Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sulaco 11-07-06, 10:13 AM	Okay, there has been much discussion for a very long time about Critical Fumbles and how they are almost universally a terrible idea. Problem is, they are also a potentially interesting idea and a lot of people like the "balance" they provide to pair with the Critical Hit system. I was on the subway this morning on my way in to work when this idea popped into my head. It may end up being totally unworkable of course but I thought I'd get it out there for comment and review before I forget about it. This System uses the information in the Breaking Items chart in the DMG. On a natural 1 the attacker rolls the damage dice as if he had hit successfully: bonuses to damage from the weapon itself are not added. If the total rolled exceeds the hardness of the attacker's own weapon, said weapon takes 1 point of damage. Damage to weapons can be repaired by making Craft check as described in the PHB with one major difference: a characetr can attempt to make a field repair. Such a field repair has no cost. A failed field repair causes another 1 point of damage to the weapon. A roll of 1 on a field repair check causes a further 1d4 points of damage to the weapon. This system addresses one of the major issues with most crit systems, that higher-level combatants will "fumble" more often. Rather than attempting to mitigate this fact, this system embraces it. A 16th level fighter is making four times as many attacks with his weapon, exposing it to four times as much stress and wear-and-tear. His weapon should be more likely to get damaged - four times more likely in fact. So that is it, off the top of my head. Comments? Suggestions? Ideas?
DDdreamer 11-07-06, 10:23 AM	:whatsthis Sounds good, makes the game more realistic plus it reduces the positive parts of having a multi-attack character(personnaly i liked the multi-hit attacks but charachters might be to powerful later in the game if they have to much attacks).:teach: My rank of your idea: :clap: /10
Righter8 11-07-06, 10:26 AM	So what you are saying, in essence, is that a 15 level melee type should slowly have his hard earned, one of a kind magic weapon destroyed because he rolled a few "1's"? I may be wrong, but don't you need a person with the feat Craft magic arms and armor to actually repair magic weapons? As a house-rule I wouldn't do it. But there are house rules in my group that others find unappealing too. Sorry I don't have any constructive advice.
Arganis 11-07-06, 10:45 AM	So what you are saying, in essence, is that a 15 level melee type should slowly have his hard earned, one of a kind magic weapon destroyed because he rolled a few "1's"? I may be wrong, but don't you need a person with the feat Craft magic arms and armor to actually repair magic weapons? As a house-rule I wouldn't do it. But there are house rules in my group that others find unappealing too. Sorry I don't have any constructive advice. One point of damage on every critical miss is hardly that painful. Your level 15 melee type might be weilding what? A +3 Longsword? That's Hardness 16, 35 HP. If this character can't be bothered to repair his weapon before he's fumbled 35 times, then he's just dumb. I have 2 issues with the idea, Sulaco: 1) 1hp/fumble is almost not worth keeping track of. What about: Roll the weapon's base damage dice and deal that damage to the weapon, ignoring hardness. 2) Field Repair mechanic should have a higher DC (+5) if it has no cost... and should use a typical skill check failure scale: Make DC: Repair weapon Fail by at most 5: No progress Fail by more than five: Deal an additional 1d4 damage to weapon Otherwise, I think it's a fairly good way to retain some critical miss penalty without inappropriately disadvantaging the fumbler in combat.
DarknessEternal 11-07-06, 10:46 AM	So what you are saying, in essence, is that a 15 level melee type should slowly have his hard earned, one of a kind magic weapon destroyed because he rolled a few "1's"? Yes, but he means a lot slower than you're imagining. Especially since anyone on the planet can repair it. Of all the critical fumble rules I've seen, this one is by far the least terrible. However, being a critical fumble rule, it is still terrible.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 11:02 AM	So what you are saying, in essence, is that a 15 level melee type should slowly have his hard earned, one of a kind magic weapon destroyed because he rolled a few "1's"? Let's say that said 15th level melee-type has a 20 STR and is using a +4 longsword. His maxumin damage potential on the roll is 13 (1d8+5) while his weapon has a hardness of 18. His "hard earned, one of a kind magic weapon" will never take any damage through this method. Even if it did, unless he is batcrap crazy he will fix it well before it is destroyed. If he does not then he has no one to blame but himself. And really, is losing his sword substantilly worse than stupid crap like killing a friend or cutting off his own head that a lot of other fumble systems? I may be wrong, but don't you need a person with the feat Craft magic arms and armor to actually repair magic weapons? Could be under the RAW, but I certainly wouldn't require it for field repairs to fix battle damage under this system.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 11:09 AM	Of all the critical fumble rules I've seen, this one is by far the least terrible. However, being a critical fumble rule, it is still terrible. :rofl: The funny thing is, I agree. I can't stand fumble rules. Still, it is an interesting diversion to work a system out and if someone else elects to use it then at least it is time well wasted. ;)
Senevri 11-07-06, 11:12 AM	Hmm. Not too bad. And _still_, fighters break their weapons more easily than others... although, that might be invisible, and does make sense, sort of. I'd however, let standard maintenance "repair" 1 point of damage (oiling, sharpening.) It'd make someone pick a wheatstone every now and then... However - this might just mean more book-keeping...
wrecan 11-07-06, 11:13 AM	A 16th level fighter is making four times as many attacks with his weapon, exposing it to four times as much stress and wear-and-tear. I don't think that's an accurate description of BAB progression. A 16th level fighter makes more "attacks", but that doesn't mean he is striking or swinging the weapon more often. It just means that his strikes are more often effective. A round is six seconds. You can make quite a few attack attempts in that time. A high-level fighter's attempts are going to be more effective more often. Now does it make sense to use a critical fumble to represent "wear and tear". Would you give a bonus to fighters who switch out their used swords for new ones? What about shield bashing? Someone can attack his foe's shield with a warhammer until the cows come home and that shield doesn't fall apart unless they use the sunder attack. But if that guy rolls unluckily just once on a shield bash, the thing falls apart? :confused: I am not a fan of critical melee failure rules. The fairest mechanic I have seen, however, is d20+PC's highest BAB v. 15 + 1/5 character level (rounded down)
Arganis 11-07-06, 11:25 AM	The fairest mechanic I have seen, however, is d20+PC's highest BAB v. 15 + 1/5 character level (rounded down) In the Chapelle-immortalized words of Lil Jon: what?
