets within range apply hit self rule. A ranged weapon will ALWAYS hit someone other than the intended target. Decided randomly. Now chance of hitting someone near you on a crit miss. More chance of any ally than an enemy (as this is supposed to be a punishment) 15-19 25% chance thrown off balance, causing a 5ft step in direction of the intended targets choice, this will cause loss of all attacks of oppertunity, and cause the player to be flat footed until the beginning of their next round, If the five foot step moves them into the space that another is occupying, that person now has a -2 on ac, and a -2 on attack rolls until the off balanced person moves out of the square. Used Vegetables off balance addition to what I had origionally envisioned -10% chance from origional Still the highest chance, a bad thing, but not the worst that can happen. 20 5% chance of getting a lucky break and nothing happening. No change Hrm... unless anyone else has any ideas I should/could/might wanna consider... This is the current list.... EDIt: Ok the last 2 posts came in while I was typing this up... I also have a crit chart as well... from just doing normal damage, to 1.5 times the normal bonus to damage... also this doesn't just apply to the PC's it applies to everything. Strange you should say that, because in most games I've ever played... DM'd 1's are rolled on average... 3 times per playing session... that counts for both sides... it adds a dimention of challange to the game that I've always enjoyed since a DM a long time ago came up with something similar... So I understand your concerns... but I've never seen it go bad... Edit 2: this also attributes to how random things happen in battle... I'm in the army... and just because you are a veteran of 3 wars, and no matter how smart you are, there is always that chance that you will not see that mine, or walk right into an ambush... or happen to be in the wrong truck when an IED goes off right next to your convoy... sometimes sh*t happens, and sometimes you get lucky...
Someoneelse 01-25-05, 03:29 PM	I think you've got a really good idea here, and most of the things you've come up with are the same kind I've used in the past. Falling down (in addition to just losing balance), and just plain dropping your weapon along with throwing it across the room can also be nice touches. I've been using the critical miss chart for years, and it just adds a level of flavor to the game that everyone involved has enjoyed. It breaks up a fight with a moment of humor, and gives everyone something to laugh about, or groan about later. My players haven't gotten tired of it and neither have I. Even when we play a really serious game, but we've found that a chart like this can a break from intensity. At the same time, if it seems like way too many 1's are getting rolled, I recommend giving a saving throw to avoid ill effects. While I agree that it just doesn't belong in every campaign, there are many players out there that enjoy exactly this type of thing.
PaladinSix 01-25-05, 04:07 PM	If you are going to use critical fumbles in your campaign (and I do), I would suggest using the same mechanics that are in place for critical hits. That is, a natural 20 is not a critical hit unless it is "confirmed" by a second d20 roll that is also a hit. Critical missess should work the same way, except that the second roll should also be a miss for the natural 1 to be a critical failure. That way, your high-level fighters and such, who get lots of attacks, may roll a whole bunch of 1s but the confirmation roll will reduce most of these to simple misses. This means that skill still takes precedence over luck, and should address the problem that Asciiman and BoardRider mentioned. As far as specific effects are concerned, I generally use dropped weapons or missteps that trigger an attack of opportunity, rather than striking unintended targets. That way savvy players can compensate for critical misses with things like locked gauntlets and the Mobility feat. Of course, for missile fire (especially into melee), striking an unintended target might be the most logical result.
Tusz 01-25-05, 04:19 PM	An idea that I'm suprised nobody's thrown out there: Leave yourself open (AoOs for enemies) I'd also suggest two things to not screw over the fighters in the group: 1: only allow crit-misses on the first attack of someone's turn, so that multiple-attack warriors aren't more likely to screw up. 2: confirmation roll, as per crit hits.
Kainy 01-25-05, 05:13 PM	I'm playing currently with a DM who's a total ass when you roll a 1. No matter how experienced your character, you roll a 1, something really bad's going to happen. Broken bowstring, tossed weapon, stab self, stab ally, rock falls from the sky and hits you, I've seen it all. It really, really sucks. Automatically missing or failing is bad enough. Penalizing players for trying to do something (which then requires a roll) leads to paranoid, unhappy players. If you really hate your players, I guess you should go ahead and use these rules. In fact, I'd say have 1-10 be you break your weapon, especially if you've shelled out 200,000 gp for it, because the players lose, the DM wins and has a bigger skin flute. Yay. Now you can tear up their character sheets and do a happy dance behind your screen. :clap: Edit: Fixed a saying I didn't 100% remember correctly.
WunderGoat 01-25-05, 05:30 PM	Asciiman and Board Rider bring up a good point. Higher level fighters will roll 1s more often per encounter than lower level fighters, and that is just wrong. I suggest using a system where a 1 is a threat for a critical miss. Roll an attack vs teh opponent's AC. If you miss, you suffer something. I also have problems with the weapon breaking and the person hurting themselves at their full damage. What i would suggest for bad rolls: You provoke an attack of opportunity to your opponent/everyone nearby. Your weapon hurts you, roll base damage plus modifiers that come from the weapon only. i.e. a fighter with 18 strength and a longsword cuts himself for 1d8, not 1d8+4. Your weapon takes damage. You lose your next attack this round. Your weapon becomes stuck, use a move equivalent to free it. You fall down to prone/knees. Lose dex bonus to AC Penalty to AC/attacks/damage Also, I would say that these things should be administered by the DM. Perhaps they should be allocated depending on how badly the player misses the threat roll. Also take into account the opponents AC. If its really freaking high and the roll is still decent, then don't penalize the player. This epecialy applies non-primary attacks.
MortalPlague 01-25-05, 05:30 PM	What I do in terms of critical misses: Player rolls one. Then I get the player to confirm the critical miss. If they roll another one, then they critically miss. As the DM, I just decide what happens- usually they lose their grip on their weapon and it skitters away across the floor. It happens rarely enough so as to not embarrass fighters completely on the battlefield.
