They think it's hilarious. I think it makes things a bit extra silly. We get enough hilariousness from the players playing silly characters, but now our BBEGs occasionally perform slapstick routines because of critical failure.
But if you wanted one, I'd do something like roll a d20.
1-10, you slip and grant CA until next turn
10-15, you drop your weapon or are forced to move in a random direction d4 spaces
15-19, something popped, you're at a -2 to atk, -2 def, slowed ... one of those until end of encounter (maybe randomly pick a body part w/ a d10, and that's were you apply the injury, don't injure the same place twice in one encounter or it gets prohibitive)
20, you either srike an ally or yourself w/ basic atk dmg, or if that isn't feasible, you have the penalty above for like a week of game time
were you a novice sure. i can see myself attempting martial arts and falling on my arse every so often, and pulling off a move flawlessly by pure luck... but we're talking about trained professionals here. i highly doubt 1 out of every 20 rounds fired by a soldier in a war causes his pants to fall or his gun to jam.
personally though? i have a hatred of such charts or houserules. i'll bite my tongue and let it pass if only because i trust the DM to not bone us too hard, especially since such rules effect the PCs much harder then the NPCs, but in my games... a "1" is a miss & a "20" a hit, regardless of AC. if you roll a 20 and it would normally hit, max out all damage, as per the rules. if you would miss even with a 20, roll damage as normal, as per the rules.
I don't use it for comic relief mind you...extra grit.It's funny when the monsters fumble,but the pc's,not so much.But in combat people sometimes make bad mistakes,get weapons knocked out of there hands,slip on blood,trip,overextend themselves....friendly fire.I try to be fair but sometimes "S**t Happens".I allow a recovery roll(fumble confirmation).
It adds "grit" and reality, yeah, but it also makes some players feel like they're getting hosed. When you already had some bad luck, no one wants more.
realistic? you seriously think it's realistic that there is a 5% chance on any given attack that it just causes you to trip and fall?
were you a novice sure. i can see myself attempting martial arts and falling on my arse every so often, and pulling off a move flawlessly by pure luck... but we're talking about trained professionals here. i highly doubt 1 out of every 20 rounds fired by a soldier in a war causes his pants to fall or his gun to jam.
Oh, it was so much better in 3.5, because as you get more experienced, you had a higher chance to fumble because of iterative attacks. A hardened warrior would actually throw his weapon or randomly hit his allys MORE often than a commoner with a sword.
personally though? i have a hatred of such charts or houserules. i'll bite my tongue and let it pass if only because i trust the DM to not bone us too hard, especially since such rules effect the PCs much harder then the NPCs, but in my games... a "1" is a miss & a "20" a hit, regardless of AC. if you roll a 20 and it would normally hit, max out all damage, as per the rules. if you would miss even with a 20, roll damage as normal, as per the rules.
Think about this: People often want to impliment fumbles as a "balance" of Crits. They think that there should be something terrible happening to balance out the great thing happening.
However, doing the math, the auto miss that comes with a 1 ALREADY balances the extra damage of a crit. It's like:
A normal hit is 1D.
A Crit is 2D (maximizing damage makes it effectivly twice teh average, in most cases).
A roll of 1 (a fumble) is 0D (No hit).
(2D+0D)/2 = 1D, or in other words, a normal hit.
So to sum up, auto missing already IS a fumble. You don't need to have guys lopping off their own arms to "balance" critical hits (unless you use a Crit Chart or called shots, in which case your game is already messed up, so go wild!)
But to the OP, if you SERIOUSLY want to impliment an additional fumble effect:
1) Keep it minor. Provoking OA might be alright, but only if ONE enemy gets to do it, not all of them. That would be way too painful.
2) Realize that it is not more "realistic". Make the descision entirely because you think it will improve your enjoyment of the game, not because you believe it to be more "gritty". 5% chances of being a moron is not realistic. Humans are stupid, but not THAT stupid.
3) Realize it is not fair or balanced in any way. As I demonstrated, a roll of nat 1 is already a fumble. Adding mroe will make combat significantly more prone to "Aww, a random penalty happened!". As well, it effects PCs more than enemies because the enemies are only there for one battle. The PCs have to live with those effects for entire adventures.
4) If you players decide they don't like them, remove them IMMEDIATLY. It doesn't matter if you think they make the game have more "grit", if it isn't fun for the players, it isn't worth having.
Oh, it was so much better in 3.5, because as you get more experienced, you had a higher chance to fumble because of iterative attacks. A hardened warrior would actually throw his weapon or randomly hit his allys MORE often than a commoner with a sword.
So 4e fixed fumbles, too? ;) :P
Kidding aside, fumbles are just a bad idea. As has been said, missing is a bad enough penalty on it's own. Combat comes down to who hits who more often. Looking at it this way, a miss puts you behind the guy that's trying to kill you. Falling behind in a life or death battle is bad enough, IMO. Why add humiliation or an extra penalty? There are a lot of combats in 4e that see the PCs on the (way) short end of the HP stick, too. Missing can be even worse now than ever before. Piling it on with a fumble chance is, well, piling it on. No need for that, IMO. But, if your group digs it, go for it. I'd not play that way myself, but what the hell do I know? :D
If you roll a 1 on an attack roll, you make another roll.
1: You do something awesomely bad (like break your bow or throw your sword into a close ally).
2-5: You do something pretty bad (like strike an ally or drop your weapon).
5-10: You do something bad (like hit an ally for half damage or stumble randomly).
11+: You just miss.
The exact actions can vary depending on situation. (Striking an ally is worse if he's low on HP, but stumbling can be bad on a bridge.)
And I used the situation to dictate what would happen. For example, if someone was firing into melee then fumbled, their odds of hitting an ally were extremely high. If they were on a bridge and fumbled, they might be prone or even hanging off of the bridge. If they charged and fumbled, they might just completely miss and wind up on their face.
Yes, I know people will say its too harsh, but I found that it made memorable fights and my players seemed to enjoy it. It also made people rethink doing stupid things that would normally be sucessful (shooting into combat was a favorite). We still talk about a battle that went south really fast because the ranger broke his bow and the fighter dropped his sword. It may annoy players who don't like unexpected actions, but my group thought it was good fun.
Currently, I'm a PC in a 4 campaign. The DM uses the 1 misses (and that's it) rule. Last session, another player actually commented about how he misses the critical fumbles and refered to the battle with the broken bow.
Anyway, good luck!
Don't use critical misses or fumbles. To suggest that a skilled practitioner of any martial skill would completely, utterly screw up once out of every twenty attempts is completely ludicrous from a realistic standpoint. From a game standpoint it does nothing to heighten dramatic tension, or really contribute to the scene unless you are going for a three stooges effect.
While I don't think critical misses are a good addition to the GAME, this is the second person I've seen say this, and I don't think it bears out. In real fighting, even experts wind up out of position all the time. It might not be disastrous, but you see a slip or two in almost every MMA fight, and those guys are as close to masters of the martial arts as you're going to find. Is 1 in 20 accurate? Maybe it's a little high, but people are people, even the masters make mistakes or just have bad breaks. In UFC champion Andersen Silva's las fight, for example, his opponent blew a knee out of nowhere in a completely non-contact move, that's an example of a worst-case-scenario critical fumble. Marines sometimes lay down friendly fire, even if it usually doesn't actually hit other marines (although it happens...). Every Jackie Chan movie has a reel of his critical fumbles during the credits.
Even experts blow it, they just recover before it kills them.