Neratos 11-07-06, 11:26 AM	Honestly, i prefer the crit/fumble chart and system in the dragon compendium. It brings a sense of danger to 20s and 1s. I have a few cases where a big bad monster dies cause of a very lucky hit, and i have also had a player kill another player with a very unlucky fumble. I prefer a sense of randomness. You system is interesting, but adds a layer of paper work i would rather avoid. Besides, what happens to monks or spell casters? Also why are fumbles so despised? Unless you do away with crits, i see no reason there shouldn't be fumbles to follow suite.
drake_vampiel_d 11-07-06, 11:35 AM	personally I think that's a stellar idea for a crit fumble rule I use crit fumbles I find my players roll fewer 1's than 20's so it evens out the field I'll never have them lose limbs or die from a crit but it will slow them down and I think your idea would be very useful
wrecan 11-07-06, 11:36 AM	In the Chapelle-immortalized words of Lil Jon: what? A bunch of guys on another thread tried to come up with a number that made it so high-level characters were not fumbling more often than low-level characters. The formula they derived is a as follows: PC rolls a natural "1" on an attack roll. PC must then roll a d20 and add the PC's highest BAB. (Ie, a PC with a BAB of +7/+2 would add seven to the roll) If the modified roll equals or exceeds 15 + one-fifth the PC's level (rounded down), there is no critical fumble. (Ie, a tenth level fighter's roll must equal or exceed 17. If the PC fails this roll, they drop the weapon used in the attack. Secured weapons (like shields, gauntlets or weapons held in spiked gauntlets) cannot be dropped. That rule is simple and introduced an element of melee risk. I don't use it because I don't see the point to it, but of all the critical failure rules intorduced, this is the first one that even attempts to be fair to higher-level fighters.
wrecan 11-07-06, 11:39 AM	Unless you do away with crits, i see no reason there shouldn't be fumbles to follow suite. Why do people insist on some sort of imagined symmetry. Just because there are ciritical hit rules does not mean there should be critical miss rules. That's simply artificial parity. And it's not parity at all. By hurting weapon-using fighters, you are increasing the effectiveness of unarmed combatants (including most monsters) and spellcasters.
Neratos 11-07-06, 11:45 AM	The dragon compedium system is a good one. If you role a 1, you confirm it just like a 20. You roll again against the opponents AC, if you miss you fumbled. So those characters that are built to hit, fumble far less. Also, those built for defense cause more fumbles, which makes sense to me. If I have a really high defense, and you miss me on a 1, your gonna mess up a lot more than against a person with low defense. Basically the miss gets bigger the higher the AC goes. Then add in a % chart, and you can have anything from dropping your weapon to criting on yourself and potentially killing yourself.
Neratos 11-07-06, 11:49 AM	Why do people insist on some sort of imagined symmetry. Just because there are ciritical hit rules does not mean there should be critical miss rules. That's simply artificial parity. Um why shouldn't there be symmetry. If luck can score me a massive blow to my opponent, then why can't luck screw me over. I am purely refering to 20s, not threats. If you make 20s just threaten and not automatically hit, then that is fine, make all attacks numeric in essence. But if you introduce luck into combat, you have to introduce bad luck as well.
wrecan 11-07-06, 12:31 PM	Because symmetry is not found anywhere else in the game. There's no reason for it. A natural 1 screws you over just fine. Moreover, a fumble rule that applies only to weapon-weilders is not symmetrical. Monks and monsters don't suffer, even though they can make critical hits.
babysamurai 11-07-06, 12:38 PM	While we’re at it, what about punishing people more for rolling a natural "1" on a save?
Otto the Bugbear 11-07-06, 12:45 PM	A bunch of guys on another thread tried to come up with a number that made it so high-level characters were not fumbling more often than low-level characters. The formula they derived is a as follows: PC rolls a natural "1" on an attack roll. PC must then roll a d20 and add the PC's highest BAB. (Ie, a PC with a BAB of +7/+2 would add seven to the roll) If the modified roll equals or exceeds 15 + one-fifth the PC's level (rounded down), there is no critical fumble. (Ie, a tenth level fighter's roll must equal or exceed 17. If the PC fails this roll, they drop the weapon used in the attack. Secured weapons (like shields, gauntlets or weapons held in spiked gauntlets) cannot be dropped. That rule is simple and introduced an element of melee risk. I don't use it because I don't see the point to it, but of all the critical failure rules intorduced, this is the first one that even attempts to be fair to higher-level fighters. That would be my thread. You've basically got it down correctly. #2 should be, "roll a d20 and add the PC's highest attack of that round (using all applicable modifiers)", not add the highest BAB. #4 is actually wrong, but not by that much. #4 should have been, "The more you miss by, the worse the fumble effects." You are right in effect though. The better the combatant, the lesser the fumble, even to the point of no fumbles for exceptionally good combatants. Anyway, it's in my sig if anyone cares to take it to there instead of derailing Sulaco's thread too much. -=<*>=- Sulaco, Not a bad idea. It certainly makes sense that weapons used in combat should be taking damage. Cheers Otto :)
Arganis 11-07-06, 01:03 PM	Because symmetry is not found anywhere else in the game. There's no reason for it. A natural 1 screws you over just fine. Moreover, a fumble rule that applies only to weapon-weilders is not symmetrical. Monks and monsters don't suffer, even though they can make critical hits. Agreed. If any symmetry were to be added to this fumble system, it should be in the form of a rule that deals damage to the target's armor on a successful critical hit. That way, both weapons and armor are subject to occasional repairs.
Ilthorin 11-07-06, 01:15 PM	I just don't understand the hostility towards critical fumbles. I mean as long as they aren't obnoxious and on par with the amount of damage a critical hit can do what is the big deal. As for punishing melee fighters...nonsense. With all the ranged touch attack spells, casters have ample opportunity to critically fumble. And this nonsense about how it punishes higher level fighters is also a load of orc droppings. Roll for roll every drop of the dice has the same chance of coming up a 1 as the next one. just because the 15th level fighter can take 100 swings faster then the 1st level fighter doens't mean the 15th is going to fumble more often. I've been using critical fumble tables for years without complaint.
ArochanoX 11-07-06, 01:21 PM	How about: If you roll 1, you may fumble. If you're threathened, you must pass a reflex save against the best base attack bonus that threathens you. (DC = BAB+10) If you fail the save you fumble: you don't hit and the creature that threathens you gains an attack of opportunity. This aoo is not counted towards that creature's maximum number of aoo:s. If you're not threathened while attacking, you can't fumble but can miss. If you're using spell that lasts until one successful hit and you roll 1 to hit, you lose the spell "in hand" and miss. Sulaco's system is great, but as mentioned before, it makes more book keeping and is actually quite trivial when character gains enough wealth to buy a better weapon before the excisting weapon shatters.
Arganis 11-07-06, 01:25 PM	Roll for roll every drop of the dice has the same chance of coming up a 1 as the next one. Right. just because the 15th level fighter can take 100 swings faster then the 1st level fighter doens't mean the 15th is going to fumble more often. Wrong.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 01:26 PM	Agreed. If any symmetry were to be added to this fumble system, it should be in the form of a rule that deals damage to the target's armor on a successful critical hit. That way, both weapons and armor are subject to occasional repairs. Funnily enough, that occurred to me as well: If your enemy rolls a critical hit your shield - if using one - suffers a point of damage; if no shield, then your armour suffers a point of damage.
