Well, yeah, sure. You should. Makes sense to me. But most critical fumble rules take it too far, making a critical fumble far worse than a critical hit is good. To the point where a critical fumble is not the opposite of a critical hit, as it should be.
So, I came up with the only proper way to do critical fumbles. But first, let's examine exactly what a critical hit is. I'll be using 4e rules but the concept applies to other editions and even other games as well.
In 4e, if you roll a natural 20, you automatically hit, and IIRC, if you would hit on a 20 anyway, then you crit and deal maximum weapon damage.
So, to do a critical fumble properly, we need the OPPOSITE of that.
So a natural 1 should automatically miss (the opposite of a natural 20 automatically hitting). And if you would normally miss on a 1, then you critically fumble and deal 0 weapon damage, the opposite of maximum weapon damage.
/win
Everyone who tries to come up with critical fumble rules always gets it wrong, imho. I understand the idea. There are critical hits, so why not critical fumbles? If there's one, you should have the other as its counterpart, right?
Well, yeah, sure. You should. Makes sense to me. But most critical fumble rules take it too far, making a critical fumble far worse than a critical hit is good. To the point where a critical fumble is not the opposite of a critical hit, as it should be.
So, I came up with the only proper way to do critical fumbles. But first, let's examine exactly what a critical hit is. I'll be using 4e rules but the concept applies to other editions and even other games as well.
In 4e, if you roll a natural 20, you automatically hit, and IIRC, if you would hit on a 20 anyway, then you crit and deal maximum weapon damage.
So, to do a critical fumble properly, we need the OPPOSITE of that.
So a natural 1 should automatically miss (the opposite of a natural 20 automatically hitting). And if you would normally miss on a 1, then you critically fumble and deal 0 weapon damage, the opposite of maximum weapon damage.
/win
While I don't agree with the implementation of critical fumble rules, this seems to be the most reasonable implementation I've seen.
One thing: sans a magic weapon/implement (and its crit-activated extra damage), the most a character can do maximum damage. The minimum it can do is it's minimum damage. Ex: Magic Missile pre-Epic with a +4 Int modifier (2d4 + 4). Max damage is 12, min damage is 6.
I recommend that the rule be "roll a natural 1, you auto-miss; if the power still deals damage on a miss (Miss: Half Damage, etc.), you then deal half your minimum damage (pretending for a moment that Magic Missile dealt damage on a miss for a moment, it would be 3)." I see that as being the opposite of max damage, as opposed to 0 damage.
Amusing. Well-played :D
We should link this to anyone looking for critical fumble rules from now on.
EDIT: Tectorman made me realize something: this rule does technically affect powers that deal damage on a miss. Those powers don't deal damage on a miss if you roll a 1. Meh, to me, that's alright.
EDIT: Tectorman made me realize something: this rule does technically affect powers that deal damage on a miss. Those powers don't deal damage on a miss if you roll a 1. Meh, to me, that's alright.
But doesn't the specific override the general? So those powers still do damage on a miss.
But doesn't the specific override the general? So those powers still do damage on a miss.
That would be correct.
So a natural 1 should automatically miss (the opposite of a natural 20 automatically hitting). And if you would normally miss on a 1, then you critically fumble and deal 0 weapon damage, the opposite of maximum weapon damage.
But, if you miss, most of the time (or, perhaps, rather, all of the time) when you totally miss something, you don't quite hit it, and thus deal no damage anyway. So what's the use of this rule?
But, if you miss, most of the time (or, perhaps, rather, all of the time) when you totally miss something, you don't quite hit it, and thus deal no damage anyway. So what's the use of this rule?
Exactly.
particularly if you look at all the upcoming stuff, like druid, who dont even deal damage on a successful hit but, if they do hit the subject and the hit target doesnt perform a specific action, it takes damage (much like the paladin's mark).
We should link this to anyone looking for critical fumble rules from now on.
There are many things I would like to understand before I leave this world. A few mysteries, I have some hope of grasping. There is one I think you could be just the person to help me solve.
Tell me, what is it that inspires so many to make of themselves crusaders for their particular, favorite fetish? I ask because, clearly, you are rather dedicated to evangelizing your own.
If you don't like critical fumble tables, or critical hit tables, I would expect you not to add them to your game. But I am surprised to find that you, and others like you, are compelled to doggedly encourage the rest of us to do as you would do.