Perhaps you guys are right.I have been playing in games with fumbles since I started D&D(the little red books).I was taught them by the neighborhood grognards,and have gone hence with the torch ever since.5% is too much..BUT,that's why I use confirmation.The more experienced a PC is the less likely to fumble.It CAN get quite arbitrary with relative AC and wotnot..I might provide a static target # vs. botch and that we be stable in regards to advancement.Or after the first roll a roll of 1-5 could botch,and that drops the % to about 1.2% .How does that seem? I have every intention of continuing to use them(old habits...I know) but,I want to be as fair as possible to my players.Thanx for the feedback...I didn't realise how many people hated botches(kind of a no brainer I guess LOL).
Yeah, people tend to hate getting kicked when they're down.
While I don't think critical misses are a good addition to the GAME, this is the second person I've seen say this, and I don't think it bears out. In real fighting, even experts wind up out of position all the time. It might not be disastrous, but you see a slip or two in almost every MMA fight, and those guys are as close to masters of the martial arts as you're going to find. Is 1 in 20 accurate? Maybe it's a little high, but people are people, even the masters make mistakes or just have bad breaks. In UFC champion Andersen Silva's las fight, for example, his opponent blew a knee out of nowhere in a completely non-contact move, that's an example of a worst-case-scenario critical fumble. Marines sometimes lay down friendly fire, even if it usually doesn't actually hit other marines (although it happens...). Every Jackie Chan movie has a reel of his critical fumbles during the credits.
Even experts blow it, they just recover before it kills them.
Yes mistakes happen, mistakes represented mostly in game mechanically by a miss. Try like 1 in 20 is a lot high. I am not going to get into it as regards the HTH, I have vast experience and have been in numerous fights, I have never had what I would consider a critical fumble. Misses sure, but to the point that I am seriously disadvantaged, hurt myself seriously, or hit the wrong person, never. Lastly MMA really is not all that. Originally it was pretty close to the real thing, but these days there are too many rules, that don't reflect a real fight. Grappling is great until you figure out that the guy who jumped you has friends. I have been watching UFC for years and have yet to see anyone with real hitting skills. Regardless slipping happens, positioning is never perfect, these are everyday things in fighting. All of this minor stuff is represented in the randomness of the dice.
Jackie Chan movies have a reel of critical fumbles because he is not fighting, he is dancing in a choreographed fight scene, and running stunts usually involving vehicles with minimal safety gear.
Yeah, people tend to hate getting kicked when they're down.
no they just hate kicking themselves when they're down ;) :P
Since we are talking about house rules anyway....I use another one -Fate Points-it's carried over from Warhammer fantasy.It's basically a get out of death free card.It represents the fact that the PC's are destined for something more.If at any point a character is dying he/she may spend a fate point and I as DM must arbitrate a reason for that character to survive with life and limb.A mortal cut hits the side of the helmet KO'ing him instead,or falling of the mountainside he lands in a Roc nest etc...each player starts w/ one pnt.So you see...I do have some mercy.
Yes mistakes happen, mistakes represented mostly in game mechanically by a miss. Try like 1 in 20 is a lot high. I am not going to get into it as regards the HTH, I have vast experience and have been in numerous fights, I have never had what I would consider a critical fumble. Misses sure, but to the point that I am seriously disadvantaged, hurt myself seriously, or hit the wrong person, never. Lastly MMA really is not all that. Originally it was pretty close to the real thing, but these days there are too many rules, that don't reflect a real fight. Grappling is great until you figure out that the guy who jumped you has friends. I have been watching UFC for years and have yet to see anyone with real hitting skills. Regardless slipping happens, positioning is never perfect, these are everyday things in fighting. All of this minor stuff is represented in the randomness of the dice.
Jackie Chan movies have a reel of critical fumbles because he is not fighting, he is dancing in a choreographed fight scene, and running stunts usually involving vehicles with minimal safety gear.
But how often have you, in all these fights, lunged to punch someone and missed and stumbled where now you're back's open, or slipped and fell when you didn't mean to? Because those are the kind of things that would grant a moment of CA (which is the PHB's suggestion for critcal fumbles). 1 in 20 sounds about right for that. if you're not trainded, it's probably more like 1 in 10.
Hitting an ally, if you figure it happens only after your roll a one followed by a 20, has odds of something like 1 in 400. Could you slip and hit you buddy once over the course of like 50 fights (figure 8 rnds/encounter)? Yeah, I'd believe that, even from an expert. Most soldiers won't see 50 serious firefights in a whole war.
And you can say MMA has a lot of rules, but are you arguing that these guys who spend their whole lives training to get in a one-on-one fight aren't the equivalent of martial artist PCs? I think an MMA fighter, or your average Navy Seal for a more broadly rounded warrior, is a pretty good PC warrior analog. These are guys spending their lives training to fight.
It's too easy to throw around words like "master" and mean it as "perfect." Even among the best, perfection even for a day is nearly impossible, so I don't think the critical miss concept is unrealistic. It's just unfun.
How many times in film do we see the hero trip and fall,and his weapon or magic Item or whatever goes sliding across the floor.
Generally only once for the entire cast (excluding joke characters) over the course of the entire series of movies.
I would suggest only if the first attack/skill/ability roll in your turn is a 1, you roll again on a d20
1 You fall prone at the end of your current action
2 You grant combat advantage until the beginning of your next turn
3 You look a little silly but nothing else happens
4+ Nothing special.
Thanks,McThorin.I really do use it as a dramatic tool though,I'm not just out to screw the PCs.How many times in film do we see the hero trip and fall,and his weapon or magic Item or whatever goes sliding across the floor.He then has to negotiate danger to get to it,or an ally picks it up and throws it to him at a crucial moment etc...
Since we are talking about house rules anyway....I use another one -Fate Points-it's carried over from Warhammer fantasy.It's basically a get out of death free card.It represents the fact that the PC's are destined for something more.If at any point a character is dying he/she may spend a fate point and I as DM must arbitrate a reason for that character to survive with life and limb.A mortal cut hits the side of the helmet KO'ing him instead,or falling of the mountainside he lands in a Roc nest etc...each player starts w/ one pnt.So you see...I do have some mercy.
I think they're a good idea, but with how easy it is to revive a knocked out PC, I'm not sure they're necessary. If at least one PC isn't knocked out, I don't think it was a very hard fight.
In terms of a fate point or Force Point (Star Wars) type of mechanic, I think 4E's action points work really well.
A few years ago, I played in a 3.5 campaign where the DM (a great guy, generally) decided to included his own homemade critical hit and miss charts. Whenever you made a critical hit or miss, a random effect happened. He also removed the confirmation roll, so you had a 10% chance of critting one way or the other.
This led to really annoying situations in combat, such as:
* One player falling over, hitting his head, and being unconcious for d6 rounds (which ended up being the entirety of the fight).
* Same fight, one of us hamstrung the big guy, giving him Dex. attribute damage, but no hitpoint damage. (As an aside, one of the reasons I like 4E is that you generally do damage when you hit someone, as well as a condition).
* A giant hell-hound being instantly killed in a single shot from an untrained sorcerer taking a shot with a crossbow (only because he was out of magic missiles at the time).
* The cleric missed a wolf, and hit the friendly no-name NPC beside him for triple damage, instantly killing him.
* And the most disappointing: A fairly tough NPC, who was supposed to be a tough mid-boss fight, hitting himself with own flail only two rounds into the combat, for double (or was it triple?) damage, clobbering himself, leaving us to merely mop up.
Those are just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head. In not one of these situations did we, the players, think "Cool!". We may have laughed sometimes, sure, but we all facepalmed at how frustrating the charts were. At least twice, as above, the charts made hard combats into trivial non-issues, which really frustrated the DM, but he refused to give up on them.
So, anyways, my suggestion concerning critical misses: DON'T.
In real combat, if you lunge and leave yourself wide open, you aren't a trained profesional, you're an amature hack playing at being a fighter. In real close combat, it's a game of inches, and a mistake tends to leave a miniscule opening, not some huge easily exploitable opening.
