To explain, in a 20 round combat, two hypothetical fighters join a fray. Grenshar is a fledgling level 5 fighter with one melee attack per round at a +8 bonus. Hornteg the Great is a masterful level 15 fighter with three melee attacks per round at +19/+14/+9 bonuses. Immediately, you can see Hornteg is the better of the two... but statistically, he is more the klutz than Grenshar.
You see, in 20 rounds of combat, Grenshar will get at least 20 attacks (1 per round.) He has a 5% chance of critically fumbling each round. If he fights perfectly average, he will critically fumble once in this combat.
On the other hand, in the same 20 rounds of combat, Hornteg will make 60 attacks (3 per round.) At the same 5% chance of critically fumbling, he will, on average, drop his weapon (or such) 3 times in the same span of time. Basically, Hornteg swings his sword faster and more potently, but has never trained up his grip and balance.
I have come up with a small house rule variant to critical successes and fails that makes the higher level fighter more adapted to his extra attacks by introducing the concept of 'balance and rhythm' to the first attack roll of the round.
Variant: Attack Balance
Every PC establishes his balance and rhythm with his first attack roll. This rule can be extended to NPCs and creatures to add more depth to thier combat. Where a result is listed as 'Result: miss' means the attack roll plus bonuses/penalties was lower than the needed AC to hit. Likewise, 'Result: hit' means the roll plus bonuses/penalties was above the target AC. '>crit' means one less than the applicable crit range for the PC and weapon.
1st Attack roll / Balance check
Result: 1; re-roll 1st attack and all subsequent attacks this round per Off Balanced conditions.
Result: 2->crit; treat as 1st attack roll. All subsequent attacks this round occur per Balanced conditions.
Result: 20 (or crit range); re-roll 1st attack and all subsequent attacks this round per Well Balanced conditions.
Off Balanced
The attacker has poor rhythm and balance for this round. Each attack roll incurs the following results:
Result: 1; miss and critical fumble vs REF DC20, lose remaining attacks this round.
Result: miss; miss and critical fumble vs. REF DC10, lose all remaining attacks this round.
Result: hit->crit; hit for half damage.
Result: 20 (or crit range); hit for normal damage.
Balanced
The attacker has good rhythm and balance for this round. Each attack roll is treated as hit or miss with no exception applied to natural 1's or 20's.
Well Balanced
The attacker has exceptional rhythm and balance for this round. Each attack roll incurs the following results:
Result: 1; miss.
Result: miss; treat as hit for half damage.
Result: hit->crit; treat as a critical hit.
Result: 20 (or crit range); treat as a critical hit ([variant]with a threat to instant kill per 3.5 Ed. RAW.)
I don't do critical fumbles in my game, but if I were to implement them, I'd do them the slightly modified reverse of Crits. Roll a 1, then you immediately make another attack roll at your best attack bonus. If the second roll would hit the target, the character just misses. If the second roll would miss the target, the character drops their weapon. This way, high level characters have less of a chance of fumbling.
Interesting system, but the thing I don't like about it is that a character that rolls a 1 on his attack roll still has a chance to hit, and a character that rolls a 20 (or other threat range hit) has a chance to miss entirely or do less damage than normal.
I don't do critical fumbles in my game, but if I were to implement them, I'd do them the slightly modified reverse of Crits. Roll a 1, then you immediately make another attack roll at your best attack bonus. If the second roll would hit the target, the character just misses. If the second roll would miss the target, the character drops their weapon. This way, high level characters have less of a chance of fumbling.
Thanks the reply. I need to rewrite this or something... because a lot of people tell me it's too complicated, but when they describe what they do, it turns out to be paraphrasing what I do :P
If I were to describe it like this:
When you make your first attack for the round, roll your D20... this being your initial attack roll. If it is anything other than a natural 1 or within the crit range of your weapon, treat it and all other attack rolls this round as normal, treating 1's and crits at face value.
If your first attack roll is a natural 1, then reroll your attack to confirm the threat to fumble, and treat all other attacks this round as a confirm to fumble. A fumble will negate all available additional attacks for the round. A natural 20 on any attack now only counts as a hit at half damage for the remainder of the round.
If your first attack roll is a natural 20 (or within your weapon's crit range), then reroll your attack to confirm the threat to critical hit, and treat all other attacks this round as a confirm to critical hit. A natural 1 counts as a hit for half damage. Also, a natural 20 now counts as a threat to instant kill. Reroll these threats to instant kill to confirm.
--This being a paraphrasing of the above ruling... the sort of complicated structure was written to give you an overview of all the possible outcomes.