Capt. Pixel 01-25-05, 05:52 PM	What I do in terms of critical misses: Player rolls one. Then I get the player to confirm the critical miss. If they roll another one, then they critically miss. As the DM, I just decide what happens- usually they lose their grip on their weapon and it skitters away across the floor. It happens rarely enough so as to not embarrass fighters completely on the battlefield. This was about along the lines that I was thinking, except To confirm a Critical miss, any roll that would be a miss counts for the confirmation. Now a low level fighter is going to be more likely than a high level fighter to actually go to your 'Bad Thing Happens' table. I would keep the table itself realtively simple: Weapon dropped 1-3 Weapon damaged 4-6 PC damaged 7-9 Ally damaged 10-12 Other equipment damaged 13-15 Left Wide Open (I liked that idea) 16-19 and on a 20 on the table ------- the amazing stroke of good luck where your attack actually does hit for MAXIMUM critical damage!! On the random damage results, I'd pull any damage bonuses to strength and skill (Feats). It's not like you're really landing a blow with any style. ;)
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-25-05, 06:27 PM	Well Asciiman beat me to it so I will just agree with him. This topic has come up a lot. Despite the fact that a Critical Miss chart really only ends up screwing the PC's in the end it also may slow down combat. As stated a Fighter will almost always get a "1" from time to time in combat. The less combat orientated Wizard on the other hand probably will not see so much of this chart. If you want it, go for it... the Players may grow tired of it though. first, let's take a round. a round is 6 seconds (or 10, I can never remember wich. Let's say it's 6). In 6 seconds, a lvl1 fighter make a single attack. now, in the same time-span, a lvl20 fighter does 4 attacks. The lvl20 has more chance of something going amiss, as he's making a lot more movements in the same time-span. Second, did you ever watch the olympics? you know, the competition of the best of the best in their chosen discipline... Ever seen a few "rolling a fumble"? Making a false move and losing because of that? A distraction? Trying to do too much and losing because of it? A fumble represent that. There's always the chance that something, some random event will affect you. You could be dazzled by the sun, sneeze at the worst possible moment, slip on poor ground, etc. I once got in trouble in a LARP fight against a newbie because I droped my weapon. Why? The gard caught in my belt. Never happened again. Freak occurence. Chance. Third, your magician is gonna suffer fumbles too. for skill rolls. for spell penetration. for concentration (now, there's something that's gonna hurt...). for ranged touch attacks, etc...
Tusz 01-25-05, 06:47 PM	Third, your magician is gonna suffer fumbles too. for skill rolls. for spell penetration. for concentration (now, there's something that's gonna hurt...). for ranged touch attacks, etc... Buh? Fumbles (nat 1 = failure) is normally limited to attacks and saves. That means not on skill checks (concentration as well) and, IIRC, not spell penetration, either. A natural one one one of these is just a one. Not an auto-fail.
gorzan 01-25-05, 06:48 PM	I agree that fighters shouldn't be penalized for having itterative attacks. I also believe in fumbles, but there should maybe be a confirm roll for this one (I liked the idea of the confirm roll working like the confirm roll for critical hits, only the other way). The simplest way to solve this: Itterative attacks are immune to fumbles. Problem solved. Anyone can fumble on their first attackroll, and thus make a theatrical and spectacular, well, fumble. Fighters won't suffer higher risks than others, seing as they won't risk more than one fumble/round.
spasheridan 01-25-05, 07:06 PM	The critical miss is the worst game mechanic you can imagine. Use it / abuse it if you hate your players. Otherwise forget about it. Honestly, anyone, when you see a pair of boxers in a fight, how many times do they criticaly miss and hit themselves? have you EVER seen that happen? What about in ultimate fighting / martial arts tournaments? Soldiers, how many times do you shoot yourself with your weapon? NO, not the guy who want's to avoid the fight and blows his toe off, the guy who's sober and is in combat and actually shoots himself? Statiscily, if a 1 results in a critical miss, you will have that happen every 2 minutes for n00bs and every 30 sec for masters.
Alynn 01-25-05, 07:08 PM	Hrm... come back from the store bringing home minitures and I gots more replies... 1) I don't confirm crit hits... you roll a 20 its a critical... and its possible to double your crit attack (20, and another 20), This however only applies if you could hit them without a 20 (in other words, you are a level 1 mage against a CR 10 monster you are only going to hit on a 20 as it is). The opposite is true as well, so if you CAN hit them with your adjustments on a 1 its not a critcal miss (IE a level 10 fighter against a Kobold, or something like that)... 2) On multi attacks, this runs as such. Personally I believe that you are more likely to mess up on one of the last attack than the first one (as multi attacking is a complicated thing IMO). Average (rounding down) Dex and STR mods (as I believe both are needed for parry moving around and beating the pulp out of things. After all you can be strong as an ox... but if you are clumsy, you might not be able to keep your footing, or even hold onto your weapon) If the mod comes to +2, you can then fumble on the last 2 attacks. However the last attack (even if the last attack is the first attack) you can always fumble on. Negitives (on the averaged mods) doesn't mean you can fumble more often than you attack. Now fighting classes now have a 1/4 chance of fumbling 25%, 1/3 for middle classes 33%, and a 50% chance for wizards... which switches the balance, this of course applies at higher levels. (a mid level figher will at a maximum have a 50% fumble rate, to 33% then to 25%). So as you can see, everyone has the same fumble chance at first, then the chances go down. This might seem complicated, but it's very easy. However this isn't something I am going to drop on my players, This is something I will discuss with them. This is how I have played for the past 15 years (with things added here and there, but something similar is always in place) bottom line, anything I try to incorperate that is an addition/ adjustment to the rules I discuss. I've always found crit misses (and the possibility of a double critical) made combat more fun and real... and at times funny (as the mage is running around trying to pick his knife back up that keeps getting kicked around the battle field, he was an absent minded fellow).
Board_Rider 01-25-05, 07:11 PM	first, let's take a round. a round is 6 seconds (or 10, I can never remember wich. Let's say it's 6). In 6 seconds, a lvl1 fighter make a single attack. now, in the same time-span, a lvl20 fighter does 4 attacks. The lvl20 has more chance of something going amiss, as he's making a lot more movements in the same time-span. Second, did you ever watch the olympics? you know, the competition of the best of the best in their chosen discipline... Ever seen a few "rolling a fumble"? Making a false move and losing because of that? A distraction? Trying to do too much and losing because of it? A fumble represent that. There's always the chance that something, some random event will affect you. You could be dazzled by the sun, sneeze at the worst possible moment, slip on poor ground, etc. I once got in trouble in a LARP fight against a newbie because I droped my weapon. Why? The gard caught in my belt. Never happened again. Freak occurence. Chance. Third, your magician is gonna suffer fumbles too. for skill rolls. for spell penetration. for concentration (now, there's something that's gonna hurt...). for ranged touch attacks, etc... I agree....wholeheartadly. A round is 6 seconds and with more actions in the same time span there are more chances for an error. However the D&D combat system assumes that these extra attacks are given because of training. Plus the system is abstract. When trying to inject "realism" into ANY D&D mechanic there is always going to be some form of blowback. When you add up all the attacks in a PC's lifetime critical fumbles can really start to become a pain. Just my opinion...I use an entirely different system. EDIT: I didn't see the Olympics. And Wizards, or any other class, can't critically miss a Survival check....at least in my opinion.
eRaz0r 01-25-05, 07:12 PM	If you absolutely must use a fumble table (I heartily disagree with this idea- making 5% of the your attacks automatic misses is already punishment enough, in my book ).. Use 3d6 for your fumble table and make the nastiest things at 3 and 18 and make 10 and 11 nothing bad at all. This means you've got a normalized roll and the most common things will be nothing more than a momentary stumble, or perhaps "nothing happens... this time". But when you roll a 3 on 3d6 or an 18, perhaps you will suffer something like a dropped weapon or an attack on oneself. These would happen 1/20 x 1 in 256 times or thereabouts.. enough to be scary when they do happen and rare enough that luck could turn the tide of combat. Of course you should also use a critical hit table that's equally devastating to the opponent to be balanced... Another idea is to keep your 1d20 table with a range of 1-20 where a 1 is disastrous, then add BAB or BAB/2 (min 0) to the roll. This means 20th level Fighters are able to shrug off critical fumbles completely (if using +BAB)... or at least are confined to relatively minor things (11-20). But Wizards who fumble risk quite a bit (either getting a result from 11-20 if using +BAB or 6-20 if using +1/2 BAB) My advice though, remains "ignore fumbles - they slow things down and give your campaign even more into the hands of luck than it is now."