I don't use it for comic relief mind you...extra grit.It's funny when the monsters fumble,but the pc's,not so much.But in combat people sometimes make bad mistakes,get weapons knocked out of there hands,slip on blood,trip,overextend themselves....friendly fire.I try to be fair but sometimes "S**t Happens".I allow a recovery roll(fumble confirmation).
I agree. The group I play with has it. If someone rolls a 1, they get a dex check to get an 11 or higher, if they get it, they recover. If they miss it, they have a minor mishap from a chart that the DM has. If the result is a second 1, then it's a major mishap.
In my games, a 1 is automatically a fumble, and I'll determine what happend depending on what is happening at the moment of the fumble. A second 1 will make it worse, a third 1 even worse, and so on.
I'll chime in here with another vote against them. In one battle with a critical fumble table I had my character's chainmail armor, a relic of Ares himself, "slip a buckle and fall off." Say what? Later, that same combat, the monk in the party critically failed and hit himself in the head. For 4x the normal damage, maximized. Not cool. Certainly not real.
Well, that's just stupid. The mishaps need to make sense, or else they detract from the game.
Well, that's just stupid. The mishaps need to make sense, or else they detract from the game.
You know, there's really two things being argued here:
1. Are critical fumbles a good idea at all.
2. How stupidly horrific can critical fumbles be, and isn't that really, really stupid.
Just because you allow critical fumbles and the possibility of hitting an ally, doesn't mean it has to be for 5x kamehameha damage every time someone roles a 1.
Still allinall, though, players don't seem to like 'em, even when they think they're going to.
You know, there's really two things being argued here:
1. Are critical fumbles a good idea at all.
2. How stupidly horrific can critical fumbles be, and isn't that really, really stupid.
Just because you allow critical fumbles and the possibility of hitting an ally, doesn't mean it has to be for 5x kamehameha damage every time someone roles a 1.
Still allinall, though, players don't seem to like 'em, even when they think they're going to.
You're speaking for a lot people you have no right to speak for with that statement. I know of MANY players who DO like them. If you revise your statement to be "Still allinall, though, SOME players don't seem to like 'em....", then it would be a correct statement.
I do agree, though, that it doesn't have to always be hit ally for some huge amount of damage. That should be reserved for situations where 1) it makes sense and 2) where the person has rolled 2 or more 1's in succession. Basically, it should almost never happen.
If you have a critical fumble chart that includes the following: falls down, loses weapon, grants combat advantage, is hobbled (slowed), cannot move. Well, there are actually powers and actions that actually do these things. Why not just have the player or monster use powers and actions that actually try to impose these conditions? If you want to knock someone down, use Spinning Sweep. If you want to disarm the target, use Exorcism of Steel. Do your players want to just attack and hope that something cool randomly happens when your opponent fumbles, or do your players want to actually do something specific that is cool? I think players will have more fun if they have control of the effect they impose. 4E has many powers and actions that can do cool things on purpose. Even 3E had them as well.
As someone already mentioned, critical fumbles penalises players who use powers and actions that attack multiple targets. These powers and actions are really cool. Critical fumbles end up penalising players for using cool powers because they now get a higher chance for something uncool to happen to them when they use a really cool power.
Here's my experience with using critical fumbles:
At first, they were cool. It's funny that when the orc attacks me, fumbles, bite's his tounge (this was on the chart) and takes damage himself. It's funny when I make an attack and skip and fall on my butt.
Then after a while, the novelty wears off. Playing an adventure with a broken hand or broken bow is just not fun. All you're doing is trying to stay alive and not really accomplishing anything.
After realising how unfun this is, I went to try to create a new and improved critical fumble system that will put the fun back in. I spent hours doing the analysis and trying to balance things amoungst all type of combattants (ranges, melee, casters, single target attacks, multi-target attacks).
In the end, I made a breakthrough. :lightbulb My conclusion was that critical fumbles suck. When I started playing without critical fumbles, no one complained. When a player rolls a 1 and I tell them there is no critical fumble, they have a big sigh of releaf. They're glad that their weapon doesn't break or is not lost. We continue and everybody has fun without the bitter memories of those critical fumbles. The lack of critical fumbles do not make the games I played in less fun.
If your players enjoy or want to play with critical fumbles, go ahead. Then try a few games without them and see which people prefer.
I've always been fascinated by the fumble tables that make hitting an ally - or yourself - a possibilty because of the "realism" or "grit" these silly ideas add. How is shooting yourself with a crossbow anything but comic?
It isn't, but it is possible to cut your leg or foot. People slip in combat. Arms get hit in mid swing by limbs and other things, cause swings to go wild. It DOES happen, both in RL and in fantasy games with these sorts of house rules. It just shouldn't happen often, and only with a weapon that makes sense.
If every 20 or so attacks, your "pal" hits you instead of the enemy, why in god's name are you still adventuring with this inept (or malicious) fool?
Which is why it shouldn't be possible hit yourself or an ally unless you roll 2 or more 1's in a row. That and there should be several effects for 2 or more 1's, and most of them should not be hitting yourself or an ally.
I'm considering it with 4th though, simply because of the "Combat Advantage" condition thing. Having a 1 on an attack simply grant Combat Advantage to foes until the start of your next turn seems like enough random to be fun, without being completely disruptive. *shrugs*
If you roll a '1' on an attack roll, and would miss anyways (so, no critical misses if your bonus is high enough to always exceed the target's defence no matter what you roll), then you grant combat advantage to the target of your attack (and ONLY to the target of your attack) until the beginning of your next turn. The simplest way to handle area powers is that the targets you roll a '1' against (since you make an attack roll for each target) are the ones that get the combat advantage (though I know that's not completely balanced).
There, nice and simple. Basically, you screw up badly and give your target an opening which he can choose to abuse or not. This way there aren't any stupid effects that happen for no apparent reason.
I'm considering it with 4th though, simply because of the "Combat Advantage" condition thing. Having a 1 on an attack simply grant Combat Advantage to foes until the start of your next turn seems like enough random to be fun, without being completely disruptive. *shrugs*
Sneak Attack.
You're speaking for a lot people you have no right to speak for with that statement. I know of MANY players who DO like them. If you revise your statement to be "Still allinall, though, SOME players don't seem to like 'em....", then it would be a correct statement.
I do agree, though, that it doesn't have to always be hit ally for some huge amount of damage. That should be reserved for situations where 1) it makes sense and 2) where the person has rolled 2 or more 1's in succession. Basically, it should almost never happen.
You're overlooking the word "seem" and pretending I said "all."
But really, you're just trying to pull something out of context to start a fight.
It isn't, but it is possible to cut your leg or foot. People slip in combat. Arms get hit in mid swing by limbs and other things, cause swings to go wild. It DOES happen, both in RL and in fantasy games with these sorts of house rules. It just shouldn't happen often, and only with a weapon that makes sense.
That requires quite a bit more depth than most are willing to include when creating these charts. And it begs the question: If it's so uncommon and there are so many variables involved, why bother creating rules for these admitted exceptions in the first place? IMO, hitting = good and missing = bad is about all ya' need.
Which is why it shouldn't be possible hit yourself or an ally unless you roll 2 or more 1's in a row. That and there should be several effects for 2 or more 1's, and most of them should not be hitting yourself or an ally.