As I mentioned, this is a house rule for fixing the critical fumble variant. It works smoothly in my campaign, but obviously isn't for everybody.
Cheers!
As levels increase, a critical threat on the first roll becomes more and more deadly. Manage to get into this "well balanced" condition, and you can't miss (except on a 1)!
That's brokenly powerful for a high level fighter -- and remember, your opponents use this too. Just as critical fumbles affect you more than your enemy, because you fight every battle and he doesn't (and slaying a orc isn't that big a deal), this system means a lucky roll by your enemy turns into a dead PC in one round. PCs should never die through sheer bad luck -- it should always be something foolish they DID in the first place, like charging into melee combat with a Cockatrice or trying to wrestle a Titan.
Moreover, this rule set would overpower the low damage/high crit warrior. A keen scimitar-wielding ranger with Improved Critical would be going well-balanced constantly, while an axe-wielding, power attacking dwarf would almost never get that advantage.
On a more general note, I dislike any critical fumble rules. An experienced swordsman (which a level 1 fighter IS, like it or not) does not simply drop his sword in battle, and while the "off balance" condition seems okay for that purpose, I'd rather not create new statuses.
It would be better to (if you MUST make a critical fumble rule) cause the fighter to become flatfooted or be considered stunned until his next action (but not losing a turn as normal for stunning).
The OP is exactly right about one of the prime reasons why they suck. But if you MUST have Fumbles- have it be simply that you can only fumble on your last swing of the round- which is the first swing in most cases. Simple. Have a "confirm roll" which is a DC15 reflex save.
When you critical miss you roll a dex check of 10 if you miss you fall prone. If you again critical miss in your dex check you can attack an ally or yourself (attack check against the person you re attacking) and fall prone again.
Points that need clarity:
When is this Balancing applicable?
This balance mechanism only applies to full attacks?
Are free action attacks of opportunity considered in this?
One word: Grapple?
Just to make sure I have the flow right
First attack of the round - set the balance state with that there table.
On a roll of one, which normally "always misses," you get to reroll to confirm the miss but you go off balance for the rest of "the round? or full attack action?"
Subsequent attacks in the round - by balance setting:
Off balance - roll less than a 20 (an "always hit") and you have to reflex or lose your subsequent attacks (or end your action?)
Balanced - treated as normal rules
Well balanced - increased chance to hit with subsequent attacks.
Now, let me hit each section,Initial balance setting
Ok, so only one thing I would change about this - Crit is not "threat"
Crit = 1 and 20. I would take out the "(or crit range)" as there is no "crit range" in the game ;) eh? Its the "threat range" and threat range shouldn’t be a factor here. This mechanism should be fixing the statistics of the 1&20 not the threat function. The threat function, while it needs must be addressed by the balance mechanism, does not need to be addressed here.
Actually, on after thought I would change another thing, I get back to that below though.
Off Balance
This is the meat of the issue here. Even the greatest of warriors make those oh so drastic mistakes. If you don't think its heroic for heroes to fumble then you play too much D&D.. . go watch a movie.
I would do this:
Treat the initial balancing result of a 1 as a partial "preconfirmation" for the fumbles and threats.
- Result of 1: Miss (regardless of total) and Auto-Fumble .
- Result of miss: Deal no Damage and Confirm for Fumble.
- Result of hit: Deal Half Damage.
- Result of 20: Hit (regardless of total) and Deal Normal Damage.
The ref save gives higher level characters a better chance to recover from a fumble, but it makes rouges better at weapon control than fighters. BOO!
The threat/confirm mechanic on the top works well. Natural 20 will hit and inherently prompts a threat confirm. The fumble/confirm should work the same way. Natural 1 will miss and inherently prompt a fumble confirm.
In this case the initial balancing attack serves to replace the "per-attack-roll" confirmation of fumble. I don’t remember the fumble variant in the DMG exactly (I know a lot of fumble variants and it was one I was already familiar with thusly it does not stand out starkly in my memory), but I think the confirmation of crit threat/fumble - particularly with "hyper realism aka: double crit threat/fumbles" that allow for instant kills and catastrophic failures (the proverbial "stab yourself" phenomena) - should stick to using an attack check.
Would you suggest putting a will save on a threat confirmation? It would give a higher level character a better chance of confirming a critical. Wizards and clerics particularly or bard - ref up and will down. Can’t really count on him to hit, but boy can he save a crit!
On Balance
This is pretty straight foreword but declarations such as these might make the state of affairs clearer for those at the table:
- Result of 1: Miss (regardless of total) and Confirm for Fumble.