Nived 01-25-05, 07:23 PM	We have the smiley face die. Not sure where this came from, buddy picked it up at a convention and it is now our crit fumble die. It's a d6 but on three sides you have :) Which we've decided is "Nothing happens." Then there's the :bored: face, just one side which means you're going to take -1 to all the rolls you make in the next round. Then there's the :( again one side which means you take -1 to all rolls for 1d4 rounds. Then there's the :eek: side... or the "You ****ed up" side which is -1 to all rolls for the rest of the scene and you done tossed your weapon. So far hasn't caused anyone to die.
PaladinSix 01-25-05, 07:45 PM	Another idea is to keep your 1d20 table with a range of 1-20 where a 1 is disastrous, then add BAB or BAB/2 (min 0) to the roll. This means 20th level Fighters are able to shrug off critical fumbles completely (if using +BAB)... or at least are confined to relatively minor things (11-20). But Wizards who fumble risk quite a bit (either getting a result from 11-20 if using +BAB or 6-20 if using +1/2 BAB) Although I disagree with erazors take on critical fumbles (I do use them), I like this approach. Even if you are in love with the idea of critical fumbles, relative skill should play a role in the process. The 10th level fighter attacking an ogre might notch his sword by missing and hitting the wall, but he's probably not going to chop off his own foot.
Alynn 01-25-05, 07:56 PM	Ok many of you are taking the hitting yourself way to literally, this could be something as simple as you lose grip on your dagger, and when you try to catch it, you wrap your hand around the blade end... You swing your Flail, and your enemy swings his club just right, sending the buisiness end of the thing right back as you. You swing your sword, but at the same time your enemy shoves the thing back towards you and the hilt thwaps you right in the chest. You could even say the enemy anticipated your attack, and did the damage. Or your weapon hit a wall, and a chunk of stone came out and pelted you in the face. I just used hit yourself as a general term that you attacked, but somehow took damage in the process. I've adjusted all those youve seen above, for the most part, there is a reflex save to avoid (slamming your weapon into a wall), or halve (damaging yourself).
Nuffink 01-25-05, 07:58 PM	I used to love fumbles - in 2nd Ed we had the roll a 1 to hit - lose next attack and make a Dex check to hold your weapon, a bad roll on the Dex check would mean something bad happened. We haven't even considered anything in 3.5 ... yet. I agree with those who've posted saying use a 1 as a critical fumble threat and if another 1 is rolled it's a critical (some wepons might have a higher threat range for the second roll ie flexible weapons might be 1-2). Plus, whether that is used or not ... As for the fumble table I think the PC's prowess with their weapon should be taken into account - they should add their BAB or some part of it (and/or weapon focus etc) to their critical result roll. Thus the better you are with your weapon the less effect a fumble has - especially given you'll fumble more often if the chance is a straight 5% and you have higher BAB. Also - if you're going to use a critical fumble table then why not a critical table as well (once again this can really screw the PC's over though)?
Alynn 01-25-05, 08:11 PM	To answer the It will screw the PC argument... what about the monsters... they follow the same rules... and as I've said before, I do have a critical hit table, where it is possible to double your already multiplied damage (up to 6X on normal 3X crit weapons, so a warhammers max damage goes from 24 on a crit hit, to a 48 max damage on a critical) I always try to balance like this... Its just how I do things, I don't take away without adding something into the mix...
Callista 01-25-05, 09:04 PM	Monsters, though, often have just one attack per round, even at high HD; or they've got natural weapons they can't very well drop... so they are less affected by natural ones than PC's. One suggestion I've seen to solve the "The more attacks, the more 1's" problem: Have PC or monster make a relatively low (maybe DC 10) Reflex save upon rolling a 1. Only if they fail that do they get any effect from a natural one; otherwise they just miss. That means that higher-level and/or more nimble characters (say, a 5th level rogue or 10th level fighter) would almost never fumble. Not perfect, but if you insist on using critical misses, better than penalizing the guy with four attacks a round.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-25-05, 09:35 PM	The critical miss is the worst game mechanic you can imagine. Use it / abuse it if you hate your players. Otherwise forget about it. . Or if you like to throw a bit of realism... Soldiers, how many times do you shoot yourself with your weapon? NO, not the guy who want's to avoid the fight and blows his toe off, the guy who's sober and is in combat and actually shoots himself? . Yes, only look at one side of the question. soldiers, have you ever heard of weapon jamming? Of friendly fire? Of being disoriented by combat? The american army is one of the best trained in the world. In the first Iraqi war, wasn't there a whole lot of friendly-fire related casuality? Buh? Fumbles (nat 1 = failure) is normally limited to attacks and saves. That means not on skill checks (concentration as well) and, IIRC, not spell penetration, either. A natural one one one of these is just a one. Not an auto-fail. Normally, you're right. We use fumble with almost anything in our games. Let's be honest a second, NOBODY succeed 100% of the times. There are circumstancial hasards, distractions, random events, murphy's laws... There's nothing as stupid as a wizard surrounded by 8 monks who's able to cast defensively 100% of the time (if nobody ready an action). Before puting a foot in your mouth, remember: a round is 6 seconds (or 10. still don't know wich...)... Monsters, though, often have just one attack per round, even at high HD; or they've got natural weapons they can't very well drop... so they are less affected by natural ones than PC's. Can we assume that most DMs are smart enough to realise it's stupid to make the monsters drop his own arms? And can we assume the DM's gonna find another bad luck to happen to a fumbling monster? So, can we assume saying they'll be less afected by fumbles because they can't drop their weapon is NOT a valid argument? I knew we could.