Again, if it's supposed to be such an extremely rare happening, why bother with it at all? And, to balance it out, shouldn't we also create charts that work with all of the good flukes that can come up in combat, too? So on, let's say, 2 20s the baddy (or PC) is instantly slain. That happens in combat, no? Or on a 20 and then a 19, they lose a limb. People lose arms and legs all the time in combat. Maybe a 20 backed by an 18 is a concussion giving the player a -2 attack and all defenses until the next day. We don't bother with that stuff, though. So why make a fumble chart?
what about when talking with an NPC, shouldn't there be a critial fumble chart for social faux-pas?
and what about walking... if real life sets a precedence, i can assure you that i crit fumble walking often... much to the amusement/dismay to those around me.
so i ask... why only the combat crit fumbles?
Sneak Attack.
Ah, but that would be a feature, rather than a bug.
what about when talking with an NPC, shouldn't there be a critial fumble chart for social faux-pas?
Butler: "May I introduce you to Lord Allmighty?"
Lord: "Well met, fine sir!"
PC: *Rolls a 1* "I had sex with your mother."
Butler: "May I introduce you to Lord Allmighty?"
Lord: "Well met, fine sir!"
PC: *Rolls a 1* "I had sex with your mother."
That's how we've played it for years.
:D
I thought that was the default?
Butler: "May I introduce you to Lord Allmighty?"
Lord: "Well met, fine sir!"
PC: *Rolls a 1* "I had sex with your mother."
OK, perhaps i break my own advice, because I do do that. Diplomacy check = 1 = Oh REALLY?!!
You're overlooking the word "seem" and pretending I said "all."
But really, you're just trying to pull something out of context to start a fight.
Er, no. You very clearly did say that ALL players seem to..... Since you didn't qualify "players" with a number, and simply used "players", that encompasses all of them. You did say seems, but that doesn't limit the number of players that "seems to dislike.." You may not have intended to speak for ALL players, but you did type it. ::shrug::
Butler: "May I introduce you to Lord Allmighty?"
Lord: "Well met, fine sir!"
PC: *Rolls a 1* "I had sex with your mother."
and on the opposite side of the spectrum...
Butler: "May I introduce you to Lord Allmighty?"
Lord: "Well met, fine sir!"
PC: *Rolls a 20* "I had sex with your mother."
Lord: "Jolly good! The old bat was in need of a good shag, what, what!"
That requires quite a bit more depth than most are willing to include when creating these charts. And it begs the question: If it's so uncommon and there are so many variables involved, why bother creating rules for these admitted exceptions in the first place? IMO, hitting = good and missing = bad is about all ya' need.
Because, it's adds depth and in my opinion, fun to the game. I prefer depth to shallowness when I can get it ;)
Again, if it's supposed to be such an extremely rare happening, why bother with it at all? And, to balance it out, shouldn't we also create charts that work with all of the good flukes that can come up in combat, too? So on, let's say, 2 20s the baddy (or PC) is instantly slain. That happens in combat, no? Or on a 20 and then a 19, they lose a limb. People lose arms and legs all the time in combat. Maybe a 20 backed by an 18 is a concussion giving the player a -2 attack and all defenses until the next day. We don't bother with that stuff, though. So why make a fumble chart?
Minor mishaps aren't so rare. It's major ones like hitting yourself or someone else that are rare. In the games I play in 2 20's results in a major critical, yes.
cause people in general are prone to failing, in more ways then just combat. yet strangely enough combat is the only place where the "1" is a horrible mishap.
No. I use them on skill checks, ability checks, etc. Basically, any check where the result is not guaranteed(an expert at a skill making a simple check won't be able to fumble), can fumble.
what about when talking with an NPC, shouldn't there be a critial fumble chart for social faux-pas?
If there aren't any dice involved, no. Most roleplay with NPCs don't include dice.
and on the opposite side of the spectrum...
Butler: "May I introduce you to Lord Allmighty?"
Lord: "Well met, fine sir!"
PC: *Rolls a 20* "I had sex with your mother."
Lord: "Jolly good! The old bat was in need of a good shag, what, what!"
Oh hell, I laughed at that. Hard. Embarrassingly so.
Glad I didn't have class today.
and on the opposite side of the spectrum...
Butler: "May I introduce you to Lord Allmighty?"
Lord: "Well met, fine sir!"
PC: *Rolls a 20* "I had sex with your mother."
Lord: "Jolly good! The old bat was in need of a good shag, what, what!"
So sigged.
Er, no. You very clearly did say that ALL players seem to..... Since you didn't qualify "players" with a number, and simply used "players", that encompasses all of them. You did say seems, but that doesn't limit the number of players that "seems to dislike.." You may not have intended to speak for ALL players, but you did type it. ::shrug::
I typed "allinall," which is a synonym for "for the most part" or "by and large" or according to Miriam-Websters: "all in all : on the whole : generally ." That turn of phrase is not all-encompassing, it doesn't imply every single play group. It is a generalization, but all advice is based on generalization, and from my experience this is one I stand by.
Because, it's adds depth and in my opinion, fun to the game. I prefer depth to shallowness when I can get it ;)
Minor mishaps aren't so rare. It's major ones like hitting yourself or someone else that are rare. In the games I play in 2 20's results in a major critical, yes.
depth and shallowness are in the eye of the beholder (well depth & perception anyways).
what you call depth/realism/ect, i call it punishing players for no real reason as i cannot view that as "realism". i understand that trained combatants can misread an enemy... thus they miss their attack roll. but to miss so hard that they [someone who's the equivalent of a navy SEAL] stab a friend or fall on their butt... no. i cannot accept that as "real".
Because, it's adds depth and in my opinion, fun to the game. I prefer depth to shallowness when I can get it ;)
Depth, suffering. Tomato, tomato. :P
I just don't see the point, myself. D&D combat rounds have always taken much more than just a swing and it's result into account. You don't stand there, take a swing and then stand there again waiting 'till the other guy takes his turn. Part of your attack roll is looking for openings, possibly throwing a small feint, etc. The result tells you how that worked. So a hit may mean you found a crease while a miss may mean you stubbed your toe. There's no chart needed - just spell it out with descriptive explanations of the roll. But, if ya' dig it, who'm I to complain? :D
Minor mishaps aren't so rare. It's major ones like hitting yourself or someone else that are rare. In the games I play in 2 20's results in a major critical, yes.
Well, at least it's balanced I guess. I still hold that a miss is a bad enough penalty on it's own. It may well mean the difference between victory and loss. Loss, here, is death. And that's enough - for me. ;)
depth and shallowness are in the eye of the beholder (well depth & perception anyways).
what you call depth/realism/ect, i call it punishing players for no real reason as i cannot view that as "realism". i understand that trained combatants can misread an enemy... thus they miss their attack roll. but to miss so hard that they [someone who's the equivalent of a navy SEAL] stab a friend or fall on their butt... no. i cannot accept that as "real".
Tell that to the parents of Pat Tillman, and those of others killed by friendly fire. And if you don't think that someone who is well trained can slip and fall in combat, I have several bridges to sell you.
It would start with such things as allies granting cover to enemies - and a chance that if you miss the enemy you hit the ally. Maybe on a 1 on the die...
Tell that to the parents of Pat Tillman, and those of others killed by friendly fire. And if you don't think that someone who is well trained can slip and fall in combat, I have several bridges to sell you.
friendly fire is not normally due to "frank suddenly jerks his hand and shoots bill, killing him on the spot"
friendly fire is generally due to either:
-wrong position: either your troop was attacking the wrong area or you were in an area you weren't supposed to be.
-wrongly identifying the "enemy": you mistakenly attack your own side in belief they are the enemy.
i'm not saying stray bullets aren't possible, but generally speaking it's not because you slip and fall... it's because there is misinformation among the superiors and this goes down to the soldiers.