- Result of miss: Deal No Damage.
- Result of hit: Deal Normal Damage.
- Result of 20: Hit (regardless of total) and Confirm for Threat.
Now, the thing here is that this table represents what happens most of the time. 90% of the time on average the balancing check (or first attack of a full attack action) will result in the "On Balance" category. I don’t think its sufficient to say "like normal" when your changing such things. Allot of what people call complex is actually just a confusing presentation method. Like the Diplomacy table.. ;)
Let’s reanalyze the 90% ... Why? Cant think of a good statistics term but statistically the majority of characters (as in pc and npc) will be making only a single attack per attacking action. Now this of course is not "the game" but "the world" - as most players rapidly move their adventures into the realms of things capable of "challenging" them. Nonetheless that table probably represents 94-96% of the time, when considering move-e actions are pretty common in combat even for a fighter.
Well Balanced
AND, here we have our potatoes. This is the "good" part where this integrated system provides your character with that DAMAGE multiplier.
- Result of 1: Miss (regardless of total).
- Result of miss: Deal Half Damage.
- Result of hit: Deal Normal Damage and Confirm for Threat.
- Result of 20: Hit (regardless of total) and Auto-Threat.
So if you roll a 20 then a 1, you still miss but its just a miss (no chance of fumble). The initial 20 on the Balancing attack prevents any form of fumble on the remaining attack rolls. Your initial "nat20" (as we like to call it 'round wonder world) safeguards against fumble, makes damaging your opponent a near certainty, and serves in place of the confirmation of any subsequent nat20s. I don't think it sounds complicated at all when placed next to the turn check and grapple combat rules.
The key here is that you sound like you are adding an additional dice roll into the equation when you are really just moving the crit confirmation roll to a primary location in roll sequence. You determine the possibility of massive success or failure with the initial attack check and finalize the probabilities with each actual attack. Also, as I pointed out, 96% of the time there will be absolutely no alteration in the sequence of die rolls whatsoever.
When making a standard attack
This is what I was going to get back to regarding the initial balancing attack. There needs to be a statement about "single attack actions."
When you are making a single standard attack action, there needs be no change to dice rolls (assuming you want to use fumbles). You roll, and unless you roll a 20 or a 1 you either hit or miss as normal. The end of your action. If you roll a 20 or a 1 you are either automatically hitting or missing, and then there is a second roll to confirm for a threat or fumble. Just like normal.
You could make a case with the way the information is presented that in single attack actions there needs to be three dice rolls to determine fumble or threat: Balancing attack results in crit, attack check results in crit, and now you confirm. That is overanalyzing the mechanics, but perhaps a declaration of the relationship between full and standard attack actions could reduce the "complexity" of the presented schema.
"It ain't that complicated" - Shea
That’s right you can quote me
Ups and Downs
The above commentary is derived from multiple massive arguments over fumble rules, familiarity with the genre, and my tinkertoy system I call "D20:Ups&Downs" - basically a way to emulate a successes based system in with the d20 mechanics - where I renamed some of the facets of the d20 dice boundaries.
Threat Ranges became "Downs"
Fumble Ranges became "Ups"
Every check (every check) had ups and downs conditions, and the ranges of the ups and the downs were dynamic in that the player could decide to push the downs down.. pushing the ups up as well. Combined with multipliers and xovers we were able to play a sphere based magic system in d20 and with what, I thought, was a much more wieldy consequence and costs system.
And yes, if I placed any of your words more explicitly feel free to c/p.
Its kinda short, counting your words is good, but by my count there are some missing.
It usually benefits the fighters more this way, because I can't hit the smarmy bastards anyway. But I digress.
Anyway, Sinaz, correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that if a player rolls a nat. 20 at the beginning of the round, then all other attacks for that round is considered a critical threat? If so, then a lucky fighter could take down a Great Wrym a peg or nine if he rolls lucky...
I think this works exceptionally well if natural 1s cause you to lose the rest of your turn.
See, the problem is, were used to people dumbing things down. I see now where your table says first attack roll/balance check results. The problem was, you didn’t explain in that post exactly how the first attack roll was used ot check balance. I will admit, I sort of glossed over it and as such didn’t exactly try my hardest to figure it out, but it makes much more sense after your explanation.