What queer reaction of forces must play within your brain to produce such irrational behavior?
I await your elucidation.
What queer reaction of forces must play within your brain to produce such irrational behavior?
I await your elucidation.
Usually that DMs want these rules, not players - often not realising that these rules put the PCs at a disadvantage.
If they know that and the players that play in that DM's campaign know that too and accept it, then it's fine.
Cheers, LT.
Critical Fumbles aren't good DMing. They indicate a poor understanding of how the game works and why, and they indicate a poor understanding of what makes a game fun. Therefore, we like to discourage them the same way we would discourage a DM from going out of his way to specifically kill characters, or running a game with PCs of level 5 alongside PCs of level 15, or running a game with a DMPC main character, or giving a Holy Avenger to a level 1 Paladin.
...they indicate a poor understanding of what makes a game fun.
What system do you use to measure "fun"? Imperial or metric?
What system do you use to measure "fun"? Imperial or metric?
The units in Imperial are more evocative, but the conversion's easy so either will do.
What system do you use to measure "fun"? Imperial or metric?
The same system that tells me that going out for ice cream with some of my closest friends is more fun than jabbing shards of glass into my eyes until I bleed to death. :D
Am i missing something?
Yes. Sarcasm and Parody. ;)
The same system that tells me that going out for ice cream with some or my closest friends is more fun than jabbing shards of glass into my eyes until I bleed to death. :D
That's your fetish. What business is it of your's, what is mine?
That's your fetish. What business is it of your's, what is mine?
Hey, you asked, so you got the answer. If you don't like the answer, too bad.
I've been playing with a different approach as a foil to Second Wind.
Critical Fumble: Once per encounter you (the player) may choose for your character to make a critical fumble when you miss on an attack. The power has no effects on the miss and the DM introduces an inconvenience appropriate to the situation, such as you grant combat advantage until the end of your next turn or your arrow strikes someone in the crowd, etc. In recompense you may spend a healing surge as a free action.
(I'm also thinking about changing it to you regain an expended healing surge to make critical fumbles more likely when the PCs are pressed into an encounter without having a short rest before and their healing surges are expended so they can't use second wind...but this seems too rare an occurence)
Now, losing a surge? Might be more reasonable as a critical fumble rule, not entirely sure. It shortens your day but doesn't necessarily hurt your chances in the current encounter. Still not a fan, but better that than a "Miss: Grant combat advantage until the end of your next turn; spend a healing surge" tacked onto every power.
Not that I'm a fan of critical fumble rules anyway, but why would it be beneficial? I mean, spending a healing surge that might keep me alive longer on a miss? I'll take that every time even with CA or killing random bystanders. (That second one might be a benefit too, depending on my character's views on the sanctity of life. *cough-Raven-Queen-followers-cough*)
Now, losing a surge? Might be more reasonable as a critical fumble rule, not entirely sure. It shortens your day but doesn't necessarily hurt your chances in the current encounter. Still not a fan, but better that than a "Miss: Grant combat advantage until the end of your next turn; spend a healing surge" tacked onto every power.
Possible ... but you still run into the problem that certain classes (e.g. wizards) make a lot more attack rolls that other classes. It greatly enhances the frailty of those classes over classes that make fewer attack rolls per round. You'd almost have to restrict it to the first attack roll a player makes in a turn.
Furthermore, it's a critical fumble rule that only affects players. Monsters have very few healing surges to start (1 per tier) and very few monsters actually have the ability to use a healing surge, so the loss of a healing surge is a non-penalty for them.
Overall, I still favor the OPs concept. Simple, elegant, and it works within the framework of the 4E ruleset.
Possible ... but you still run into the problem that certain classes (e.g. wizards) make a lot more attack rolls that other classes. It greatly enhances the frailty of those classes over classes that make fewer attack rolls per round. You'd almost have to restrict it to the first attack roll a player makes in a turn.
Furthermore, it's a critical fumble rule that only affects players. Monsters have very few healing surges to start (1 per tier) and very few monsters actually have the ability to use a healing surge, so the loss of a healing surge is a non-penalty for them.
Points noted. Like I said, I'm not a fan of punishing people for bad rolls anyway (I like carrots, although a nice cinnamon stick does work wonders). I suppose I ought to give it the chance of thinking it through. If I can find it, I know there's precedence for losing surge value if you can't lose a surge... And that would make it an absolute horror on monsters. Two critical fumbles could discorporate a god. Way overpowered. Nixing the idea in its entirety. Ignore me.