1gritty, in this context, meaning "having strong qualities of tough uncompromising realism." Critical miss rules are not tough uncompromising realism. They aren't realistic at all because D&D combat is not realistic at all. In real combat when you (or your ally) catastophically slip, you (or your ally) die. The Pat Tillman scenario referenced is case in point. Someone messed up and Tillman died in a single shot. Minor slip-ups are already accounted for in the auto-miss rule fo a natural 1. Adding more penalties is not tough uncompromising realism. It just confuses difficulty with realism.
2"deep" in this context meaning "characterized by profundity of feeling or quality". There is nothing profound about penalizing your players arbitrarily. The only feeling it should arouse (unless you're a masochist) is a feeling of inequity.
And, yes, critical miss rules disproportionately penalize PCs than they do NPCs. NPCs are supposed to die. If one critically fails, they simply die sooner. The game is designed so PCs survive more often than not. Rejiggering the math to make survival randomly less likely is not "realistic", nor is it "dark." It is silly.
Now, some people like "silly". But let's not pretend that our love for silly things is somehow profound or a manifestation of one's depth. It is naught but an aesthetic preference for randomly shanking a player's character.
friendly fire is not normally due to "frank suddenly jerks his hand and shoots bill, killing him on the spot"
friendly fire is generally due to either:
-wrong position: either your troop was attacking the wrong area or you were in an area you weren't supposed to be.
-wrongly identifying the "enemy": you mistakenly attack your own side in belief they are the enemy.
i'm not saying stray bullets aren't possible, but generally speaking it's not because you slip and fall... it's because there is misinformation among the superiors and this goes down to the soldiers.
Wrong position is the key. As you(or someone else here) stated. Combat isn't a static things. All parties are moving, ducking, weaving, swinging, etc. Accidents can happen in a melee like that, especially if the enemy does something to cause you to stumble or move out of position as someone else is swinging. It's not anywhere near being as unlikely as the impossibility you make it out to be. Should it be common, or even uncommon? No. As a rare possibility? Sure. But also, as has been said, if you have fun with these kinds of tables, go with it. If you don't, don't. This game is all about having fun. ;)
Wrong position is the key.
But that has nothing to do with critical miss. Pat Tillman's death is like someone firing into a square shrouded in darkness where they think the orc is, but it turns out that's where their paladin was.
Accidents can happen in a melee like that, especially if the enemy does something to cause you to stumble or move out of position as someone else is swinging.
That is not accommodated by imposing minor penalties for rolling a natural one. Accidents are how people lose hp. Their guard is down, or they slip a little and the foe is able to get under his defenses. It's already accommodated in the game.
What you are doing is simply adding an additional difficulty onto an abstract system in the name of "realism". But it's not realistic as long as you're using D&D's combat system. Armor Class and Hit Points are inherently unrealistic. Stapling a random rule onto an intentionally unrealistic system in the name of "realism" (aka "grit") is nonsensical.
Just admit that the real purpose is to make combat more difficult. Don't make up transparently irrational justifications for it.
I've since matured and realized how inane the concept was. I quit using them at my tables, because one either it's heroes we're talking about, or monsters. Both of those things far outstrip Mundane Loser Who Thinks He Knows What Combat is. Which really Crit fumbles is the only thing would be applicable to.
At least the proposed Crit Fumble rules in 4e don't suck, but they won't be making a return to my games.
But that has nothing to do with critical miss. Pat Tillman's death is like someone firing into a square shrouded in darkness where they think the orc is, but it turns out that's where their paladin was.
Yep, but I was discussing melee with that quote, not Pat Tillman.
That is not accommodated by imposing minor penalties for rolling a natural one. Accidents are how people lose hp. Their guard is down, or they slip a little and the foe is able to get under his defenses. It's already accommodated in the game.
No, it isn't. There's NOTHING in my AC that includes accidents. It's all accounted for by other means. If I get hit, it has nothing to do with any mishaps.
Just admit that the real purpose is to make combat more difficult. Don't make up transparently irrational justifications for it.
Why would I admit something that would be a patent lie?
Yep, but I was discussing melee with that quote, not Pat Tillman.
You raised the specter of Pat Tillman (post 51) in response to oxybe saying that another person could miss so badly that they hit an ally. But Tillman isn't an example of someone missing badly. Your example was poor and did not support your position.
oxybe pointed out your error in post 53, by pointing out that friendly fire is about being out of position, not missing badly. Then you bizarrely claimed (post 56) that was your point all along, as if a critical miss represents (or is analogous to) someone being badly out of position. Stop wriggling, admit Pat Tillman was a bad example of someone "missing badly", and we can move on.
There's NOTHING in my AC that includes accidents.
You don't have an AC. You are a real person and AC is an abstraction representing the difficulty of a PC (fictional) being hit in combat. Since slipping affects the ability of a PC being hit, AC is in fact accommodating minor slip-ups. That's the whole point of combat being abstract, Maxperson. It can group together all the disparate things that go into combat into a handful of numbers that simplify the game rather than create unnecessary complications inherent in an attempt to simulate real combat.
All critical miss rules do is rejigger the math to the detriment of players. The justification of realism is nonsensical because D&D combat isn't realistic. If it were, there'd be no AC and there'd be no hp.
If I get hit, it has nothing to do with any mishaps.
But you are not a fictional construct who fights in the context of an abstracted method of conflict resolution. You're a real person who when he gets hit may suffer internal injuries, bruising, lacerations, torn ligaments, bone fractures, hemorrhaging, and the myriad other things that can happen in real combat. (And yes, if you get hit in the real world, it absolutely can have something to do with a mishap.)
But such things don't exist in D&D combat because D&D combat is an abstraction. You're choosing one real thing (accidents) and pasting them onto an inherently abstract system in the name of realism. It's not realistic.
Why would I admit something that would be a patent lie?
I don't know, but you do it every time you try to justify critical miss rules on the grounds of grit, depth or realism. Critical miss rules are none of those things. They are just a means to make combat a little (or a lot depending on the rules) more difficult for PCs. They do not serve to deepen combat, impose more realism or otherwise do anything but complicate the game.
Some people enjoy unnecessary complications. Fine. Each to his own. But don't continue to misspeak by claiming your game is grittier or deeper because of their inclusion. It is not.
Only after it was pointed out did you begin rambling about people being out of position, which isn't actually on-topic for the thread.
Oh, right. My bad. I assumed that talking about reasons why a person would be in a position to be hit by a FUMBLE/CRITICAL FAILURE would be on topic in a FUMBLE/CRITICAL FAILURE thread.
You don't have an AC. You are a real person and AC is an abstraction representing the difficulty of a PC (fictional) being hit in combat.
Armor class is not an abstraction. Hit points are an abstraction. Armor class has too much of it specifically defined to fall into the abstraction catagory. At best, you can say it's partially abstract.
Since slipping affects the ability of a PC being hit, AC is in fact accommodating minor slip-ups.
Yes. If you slip and go PRONE, you take an armor class penalty. Simply slipping does not give any penalties to AC.
All critical miss rules do is rejigger the math to the detriment of players.
And to their benifit. Or do you think the DMs are too stupid to realize that a rule that only applies to the players and not the DM will create ill feelings?
The justification of realism is nonsensical because D&D combat isn't realistic. If it were, there'd be no AC and there'd be no hp.
This is a non-argument. What D&D combat is or is not, has no bearing on whether or not players might want more(not total) realism in combat, or even fumble/critical tables that are not realistic at all.
But such things don't exist in D&D combat because D&D combat is an abstraction.
Wrong. Such things don't exist in D&D combat, because WoTC didn't put them there, and ONLY for that reason. I've seen other games that did have them there, and they weren't designed to be utterly realistic, either.
They are just a means to make combat a little (or a lot depending on the rules) more difficult for PCs.
In YOUR opinion.
They do not serve to deepen combat, impose more realism or otherwise do anything but complicate the game.
