So it is balanced! Forget about me trying to balance the fumbles in this thread, the problem has been solved. Thanks for all your help.
Then again...how can we make that player with the multiple attacks in one power not be upset with all his fumbles?
Maybe we could use some kind of credit/debit system?
It'd work like this;
If a player meets all the requirements for a critical hit, he then has the choice of either taking the critical hit or just have the hit considered a normal hit. If he uses it as a normal hit then nothing extra happens. If he takes it as a critical hit, then he now has one debit towards a fumble. Which means if a character meets all the requirements for a critical fumble and he has any debit points he must fumble. If the character meets all the requirements for a critical fumble but doesn't have any debit points then he doesn't fumble.
You can also build credit this way too. If you meet all the requirements for a fumble but don't have any debit points you can still take the fumble anyway and gain a credit point. If you meet the requirements for a critical hit and have a credit point you can take the critical hit without gaining a debit point.
This way people can control how many fumbles they have and can only be upset at themselves if they take a fumble.
How does this sound?
NEW FEAT
Opportunist
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent character ends their
turn due to a mishap roll, you may make an opportunity
attack against that character.
Do you think this helps balance the critical fumble problem? [/hide]
The dungeon master guide says that characters using powers with multiple attack rolls will fumble more than those with out.
I like the idea of critical fumbles but I also understand why it's not good to have in the game. Call me stuborn but I've tried to put together a way where I can still use Critical Fumbles in my game while trying to make them balanced.
Here's what I've come up with (I call them mishaps since there are a number of different things that could happen with a roll of a 1)
When a character rolls a natural 1 and misses by 5 or more points then they roll another d20 and consult the approprate chart.
There are two charts. Chart one (single attack roll per power) and Chart two (multiple attack roll per power)
Chart one:
1 Dazed
2 Prone
3 Prone
4 Lose a Healing Surge
5 Attack an Ally
6 Combat Advantage
7 Combat Advantage
8 Combat Advantage
9 Combat Advantage
10 Combat Advantage
11 Combat Advantage
12 Combat Advantage
13 Combat Advantage
14 Drop Item
15 End Turn
16 End Turn
17 No Effect
18 No Effect
19 No Effect
20 No Effect
Chart two:
1 Dazed
2 Prone
3 Prone
4 Lose a Healing Surge
5 Attack an Ally
6 Combat Advantage
7 Combat Advantage
8 Combat Advantage
9 Combat Advantage
10 Drop Item
11 End Turn
12 End Turn
13 No Effect
14 No Effect
15 No Effect
16 No Effect
17 No Effect
18 No Effect
19 No Effect
20 No Effect
Dazed: Attacking creature becomes dazed (save ends) and ends turn.
Prone: Attacking creature becomes prone and ends turn.
Lose a Healing Surge: Attacking creature loses a healing surge and ends turn.
Attack an Ally: Reroll the missed attack randomly targeting the nearest ally to the original target or area within range then ends turn.
Combat Advantage: Grant Combat advantage to enemies and end turn.
Drop item: Drop an item in hand (if possible) that was used in the attack (weapon, impliment, etc.) end turn.
End Turn: End turn with no addtional effect.
No effect: Treat the roll only as a missed attack with no penalty.
NEW FEAT
Opportunist
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent character ends their turn due to a mishap roll, you may make an opportunity attack against that character.
Do you think this helps balance the critical fumble problem?
It seems way overcomplicated. I'm personally against the idea of critical fumbles in any system (except possibly Rolemaster - the tables were just too much wacky fun) - but the multiple attack mechanism in 4E makes the idea particularly broken in this game. Auto-failure on a 1 is more than sufficient to counterbalance critical hits.
That said, the DM in a game I'm playing in leans more towards your mind set and has implemented a system that isn't mechanically broken. The rule is: if you roll a 1 on an attack roll, you provoke an attack of opportunity. It provides a reasonable penalty for a clumsy maneuver and, no matter how many 1s you roll, you can't provoke more than one opportunity attack per opponent during your turn. It can still be a pretty nasty disadvantage, but as long as it's played fair it isn't unbalancing and the mechanism is simple enough to not bog down play.