Xexyz 01-26-05, 12:42 AM	I use critical fumbles only in instances where the outcome of spectacular failure is meaningful and probable. For example, a fighter simply making her normal attacks in a typical melee won't be penalized for rolling a 1, but the wizard who rolled a 1 when shooting into that same melee? He just shot his ally.
penchant 01-26-05, 12:53 AM	I do see that the more you swing a weapon in a combat situation, the more likely it is that something unexpected can happen so I am not opposed to the idea of a fumble on a 1, even for high level people. What I could never deal with is that accidents always go out of their way to screw the PC's. I would have only half the things on a fumble chart be negative. The other half should in some way benefit the PC's. Some examples of good things: Weapon slips on swing and does damage to target in adjacent square on weapon side. Weapon must be retrieved. (good or bad depending who's there) Slipped on ground. Next attack on you misses completely. No DEX on AC until your next action. A random potion in your backpack is cracked. It soaks into your skin and you benefit from a 50% effect. Your secondary weapon / shield is tangled with your facing opponents primary weapon. You get AoO but lose the secondary weapon / shield. He loses his primary. Natural Ground: the ground under you gives way and your leg falls into a small sink hole. You are flatfooted until your next move action and provoke AoO. The hole was hiding buried treasure (Standard CR equal to your level) Given an even ground, people will be happier to see the 1 come up and it isn't as much of a total player screw. Plus it makes things more interesting!
Loopy 01-26-05, 01:01 AM	Look at the Hackmaster rulebooks for a good example of this system.
Alynn 01-26-05, 01:42 AM	I do see that the more you swing a weapon in a combat situation, the more likely it is that something unexpected can happen so I am not opposed to the idea of a fumble on a 1, even for high level people. What I could never deal with is that accidents always go out of their way to screw the PC's. I would have only half the things on a fumble chart be negative. The other half should in some way benefit the PC's. Some examples of good things: Weapon slips on swing and does damage to target in adjacent square on weapon side. Weapon must be retrieved. (good or bad depending who's there) Slipped on ground. Next attack on you misses completely. No DEX on AC until your next action. A random potion in your backpack is cracked. It soaks into your skin and you benefit from a 50% effect. Your secondary weapon / shield is tangled with your facing opponents primary weapon. You get AoO but lose the secondary weapon / shield. He loses his primary. Natural Ground: the ground under you gives way and your leg falls into a small sink hole. You are flatfooted until your next move action and provoke AoO. The hole was hiding buried treasure (Standard CR equal to your level) Given an even ground, people will be happier to see the 1 come up and it isn't as much of a total player screw. Plus it makes things more interesting! Then there must be bad things that might happen when you roll a 20... you cant add good to what is already supposed to be a miss to begin with, and not add some bad to the good part of it, there is absolutely no balance in that...
CJ1720 01-26-05, 01:49 AM	I used to love fumbles - in 2nd Ed we had the roll a 1 to hit - lose next attack and make a Dex check to hold your weapon, a bad roll on the Dex check would mean something bad happened. As for the fumble table I think the PC's prowess with their weapon should be taken into account - they should add their BAB or some part of it (and/or weapon focus etc) to their critical result roll. Thus the better you are with your weapon the less effect a fumble has - especially given you'll fumble more often if the chance is a straight 5% and you have higher BAB. I've always thought that if you can have something good, like a critical hit, then you should have something bad. As someone has already said everyone screws up sometime. Ever seen a batter throw a bat? How about break his corked bat? Yeah, it happens. I like the idea of making a saving throw check for recovering from an error. The big bad perfect fighter realizes his feet are out of position, but only at the last minute, so he adjusts his stance and misses with his first attack, but makes the second. Was this the result of his incredible will save, reflex save or good BAB? You could argue for each of them. You could take the one that is higher and add it to the saving throw for a DC that declines as your levels get higher. As in the rest of the game, the possibilities are only as endless as your imagination.
penchant 01-26-05, 01:56 AM	Then there must be bad things that might happen when you roll a 20... you cant add good to what is already supposed to be a miss to begin with, and not add some bad to the good part of it, there is absolutely no balance in that... umm. WHY? where does it actually say that everything HAS to suck? Just because the rules say that a 1 always misses and nothing interesting happens, that doesn't mean that you can't change that and say that maybe something worse than missing will happen and maybe something better will happen. As for balance, WTF?! if you take a simple miss and add 10 worse things and 10 better things that can happen, isn't that balance? +10 and -10 equal 0 which is a miss. Perhaps you missed the part that my suggestion was to be half of the fumble chart to balance out all the bad stuff that people were suggesting in the above posts Really... :rolleyes:
PaladinSix 01-26-05, 01:58 AM	How about break his corked bat? Yeah, it happens. For the sake of your continued peaceful existence, I hope that wasn't an underhanded reference to the greatest right-fielder the Cubs have ever had.
scarolina 01-26-05, 02:42 AM	From the number and tenor of most of the replies in this thread I can see that many people prefer to use some form of critical fumbles in their games. I'd like to clarify the position of those DMs who dislike the inclusion of such a rule. As the Dungeon Master's Guide tells us, anything that increases randomness hurts the PCs. The average monster that a DM throws at his party is subdued after one encounter. It is the rare NPC that sees multiple combats. The chance of any one of them to be the subject of a critical hit (or fumble) is relatively small. The PCs, on the other hand, are involved in nearly every combat situation; the number of times they will be critically hit (or have a fumble) will be much greater than any individual NPC. The reason this is a problem: monsters are supposed to die, PCs aren't. This isn't to say that PCs should be saved from death. The possibility of death is an important part of a tense, gripping campaign. However, anything that increases randomness adversely effects the life expentancy of your PCs. I'm not trying to suck the fun out of the game. I've loved critical hits since the first time I hit a blue slime with one in Dragon Warrior. I'm just trying to shed light on why, from a mechanical point of view, critical fumbles may not be a good idea. Cheers.
Lord of Dorkness 01-26-05, 07:58 AM	I am currently playing under a DM who has *extensive* crit and fumble charts. (Let's just say he borrowed them from Rolemaster). It is *not* fun! Was it not for all my friends being in that group, I'd stop playing. There is not a single session where any of us has either dropped below 0 HP, has numerous bones broken, severe penalties until healed, damaged equipment, lung shots etc. It doesn't equal out if it happens to the mobs, too - because they are meant to die and not to enjoy the game! But it totally ruins the fun for all of us PCs. Our DM loves realistic combats and has even introduced an armor damage chart... go imagine. If you have to do something on a fumble, call it an AoO or lose one action, but don't overdo it. I strongly advise against fumble charts.
Alynn 01-26-05, 11:40 AM	umm. WHY? where does it actually say that everything HAS to suck? Just because the rules say that a 1 always misses and nothing interesting happens, that doesn't mean that you can't change that and say that maybe something worse than missing will happen and maybe something better will happen. As for balance, WTF?! if you take a simple miss and add 10 worse things and 10 better things that can happen, isn't that balance? +10 and -10 equal 0 which is a miss. Perhaps you missed the part that my suggestion was to be half of the fumble chart to balance out all the bad stuff that people were suggesting in the above posts Really... :rolleyes: Ok to show it in a mathmatical sense normally (percentages is just a simplistic way to show favorable actions) 20 = 100% 1=0% Averages to 50% which on a 100 point scale is right down the middle... ok good... but lets use your idea of adding half good things happening on a 1, and no bad things happening on a 20 so now we have 20=100% 1=50%, now the average is 75% its too far into the good things happen side, thats why it is unbalanced. I have worse things that happen on a crit miss, but I have better than normal things happening on a crit hit. I guess the game has just changed a lot over the years, sure we had fun in the old days, but a DM didn't cater to make life just a hair more difficult than easy. Characters die. Sometimes from stupidity, sometimes from bad luck, and I like realism... All my players like realism. If you don't once in awhile throw a monster that they shouldn't be able to kill at them, they will begin to think they are invinciable... which is absolutely boring, you have to challange not just their minds, but the mortality of their characters... Sometimes, you just need to run... thats life and thats REAL. I guess its just a difference between old and new school...