DarknessEternal 11-07-06, 01:36 PM	Incidently, the opposite of doing more damage to your target is not "doing damage to oneself". Criticals deal more damage to the target. The opposite is to deal less damage to the target. Not heal them, not hurt yourself or a partymate, but to do less. Rolling a 1 is an automatic miss. You can't do less than 0 damage D&D already has the appropriate critical miss rule.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 01:37 PM	Sulaco's system is great, but as mentioned before, it makes more book keeping and is actually quite trivial when character gains enough wealth to buy a better weapon before the excisting weapon shatters. The bookkeeping is rather trivial, though. You just need to note weapon's hardness and hp and then add a tick beside it's box whenever it takes damage. One of the points of this was, in a way, to trivialize fumbles, to seriously mitigate the effect of them. The idea was to create a system that makes rolls of 1 matter but to craft a system that doesn't overly penalize players, that has a logic behind higher-level characetrs "fumbling" more often, and that steers clear of rubbish like self-mutilation and other such nonsense that populate most other fumble systems.
wrecan 11-07-06, 01:38 PM	just because the 15th level fighter can take 100 swings faster then the 1st level fighter doens't mean the 15th is going to fumble more often. Each attack roll ≠ a weapon swing. In every round of combat each combatant has a bunch of opportunities to swing, to miss, to harm. High BAB means an increase in times a fighter can take advantage of it. A 16th level fighter (BAB +16/+11/+6/+1) is not swinging four times as often as a first level commoner (BAB +0). He is swinging more effectively. That's why any critical melee failure rule that penalizes experienced fighters more than inexperienced ones injects less realism, not more, into the game.
Ilthorin 11-07-06, 01:39 PM	Just because the 15th level fighter can take 100 swings faster then the 1st level fighter doens't mean the 15th is going to fumble more often. Arganis: Wrong. How so? If Bob plays a 15th level fighter and swings 100 times (ie rolls a d20 100 times) during the course of an evening's play why is he more likely to roll 1's then the next night he plays his 1st level fighter and again rolls 100 times?
wrecan 11-07-06, 01:41 PM	I just don't understand the hostility towards critical fumbles. I mean as long as they aren't obnoxious and on par with the amount of damage a critical hit can do what is the big deal. I think they are obnoxious because they weaken weaponed combatants vis-a-vis unarmed/natural weapon combatants and spellcasters. As for punishing melee fighters...nonsense. With all the ranged touch attack spells, casters have ample opportunity to critically fumble. How does one critically fumble a ray? A fumble means it falls to the floor. A critically fumbled touch spell doesn't cause your fingers to fall off! I've been using critical fumble tables for years without complaint. Critical fumble rules are hypnotically deceptive. Lack of complaint is not the same as lack of problems.
wrecan 11-07-06, 01:42 PM	If Bob plays a 15th level fighter and swings 100 times (ie rolls a d20 100 times) Roll ≠ swing. From the PHB: "An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent." A roll (singular) represents your attempts (plural) to strike. One roll is not one swing.
Arganis 11-07-06, 01:46 PM	How so? If Bob plays a 15th level fighter and swings 100 times (ie rolls a d20 100 times) during the course of an evening's play why is he more likely to roll 1's then the next night he plays his 1st level fighter and again rolls 100 times? If both characters make 100 attacks in a night, they have an equal chance to threaten an equal number of critical fumbles. But your original statement has a level 15 fighter making 100 swings faster than a level 1 fighter, which I believe is accurate given that higher level melees can make more attacks in a given period of time. This number of extra attacks is not directly proportional to BAB, as neither fighter is making full attacks every round). If the Level 1 fighter makes 100 attacks in a night and the level 15 fighter makes 200, the level 15 fighter will fumble twice as much in the same amount of time.
Ilthorin 11-07-06, 01:50 PM	<quote>wrecan: Each attack roll ≠ a weapon swing. In every round of combat each combatant has a bunch of opportunities to swing, to miss, to harm. High BAB means an increase in times a fighter can take advantage of it. A 16th level fighter (BAB +16/+11/+6/+1) is not swinging four times as often as a first level commoner (BAB +0). He is swinging more effectively. That's why any critical melee failure rule that penalizes experienced fighters more than inexperienced ones injects less realism, not more, into the game. </quote> okay this is just wrong on every level. I know that the roleplaying aspect of the game says that you are constantly trading blows during a round. But that is simply fluff and has nothing to do with the mechanics of the die rolls. Just because you can take 4 rolls in a round and the 1st level fighter has to spread his out over the next 4 rounds does not mean any specific roll will be more likely to come up a 1 then the next. And you can argue that while as a 15th level fighter you have more skill you still suffer a penalty trying to push all those fancy manuevers into a single round. (As evidenced by the decrease in base attack bonus).
Arganis 11-07-06, 01:50 PM	Roll ≠ swing. From the PHB: "An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent." A roll (singular) represents your attempts (plural) to strike. One roll is not one swing. A quiver actually holds 20 Attempted Arrows, each of which consist of 3-4 actual arrows. :D Just because you can take 4 rolls in a round and the 1st level fighter has to spread his out over the next 4 rounds does not mean any specific roll will be more likely to come up a 1 then the next. Your statement is correct: A level 15 fighter will fumble as many times in 1 round as a level 1 fighter will fumble in 4 rounds. But these things are not equal. You see, in 1 round, a level 15 fighter will fumble 3 times as much as a level 1 fighter, even if both fighters are attacking standard kobolds.
wrecan 11-07-06, 01:52 PM	And you can argue that while as a 15th level fighter you have more skill you still suffer a penalty trying to push all those fancy manuevers into a single round. (As evidenced by the decrease in base attack bonus). But that fighter is better than the first-level fighter. Critical fumble rules make him worse at holding his weapon, probably the first thing he learned how to do! Besides, there is a mechanic to account for this, as Otto pointed out. And it doesn't respond to my actual complaint: it punishes melee weapon fighters at the expense of unarmed/natural weapon fighters and spellcasters, who are not punished equally by critical fumble rules as they have nothing to fumble. Arganis: obviously ranged attacks are handled differently. Of course, ranged attacks aren't subject to critical fumble since you can't drop a weapon that has alreay left your possession.
Ilthorin 11-07-06, 01:55 PM	How does one critically fumble a ray? A fumble means it falls to the floor. A critically fumbled touch spell doesn't cause your fingers to fall off! No but it can strike a target other then you intended. Or you can pull a muscle while trying to manuever yourself into position to fire it, or dust can get in your eye giving you a penalty on attack rolls for a round or two...etc. A critical fumble chart that simply deals damage to the attacker is not very original. Ranged attacks can still fumble. You can drop or fumble the bow adding to your initiative the next round as you recover or imposing a penalty on your next attack as you rush to fire with a less the firm grip..etc..