Also, in YOUR opinion.
But don't continue to misspeak by claiming your game is grittier or deeper because of their inclusion.
I have not misspoken on this subject yet.
Now, on a natural 1, I might ad hoc something a little funny. That loose arrow might end up lodged in the wizard's pointy hat. You might spin around in place on a sword swing. But these have no mechanical effects whatsoever, just a bit of fluff.
Now, on a natural 1, I might ad hoc something a little funny. That loose arrow might end up lodged in the wizard's pointy hat. You might spin around in place on a sword swing. But these have no mechanical effects whatsoever, just a bit of fluff.
I tend to convey NPC 1s this way too. The bolt will ricochet off a nearby wall, he'll stumble, etc. I'll do it sometimes for PCs too just for flavor. It's hollow without mechanical backup, but still adds something to the encounter.
I tend to convey NPC 1s this way too. The bolt will ricochet off a nearby wall, he'll stumble, etc. I'll do it sometimes for PCs too just for flavor. It's hollow without mechanical backup, but still adds something to the encounter.
On the other hand, it's not a screwjob either. I'll take it.
My loathing of fumbles/botches/whatever is so intense that it's a total dealbreaker. I will not, period, at all, play in a game that uses them.
On the other hand, it's not a screwjob either. I'll take it.
My loathing of fumbles/botches/whatever is so intense that it's a total dealbreaker. I will not, period, at all, play in a game that uses them.
I'm bordering that way. At least my DM's current interpretation. Every single battle at least two characters will drop a weapon or attack a teammate.
A 1 provoking OA isn't a bad idea either if you're going to use them. It's not one of these crazy 5x hits, anyway.
No, it's not bad at all. Unfortunately, it really favors artillery, as they're never in position to take OAs.
No, it's not bad at all. Unfortunately, it really favors artillery, as they're never in position to take OAs.
OK, they could shoot a comrade in the heat of the melee, just a basic attack, though, targeting the closest ally to the target.
Still, my groups don't want to use them.
Oh, right. My bad. I assumed that talking about reasons why a person would be in a position to be hit by a FUMBLE/CRITICAL FAILURE would be on topic in a FUMBLE/CRITICAL FAILURE thread.
Yes, that was a pretty foolish mistake to make since in D&D combat nobody can be out of position by more than 2.5 feet, given that everybody is standing in a five-foot square.
Moreover, Pat Tillman, having been killed by a sniper who mistook him for an insurgent, is not a good example of someone getting hit by a critical miss roll or being out of position. The person was trying to hit Corporal Tillman and did in fact hit his target. (His target just wasn't who he thought.)
So yes, your reference to Pat Tillman was atrociously misplaced. Your continued attempt to backpedal and pretend that Pat Tillman has anything to do with critical miss rules is astoundingly tactless.
Armor class is not an abstraction.
Wha?! Are you kidding me? Armor Class is every bit the abstraction as hit points because they are intimately related. Since in D&D, a "hit" doesn't represent an actual physical blow, there's no reason that plate armor and chain armor should have different AC, except that they abstractly convey the likelihood of preventing a combat-ending injury. The fact that Dexterity/Intelligence modifies your AC means that mishaps and slips absolutely are part and parcel of Armor Class (and Reflexes). Dextrous and Intelligent people are less likely to slip-up than clumsy, stupid people. That's why negative Dex modifiers also modify your AC (assuming your Intelligence doesn't compensate for it).
I can't believe you really think Armor Class is not an abstraction.
At best, you can say it's partially abstract.
That's a meaningless phrase. You can't be partially pregnant and you can't be "partially abstract". Armor Class is an abstract representation of a combatant's ability to avoid the physical blow that would otherwise take him out.
Yes. If you slip and go PRONE, you take an armor class penalty. Simply slipping does not give any penalties to AC.
You can't slip and go prone unless you stand on difficult terrain. Therefore minor slippages are accommodated in the physical ability to avoid damage altogether: that abstraction is called "Armor Class" and "Reflex".
do you think the DMs are too stupid to realize that a rule that only applies to the players and not the DM will create ill feelings?
What are you talking about? How is your statement responsive to what you quoted? (Hint: It's not.)
What D&D combat is or is not, has no bearing on whether or not players might want more(not total) realism in combat, or even fumble/critical tables that are not realistic at all.
Actually, the abstract nature of D&D combat has bearing on whether a justification for critical hit rules for "realism", "grit" or "depth" is sensible. Because D&D combat is expressly premised on an abstract method of conflict resolution, arbitrary inclusions of penalties does not make combat more "realistic". A 49% chance of surviving combat is no more or less realistic than a 51% chance. Difficulty is not realism, though many people seem to think that it is, often when using the words "dark", "gritty", "deep" or "realistic" to justify their inclusion.
Such people should stop making such fallacious arguments and just acknowledge that the reason they make natural ones more punishing than in the default combat rules is that they find it fun to make combat more difficult for the players. There's nothing wrong with that and at it has the added benefit of being an accurate description of critical miss rules.
Such things don't exist in D&D combat, because WoTC didn't put them there, and ONLY for that reason.
Simple declarative statements are no substitute for a reasoned supported argument. Nor does the random capitalization of words hide the fallacies inherent therein.
In other words, writing it doesn't make it true.
The fact that Dexterity is a component of AC and Reflex indicates that the ability to avoid minor mishaps has already been accommodated in combat rules. You are wrong to assert that accidents are not already a part of the abstract rules.
I've seen other games that did have them there, and they weren't designed to be utterly realistic, either.
Me too. And the ruleset as a whole determined the difficulty of combat. Were you to remove critical miss rules from a system designed to include them, you would be making combat easier for players. You still wouldn't be making combat more or less "realistic" in a game using an abstract method of conflict resolution.
Really, it's like rolling dice to see if a knight can take a pawn in chess because "realistically" every so often a pawn could kill a horseman. It may be fun to add a random element to chess, but it's not more "realistic". Same with D&D.
I have not misspoken on this subject yet.
Ah, declarative sentences, is there no fallacy you can't gloss over?
Yep, but I was discussing melee with that quote, not Pat Tillman
Oh, right. My bad. I assumed that talking about reasons why a person would be in a position to be hit by a FUMBLE/CRITICAL FAILURE would be on topic in a FUMBLE/CRITICAL FAILURE thread.
except that what you used to describe a crit fumble was not a crit fumble. it was someone who didn't have the proper information hitting correctly. nor was it melee.
tillman, as i read, was going about doing his job when another squad mistook them for the enemy. that squad didn't accidentally shoot, they did so willingly... thought at a target they thought was something else.
using ranged friendly fire (due to misinformation) is hardly an analogue for missing so hard in melee that you stab your buddy. wrecan had it best... you're intentionally firing into a square where you think an enemy is, instead hitting an ally.
anyhow, friendly fire isn't the problem here, it's failing so hard you hurt yourself/friend
Yes, yes it was. Since I was no longer speaking of Tillman, but of a sword swing, it WAS about someone who critical fumbled. It's Wrecan who can't get off of Tillman. I only mentioned to him once and then stopped completely, until I had to respond to people who can't seem to get off him.
That's why I stopped short of mentioning Pat Tillman in the beginning. I almost did in one of my posts where i talked about marines and friendly fire, but realized this would happen.
One of the rules of arguing is that the first side to mention Hitler or the Nazis loses. It kind of applies to all tragedies and controversies, anything with enough weight to derail whatever turns you were trying to take. Once it's out there, opinion turns quickly.
This thread is a critical failure.
I don't think so. I think there were several constructive posts in the thread.