Naeron 01-26-05, 12:08 PM	first, let's take a round. a round is 6 seconds (or 10, I can never remember wich. Let's say it's 6). In 6 seconds, a lvl1 fighter make a single attack. now, in the same time-span, a lvl20 fighter does 4 attacks. The lvl20 has more chance of something going amiss, as he's making a lot more movements in the same time-span. No he's not, iterative attacks do not represent more movements, they represent the fact that in that time frame during combat more of the offensive movements that are made have the chance to be effective and cause damage to the enemy. A level 1 fighters single attack represent a number of attempts to hit the enemy of which 1 has a quantifiable chance of damaging the enemy. Second, did you ever watch the olympics? you know, the competition of the best of the best in their chosen discipline... Ever seen a few "rolling a fumble"? Making a false move and losing because of that? A distraction? Trying to do too much and losing because of it? A fumble represent that. There's always the chance that something, some random event will affect you. You could be dazzled by the sun, sneeze at the worst possible moment, slip on poor ground, etc. I once got in trouble in a LARP fight against a newbie because I droped my weapon. Why? The gard caught in my belt. Never happened again. Freak occurence. Chance. Yes you do see olympic athletes fumble - but you NEVER see a fumble rate of 5%, its closer to one time out of thousands. They are freak occurrences and happen extremely rarely and thus should never be adjudicated in the 1 on a d20 granularity of D&D. Third, your magician is gonna suffer fumbles too. for skill rolls. for spell penetration. for concentration (now, there's something that's gonna hurt...). for ranged touch attacks, etc... There is no automatic failure chance for skill rolls, spell penetration or concentration rolls by the rules. Only Ranged touch attacks auto-fail on a 1.
Joe Khol 01-26-05, 12:31 PM	If critical fumbles were a good idea, they'd be in the core rules, if only as an optional rule. They're not there because they're not a good idea. Personally, I find a role-play approach to fumbles much more effective anyway. When one of my players rolls a one to hit, the only mechanical effect is the automatic miss but they still have to suffer my painful description of their sword swinging wildly past the orc or the evil-grin on the demons face as their arrow bounces harmlessly off it's hide. That way it keeps the flow of the game (without rolling more dice and looking up a table), adds to the general atmosphere and keeps the 'effects' of the fumble are realistic and appropriate to the situation. Everybody is happy.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-26-05, 01:12 PM	No he's not, iterative attacks do not represent more movements, they represent the fact that in that time frame during combat more of the offensive movements that are made have the chance to be effective and cause damage to the enemy. A level 1 fighters single attack represent a number of attempts to hit the enemy of which 1 has a quantifiable chance of damaging the enemy. . silly me. I thaught that a skilled fighter would attack faster, meaning more attacks in a single-round span. Now, I know even a newbie can make the same amount of attacks (ofensive movements :D) as a level 20 elite-fighter. So, if I have 3 attacks brcause of my level, even tough the first is a disarm, the second a trip attack and the third a power attack on the triped foe, they do not represent more movement than the attack of a level one PC. I stand corrected. There is no automatic failure chance for skill rolls, spell penetration or concentration rolls by the rules. Only Ranged touch attacks auto-fail on a 1. I know that. I was telling how it works in my group. Frankly, it's more realistic. I won't explain it again, as I've already given the reasonning behind this.
Alynn 01-26-05, 01:27 PM	If critical fumbles were a good idea, they'd be in the core rules, if only as an optional rule. They're not there because they're not a good idea. From the 3.5 DMG Page 28 Sidebar at the bottom Variant: Critical Misses (Fumbles) If you want to model the chance that in combat a character could fumble his weapon ... Just wanted to show it IS in the core rules, as an optional rule. Critical skill check fails ARE possible as a variant as well (its in the DMG Page 34, the bottom sidebar), which I use depending on the skill and I have no chart for.
God_in_his_Heaven 01-26-05, 01:33 PM	silly me. I thaught that a skilled fighter would attack faster, meaning more attacks in a single-round span. Now, I know even a newbie can make the same amount of attacks (ofensive movements :D) as a level 20 elite-fighter. So, if I have 3 attacks brcause of my level, even tough the first is a disarm, the second a trip attack and the third a power attack on the triped foe, they do not represent more movement than the attack of a level one PC. I stand corrected. From the Player's Handbook, p.139: An attack roll represents your attemps to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attemps in the round, you managed to connect solidly Like Naeron said, a high level warrior doesn't just swing his weapon faster. Attack rolls represent the best swings a warrior gives in a round. It doesn't make any sense that your best swings are worse than your bad swings.
Alynn 01-26-05, 04:14 PM	I keep seeing people say that a %5 chance to fumble for every roll, that is true, but using the formula for calculating odds found http://www.saliu.com/Saliu2.htm <--- there (which has a handy table) which determines how many times will you have to roll at a given probability in order to have a 99.9% chance of winning (well critically missing in our case) The table already has a 1/10 probability, so lets use that for a critical ANYTHING... in order to have a 99.9% probability that you will get a critical anything it will take you 66 total rolls, so you now have one roll out of every 66 will come up with a one or a 20, (mathmatically), using the same formula for 1/20 chance (you can check my math but I am fairly sure this is right) You have a 99.9% chance of getting a 1 out of 134 rolls (the value I actually got was 134.67170244106465327817329450592). Like I said this is the mathmatical calculation of how many rolls it would take to roll a 1. Yes you are correct that since a fighter rolls more often they would fail more often, a fail every 33 or 34 attacks, while a wizard fails every 67 or so times... So yes... a fighter will fail approximately 3% of the time, and a wizard about 1.5% of the time on melee attacks, but using what I said before about WHEN they can actually happen (although I am beginning to thing for simplicity's sake, the first roll only counts for fumbles would make life easier)... 3%/4 attacks (since only one of the four at max can be fumbles) comes to .75, a wizard can fail one out of 2 attacks 1.5/2 = .75 and a quick look at 3attack classes comes out to .746.. or close enough to .75... They end up being equal... now factor in that they can make reflex saves for just about anything that can happen in my critical miss table, however there are no reflex saves for a monster to avoid a critical hit... Its a slight edge, but still an edge... I know this should be put up to we should agree that we disagree, but I wanted to just give you an example, and show that crit misses don't happen quite as often (mathmatically) as many of you seem to think. And I've already taken such things into concideration...