JerBar 11-07-06, 01:56 PM	I like the idea about doing damage to weapons and armor on crits and fumbles. I was playing around with that concept when I started the campain I'm doing right now but I dropped it right away because I didn't feel like dealing with the extra paperwork. I had another idea for rolling 1s that I think I may test out with my group. Rolling a 1 on an attack roll gives you a -2 penilty to either AC until your next turn or your next attack. This could work with other rolls as well, like rolling a 1 on a fort save against a poison gives you -2 against the secondary effects. You would just have to make sure that the penilty is appropriate to the roll on which you got a 1.
Ilthorin 11-07-06, 02:01 PM	Perhaps I should clarify this a little. In my campaigns (the other dm and myself) we use a 1d100 critical fumble table. If you fumble you then have to roll percentiles. The chart has 100 different things that can happen. Bending armor, stubbing digits, pulling muscles, getting dust in your eye, dropping your weapon or spell component pouch, hitting yourself with your weapon, openning yourself to an attack of opportunity from your opponent, distracting your allies with your awesomly bad swing, etc. Fumbles should not simpy be damaging yourself. I can understand why fumbles would be looked poorly on if this were all they did.
wrecan 11-07-06, 02:14 PM	Or you can pull a muscle while trying to manuever yourself into position to fire it !!! You had originally asked why people didn't like critical fumble charts. One of the things I despise is that they so quickly turn into a game of Hackmaster, consulting endless tables and charts and accomodating things the abstract hit point system is simply ill-quipped to handle. Pulling a muscle?! Strain and wear and tear is reflected in hp loss not in critical fumble rules. I think combat is complicated enough. Ranged attacks can still fumble. You can drop or fumble the bow adding to your initiative the next round as you recover or imposing a penalty on your next attack as you rush to fire with a less the firm grip..etc.. In all my readings of medieval history I have never once heard of an archer dropping his bow in combat. An arrow? Sure. A shot that is wildly off target? Absolutely. An archer dropping his bow if he isn't directly threatened in combat is as likely as a professional golfer accidentally dropping his club during a putt. If the goal is adding realism, archery fumbles are the wrong direction. If the goal is adding arbitrary parity, critical melee rules don't do it. If the goal is giving the players more dice to roll, because rolling dice is keen, then mission accomplished!
Ilthorin 11-07-06, 02:22 PM	I'm not going to go into how this is a fantasy game and not reality. But the point is it's a critical fumble..ie an really bad mistake. One extra die roll on a single table when you fumble is no different then rolling extra dice on a critical hit. Lethal damage is reflected by hp loss. Not other incidental stuff that while not life threatening can still inhibit your actions. How can you say critical fumbles don't add realism when they can add in these minor occurances that can happen in combat? BTW I have seen fencers get a charlie horse in the middle of a match. That would be a critical fumble to me. Movement reduced to 1/2 for x number of rounds.
Arganis 11-07-06, 02:22 PM	The jerry-rigged "attack vs. attack roll" abstraction (which actually only applies to melee attack rolls...) makes it clear to me that the whole 3.5 system is merely a loose collection of travesties. I am very glad that Critical Fumbles are not RAW. I removed them from my game, falling back to the Core "Automatic Miss" clause, and have never looked back.
LukiLoki 11-07-06, 02:32 PM	Oh, boy! A fumble debate! Takes me back... I DM, and I do fumbles. To ameliorate the problem of penalizing high-level melee types who make many more attack rolls than other characters, I do two things: 1. The confirm roll (just like a critical confirm) is made at the highest BAB. So, if a 15th level fighter, who has BAB +15/+10/+5 attacks, rolls a one on his second attack, he would roll to confirm at +15 BAB, plus all other applicable bonuses. 2. Fumbles "drop" to the last attack. So, the same fighter if he rolled a one on his second attack (which could lead to him dropping his weapon, or falling down) doesn't roll to confirm until after he's made all the rest of his attacks, including those that might come from Cleave or other abilities. Then, he rolls to confirm (at his highest BAB, regardless of which attack rolled a 1) and the fumble is resolved. This way, a fumble never ends up depriving anyone of possible attacks later in their turn. If, by horrible luck, a character rolls two natural 1's in a round, only the first one can be a fumble. As noted, there are a lot of possible effects of fumbles in my system, many of which can be avoided by low-DC balance or Dex. checks. And the parallel-to-criticals confirmation mechanic insures that high-BAB characters fumble less often per natural one rolled vs. the same opponent. Also, everyone who makes an attack roll is subject to fumbles: ranged attackers, natural weapon-using monsters, and touch-attack using spellcasters included. If the fumble result comes up nonsensical for the situation, no fumble, just a miss. Bottom line, with my system, a natural one is just a miss a high percentage of the time. But, once in a while, something bad happens. This simulates the chaotic and dangerous nature of battle, to which even high level fighters should not be entirely immune.
thought_riot 11-07-06, 02:47 PM	What about shield bashing? Someone can attack his foe's shield with a warhammer until the cows come home and that shield doesn't fall apart unless they use the sunder attack. But if that guy rolls unluckily just once on a shield bash, the thing falls apart? :confused: It doesn't fall apart. It takes one measly damage.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 03:30 PM	How so? If Bob plays a 15th level fighter and swings 100 times (ie rolls a d20 100 times) during the course of an evening's play why is he more likely to roll 1's then the next night he plays his 1st level fighter and again rolls 100 times? More die rolls = more chances to roll a 1. If I roll a d20 once I have 1:20 odds of getting a 1. If I roll a d20 twenty times I have 1:1 odds of getting a 1. It will never work out precisely like that - random really does mean random - but the upshot is that the more often you roll the die the more chances you have to roll and particular result. The more attack rolls you make the more often you will roll a 1 cos you are rolling the die more often, thus high-level PCs will, on average, screw up four times more foten than straight-off-the-farm level 1 PCs.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 03:41 PM	I can understand why fumbles would be looked poorly on if this were all they did. Damaging yourself is just one specific example of fumble system folly. Fumbles are also looked poorly on cos they contain things like bending armor, stubbing digits, pulling muscles, getting dust in your eye, dropping your weapon or spell component pouch, hitting yourself with your weapon, openning yourself to an attack of opportunity from your opponent, distracting your allies with your awesomly bad swing, etc.