My GM basically just makes a second d20 roll when we roll a 1. First, 1 is an automiss. Second, if he rolls low on the second d20 other stuff might happen based on the circumstances of the scenario. It's more role than roll. If it's decently high (above 7-ish), nothing bad happens, it's just automiss.
If he rolls a 1 on the second d20 though, usually we hit another player, or if no one else is near, drop our weapon on our foot or something and hit ourselves - sometimes he might even have us break the weapon, but that is rare. If he does roll a 1, he rolls a third d20 which, if low enough, causes the breakage or something similarly horrible.
I like Rikiji's Dm's concept, but it doesn't address ranged crit misses.
As you already mentioned, characters like the Ranger are doubly susceptible to fumbles if he uses Twin Strike often. I can go on regarding the lack of balance I have experienced in my time using critical fumbles. I have even tried to balance things to make up for the fact that ranged combattants usually try to be away from the fray. In the end I decided to forget about critical fumbles. In my experience, no one missed fumbling.
Looking at the chart you have, many of the effects can result from various class powers or monster abilities. If you want to knock someone down, use the power. If you want combat advantage us a power or tactical maneuvering to gain it. In 4E, instead of someone randomly gaining some condition, the condition is placed deliberately. I think it is more fun for the players if they knock someone prone when they deliberately tried to do that with a power rather than all of a sudden someone happens to slip and falls down randomly.
I appologise for not being more supportive, but in my experience, critical fumbles may seem cool at the start, but do not enhance the game in the long run after the novelty wears off. If you do decide to implement a critical fumble system, be aware of the inequities that will arise.
If I was to say that if you rolled a d20 and had a result lower than your targets AC, it is considered a miss. Everybody is fine with that because it’s all part of the plan.
But if I was to say that one itsy-bitsy number on the d20 would result in a little bit of uncertainty then everybody freaks outs! It’s not according to the plan.
I am an agent of chaos. I’m like a DM chasing a d20, I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it.
Now that I got my Dark Knight reference out of the way, seriously, I didn’t create this post to spark up the debate of whether or not critical fumbles should be part of the game.
They are not officially part of the game. However the designers must have at the very least thought about adding critical fumbles in 4th ed. since they have that little blurp about it in the DMG. I created this thread to find out if this is a balanced solution to fumbles.
In the DMG they told us how they would do critical fumbles and they told us why they are unbalanced. Thus opening the door for a house rule to try and balance them. This is my shot.
THEY SAID: Natural roll of 1 = end of turn and grant combat advantage.
I SAY: Sounds good.
THEY SAID: The problem with this is with powers that grant multiple attacks will have those players rolling critical fumbles more often.
I SAY: Wouldn’t that mean they would be rolling critical hits more often as well? However, I will try to “fix” this problem so I can add fumbles to my combat without my players complaining that it’s unfair to those players with multiple attacks.
My idea first came like this: If a player rolls a fumble using a power with multiple attacks then they must roll a dice. Even: No Effect, Odd: fumbles. But now players with multiple attack powers have the chance to “ignore” fumbles so I should also give this chance to players with single attacks.
Then I figured if I’m going to have my players rolling to see if the fumble is a fumble or not then maybe I could create a chart that had different degree of fumbles without anybody losing a limb or weapon.
Chart one is the single attack chart. After rolling a natural 1, roll a d20 and follow the result. I don’t see how this is complicated. I’ve seen some complicated charts before. Tons of dice rolling because person rolled a natural 1, only to find out that that player loses an eye!
Chart two is for powers that have multiple attacks. They have more No Effect results so to balance out the fact that they will roll more fumbles than normal.
Now for some responses: (Thanks for the responses by the way.)
It seems way overcomplicated. I'm personally against the idea of critical fumbles in any system (except possibly Rolemaster - the tables were just too much wacky fun) - but the multiple attack mechanism in 4E makes the idea particularly broken in this game. Auto-failure on a 1 is more than sufficient to counterbalance critical hits.