Hyperion 01-26-05, 04:52 PM	I had a DM implement this, he still uses it in his campaign, and the differance that I see is that if you rolled really well on your percentile it could wind up a good thing. If you rolled a 99-100 for example it was a critical recovery. Thus not only did you hit, but you crit. It's an interesting method, but I've never put it to use because I don't like adding extra rolls to my game. I find it slows everything down. Hyperion
eRaz0r 01-26-05, 06:00 PM	I keep seeing people say that a %5 chance to fumble for every roll, that is true, but using the formula for calculating odds found http://www.saliu.com/Saliu2.htm <--- there (which has a handy table) which determines how many times will you have to roll at a given probability in order to have a 99.9% chance of winning (well critically missing in our case) The table already has a 1/10 probability, so lets use that for a critical ANYTHING... in order to have a 99.9% probability that you will get a critical anything it will take you 66 total rolls, so you now have one roll out of every 66 will come up with a one or a 20, (mathmatically), using the same formula for 1/20 chance (you can check my math but I am fairly sure this is right) You have a 99.9% chance of getting a 1 out of 134 rolls (the value I actually got was 134.67170244106465327817329450592). Actually, you're completely wrong. You've misinterpretted the table. This is the number of times you need to roll to guarantee *at least one* trial comes up with a number. Each roll is still independant of the last and has a chance of p=1/20 (for 1 on 1d20). Read further down on that page you linked to for a better explanation (under the Paradox heading). So what your equation is really saying is that, in 134 rolls, the fighter is nearly guaranteed to fumble catastrophically. It's possible, but extremely unlikely, that he could fumble every one of those rolls. It's also possible, but still quite unlikely, that he will roll more than 134 rolls without rolling a single 1. The 50/50 chance is after 13 trials. So you've got a 50% chance of having rolled at least one 1 after 13 rolls. Every time you roll the dice, that chance increases. Remember - that's the chance of at least one roll is going to be a 1. Not at most which is what you seem to be saying. The reasons why a critical fumble table is a bad thing for D20 systems is not merely that more randomness skews things away from favouring the PCs. It's also because a d20 has a linear probability. On each roll, the chance of any one roll is exactly the same as any other. Now DnD hides a lot of this with AC and BAB etc, but essentially every time you roll a die, you have the same chance you did at 20th level as you did at 1st level of rolling that 20 .. or that 1. Now a 20th level warrior is going to hit AC 10 on anything but a 1, but he still has a 1 in 20 chance on each strike of missing it completely. To a 20th level warrior, that is a fumble. Missing an unarmoured peasant completely at that level of skill is ridiculously bad. And he's got a 50% chance of having done so at least one after 13 strikes (or 3 rounds). A 1st level wizard has approximately 50% chance of striking this target on his first go, and yet the 20th level fighter has a 5% chance of missing him on his first strike. And that's without adding critical fumbles which could make the 20th level fighter even more embarrassed in such situations. Every time he misses a peasant (remember, he needs a 1 to miss) he's also going to drop his sword on his foot and fall on his behind ! How realistic is that ? Speaking of realistic - friendly fire is rarely due to fumbling. It's far more commonly attributed to bad intel or green troops firing inappropriately. But melee's a different thing altogether. How many olympic fencers hit themselves in the foot or hand? What about kenjitsu or karate experts ? Not many, I'd say. Certainly not on average (50%) every 13 strikes, that's for sure.
Alynn 01-26-05, 07:25 PM	Actually no, I do know that you could feasable roll a one on every roll however, I used it as a best case scenerio (although a true best case scenerio is never rolling a miss ever)... chance can always be for or against you in said regard... what I mean so show is, it doesn't happen as often as people seem to think. I know its at least, my aplogies if I came across that it will only happen one time. That being said, I keep seeing things said about that the average PC does all the rolling, and a monster does not, yes in the great scheme of things, a single monster (whom for all you know were in as many battles as the PC's up to this point, suffering all the same types of penalties) may not throw too many crit misses, but since the DM is doing all the rolling, he does more rolls than even the PC's themselves, so singularly a monster may never fumble, but as a collective whole (all the monsters the PC's have encountered of all time) they will fumble more often than the PC's. I keep seeing, it doesn't favor the PC's, why does it seem that everyone wants to make things favor the PC's? Why can't it just be neutral? Why is is so taboo to make things harder? Why does noone acknowlage the fact that they have a chance to double their already at least doubled critical hit to balance the fact they may throw their weapon or get hit? Or the fact that some weapons give a higher chance of a critical hit, but you can only critically fumble on a 1? If you had bothered to read my further explination of how I do things, a fighter would not crit miss in that situation, just miss, what this means is if you would hit them no matter what you rolled, a 1 is just a miss, the same as if you couldn't hit the thing with anything with except with a 20 you would never do a critical hit. Everything goes both ways. How did this go from me asking for advice on what I should add or may be missing in my critical hit table, to a mathmatical debate? Or hell, even if critical misses are a good idea. Personally, I've always played under one, or used it, its never been seen negitively because I don't give out bad things without adding some good things. EDIT: Last thing, I did mention the "hitting yourself" scenerio being taken too literally... It could just been said, during your attack, somehow you took damage instead of your target. I could have just given your opponant an AoO. I may still, as it is easier to explain than your attack backfiring.
Cerindil 01-26-05, 09:00 PM	Not to reiterate too much what other people said, but the point that high level fighters will fumble more often than low level ones is a good point. Secondly, take into consideration that you very likely could kill PCs by implementing this rule, directly or indirectly. Imagine how dumb it sounds that your 20th level fighter has the proper feats and iterative attacks to do 7 attacks in a round. In an especially close battle, he could have almost one third of a chance of killing himself or an ally. I.e. you accidentaly throw the sword, it goes through the mage's chest; you accidentally chop at your leg. Oops, you were already low hp?
eRaz0r 01-26-05, 09:23 PM	You brought the mathematics into it, I didn't. By doing so, you're trying to say that it doesn't happen all that often, but you're mistaken. The mathematics are consistent. 1 in 20 is a 5% chance every time you roll the die of getting a 1. That doesn't change. You roll that thing a thousand times in a row, and on the thousandth roll, you'll still have a 5% chance of getting a 1. Of course, the chance that you've never rolled a 1 before then is astronomical, as already discussed. The chance that you've have rolled at least one 1 after only 13 rolls is 50%. So it really does happen more than you think. The problem is twofold - the dice roll is linear (1d20 = equal chance for each number to come up) and making a fumble table that scales with level, so that high level folks won't have more problems than low level folks. The first problem can't be changed in a D20 game. Make it a 2d10 roll instead of a 1d20 and you'll be approaching a curve that better represents how many things work in real life. That way, a critical fumble or success isn't just as likely as any other roll on the dice. The second problem can be rectified with a critical confirmation roll. If you have to roll to confirm a critical success, you should roll a second time to confirm the fumble. For example - Roll to hit against the AC again and if you still miss, you fumble - now roll to see what happens on a second random table (preferably a 3d6 table with extreme values (3 and 18) = bad and 10,11 = you just miss). Or Roll on a table with values of 1 to 20 and add your attack bonus to see what happens (low rolls = bad, high rolls = no effect) Or Roll to hit the AC and if you miss, note by how much. Compare the margin to a table (low numbers = just miss, high numbers = bad) The effect of this is to make real critical fumbles fairly rare, and more rare the better skilled you are. Generallly a 1 will just be an automatic miss. Sometimes it will be a critical miss which is slightly bad, and very rarely, you trip over your longsword and knocked yourself out.
sandgriffin 01-26-05, 09:45 PM	whenever one of my players fumbles an attack roll i just say they wack their foot or pull a muscle or somthing and take the damage roll without strength or weapon mod, nice, simple, streamline.