Overall, I still favor the OPs concept. Simple, elegant, and it works within the framework of the 4E ruleset.
Agreed. It was just that quickleaf's sounded too beneficial for a negative result.
Everyone who tries to come up with critical fumble rules always gets it wrong, imho. I understand the idea. There are critical hits, so why not critical fumbles? If there's one, you should have the other as its counterpart, right?
Well, yeah, sure. You should. Makes sense to me. But most critical fumble rules take it too far, making a critical fumble far worse than a critical hit is good. To the point where a critical fumble is not the opposite of a critical hit, as it should be.
So, I came up with the only proper way to do critical fumbles. But first, let's examine exactly what a critical hit is. I'll be using 4e rules but the concept applies to other editions and even other games as well.
In 4e, if you roll a natural 20, you automatically hit, and IIRC, if you would hit on a 20 anyway, then you crit and deal maximum weapon damage.
So, to do a critical fumble properly, we need the OPPOSITE of that.
So a natural 1 should automatically miss (the opposite of a natural 20 automatically hitting). And if you would normally miss on a 1, then you critically fumble and deal 0 weapon damage, the opposite of maximum weapon damage.
/failed
While there are some flaws in your system (mainly sarcasm), your idea did spark the idea of a pretty good/balanced critical fumble system.
With your opposite thinking you can come up with the following:
Normal Damage (is the opposite of) Zero Damage
Maximum Damage (is the opposite of) Zero Damage even on a miss attack.
There are some power/effects that trigger on a critical hit so the opposite of that would be to ignore the triggers on a missed attack by fumbling.
Thanks for the idea, I'll have to reword it properly and implement this in my campaign soon.
/win
I also implemented critical fumbles, which was great until one ofthe players was fumbling instead of those pesky monsters. He goes off on a tirade about "It's a sword. Its like a big knife. It has a HANDLE! How do you fumble with something like this?"
To add emphasis to his argument, he'd grabbed my kid borther's plastic sword and was showing how my argument about using it in a confined space in combat could cause 'unforseen consequences,' and just as he asked how it was possible to fumble with the sword, he accidentally struck one of the glasses of Coca Cola. Being made of real glass, the container broke, and one piece flew into the air and stabbed him right in his sword arm, about halfway between the wrist and elbow.
"I guess I'll just shut up now," he said.
We all got a great laugh (or a great many through the years) over that, but we never did set up those instant karma rules.....
On a D20 roll of 1 : Roll a D8. If you roll above your DEXT bonus you drop your weapon/spellbook/holy symbol to the floor... Now that's a FUMBLE rule ;)
It seems to bring my players fun to no end, when giant rats go skittering across the floor and the evil wizard's ultimate spell fizzles and/or explodes in his face.
There are many things I would like to understand before I leave this world. A few mysteries, I have some hope of grasping. There is one I think you could be just the person to help me solve.
Tell me, what is it that inspires so many to make of themselves crusaders for their particular, favorite fetish? I ask because, clearly, you are rather dedicated to evangelizing your own.
If you don't like critical fumble tables, or critical hit tables, I would expect you not to add them to your game. But I am surprised to find that you, and others like you, are compelled to doggedly encourage the rest of us to do as you would do.
What queer reaction of forces must play within your brain to produce such irrational behavior?
I await your elucidation.
Look in the mirror, and while you're at it, learn to laugh at a good joke.
There are many things I would like to understand before I leave this world. A few mysteries, I have some hope of grasping. There is one I think you could be just the person to help me solve.
Tell me, what is it that inspires so many to make of themselves crusaders for their particular, favorite fetish? I ask because, clearly, you are rather dedicated to evangelizing your own.
If you don't like critical fumble tables, or critical hit tables, I would expect you not to add them to your game. But I am surprised to find that you, and others like you, are compelled to doggedly encourage the rest of us to do as you would do.
What queer reaction of forces must play within your brain to produce such irrational behavior?
I await your elucidation.
There are a few reasons.
1. Trying to make the world a happier place. Critical fumbles are not a net source of joy; they'e a net source of pain and misery and overall unpleasantness. If the world is happier, we can all be happier, and if there were no critical fumbles in D&D, the world would be happier.