That's the idea behind the charts to fix the critical failure because of the multiple attack mechanism and I disagree that a auto-fail on a 1 is sufficient. That doesn't balance anything except the auto-hit on a 20.
That said, the DM in a game I'm playing in leans more towards your mind set and has implemented a system that isn't mechanically broken. The rule is: if you roll a 1 on an attack roll, you provoke an attack of opportunity. It provides a reasonable penalty for a clumsy maneuver and, no matter how many 1s you roll, you can't provoke more than one opportunity attack per opponent during your turn. It can still be a pretty nasty disadvantage, but as long as it's played fair it isn't unbalancing and the mechanism is simple enough to not bog down play.
The idea works except your DM hasn't fixed the problem just disguised it. Instead of granting combat advantage he allows an attack of opportunity. The problem still exists since a power with multiple attacks will roll a 1 more often then a power with only one attack.
My GM basically just makes a second d20 roll when we roll a 1. First, 1 is an auto-miss. Second, if he rolls low on the second d20 other stuff might happen based on the circumstances of the scenario. It's more role than roll. If it's decently high (above 7-ish), nothing bad happens, it's just auto-miss.
If he rolls a 1 on the second d20 though, usually we hit another player, or if no one else is near, drop our weapon on our foot or something and hit ourselves - sometimes he might even have us break the weapon, but that is rare. If he does roll a 1, he rolls a third d20 which, if low enough, causes the breakage or something similarly horrible.
This is very similar to what I'm trying to do except I have my stuff written out so players can see it set in stone instead of having the DM make stuff up. It looks as if you are not sure what will happen on any die result. What is low? What is high? above 7-ish? What happens on a 7? If the DM is in a good mood nothing, in a bad mood then something bad will probably happen.
Looking at the chart you have, many of the effects can result from various class powers or monster abilities. If you want to knock someone down, use the power. If you want combat advantage us a power or tactical maneuvering to gain it. In 4E, instead of someone randomly gaining some condition, the condition is placed deliberately. I think it is more fun for the players if they knock someone prone when they deliberately tried to do that with a power rather than all of a sudden someone happens to slip and falls down randomly.
I don't know about MORE fun, more heroic yes. I however agree it is fun for a player to perform these effects on their own, but why could it not be fun for the effect to occur randomly? I enjoy that little bit of chaos whether I'm a player or DM and I think they could add another level to the gameplay (be it a small level) I could go into combat with a gameplan expecting and succeeding in everything that I do, but one misstep can cause me to change or abandon my gameplan, I think change is fun.
As you already mentioned, characters like the Ranger are doubly susceptible to fumbles if he uses Twin Strike often. I can go on regarding the lack of balance I have experienced in my time using critical fumbles. I have even tried to balance things to make up for the fact that ranged combattants usually try to be away from the fray. In the end I decided to forget about critical fumbles. In my experience, no one missed fumbling.
That's what I'm trying to do, balance the fumbles so they can be added to my game. And as for no one missing fumbling...I do, that's why I'm working on these charts. ;)
There are a couple of things to keep in mind regarding critical fumbles. The table you are using is biased against those in melee. Someone attacking at range will hardly suffer from being accidentally struck because he is usually out of the way. Granting combat advantage is usually not an issue either because ranged attackers are usually out of range. Someone in melee would be at a severe disadvantage because he may be facing multiple attackers especially if he ends up prone or grants combat advantage.
I see what you are saying, but I can't help but think that, isn't that the point of ranged attackers? Staying out of combat? I don't think it's bias, I think it's realistic.
the rolls for the charts are reflex roles, it fixes the usual problem with fumbles.
Thanks, I think.
2) How do you lose a healing surge from screwing up an attack?
3) In reference to an earlier post by Rowl, I use a similar system, though a tiny bit more concrete. The player can miss, lose their weapon, hurt themselves, or hurt an ally. One guy impaled himself on his spear while charging. Good stuff. No need for details though.