Ongorth 11-07-06, 03:47 PM	The problem with critical fumbles is that they only punish people who use attack rolls to kill you. Not every character uses attack rolls to kill you. In order to create symetry, you'd need a way for these methods to "fumble". Unless I'm missing something and a wizard can accidently forcecage himself or summon a Baileen Whale on his head. The critical hit symetry is already there. You can critical people, they can critical you back. Its simple and beautiful and allows you to scream, "OMFG THAT KOLBOLD JUST pWNED YOU IN THE FACE OLD SKOOL!!!"
wrecan 11-07-06, 03:48 PM	I'm not going to go into how this is a fantasy game and not reality. Okay, so we've eliminated "accuracy" as the motivation for employing critical fumble rules. But the point is it's a critical fumble..ie an really bad mistake. That's not actually a point. Why should we introduce "really bad mistakes" into combat. What does it add, since you've already agreed that we're not going for realism? One extra die roll on a single table when you fumble is no different then rolling extra dice on a critical hit. It's an extra die and consulting a table with 100 different results. Yes, that is different. It's a time-waster. Lethal damage is reflected by hp loss. Not other incidental stuff that while not life threatening can still inhibit your actions. That's exactly what hp represents "Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one." A strained muscle is "physical punishment". It's not huge physical punishment, but that's what is represented. Turning a serious blow into a less serious one is not magic. In part, it's straining and stretching muscles so a blade hits flesh and not artery, or bruises against armor rather than cuts into muscle. You're straining for a system in which body blows take out individual muscles -- a level of detail for which D&D combat was never intended. How can you say critical fumbles don't add realism when they can add in these minor occurances that can happen in combat? Didn't you just write "his is a fantasy game and not reality"? So which is it? BTW I have seen fencers get a charlie horse in the middle of a match. That would be a critical fumble to me. Movement reduced to 1/2 for x number of rounds. Have you seen a man take 10 shots with a mundane longbow (average 45 hp) and live? A fourth level barbarian with a 14 Constitution can do that without using any supernatural abilities. Why? Because hit points are an abstraction. If you're going to add in muscle strain, stop using hit points. Just go to a body blow chart in which every weapon strikes a specific body part, which causes it to be bruised or disabled. If you're playing D&D, you've already abandoned the idea of realistic combat. Gluing fumble charts and the like onto this system only creates a Frankenstein monster.
Neratos 11-07-06, 03:53 PM	I think they are obnoxious because they weaken weaponed combatants vis-a-vis unarmed/natural weapon combatants and spellcasters. How does one critically fumble a ray? A fumble means it falls to the floor. A critically fumbled touch spell doesn't cause your fingers to fall off!. Now your just being silly. Why can't ppl be flexible. I shoot a ray and fumble, why not say the magical energies feed back in on themselves, and one needs to take a move action that provokes to restore the normal flow of magical energy. This is in all ways simulare to droping your weapon. A fighter drops his weapon, he has to take a move action (it might be standard, just switch it if it is) to retrieve the item and provokes in doing so. Was this sooooo hard? Monks could easily have swung and gotten out of balance, requiring a move or standard to recover which provokes. Again not that hard to find a medium. If you are a fighter, and you fear fumbles soooo much, why not prepare for it for gods sake. Quick draw and another weapon solve this problem. What? This is too much bother for a fighter? Well, that is one lazy fighter, considering he is a gear based character. And don't complain about the feat, fighters have plenty spare. "But this favors spells that don't require attack rolls?" Really? In my experience some of the nastiest spells are in the form of range touch/touch spells. Area affects and targeted spells usually are weaker than touch cause they do not require attack rolls. Botching is part of life, and is just as fun as criting. If all you want are crits, then play that kind of game. I have had fumbles be FAR more rememorable than crits.
wrecan 11-07-06, 04:00 PM	Was this sooooo hard? It's not hard. It's unnecessary. I don't see what it adds to have PCs (and NPCs) running around bobbling their spells, fists and weapons. It certainly doesn't add realism. "But this favors spells that don't require attack rolls?" Really? Yes, really. The spells are balanced against one another and you've just reduced the power of one class of spells without altering the others. In my experience some of the nastiest spells are in the form of range touch/touch spells. Because it takes more effort to handle them properly. Botching is part of lifeNot in any way that approximates critical fumble rules. Hey, play the game you want. Somebody asked why people don't like critical failure rules (Ilthorin in post 21 if you're curious) and I explained why: it doesn't add realism, it's unbalancing and it drags the game down. I was answering a specific question. Don't assume that's a condemnation of your playing style.
Arganis 11-07-06, 04:09 PM	Somebody asked why people don't like critical failure rules (Ilthorin in post 21 if you're curious) and I explained why: it doesn't add realism, it's unbalancing and it drags the game down. Don't forget it makes the heroes of the story look like comic relief.
Neratos 11-07-06, 04:14 PM	Fumbles do not add realism? Fumbles don't happen in real combat? What about a gun jamming and a round going off in the chamber, that sure hurts. In japanese sword drawing, a miss step could result in a very nasty cut on your leg. You trip during a fight and fall on your sword. An arrow you shot glances off an enemies armor and strikes an ally. Freaky stuff happens in real life which could very much be considered fumbling. The odds of it happening may be different than game mechanics, but crits are just as rare in real life. This is why good fumble systems have ways of recovering the fumble so that nothing adverse happens. A 20 does not automatically entitle a crit, nor should a 1. Some ppl use dex checks others confirmation rolls.
Arganis 11-07-06, 04:26 PM	Fumbles do not add realism? Fumbles don't happen in real combat? What about a gun jamming and a round going off in the chamber, that sure hurts. Remember when that happened to Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry when he was about to shoot the badguy, and he fell on the ground screaming from 3rd degree burns to his face and spent the rest of the movie looking like a melted wax sculpture? Classic! In japanese sword drawing, a miss step could result in a very nasty cut on your leg. You trip during a fight and fall on your sword. Haha that was a great scene in Samurai Jack when he was about to kill Aku and instead cut his kimono off and spilled his intestines all over his feet. Took him a whole 6 seconds to recover, and it only made him look cooler that he had to wind-up twice before following through while holding his guts in one hand. An arrow you shot glances off an enemies armor and strikes an ally. Haha, this was especially cool in the LoTR movies. For every 40 times Legolas shot some orc between the eyes, he nailed an elf in the ass. I think they cut all of these scenes from the theatrical release for time constraints. Shame. The best one was right before he went surfing down the stairs on the shield.