I don't think so. I think there were several constructive posts in the thread.
there were. I think there's a few good systems mentioned. I'd try to avoid anything that does a lot of damage to the fumbler on a critical fumble. That seems to be the big thing people don't like. Everyone who had a big problem with this mentioned some huge character-killing critical miss. A simple OA or CA effect seems appropriate, though.
Also, I think the main benefits are:
- Unexpected outcomes. Combat can be made very interesting if your archer has to engage in melee or a fighter is using their secondary weapon.
- Memorable or cinematic battles. Yes, you can use more descriptive language for hits and misses, but changing the battle in small ways adds to this.
Think of the action movie (its better to think of DnD as an action movie than real life) in which a peeble makes the hero fall or has his gun jam so he has to use another weapon. It can make a battle more memorable than Encounter #1, At-Will, At-Will, Daily, Encounter #2... or even worse in 3x.
The main opposition is:
- It is unfair to the PCs since they are more negatively affected than monsters. This is true, but its the DMs job to make sure the effects don't overstep or total screw a PC. That's why its good to have DM instead of a strict set of rules.
- It makes the heroes seem incompetant and retarded. Again, the second roll will make the odds much less. Also, it is again, up to the DM to keep this from happening. Not every fumble has to be critical damage to your ally or falling off a cliff.
- It makes characters with multiple attacks worse. Yes, a character that attacks more often will fumble more statistically. There's really nothing I can say about that. One good idea was that if a certain percentage of attacks hit, then 1's wouldn't activate the fumble roll.
Again, its totally up to the individual groups, but my group enjoyed my fumble rules and some have said that they miss them (I'm playing a PC now and the new DM doesn't use critical fumbles).
I think the main points are that if you use critical fumbles, it should only be after a second roll. Everyone seems to agree that 1 in 20 is too harsh for a critical fumble, but 1 in 400 or 1 in 100 may be alright depending on the group.
For a major fumble, yes 1 in 400+ should be what is used . For minor fumbles, 1 in 20 is okay.
- It is unfair to the PCs since they are more negatively affected than monsters. This is true, but its the DMs job to make sure the effects don't overstep or total screw a PC. That's why its good to have DM instead of a strict set of rules.
If you look at it from a Players have 1 PC and the DM has infinite monsters, I can see this. If you look at it from the standpoint of the DM typically has to roll many more dice in combat than the PCs, it becomes unfair to the DM who fumbles a lot more often.
- It makes the heroes seem incompetant and retarded. Again, the second roll will make the odds much less. Also, it is again, up to the DM to keep this from happening. Not every fumble has to be critical damage to your ally or falling off a cliff.
Yeah. That's why we have a recovery roll that only requires a dex check of 11 to succeed. Even with a 0 bonus, you're still looking at 50/50 of a fumble happening.
For a major fumble, yes 1 in 400+ should be what is used . For minor fumbles, 1 in 20 is okay.
If you look at it from a Players have 1 PC and the DM has infinite monsters, I can see this. If you look at it from the standpoint of the DM typically has to roll many more dice in combat than the PCs, it becomes unfair to the DM who fumbles a lot more often.
Yeah. That's why we have a recovery roll that only requires a dex check of 11 to succeed. Even with a 0 bonus, you're still looking at 50/50 of a fumble happening.
Yeah, I feel liek 1 in 20 to grant combat advantage, or even an OA, is fine. They happen all over the place anyway. Chance to eviscerate an ally? that's like one in 400.
Remember, nothing's ever unfair to the DM unless it keeps him from telling his story. If players blaze through an encounter, that's not unfair, just inconvenient. The DM and Pcs are on the same side.
The only way critical failures could work would be to balance them out with an equal critical success system. And even then I still think it would be a bad idea since a night of bad rolling would probably lead to either a total party kill or the DM having to do some quick fudging of the dice to avoid the total party kill. And since the critical success rules would also work for the monsters, a critical success which instantly kills and enemy the DM expected to die anyway is not nearly as bad as a critical success that instantly kills a PC.
A far as the realism argument goes, I have a good example of this. I think everyone would agree that it is not realistic for a dragon to be killed by a single dart... but I did it. In this particular critical success system, a twenty followed by another twenty was instant kill and that's what I rolled. I should have been excited but really it was just absurd that I could have accomplished this. In my opinion, realism has no place in a fantasy game... plausibility, yes, but realism, no.
I'm on the side of critical failure = bad for the game simply because the game isn't built to handle them. For critical failures to work they would have to balanced out by critical successes... and the current critical hit system (doing max damage) is nowhere near as good as dropping your weapon, striking an ally or yourself, or granting combat advantage is bad. The bad is much worse than the good so the system works against the players.
This is why I like the "Critical Fumble = Combat Advantage" concept. Quick, easy, and in many cases no more harmful than a max-damage critical hit.
Also, it's what's suggested in the DMG, at page 189, for Fumbles.
through this system and a combination of my critical fumble and a player's critical hit, a Star Destroyer was blown up by one shot from a fleeing freighter's quad laser (those guns on the Millennium Falcon).
To repeat, because it bears repeating, a QUAD LASER took an IMPERIAL STAR DESTROYER from naught to destroyed in one hit... And we were using die multipliers, so the ISD had 10 times more dice to roll!
Dundundun!
Kinda changed my outlook on highly randomized crits in general...
through this system and a combination of my critical fumble and a player's critical hit, a Star Destroyer was blown up by one shot from a fleeing freighter's quad laser (those guns on the Millennium Falcon).
Heh. Sort of reminds me of the time in Axis and Allies, my transport took out a battleship after a 5 or 6 round combat.
Heh. Sort of reminds me of the time in Axis and Allies, my transport took out a battleship after a 5 or 6 round combat.
Or the classic Though Shall Not Pass 1-army stand in Risk, usually in that first Aussie province or Greenland. I am so sad when those plucky little legionaries finally give up the ghost.
Or the classic Though Shall Not Pass 1-army stand in Risk, usually in that first Aussie province or Greenland. I am so sad when those plucky little legionaries finally give up the ghost.
Heh.
AoE and other multi-target powers that come up with multiple 1's rolled take the lowest of the rolled results.
Each of the hindrances are nice and easy I feel, as they are either resolved instantly (Take the AoO, Put your mini on it's side to signify prone,etc) or only last one round.
NUMBER (1D10) RESULTS OF CRITICAL FUMBLE
1 Major miscalculation: You immediately provoke an attack of opportunity from one adjacent opponent (victim or random)
2 Over-exertion: You over exert yourself causing you to be weakened 1 round
3 Leg-cramp: Your leg cramps up causing you to be slowed 1 round
4 Whoops: Fall prone (can stand up at end of round if move action is still available)
5 Slip and Slide: You first drop and then kick your own weapon, the weapon lands 1D4 squares away in the direction of your opponent
6 Slip, no slide: Drop melee weapon in current square
7 Stumble: You stumble forward and an adjacent enemy slides you one square
8 Trip: You trip and an adjacent enemy gets to slide one square
9 DM Special - Effect occurs based on circumstances of your attack. (Thunderwave knocks you back, The brilliance of Turn undead blinds you for 1 round, etc.)
0 Lady luck smiles: Reroll your attack
Does this seem at all reasonable? I know some are categorically opposed to the whole idea(I assume your answer to be NO)
Someone earlier commented on the fate point thing.It is nothing like an action or force point.A fate point can be used to get out of,what would otherwise be,CERTAIN DEATH.It's like an extra man,so to speak.I like it b/c it spurs players to acts of heroism,the likes of which many a leathery old survival gamer,would leave to the foolhardy noobs. Just food for thought *shrug*
Does this seem at all reasonable? I know some are categorically opposed to the whole idea(I assume your answer to be NO)
I would suggest instead of making it a simple d20 confirm, that you make it an
The DC of the check should be based on how often you want lower level players to critically fail vs. how often higher level characters will fail. I'd also consider dropping the rule altogether when they hit Paragon or Epic tier, as at that point, the characters really should be beyond critical misses.