4) Instead of "dazed (save ends)", just use 'dazed until end of next turn'. That way, you don't risk turning an unlucky roll into a string of lower end rolls that leaves a player crippled. For Example, Player rolls a one, fumbles, rolls another one, is dazed. Then, continuously rolls under 10 for each save roll for the next few rounds. Wouldn't that suck? I think it would *nods*
1) Learn to accept criticism.
I have no problem with criticism. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that I'm wanting to know if these charts can balance the multiple attack vs single attack problem that critical failures have and not whether or not critical failures should be a part of the game.
2) How do you lose a healing surge from screwing up an attack?
The same way you lose a healing surge for failing a skill check during a skill challenge. It can be from a number of things, the last attack winded you, maybe you injuried yourself on your weapon.
3) In reference to an earlier post by Rowl, I use a similar system, though a tiny bit more concrete. The player can miss, lose their weapon, hurt themselves, or hurt an ally. One guy impaled himself on his spear while charging. Good stuff. No need for details though.
Exactlly, I'm keeping the details out of the charts, everything should be able to be used in any situation.
4) Instead of "dazed (save ends)", just use 'dazed until end of next turn'. That way, you don't risk turning an unlucky roll into a string of lower end rolls that leaves a player crippled. For Example, Player rolls a one, fumbles, rolls another one, is dazed. Then, continuously rolls under 10 for each save roll for the next few rounds. Wouldn't that suck? I think it would *nods*
Good, this is what I'm talking about. I was on the fence trying to decide if I should have (save ends) or until end of next turn. I like both ideas but don't want both in the charts. It may be better until end of next turn.
Now the mechanic we have is this - if on a attack roll the character rolls a natural 1 they have to draw a card and resolve the effects. (since each card has a effect for range/melee/magic etc). Now the character has to make a dex check (scalable DC - making it a 50/50 chance) if they make the check they can continue with the rest of their turn. If they fail the check then their turn ends.
We had to put the other bit in there to allow for characters who started off with the attack (standard action) it would give them a chance to use a move action or minor action to help deal with the effects of the card.
I agree that critical fumbles should be in the game since they are just fun.
Our group also uses Critical Fumbles but we also incorporate the critical fumble deck from Paizo publishing (found here - http://paizo.com/gameMastery/accessories/v5748btpy7zdm) - since the cards are made for 3.5 we had to streamline the terminology to fit with 4th edition.
Nice cards, I'm sure sometime in the near future they will produce 4th edition versions. I might buy them just to get more ideas for the charts.
Now the mechanic we have is this - if on a attack roll the character rolls a natural 1 they have to draw a card and resolve the effects. (since each card has a effect for range/melee/magic etc).
Your game still has the problem of a character using a (one) power with mulitiple attacks having a greater chance of fumbling then a character using a power with a single attack. The card drawing is cool, but the problem still exsist.
Now the character has to make a dex check (scalable DC - making it a 50/50 chance) if they make the check they can continue with the rest of their turn. If they fail the check then their turn ends.
I like this idea, it adds yet another die roll, but also gives the chance of not losing a turn.
If you are comparing criticals vs. fumbles, there is a severe imbalance with your chart. If you fumble you can fall prone, be dazed, lose a healing surge, drop a weapon, hit an ally, etc. If you crit, you do max damage and possibly roll for extra damage. If you want to apply any of those fumble conditions on purpose, you have to use a power and sometimes you do not have such a power available. I just find that the chance of something bad happening when you attack is much worse that the best thing that can happen which is simply max damage.
I see what you mean. The suggestion in the DMG under house rules says a fumble would be ending the turn and granting combat advantage. I agree this is a good opposite to the max damage. The other conditions were added to the chart for flavor and I was trying to keep with a similar yet balanced combat advantage and end turn penalty while adding excitment to a bad roll. I then thought that rolling another 1 on this chart should be really bad, maybe I'm wrong but I'm open to any ideas to fix the charts to balance them out.