LukiLoki 11-07-06, 04:29 PM	it makes the heroes of the story look like comic relief. Of all the objections to critical failure, this one misses the mark the most. What is comical about the occasional failure? Yes, I know, a miss is a failure and I could leave it at that. But I use fumbles (which are almost always minor hassles in my game) as an aid to describing combat so it doesn't turn into this boring litany of "hit, miss, hit, hit, miss, hit, CRITICAL!!!" (ding ding ding, flashing lights, etc.) Someone said to me once, "well you must be a pretty lousy DM to need a table to describe combat." Which also flies well shy of the mark (roll to confirm critical miss). What it does is allows me to non-arbitrarily insert gritty details of what's actually going on, and put emphasis on the sheer insanity of a pitched battle with sharp sticks and blades all around, arrows flying, fireballs bursting in air. Do I need a table to do that? Well, no. What I need the table for is so the players don't say "why me?" "why now?" "did he just decide that I almost lost my balance for a minute and lost my Dex vs. one attack?" No, I didn't. The dice did, randomly. And now I have an opportunity to break up the flow of combat for a minute of description. I use criticals the same way, as opportunities to heighten the feeling of immersion in a dangerous, but consistent, world. Usually, such moments of description take in the whole battlefield at that moment, highlighting a chain of events that lead to the decisive blow (the critical), or the near-catastrophe (the fumble). People think that a few extra die rolls "bog down" combat. In my experience, they can give everybody a minute to look up, and actually picture the battle, with more appreciation for what's going on, outside of attack and damage bonuses, and all the dry, mechanical stuff. It helps to put us all a little more in the fantasy world when it has mundane elements. It's a feel thing. Some don't like that feel, and that's peachy with me. But don't dismiss it as "comic relief."
LukiLoki 11-07-06, 04:35 PM	this was especially cool in the LoTR movies Not everybody holds that the faithful representation of a scene in a Hollywood movie is the purpose of a combat encounter.
Neratos 11-07-06, 04:38 PM	Arganis you do realize the difference between movie heroes and PCs? PCs can die, those you quoted will only die due to a sacrafice they choose. Second you did read the part about recovering a fumble right? In the case of legolas, his dex/combat skills would mean almost all 1s he rolled would only result in a miss. Second out of 40 shots legy took, did he miss even once? Script writers do not consult a d20 to determine if a hero misses. If your games resemble action movies, i would love to play a character who never misses when it matters and that villians can never hit any where important. DnD is not like movies, if it was it would be boring.
wrecan 11-07-06, 04:47 PM	Fumbles do not add realism? Not in D&D, which is not intended to be realistic. It's like stapling a Mickey Mouse hat to a dog and calling it a rat. Fumbles don't happen in real combat? Not once in 400 (two consecutive natural ones). And most fumble charts cause fumbles much more often than once in 400. The odds of it happening may be different than game mechanics, but crits are just as rare in real life. No, they aren't. A critical hit is merely a hit to a vital area. In real life, that's precisely what combatants aim for. The only reason we have critical hits at all is because the hit point system doesn't allow for location specific blows. It, like hp in general, is an abstraction. Critical failure rules are an attempt to import location-specific results into a system not designed for it. A 20 does not automatically entitle a crit, nor should a 1. Some ppl use dex checks others confirmation rolls. Even two natural ones in a row make critical failure too common. In the case of legolas, his dex/combat skills would mean almost all 1s he rolled would only result in a miss. One in four-hundred would still fumble, even under the most generous critical fumble system. If your games resemble action movies, i would love to play a character who never misses when it matters and that villians can never hit any where important. DnD is not like movies, if it was it would be boring. Nor is DnD like real combat. And stapling a critical failure rule set onto the hit point system is not going to enhance realism.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 04:55 PM	Fumbles do not add realism? Fumbles don't happen in real combat? Neither of those matters. The only question that needs addressing is "Do fumbles make the game more fun?" Unless the anser is a resounding "yes" then they, or any other house-rule for that matter, do not belong.
wrecan 11-07-06, 04:56 PM	I have seen fencers get a charlie horse in the middle of a match. That would be a critical fumble to me. This statement was really bugging me and I couldn't put my finger on why until just now. I've been to fencing matches as well. Generally it involves a dozen or more matches. A fencing match lasts three minutes. That's 360 rounds of combat with each round having two combatants. Even assuming nobody in fencing has a BAB over +5, that's 720 attack rolls. Assuming a fumble chart that hits only on two consecutive natural 1s, every fencing tournament should have about two critical fumbles! But if you get one of those in a match, it's shocking. In the Olympics, fumbles are even more rare, although, given that Olympic fencers should have a BAB over +5, they should have twice or three times as many attack rolls as those in amateur competitions. Yet, there are almost never incidents that would be called critical fumbles. Why? Because, despite the added realism of critical fumble rules, professionals fumble less frequently than amateurs.
LukiLoki 11-07-06, 04:59 PM	That'd be 180 seconds of combat, or 30 rounds. Edit: oh, you meant a dozen three minute matches. gotcha.
Neratos 11-07-06, 05:06 PM	Neither of those matters. The only question that needs addressing is "Do fumbles make the game more fun?" Unless the anser is a resounding "yes" then they, or any other house-rule for that matter, do not belong. Yes. The risk of failure is just that, a risk. If there is no risk, what is the point. If my PC can die in 1 crit from a monster, i want that monster to have a risk of screwing up. As a DM, i want my players to have the same risks as my monsters do. Do such risks favor Monsters, yes. Do the basic rules of the game favor monsters, yes. My monsters are disposable, unlike PCs. This all boils down to the odds of a disasturous failure. The standard fumble rules are not disasturous. Again, this is a matter of taists. Do you prefer a chaotic broiling melee combat, (and i don't mean close quarters fighting) or do you want strategic logical combat. Also in response to RL crits being intentional, this is true. But you have to realize in DnD there are no called shots, so you can't intentionally crit someone. The RL odds are that you are just trying to hit your opponent, and scoring a lucky lethal blow. If you have called shots, then the need for dice based crits should be removed. Further more, RL odds are drastically different than DnD odds. Skill in RL means far more than luck does. In DnD it leans more to the luck side.
Sulaco 11-07-06, 05:23 PM	this was especially cool in the LoTR movies Not everybody holds that the faithful representation of a scene in a Hollywood movie is the purpose of a combat encounter. You missed the point. Said movie would have been far less enjoyable, and far more comedic nonsense, if every 20th attack had the ostensible heroes shooting each other in the ass or cutting their own head off. The same holds true of D&D. The PCs are meant to be heroes, not bumbling clods. While you may be content to have them stumbling around and killing each other like monkeys in a gun shop but I, for one, am not. That is one of the reasons I suggested the system above - the thread topic, anyone remember that? ;) - as a way to integrate so-called "fumbles" without being overly punitive or damaging.
Neratos 11-07-06, 05:26 PM	how is dropping your weapon, killing each other? Also said movies are edited, who knows, legy could have missed and shot gimly in the a$$ for all we know. Now how long before someone calls me out on that last sentence lmao. ^_^
wrecan 11-07-06, 05:48 PM	Again, this is a matter of taists. Hasn't that been what I've been saying? If you have called shots, then the need for dice based crits should be removed. Similarly, if you have critical failure that has individualized effects (like muscle strain) you need to drop the hit-point system Further more, RL odds are drastically different than DnD odds.The realism isn't the objective, is it?