Alynn 01-26-05, 10:28 PM	You brought the mathematics into it, I didn't. By doing so, you're trying to say that it doesn't happen all that often, but you're mistaken. The mathematics are consistent. 1 in 20 is a 5% chance every time you roll the die of getting a 1. That doesn't change. You roll that thing a thousand times in a row, and on the thousandth roll, you'll still have a 5% chance of getting a 1. Of course, the chance that you've never rolled a 1 before then is astronomical, as already discussed. The chance that you've have rolled at least one 1 after only 13 rolls is 50%. So it really does happen more than you think. Yes as I stated, it happens at a constant rate on any one individual roll, but when you span them over a series, you can't deny that the odds of rolling a 1 constantly (and suffering the ill effects) goes down to less than that 5%, that is all I was really trying to say, and you said it yourself. The problem is twofold - the dice roll is linear (1d20 = equal chance for each number to come up) and making a fumble table that scales with level, so that high level folks won't have more problems than low level folks. The first problem can't be changed in a D20 game. Make it a 2d10 roll instead of a 1d20 and you'll be approaching a curve that better represents how many things work in real life. That way, a critical fumble or success isn't just as likely as any other roll on the dice. Yes, but either critical sides have the same chance of happening, so to me it's balanced. The second problem can be rectified with a critical confirmation roll. If you have to roll to confirm a critical success, you should roll a second time to confirm the fumble. For example - Roll to hit against the AC again and if you still miss, you fumble - now roll to see what happens on a second random table (preferably a 3d6 table with extreme values (3 and 18) = bad and 10,11 = you just miss). Or Roll on a table with values of 1 to 20 and add your attack bonus to see what happens (low rolls = bad, high rolls = no effect) Or Roll to hit the AC and if you miss, note by how much. Compare the margin to a table (low numbers = just miss, high numbers = bad) The effect of this is to make real critical fumbles fairly rare, and more rare the better skilled you are. Generallly a 1 will just be an automatic miss. Sometimes it will be a critical miss which is slightly bad, and very rarely, you trip over your longsword and knocked yourself out. I've already stated, I don't confirm criticals, a critical roll, is a critical roll. Hit or Miss. The "confirm" roll has been replaced by the chart roll. There is a less chance as you get higher in level, as your reflex save goes up, the DR is constant on recovering, so as you level and your reflexes get faster, you recover from it with no ill affects more often. The max DC of the save is 12. There is a Str check for throwing your weapon (Heavier weapons having a higher DC to hold on to) Stronger chars (such as fighters, barbs) normally have a higher str, so they throw their weapon less, quick classes such as rogues have less of a time being thrown off balance, or are quick enough to stop the travel of their blade before it hits something its wasn't intended to hit. The BaB is indirectly used in determining if you fumble as well, because if any BaB is enough to hit the creature, you still miss on a 1 but you don't fumble. Which comes into play well with my belief the last attacks are more likely to fail than your first. If your first few attacks will autohit, but the last few, because of their lowered BaB values, are lower where you could still fail with a roll other than 1 those are the rolls you could critically fail. There are checks and balances in this system. Higher levels do lower the chances of a 1 being a fumble. The biggest issue here to everyone seems to be balance. Nobody seems to have a problem with enemies getting critical hits, how is this so different?
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-27-05, 01:06 PM	From the Player's Handbook, p.139: It doesn't make any sense that your best swings are worse than your bad swings. And how exactly was I saying your best swings are worst than your bad? Citing the player's handbook is all well and good, but the argument I was defending is REALISM (wich anti-fumbles says preclude fumbles). Even if it represent your swings, a better fighter will do more in a round if he get more attacks. Simply because of the small time frame allowed. And to state it again: 3 attacks. 1 disarm, 1 trip, one power attack. Are they not 3 difrent attacks? Wether yu call them swings or attacks, they ARE difrents :D
AntiDjinn 01-27-05, 11:24 PM	My group uses critical failures when you use a default on a skill. For example: a monk with 15 ranks of Tumble rolls a 1: He takes the result of 16 + Dex mod which probably just fails at whatever he was attempting. A Sorcerer with no ranks of Tumble attemts to use the skill anyway (you can, it just defaults to 0 + Dex mod) and rolls a 1: He falls prone in a space threatened by an opponent. It just seems reasonable that the consequence for an expert failing should be less than for an amateur or someone trying something out of their league. By the way, what happens on a result of Weapon Breaks if the character is a monk? Does he break his arm?
penchant 01-28-05, 01:30 AM	Hey, lets get a mathematical formula for fun. That should solve the whole problem. The only way I can figure out if it works or not is play testing. Assigning odds for whether or not it will favor or not favor the PC's doesn't tell if you will have more fun doing it. We played with both crit and fumble charts in 1st and 2nd edition and while a bit more chaotic, it was pretty fun. Even when something bad happened to you. Especially if you could write a permanent scar on your character sheet. You can't write down, "I got this scar when I got hit for 15hp on some part of my body." While the PC's objective is to live a long time and get rich, the player wants to have fun. Crit and fumble charts used judiciously can add alot to a combat that has in 3e really become rather dry.