I also see an issue when a random bad thing that happens when you attack is so bad that it is worse than trying to purposely apply said conditions on your target. You end up hoping that your enemy loses a turn on a fumble because there is no way you can make him do that yourself.
Ending the turn was the suggestion in the DMG. I wouldn't think that anybody would be hoping the enemy screws up, instead they would be trying to get rid of the enemy themselves.
A solution adopted by mutual agreement between myself (playing a wizard) and the GM (who insisted on using fumbles) was to roll an extra d20 designated as the "fumble dice". Essentially, I would roll a d20 saying, "this is to see if I slip on the ground". As long as it wasn't a "1", I would continue on to rolling my to hits. If I rolled a "1" while fireballing the minions, I would ignore that, because I already determined that I didn't fumble. This system gave me an extra roll, but it lowered my fumble rate significantly.
As an aside, my GM gave about a 25% chance when you fumbled to be stunned for 1-6 rounds. This was terribly un-fun.
Don't use tables, they needlessly complicate and slow down combat. If you do insist on using tables, use tables for critical hits as well to make them fair.
Your table is unfair to ranged as it is biased towards melee. It is better to do weapon based tables than a generic one size fits all table. This also adds complexity but does not really add to the fun factor. If you want to really use tables, you have to basically make the results entertaining. Your job as DM is to make the game fun for your players.
Be aware your players will ask for feats to get around this and if you give them out you can expect everyone to take them. A DM I had once instituted a similar system and then allowed a 1 = 1 feat that just meant the attack missed. Everyone took it within 2 sessions and we never used the table again. He thought everyone liked Fumbles, turned out it was only him. We we of the gambit between bleh and lord no. Actually several of us took 1 = 20 feat from CA and a 1 = 1 feat otherwise. He eventually had a series of TPK's and campaign collapses due to fumble rules he instituted and never uses them anymore.
Understand that fumbles, and critical hits, are significantly worse for players than monsters. A fighter getting a critical is nice. The ogre getting a critical hit on the fighter is not so much. A fighter getting a fumble is bad. An ogre getting a fumble, not so much. Faceless minion 3 died? How tragic. Bill your fighter just died, roll up a new character.
In short, a small but significant number of players feel the need to have a critical failure system in place because its more realistic. DnD is not meant to be realistic, it is meant to be fun. Adding anything into it that negatively impacts the players to any extent is not all that enjoyable. I have never seen a game where the addition of critical fumble tables has ever helped anything, while I have had multiple players who have loathed the concept.
Missing is not fun. Missing and then losing a healing surge is even less fun. Missing and going dazed so that your enemies can pound on you relentlessly is even less fun than that. In 4th, if you are running it right, combat can be very tough for the players and doing this will decrease survivability in a non-predictable fashion. That is not a good DM tool.
As far as your chart goes, I think every 1 should not necessarily be a mishap, rather a secondary roll or a 1 or a miss by 5 should be allowed to trigger the mishap.
Also, I think a drop is more likely as this used to happen historically in combat all the time, but has very little chance of happening in the standard rules for D&D.
Our DM doesn't use a chart, he just judges from the situation what was going on in the scene asks for subsequent rolls and then gives a descriptive sentence about the mishap. It usually provokes laughter.
If you are prepared to do this with players you should be prepared to apply this to your NPCs and monsters as well. Our DMs sense of humor and willingness to do this often leads to monsters being harmed by these things more than us, and at the worst times.
Here's a couple other ideas based of the previous post. Does any of these sound better?
The first and last attack from a power are the only attack rolls that can cause a fumble.
or
When a fumble is rolled that player (or DM in the case of a monster) must make a saving throw. A failed saving throw causes a fumble. Players gain a bonus to this saving throw according to the number of attacks. I'm having trouble explaining so let me give an example:
A wizard blasting 10 creatures rolls a fumble on his first, fourth and eighth attack. He makes three saving throws. The first one he gets a bonus equal to +1 to the saving throw. The fourth one he gets a bonus of +4 to the saving throw and the eighth one he gets a bonus of +8 to the saving throw.