CryoSilver 11-07-06, 05:51 PM	My rule for critical misses: Roll nat 1; you miss and your next attack is made at a -2 penalty. That's it.
wrecan 11-07-06, 05:51 PM	how is dropping your weapon, killing each other? In post 50, you suggested: In japanese sword drawing, a miss step could result in a very nasty cut on your leg. You trip during a fight and fall on your sword. An arrow you shot glances off an enemies armor and strikes an ally. That's not dropping your weapon; you suggested that a critical fumble can inflict lethal damage on yourself or an ally and that's what Sulaco was calling you out on.
Neratos 11-07-06, 05:59 PM	those i mentioned where to show that fumbles happen in real life. I was advocating a fumble system, any system, and was disagreeing with that there should not be a fumble system.
wrecan 11-07-06, 06:39 PM	those i mentioned where to show that fumbles happen in real life. Who disputes that? I was advocating a fumble system, any system, and was disagreeing with that there should not be a fumble system. So is your argument that a fumble system is realistic or not? Because when I point out how unrealistic a fumble system is you write "RL odds are drastically different than DnD odds" which indicates to me that you don't think a fumble system should approximate real life. When I point out that the hit point system is a mere abstraction and that fumble mechanics contradict their assumptions, you claim that "fumbles happen in real life". So why is it again you would advocate for "any" fumble system because I really don't grok your rationale.
Arganis 11-07-06, 06:46 PM	You missed the point. Said movie would have been far less enjoyable, and far more comedic nonsense, if every 20th attack had the ostensible heroes shooting each other in the ass or cutting their own head off. Exactly right. That and the allusion to Legolas' sexual preferences. :rolleyes: I think everyone should take a deep breath and approach the issue with a fresh outlook. Not because I think it will change anyone's mind, but because I think that the current path of this conversation is leading us to a pointless conflict. Though I disagree with you, LukiLoki, your description of your critical fumble table suggests that it's something of a brainchild of yours. If that's the case, I want you to know that I respect that. I'm interested in the possible results (as well as some of your favorite descriptions of them) on your fumble table. The title of this thread is in fact, A Critical Fumble System that isn't totally FUBAR, so let's take a look at it man.
Neratos 11-07-06, 06:47 PM	The odds of RL comment was refering to the Fencing example. I think i need to be more specific to who i am responding to. I was disputing with the ppl that stated fumbles are not realistic. I advocate a fumble system, because it brings a sense of risk. I claim that dnd is a game that mirrors reality in a slightly scewed way. With that, my poor attempts at making a point come to an end. I recomend Dragons Fumble/Crit Charts/methods out of the compendium. I have had great success using it as a DM and a player.
Arganis 11-07-06, 06:51 PM	With that, my poor attempts at making a point come to an end. Actually dude, I think that last post was an excellent explanation of your views. I don't believe it was a point poorly made.
LukiLoki 11-07-06, 07:44 PM	Hey, thanks for asking. If a fumble is confirmed (parallel, but reversed, crit. confirm roll), I roll a d12 (some have suggested that I devised this table solely to use the die). 1-3 Fall Down (DC 10 Balance check avoids) 4-6 Drop weapon (DC 15 Reflex save avoids) So, right there, you can see, 50% even of confirmed fumbles can be negated by fairly low DC rolls, rolls that higher level PCs will make a higher percentage of the time. The other 50% is the bad stuff (mostly) 7-8 Roll damage vs. weapon (This ends up similar to Sulaco's OP, where weapons become damaged and might break) 9 Armor trouble (treat as Entangled until combatant takes a standard action to fix the trouble) This is like losing a turn, but you have the option to keep fighting at a penalty or withdrawing before using the action. Okay, so it's these last ones that will get me in trouble with those who hate fumbles. The twist on these is the confirmation roll must hit the indicated AC. So a low confirm roll, which would be a fumble on the above results, would likely not be on these. 10 Hit foe (yep, this miss is so bad, it's good. Either you hit the intended target as a kind of fluke, or, preferentially if there are other candidate targets, like with a ranged attack, you randomly strike an enemy combatant) 11 Hit ally 12 Hit self The main thing is that if the result doesn't make sense (you can't hit yourself with a ranged or reach weapon, usually; you can't hit a friend with a melee weapon if there's no one in reach) then there's no fumble, it's just a miss. I don't go re-rolling on the table. Also, these rolls are extremely fudgeable. If the combat has already been an unlucky one for the party, or things are looking bad, I'm not going to pile on with a fumble, just like I might "pull" an enemy's critical if I knew it would kill a PC. (I might. I might not.) As far as how I might describe the result, that is very context-dependent. Usually, I try to tie it in with what has already happened within the last round. I'll try an example. Like say if two PCs were fighting back-to-back, and one had just been hit hard by a foe. Then the other fumbles and it comes up "Fall Down." I might say (real PC names from my group) "The ogre swats Andaku a mighty blow with his club, nearly sending him flying. He staggers for a second, stumbling backwards, just as Lodi sets his feet and lunges with his sword. Their feet become momentarily tangled, and Lodi falls down/nearly loses his balance" (depending on the result of the Balance check). The Armor trouble result, I usually try to tie into a near-miss or a hit that the PC just sustained. "Last turn, the ogre very nearly clobbered you with his club. Only the steel of your helm saved you from senselessness. The blow knocked it askew, though, and now as you whirl and slash at the ogre, it slips over one eye, obscuring your view of the battlefield." Like I've said, I try to use fumbles and criticals as a spur to description and a way to get everyone out of number-crunching mode for a second and appreciating what's happening in the battle, from the characters' point of view. With criticals, I try to set the scene with my description and then let the player take the spotlight, and describe his PC's awesome blow.