Solidcobra 01-28-05, 03:26 AM	Personally i use fumble...at lv.1-4, at lv.5+, you're too good for that crap.
penchant 01-28-05, 05:32 AM	Eh, we eliminated fumbles at 8 HD
Quijenoth 01-28-05, 07:05 AM	My group was glad to see the back of critical fumbles. I don't confirm crit hits... you roll a 20 its a critical... and its possible to double your crit attack (20, and another 20), This however only applies if you could hit them without a 20 (in other words, you are a level 1 mage against a CR 10 monster you are only going to hit on a 20 as it is). The opposite is true as well, so if you CAN hit them with your adjustments on a 1 its not a critcal miss (IE a level 10 fighter against a Kobold, or something like that)... One thing no one has brought up here which would warn anyone away from critical fumbles is spells. Spells that require attack rolls can crit just like weapons. Do you really want a maximised polar ray hitting an ally 5% of the time for 150 points of damage????! And what about critical hits in your system? 150 damage x2, 3 or 4! Critical fumbles do NOT add realism - they are comical and fun but not realistic. Personally I believe that you are more likely to mess up on one of the last attack than the first one (as multi attacking is a complicated thing IMO). I’m sorry but this is where your personal view is misguided. During 6 seconds of combat how many times does a 1st level fighter and a 12th level fighter swing his sword (taking into account that neither moves)? BOTH would swing as many times as they possibly can – not 1, not 3 but 6 or more. They will both swing as many times as each other . The 1st level will only get 1 good attempt at a hit in while the 12th level fighter would get 3. Just because the 12th level fighter has more chance of inflicting damage doesn’t mean he should be more prone to fumbles! An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly Like Naeron said, a high level warrior doesn't just swing his weapon faster. Attack rolls represent the best swings a warrior gives in a round. It doesn't make any sense that your best swings are worse than your bad swings. Amen! ------------------------------------------------ if your going to use fumbles though I agree 110% with those who have said the odds are against the PCs - fumbles are not balanced. To be fair on combat PCs should roll attack rolls and fumble rolls - low level characters have more fumbles while higher levels have less. Definitely consider eliminating fumbles from anyone with a BAB of 5+ IMHO. AND DROP TABLES! tables are bad and even more unrealistic. lets take some examples posted already... Weapon Breaks. Player: " But I'm a MONK using unarmed strike! What I do break my leg or arm or something??? Weapon Thrown 5ft+ away. Player: " Your telling me that my hand crossbow just LEAPS from my hand and lands 15 ft away!?? Hit Self. Player: " But I'm a MONK using unarmed strike! Have you ever tried kicking, punching or HEADBUTTING yourself??? These sorts of things come up all too often when tables are used and they distract from the game as you spend the next 2 minutes re-rolling for a more "appropriate" result.
ShadowDragon8685 01-28-05, 05:53 PM	*groans.* Either the OP is a very new DM, or a very old-school DM. So I'm going to lay this out in very plain English. Critical fumbles are bad, mmmkay? Critical fumble tables should be rolled up and jammed up the DM's nether regions. These are all bad things. You have a 5% chance of missing, without any hope of hitting, even if your BAB is +500. So forget it. They only serve to frustrate and infuriate the players, so leave off. Kapiece?
Twisted Puppy 01-28-05, 06:25 PM	IMC we have used 1 is a fumble (unless a natural weapon). Reflex save > 15 means you just screwed up, missed, and no more attacks on this action. If there's a fumble, I don't have a chart, but I try to make it appropriate to the situation. If you fumble firing a ranged weapon into melee, sorry, you hit your buddy. He's likely to be greatful as you pull the arrow out of his posterior. Maybe your bowstring breaks, or you drop/throw your sword. I don't see the need to have insta-kill critical fumbles, but it does add some spice. Perhaps my acceptance of critical fumbles comes from a few years of playing Cyberpunk 2020. There's a 1 in 10 chance of a fumble in that game, with each fumble having about a 3 in 10 chance of serious consequences. To me, the true test of a hero is not whether he succeeds when all the breaks go his way. Let's see how he performs when everything is going to hell in a handbasket. If your DM has critical fumbles in his game, find a way to have fun with it instead of complaining.
Alynn 01-28-05, 06:36 PM	*groans.* Either the OP is a very new DM, or a very old-school DM. The answer is the latter. I have 15 years of experience under my belt... As to the rest of it, I'll ignore the rude tone, I have children that take the same kind of tone when they don't get their way. The lot of you that keep telling me to change should just forget it, it won't happen, the only people that will change my mind, are my players, as it should be. Next, Quijenoth, for what you had to say: Weapon Breaks. Player: " But I'm a MONK using unarmed strike! What I do break my leg or arm or something??? The weapon doesn't break outright, as I changed it to it is like a sunder attack, a monk would just take damage for punching a tree, wall, or slammed his hand into the broadside of his enemies axe or shield. Weapon Thrown 5ft+ away. Player: " Your telling me that my hand crossbow just LEAPS from my hand and lands 15 ft away!?? Thrown weapon for missile weapons means an errant shot. Distance is the distace from the OT the missle is off by. Hit Self. Player: " But I'm a MONK using unarmed strike! Have you ever tried kicking, punching or HEADBUTTING yourself??? Kicking yourself is possible, ever see the jackass movie? :P Seriously though, as I said before, you are taking hitting self too literally, it actually means "During your attack, something backfired and you ended up taking damage" I have since changed it to provoking an AoO from your origional target. This AoO DOES count for the maximum AoO an opponent can make (so if he only has one, and already used it, nothing happens). Bottom line ladies and gents, I never asked any of you for your opinion on if it is GOOD or BAD, I asked for suggestions on what I could ADD to what I already had. Since the usefullness of this thread expired a long time ago. I have what I want and have already emailed my players about it, and they accepted it as part of the game. The worst part is the fact that I got caught up in defending my beliefs, but in the end, it really doesn't matter now does it? You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, and that's all there is to it. In polite society, you don't start conversations about politics or religion, on a D&D message board, you don't mention critical attacks.
BRJN 01-28-05, 08:14 PM	using a bow-and-arrow: You line up a perfect shot and release ... the bow. You are standing there holding the arrow in your hand. using a sword: You see an opportunity to get an overhead blow in, swing, and the sword caroms off his shield edge and flies across the room, coming to a stop against the far wall with a clatter. using a spear: You stab forwards and down, he dodges nimbly back, and you stab the ground between his feet. The spearpoint wedges between two rocks. When you pull and twist it to get it out, the point breaks off the the shaft splits. using a sling: You spin a slingstone up to speed, and then drop your hand a little to get a clearer view. The sling strap wraps around your head (in your hair, not over your face or neck) and the stone hits you, knocking you unconscious. I used the top one with a group of 4th-graders and got general laughter at the pantomimed sight.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-28-05, 11:23 PM	Bad poster. You should know by now that ANY question posted here will be analysed as an over-zealous inquisitor examine a piece of evidence. A controversy WILL surface. It will be over-debated until a new thread, a new obscure but important (ha!) tidbit of the rules is questionned.
Quijenoth 01-29-05, 05:31 AM	The weapon doesn't break outright, as I changed it to it is like a sunder attack, a monk would just take damage for punching a tree, wall, or slammed his hand into the broadside of his enemies axe or shield. so why would a monk find it fair that he alone takes additional damage because of a critical fumble where as the less skilled mage only breaks his staff? This is where balance becomes an issue in these sort of rules. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, and that's all there is to it. while i did try to warn you off the system i also tried to suggest a more balanced system than the use of tables will provide. Look at the tables in the D&D core books - the only time a table is used to generate random results is during the DMs selection of encounter, magic items, treasure and general game preparation. Bringing random tables to the gaming table is something to be avoided. Putting them into everyday combat is just wrong.