Or how about this:
Blast and Burst powers can only fumble on the first (or last) attack.
Or
The DM randomly picks a number between 1 and the number of attacks the player or creature is doing with the power. If a fumble happens during that DM chosen attack it is considered a fumble. For example if a wizard is using a power that attacks 10 creatures, the DM picks a number between 1 and 10, in this example we will say five. If the player rolls a 1 on the fifth attack he fumbles.
Any ideas about any of these?
So a wizard forced into mêlée is more likely to fumble than a fighter. Likewise a low level warrior fumbles more often than a high-level warrior. In this case, after a 1, the player should roll against the base attack- bonus.
The Situation should influence the fumble chance and the outcome:
fighting on the slippery and rocking deck of a ship results in more fumbles than fighting on firm, dry ground. (so if there is a -4 situational penalty to attack, this use it to increase the chance of a fumble as well.)
And while chances are high, that your fumble may hit an alley if you are in a fight with multiple participants, in a duel something like the following might be more appropriate:
an opening (to hit bonus for your opponent),
you drop your weapon or
it gets struck somewhere...
And last but not least, the influence of the weapon you use: It is hard to injure yourself with a net - but very ease to get yourself or the net entangeled...
This offers a good opportunity to balance distance -weapons as well: An archer might drop his quiver and/ or spill his arrows or tear/slip the sinew of his bow on a bad fumble...
So all in all: fumbles yes - but balance the risks and use more common sense than random charts. (charts are good for inspiration however).
As a player, I like critical fumble or mishap chances. I think it makes the game more entertaining and fun with all kinds of possibilities.
How about these for possibilities:
- If you want the possibility that a creature may fall down, have the attacker use a power that knocks the target prone.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may drop his weapon, have the attacker use a power that disarms the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be stunned, have the attacker use a power that stuns the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be dazed, have the attacker use a power that dazes the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be slowed, have the attacker use a power that slows the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be blinded, have the attacker use a power that blinds the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be weakened, have the attacker use a power that weakens the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may have his armour damaged, have the attacker use a power that damages the target's armour.
I just feel that it isn't right if you decide something happens at random at level 3 when if you want that same thing to happen on purpose, you have to wait until level 17 to get that power. "Oh look, the enemy dropped his weapon because he fumbled randomly. How can I make him do that on purpose? What? I have to wait until level 17 to get Exorcism of Steel?"
I just feel that it isn't right if you decide something happens at random at level 3 when if you want that same thing to happen on purpose, you have to wait until level 17 to get that power. "Oh look, the enemy dropped his weapon because he fumbled randomly. How can I make him do that on purpose? What? I have to wait until level 17 to get Exorcism of Steel?"
...ummm, sure, so why are we even talking about house rules when we must use everything as written?
...here begineth the rant...
So the only time in history that a knight ever dropped a sword was when their opponent used a disarm tactic?
Not so. The locking gauntlet was invented because hanging on to a sword on horseback while swinging it at someone was hard. Frequently the knights dropped their swords. Yes well trained knights that had been doing it for years, dropped their swords. It wasn't that the enemy was using a disarm tactic, it was because they screwed up. A knight without a sword is nothing but a big metal guy on a horse, who would then quickly become a big metal guy on the ground, and then a big dead guy in a metal suit.
The only time a bowstring ever snapped on an English Longbowman was when their opponent over a hundred yards away used some kind of maneuver to make it happen?
Not so. Historically bowstrings snapped pretty frequently, usually at bad times, and it had nothing to do with the tactics their enemy was using. It happened for a host of reasons, because they were hurried, pulled too hard, or caught the string on something that caused it to happen.
You are partially right, in that bad things happen on the battlefield because soldiers train to use tactics to make them happen. Bad things also happen because people screw up, hence the concept of the fumble or mishap.
...here endeth the rant...
It is a perfectly legitimate topic that can be used to enhance a game.
The difficulty is in making these mishaps happen in a realistically infrequent manner, and matching the idea that a more skilled player will likely have it happen less.