Our group tooled around with fumbles for some time. Allowing OA, dropping a weapon etc. But found it interrupted the flow a little too much.
Then we decided that meta-reasoning could allow that any critical rolled by either side could be considered either a particularly effrective attack, or an attack made more effective by some error in judgement by the target(ie. a fumble) or perhaps even a bit of both.
The DM and Pcs are on the same side.
Quoted For Truth. I'm glad to see someone actually saying this on the boards for once. (As often as I see DMs on here that seem antagonistic towards players, I see players on here that seem antagonistic towards DMs.)
This is the exact reason that I think critical fumbles shouldn't be used. Too often they turn the game into a player vs DM thing in my experience (YMMV.) The players start to take it personally when the DM institutes the critical miss chart, and things go downhill. We need rules that support cooperative story-telling and roleplay between players and DM, not more division.
Tho I think you have a less than 1/20 chance in real life it’s still a very fair mechanic
Armor class is not an abstraction. Hit points are an abstraction. Armor class has too much of it specifically defined to fall into the abstraction catagory. At best, you can say it's partially abstract.
Uh, I guess armor class is one of the most abstract and misunderstood parts of the D&D rules since the first basic set...
@see bazillion claims about armor making it harder to hit you in D&D
It defines your ability to avoid hit point loss - hit points being the other totally abstract component of D&D combat.
In 4e AC is even more abstract than it was ever before - remember, you can add Intelligence into it!
AC demonstrates your cunning, your agility, your protection by shield, armor and magic, it can be beefed up by certain special combat maneuvers... all cramped into one flat number - if that's not abstract I don't know what is, sorry ;)
However, Miss effects still happen.
If someone rols a 1 in my games, they grant combat advantage. Period. No rerolls, no chance of lopping off limbs... you just stumble, overextend, lose your grip, or otherwise make yourself less able to defend.
This makes close burst powers even more dangerous to use than they already are...
A wizard attacking four minions has an almost 19% chance of granting combat advantage doing this...
If I would do this, I would restrict it to the first attack roll for the power. And even then it may become annoying.
Again, if everybody in my group would want critical misses, I would still require an additional d20 roll with at least 5+ meaning nothing happens.
And to their benifit. Or do you think the DMs are too stupid to realize that a rule that only applies to the players and not the DM will create ill feelings?
You really did seem to not understand this, and I didn't want it to be ignored.
(you can skip to the gist if you want, indicated by -------- at the bottom.)
Think of it like this.
How many d20 rolls will a given PC make throughout their lifetime. Lets call it X. X is quite a big number.
How many d20 rolls will a given kobold mook make throughout its life in the frame that the PCs ever see it. 4? maybe 5 if its lucky?
That kobold rolls a 1 and cuts off its own head. Whatever, no one cares. It was going to die next round anyway, and if it lived the only difference in the end game of the PCs life is they are down minimal hp, that is probably resored after a short or exended rest. (very seveare crit failure rule I have personally seen happen to PCs and NPCs alike in one session before i left.)
If the average combat is 8ish rounds, that means the PCs will be fumbling twice every five combats. Provided the DM only says the first attack roll can crit fumble (totally adds to realism, i know, only that first bullet is lethal to you guys). This means that the PCs will be fumbling twice a day each on average.
PCs are fumbling twice a day each on average (at least). Given a 5 man party this means once a combat someone will do it. (and we all know friendly fire occurs in every fight IRL) (Also this is why we never employ squads of more than 20, or else statistically someone will shoot someone else every six seconds of every fight.)
--- The Gist
If something that happens that kills that kobold mook a little earlier than he probably would have died, really who cares. But if something happens that kills Thoradin the Dwarven paladin before his crusade against evil is over, well now darkness has descended over the land and whatnot. More importantly though, bill here now has to begin making a new character, and the battle just got that much harder for sue, jo, and sally, the other players.
For those of you wanting a more "gritty" or "realistic" game that involves critical fumbles, and want to use modern combat figures to back up your math, here's some data- The US government is going through ammo at a rate of 1 billion rounds per year right now. Now, I know that a lot of these are used in training exercises, that this isn't including heavier munitions, d20 Modern didn't roll a separate attack for weapons on burst fire, that "friendly fire" is more often misidentifying an enemy than simply a "bad miss", etc. etc.
But- if we take this data, plus the current rate of casualties (including wounded) and assume 15% of that is due to friendly fire (I had heard the numbers were around there, but I might be wrong), here's a "realistic" critical fumble table for you:
On a 1, roll on the following table:
1 Roll on the next table.
2-20 Nothing Happens.
1 Roll on the next table.
2-20 Nothing Happens.
1 Roll on the next table.
2-20 Nothing Happens.
1 You attack an ally!
2-20 Nothing Happens. Alternatively, some minor bad thing happens.
There. Realism. You have a 1:3,200,000 chance of hitting an ally with an attack (five consecutive natural 1s). A party of five characters making eight attack rolls each per encounter at four encounter per game and 4 games a month should see this happen once every 200 years or so.
I have never met a player that liked critical fumbles. If any of you have, then more power to you. I might use critical fumbles in a game where the characters were bumbling fools- they are great fun in games like Paranoia. Just keep them out of D&D.
This makes close burst powers even more dangerous to use than they already are...
A wizard attacking four minions has an almost 19% chance of granting combat advantage doing this...
If I would do this, I would restrict it to the first attack roll for the power. And even then it may become annoying.
Again, if everybody in my group would want critical misses, I would still require an additional d20 roll with at least 5+ meaning nothing happens.
I havn't had a problem with it. Most of the time the wizard sticks to Cloud of Daggers. (you know, the new magic missile- Always does at least Wis mod damage, hit or miss)
I has an idea! Okey, so you know how a 20 in 4E only causes the maxed damage if a 20 would have hit anyway? Well, what about a 1 is always a miss, but if that 1 would have caused you to miss anyway, you grant CA! It's like... the same, but... backwards!...
Just realized that there will prbably never be a time where that 1 wouldn't miss anyway, but still! :P
I havn't had a problem with it. Most of the time the wizard sticks to Cloud of Daggers. (you know, the new magic missile- Always does at least Wis mod damage, hit or miss)
That's not really a valid arguement. Although you don't use them, many Wizard players do use AoE spells. What I would suggest is that only the first roll is eligable, that solves everything right up.
If someone complains, I'll look into it. For now, 1 = CA is how it works in my games.
Well, of course if your group likes it then nobody has the right to say that you shouldn't do it ;)
I just think this will not work for many groups.
DnD is about being a hero, not about laughing at how silly so-and-so's character looks.
Just based off of my own group, this seems to be one difference between the old timers and the new comers. The new comers want their characters to be cool always, the old timers love playing silly characters with broken stats and critical fumbles. Just in my group though.
Just based off of my own group, this seems to be one difference between the old timers and the new comers. The new comers want their characters to be cool always, the old timers love playing silly characters with broken stats and critical fumbles. Just in my group though.
As you said, that's based on your group. I've been playing since the early 1980's as have many in my group. None of us care for critical fumble rules and the only people who want to play silly characters are the newcomers who do it as a self-defense mechanism so thay can pretend they're really not so geeky for playing D&D.
As you said, that's based on your group. I've been playing since the early 1980's as have many in my group. None of us care for critical fumble rules and the only people who want to play silly characters are the newcomers who do it as a self-defense mechanism so thay can pretend they're really not so geeky for playing D&D.
That's good to hear (about the long term players, at least)!
"whean opening the door your arms fly of your body killing you team mates"