Koverchenko 11-07-06, 10:46 PM	Wow--lot's of ideas in this thread. I think maybe I'll just heap my own up onto the pile. I am a very strong proponent of fumbles--battle is a tense, crazy, and disorienting affair, and mistakes are a big part of it. A battle with no chance of a mistake other than missing will be a very dull battle, in my opinion. Plus, fumbles are funny, and so many DnD campaigns get so absurdly serious that it is necessary to incorporate something to make the big self-important PC characters humble once in a while. Here is the system I use: On a roll of 1 on an attack roll, the player must make another D20 roll. The player adds his or her Dex modifier and his or her base attack bonus to it (you could also simply have the player add his or her level--this would decrease the distinction between martial and other classes, and it would also wind up eliminating fumbles almost completely much past 10th level, which is not unreasonable, I think). It represents an attack that was poorly executed and requires a quick recovery to avoid disaster. You then tally up the total on the roll, and apply the following effects: 16 or higher: The character suffers no horrible fate, but simply misses (feel free to add a mocking comment about how bad the attack was in your description of the action). 11-15: the character bobbles the weapon but manages to keep hold of it. In order to recover, however, the character loses his or her standard action next turn. 6-10: the character bobbles the weapon and fails to keep hold of it. The weapon falls to the ground in the character's space, and picking it up will provoke an attack of opportunity. If the weapon was a ranged weapon, the ammo is considered discharged, meaning that the weapon must be reloaded in order to fire it. 1-5: this means trouble, no doubt about it (of course, because of the base attack/level based modifier, it should only happen at low levels or on weak attacks). If rolled with a melee weapon, the character spazes out so bad that the weapon goes flying and lands in a random square 10 ft away. If someone is occupying that space, he or she is attacked by the weapon (using the failing player's base attack bonus with a -4 unintentional attack penalty applied). A ranged weapon likewise goes flying 10 ft away and suffers minor damage that requires 1d4 rounds to repair (for instance, a bow needs to be restrung or a sling gets tangled and needs to be straightened out, etc). I have used this system in each of my campaigns, and it seems to work rather well--it keeps things interesting and maintains the very realistic and important possibility of mistakes in a frantic life-and-death struggle, but it is also not completely crippling. And because the chance of a truly horrible mess-up decreases as the character gains levels, it also takes into account the fact that more experienced fighters will make fewer mistakes. My players have never played a monk, and so I never had to figure out how it would work for an unarmed attack (I ruled that natural weapons cannot critically fumble). However, it could easily be adapted--imagine a monk who mistimes/misjudges the distance to target and winds up hitting something hard before his or her fist is tightened for impact. The monk could lose his next standard action because he is reeling from the pain of smacking a loose hand on a piece of armor. A super low roll could provoke an attack of opportunity. It is a matter of DM judgement as to whether the roll bonus should be based off of base attack bonus or level--basing it off of level is perhaps a bit kinder, but basing it off of base attack bonus is perhaps a bit more realistic. It allows a fighter to retain his or her super-huge primary attack, but for additional attacks imposes a lingering risk of screw up. It forces the fighter to think about his or her tactics, rather than simply closing to melee and unloading full attack after full attack.
Mystic Lemur 05-07-07, 12:38 AM	I choose to raise this thread from the dead. Enjoy! :D
CroBob 05-07-07, 01:59 AM	More die rolls = more chances to roll a 1. ... If I roll a d20 twenty times I have 1:1 odds of getting a 1. False. If you roll a d20 20 times, you have a 20:400 chance of getting 1. You have the same odds more frequently. It's possible (though not at all likely) to roll a d20 a hundred times every day and never roll a 1.
stout 05-07-07, 10:29 AM	My thought is when you start playing around with the combat mechanics, you're not leading entertaining enough adventures. Entertaining != Tougher Combats. Need some story line to go in there as filler, "As you swing your bastard sword, the scene playing out before you reminds you of your childhood days, playing with your fathers longsword. Momentarily distracted by that memory, you attempt using the bastard sword as a long sword and it just doesn't work quiet right, causing you to fail miserably in your attack. You sware that the dwarf is laughing at you!"
IceFractal 05-07-07, 11:41 AM	I've so far seen one fumble chart I liked, and it was in someone's sig. It went something like: On a natural 1, roll 1d100, and consult the following table: 01-09 - You miss. 10-24 - You are thrown off balance and automatically miss the target. 25-49 - Swing wildly - your attack goes off course and doesn't hit at all. 50-74 - You overextend yourself and your attack fails. 75-90 - Dust gets in your eyes, you miss your foe completely. 91-00 - Serious Failure! Roll twice and take both results. 3 Important things about Fumbles: 1) Neither critical hits or fumbles are extraordinarily rare. At high-levels, they can come up easily twice a minute per combatant. Even a low-levels, a couple a battle isn't uncommon. 2) A critical hit is not an uber-strike of DOOM ... it just does extra damage. +100% to +300% extra damage, depending on the weapon. Equivalent to 1-3 hits. 3) If fumbling happens on a natural 1, then in a group of 1000 soldiers, there would be 50 fumbles a minute. So if the fumble chart is harsh, you've got to wonder how any army could survive itself.
IceFractal 05-07-07, 12:01 PM	But despite the perfection of the above system, I feel compelled to post my own, hopefully mathematically correct fumble system. Here's the basis: A critical hit adds extra damage. For a 20/x2 critical hit, this is basically +100% damage on a confirmed 20. There are better critical ranges, but there shouldn't be higher miss ranges, because no-one designs a weapon to miss more often. Therefore, to be symmetrical, a critical miss should do -100% damage on a confirmed 1. -100% damage is equivalent to one attack, so let's say they lose one attack. Now as to confirming - really this might not be based on the foe at all, but I could believe that a more agile foe might result in more fumbling, so let's base it on Touch AC. So, the complete system: New Condition: Off-Balance When off-balance, a character is disoriented and will automatically miss their next attack roll. The condition goes away after making any attack or spending a standard action to regain balance. Critical Fumble Rules On a natural 1, roll again against the target's Touch AC. If this also results in a miss, a critical fumble has occured. The attacker is now Off-Balance. Expanded Fumble Rules The result of being automatically Off-Balance could be tweaked into a range with the same average. For instance: 01-25 - Just a miss. 26-75 - Off-Balance. 76-00 - Off-Balance for two attacks. Then it would be possible to let player's "buy off" levels of Off-Balance in exchange for other effects such as wear on the weapon or tripping. But there should always be the option of simply being Off-Balance. The benefit of this system is that it doesn't penalize higher-level warriors more. With more attacks per round, fumbles will happen more often but be relatively less severe (losing 1 attack out of 7 isn't as bad as 1 out of 2). Also, if you just use the simple rules and not the expanded ones, extra rolls are kept to a minimum. Plus, it's actually symmetrical - decapitating yourself is not symmetrical with getting a critical hit.
LordLongshadow 05-08-07, 10:58 AM	Personally, I find critical fumbles diruptive to the game, but here is what I use. You roll a one and make a DC 10 check against the relavent ability. If they fail then they lose all remaining attacks and actions until their next turn. Badda-Bing!
Maldrin 05-08-07, 01:13 PM	What I've started doing is this: Critical hit: On a critical threat, roll again. If it hits, then the hit is critical. Nothing special here. If you roll within your critical range again, it's confirmed critical. But now you also roll a third time. If it's within the critical range only, it's a lethal shot, killing your target. If it's a non-critical hit, a miss, or a 1, it's just a plain critical. Certain big bads might have a sort of script immunity to the insta-kill, so it's all at DM's discretion. Critical fumble: I do like the idea of confirming a critical fumble like a critical hit, so I'll probably incorporate that. But thus far, I've been doing things like this: if you are threatened by the target you're attacking in melee (basically not sneak attacking or denying their Dex bonus), then your wild swing opens you up to a free attack of opportunity. This does not count against their AoO limit for the round since it's sort of in the give-and-take of combat. I do allow monster criticals, but not the death blow critical, and I also allow the AoO fumble since I think it makes combat more interesting.