All the possibilities you list are great possibilities, but they are only half the story. In this discussion we are trying to help King Nate solve the other half. :D
How about these for possibilities:
- If you want the possibility that a creature may fall down, have the attacker use a power that knocks the target prone.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may drop his weapon, have the attacker use a power that disarms the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be stunned, have the attacker use a power that stuns the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be dazed, have the attacker use a power that dazes the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be slowed, have the attacker use a power that slows the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be blinded, have the attacker use a power that blinds the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may be weakened, have the attacker use a power that weakens the target.
- If you want the possibility that a creature may have his armour damaged, have the attacker use a power that damages the target's armour.
I just feel that it isn't right if you decide something happens at random at level 3 when if you want that same thing to happen on purpose, you have to wait until level 17 to get that power. "Oh look, the enemy dropped his weapon because he fumbled randomly. How can I make him do that on purpose? What? I have to wait until level 17 to get Exorcism of Steel?"
That's another topic, IMO. Often, for game balance reasons, some not so difficult powers are delayed to high level.
My solution to this would be additional house-ruling - maybe you have to be level 17 to master a special maneuver, but you can try to use it much earlier (with a penalty/failure chance depending on how much prerequisites you are missing).
That said, most of your suggestions are more appropriate outcomes for a relay good, confirmed critical hit. (What gives the players more the feeling of accomplishment than a slapstick, bad-luck opponent)
Of the possibilities you mention, dropping the weapon or falling to the ground are most appropriate for a fumble.
But in stead of just declaring this things after a random roll on of the GM, I'd let the players handle it with a skill- check or a kind of save.
So the confirmed fumble may indicate, that the character slips or stumbles. If s/he is a nimble rogue or swashbuckler type, the player could try to work against the ill effects with the tumble or acrobatics check - avoiding to fall down with a spectacular roll (and looking rather cool than silly)
I think, that would take are of most of your concerns?!
@ Minja
+1
So it is balanced! Forget about me trying to balance the fumbles in this thread, the problem has been solved. Thanks for all your help.
Then again...how can we make that player with the multiple attacks in one power not be upset with all his fumbles?
Maybe we could use some kind of credit/debit system?
It'd work like this;
If a player meets all the requirements for a critical hit, he then has the choice of either taking the critical hit or just have the hit considered a normal hit. If he uses it as a normal hit then nothing extra happens. If he takes it as a critical hit, then he now has one debit towards a fumble. Which means if a character meets all the requirements for a critical fumble and he has any debit points he must fumble. If the character meets all the requirements for a critical fumble but doesn't have any debit points then he doesn't fumble.
You can also build credit this way too. If you meet all the requirements for a fumble but don't have any debit points you can still take the fumble anyway and gain a credit point. If you meet the requirements for a critical hit and have a credit point you can take the critical hit without gaining a debit point.
This way people can control how many fumbles they have and can only be upset at themselves if they take a fumble.
How does this sound?
If a player meets all the requirements for a critical hit, he then has the choice of either taking the critical hit or just have the hit considered a normal hit. If he uses it as a normal hit then nothing extra happens. If he takes it as a critical hit, then he now has one debit towards a fumble. Which means if a character meets all the requirements for a critical fumble and he has any debit points he must fumble. If the character meets all the requirements for a critical fumble but doesn't have any debit points then he doesn't fumble.
How does this sound?
This seems a little overcomplicated to me, and it would be easy to get lost on the whole topic.
I remember in Ars Magica there was a similar system by which you could "hold over" damage from one round to the next, almost like a spare in bowling. (I am quickly going to explain, so for you Ars Magica experts out there, bare with me if I muck it up a bit, it has been a couple of years)
If you hit you could choose to hold damage in a special "pool" of points. If you were then hit you could choose to essentially take that damage out of those points instead of your hit points. If you weren't hit then on a subsequent round you could choose to add the damage to that pool and build it up. Then at the end of your attack, you could choose to dump the whole pool on the enemy at once. Essentially this would be a way to overcome someone's tremendous DR, regeneration or other magical protection effects.