2. Frustration with playing in games that use them. Not everyone has a dozen DMs lined up to run games in their area, which makes the options when a DM uses a silly, annoying house rule "play in a game that's a lot less fun that it should be, because of some misguided idea that's somehow gotten lodged so deep in D&D culture that it appears it'll take invasive surgery to get it out" or "not play at all." Neither of these options is a source of joy and sunshine, and, thus, we choose a third option: Try to contribute to said invasive surgery. If we can't influence present DMs to stop using the bloody things, we might at least be able to convince new DMs not to start by posting up just how bad an idea it is. Thus, critical fumbles might someday cease to be a norm in D&D, and we might someday get to play in games that reach their full potential.
3. Because it's fun! Since we can't get our fun in fumble-free D&D games (see point 2), we have to get it elsewhere. Mathematically dissecting the D&D system and discussing the horrible effects fumble mechanics have on it is one way - especially if you're a math and game mechanics geek. Which I am.
That answer your question?
By the by, in my case, the answer is mostly #2. I see a lot of issues with D&D culture that both make the game less fun for me and make it harder to bring new people in, and would like to do my part to change said culture.
Basically, Crit fails are only fun if they spice up a seemingly straightforward encounter. They are not fun if they kill pcs. Crit fumbles shoud be cinematic events, and no more. There is no need for anything more mechanical than "you miss" but a DM should realize, that when a one pops up comedy can happen. It just depends on the situation. If a player has done something ridiculous, (using urine to wipe out a summoning circle?) describe something ridiculous back but play the game the way it's meant to be played mechanically: If the vamp's slam attack hadn't of been a nat 20 and my rogue hadn't of been so exposed, we prolly wouldn't still be laughing at his character. Objectively, the vamp only did max damage. Subjectively the rogue now wants to emasculate every BBEG he meets.
On a side note, Best Crit success ever: Level one rogue sticks an atropal in a bag of holding. Two nat 20's and one dead rogue later, the rest of the party has an ([pun]) ungodly ([/pun]) monster in a bag. Don't know what they planned to do with the critter since that arc sort of died, but it was pretty sweet.
I've experimented with crit fumble rules throughout my current campaign and I've come to the conclusion that players remember the epic fails just as much as the successes only if they're funny, and overcome. My cleric has teased the ranger about not shooting over his (the cleric's) shoulder with a smile. My rogue is kept a bit in line because of his nat one attempt at peeing on a summoning circle in order to disable it (the vampire counterattacked with great success...).
Basically, Crit fails are only fun if they spice up a seemingly straightforward encounter. They are not fun if they kill pcs. Crit fumbles shoud be cinematic events, and no more. There is no need for anything more mechanical than "you miss" but a DM should realize, that when a one pops up comedy can happen. It just depends on the situation. If a player has done something ridiculous, (using urine to wipe out a summoning circle?) describe something ridiculous back but play the game the way it's meant to be played mechanically: If the vamp's slam attack hadn't of been a nat 20 and my rogue hadn't of been so exposed, we prolly wouldn't still be laughing at his character. Objectively, the vamp only did max damage. Subjectively the rogue now wants to emasculate every BBEG he meets.
On a side note, Best Crit success ever: Level one rogue sticks an atropal in a bag of holding. Two nat 20's and one dead rogue later, the rest of the party has an ([pun]) ungodly ([/pun]) monster in a bag. Don't know what they planned to do with the critter since that arc sort of died, but it was pretty sweet.
That is actually a good way to play "critical fumbles" (if you want to call them that). It's more or less what I do; I'll change my description based on the roll even though nothing changes mechanically.
My 2 cents.
I have no issue - none! - with flavoring failed attacks based on how far they missed the defense by. My issue is when a penalty beyond that which the game already applies for a bad roll is applied.
"Fumbles" can make good fluff, but they're bad crunch.
"Fumbles" can make good fluff, but they're bad crunch.
Word.
I flavor misses based on how much they are by myself. An attack that barely misses (1-2 points) will be described as bouncing off armor or being glancing but not enough to deal damage. One that misses by more than that is described as flying wide.
A natural 1 is described as a product of misfortune. Thus, in some ways, there is a penalty involved... since the players don't know the defenses of monsters and use my descriptions as cues to what they might be, a miss by misfortune gives them no useful information. It's not a mechanical penalty, but it is a loss of what could be useful knowledge.