Again it is a pretty cool mechanic, and a neat idea, but it becomes a little book keeping heavy.
That way the rogue, fighter, wizard, ranger whatever all have an equal 1 in 20 chance per round of fumbling.
If you hit you could choose to hold damage in a special "pool" of points. If you were then hit you could choose to essentially take that damage out of those points instead of your hit points. If you weren't hit then on a subsequent round you could choose to add the damage to that pool and build it up. Then at the end of your attack, you could choose to dump the whole pool on the enemy at once. Essentially this would be a way to overcome someone's tremendous DR, regeneration or other magical protection effects.
Now that sounds overcomplicated. While the Credit/Debit system does include a little book keeping I hardly think it's complicated. At no time would you have points in both credit and debit it would only be one or the other and with the law of averages, I believe it would be rare to have more than 3 points in either one.
If a character rolls more than one attack die in a round, why not just make the first roll susceptible to a fumble?
That way the rogue, fighter, wizard, ranger whatever all have an equal 1 in 20 chance per round of fumbling.
This was suggested by someone else as well and their suggestion is one of the reasons I came up with the Credit/Debit system. The first attack idea is very balanced as far as the number of times each character can fumble but it isn't good for balancing critical hits per fumble. The fighter with one a power with one attack has one chance to fumble and one chance to score a critical hit. A wizard with a power that hits 10 guys would have one chance to fumble and 10 chances to score a critical hit. If I was the fighter I would be upset. With the Credit/Debit system everyone has an equal and balanced chance to score critical hits and fumbles plus it adds another techincal device during combat for the players. "Should I take that critical hit duing this minor encounter or not take the chance to fumble during the big fight?"
There's also a critical hit deck, haven't checked that one out yet though.
If the card describes an effect that doesn't fit 4E well, I either make something up or draw next card.
We also allow the option to NOT do a Critical Effect/damage, but keep the card instead - then "spend" it later to negate a Fumble.
Seems to be working out okay.
We use both the Paizo card decks, too.
If the card describes an effect that doesn't fit 4E well, I either make something up or draw next card.
We also allow the option to NOT do a Critical Effect/damage, but keep the card instead - then "spend" it later to negate a Fumble.
Seems to be working out okay.
How i the critical hit deck?
I remember in Ars Magica there was a similar system by which you could "hold over" damage from one round to the next, almost like a spare in bowling. (I am quickly going to explain, so for you Ars Magica experts out there, bare with me if I muck it up a bit, it has been a couple of years)
If you hit you could choose to hold damage in a special "pool" of points. If you were then hit you could choose to essentially take that damage out of those points instead of your hit points. If you weren't hit then on a subsequent round you could choose to add the damage to that pool and build it up. Then at the end of your attack, you could choose to dump the whole pool on the enemy at once. Essentially this would be a way to overcome someone's tremendous DR, regeneration or other magical protection effects.
Again it is a pretty cool mechanic, and a neat idea, but it becomes a little book keeping heavy.
In fact it was so book keeping heavy that it was removed in fifth edition. Still, it was a neat thought, and it would be cool if it could be implemented well in some system.
In fact it was so book keeping heavy that it was removed in fifth edition. Still, it was a neat thought, and it would be cool if it could be implemented well in some system.
I never played the fifth edition, just up to fourth. There were times that combat made my head spin; and if you think 4E combat takes a long time, it has nothing on what Ars Magica can do.
We eventually got around to keeping a central stat sheet to track the damage, (as I said in my earlier post it is kind of like a spare in bowling) well it was like that, like a score sheet. The players and the monsters were listed and their relative damages were all tracked centrally on our battle mat with the projector markers, by one of the players that agreed to function as note taker.
But it was still way to cumbersome, and the idea of doing it in 4E kind of makes my head spin.
But their MAGIC system, was to DIE FOR!
But their MAGIC system, was to DIE FOR!
If you think the magic system in fourth edition is to die for, you should really see fifth. It is lots lots better. (of course now I'm going off topic to shill for my favorite game, sorry:embarrass )