I myself think its a very good system, and one worth implementing....The system I’ve always used was the other variant on 20's and 1's, that a natural twenty counts as a 30 on the die roll, and a natural 1 counts as a -10. In this manner, again, anyone can horribly miss, but I find it difficult to believe that, because of a 1, a level 20 fighter misses the surprised peasant (I’ve also had bad encounters with DMs who made me roll attacks when throwing rocks at buildings-Simply because if I rolled a 1 I might kill myself
). Yours however rings much more.....Real. and anything which can add fluidity to combat, while still making it more chaotic is good. Especially since character twinkery is less likely to be an issue with this setup.I DM with my ThinkPad on the table beside me so it's a simple matter to pull up the table whenever a PC or an NPC roll a '1' and find out what happened. Plus this way, fumbling isn't always just dropping your weapon or hitting yourself. It has about 9 variable results, each with a save. All but 1 are Reflex saves.
• When your opponent has better armor and is flat footed
• When your opponent is good at dodging. Not better at tripping you.
• When your opponent is being attacked at range and is harder to hit due to distance or wind.
• When you are firing past allies and have taken an attack penalty because you DON'T want to accidentally hit them.
My group does use fumbles. And they are bad news. We used to use the roll again and see if you still miss, to confirm a fumble, but now we have decided to cut back the occurrence of such occasions. Roll again and if you get another natural 1, then you fumble. Knowing that you only fumble on a natural 1 followed by a natural 1 allows you to get on with determining your fumble pretty much instantly without having the DM calculate anything or give away the AC of your opponent because your confirmation was good enough to hit.
Fumbles are now feared but are less common so you don't end up with the party turning into a bunch of incompetent clowns all of a sudden.
If you are making ranged attacks where allies are in the way and you don't have precise shot, and you don't care to reduce your attack (out of no consideration for your friends) then a natural 1 is a fumble and you probably just hit someone else (possibly an ally) now roll with base attack +10 to see if you do hit the unlucky person that the DM has selected in some manner. This gives you the opportunity to accidentally score a critical and you have the chance of really becoming unpopular.
The point is that too many fumbles suck and are disastrous. Too many confirmation rolls slow the game down and give away information. When a fumble becomes a +10 base attack, then chance affects the outcome, not you actually trying to hit your ally or yourself which is ridiculous. The defenses of someone still count when a redirected shot goes their way. This way sometimes a fumble can turn into a critical. On the bright side, if you are shooting into a crowd, sometimes the enemy suffers from your wayward shots too.
Like any critical fumble rule, this tends to push fighters off the middle of their bell curve. Yours does it in a more balanced fashion, but this is still not very good.
I think you are a little confused about how this system works.
The conditions are determined round for round. So it's not like a keen wielding blah-di-blah would be 'stuck' in well balanced conditions. He only gets there if his first roll is a crit. And yeah, a keen would be a remarkable bonus as your player increases level.
But in light of your comments, I might concede to reducing the crit range in all confirms to a requisite 20 after the initial attack roll. I think that would overcome the idea of the super-mega-keen advantage while at the same time, preserving the fumble fix that the system is designed for.
Finally, I have to just admit, that I rarely take the word "fumble" literally. In terms of style of play, some people are going to have players drop their sword, even critically wound themselves whether you or anyone else finds it absurd. It's just the way they play. But for the record, in my games, when fumbles occur, they are typically involuntary 5 foot steps that illicit an AoO, or the fumble comes about as pseudo-disarm through my descriptions of combat.
Anyway, Sinaz, correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that if a player rolls a nat. 20 at the beginning of the round, then all other attacks for that round is considered a critical threat? If so, then a lucky fighter could take down a Great Wrym a peg or nine if he rolls lucky...
I can't think of a way that a lucky fighter can get in anywhere near 600+ hp from five consecutive critical hits (assuming he's at least level 16 AND got an AoO.) He would need a weapon that does over 80 points of damage (considering a Great Wyrm's DR.) Or with Two Weapon Wielding, he'd need a weapon that does over 53 points of damage and 9 consecutive hits vs. an AC of 41. If I add Combat Reflexes to the mix, you can now conceivably reduce the needed damage of each attack to approximately 41 points of damage and succeed in 14 consecutive hits assuming the dragon moved into and out of threatened squares four times in a round vs. a fighter with DEX of 18. I mean, that's lucky... and that's one hell of a weapon. I know people are going to powergame, but if you break the core mechanics of the game, no house rule that attempts to balance play is going to fix it.
And I don't know what "a peg or nine" means.
Mine's pretty simple. Roll BAB check DC 10. If you fail this check, you drop your weapon (if in melee) or drop your ammo bag/quiver (if fighting with range) in your square or one of the adjacent squares. Picking up items, as noted on the PHB, provokes attacks of opportunity.
Easy rule and my players don’t complain about it much. They especially like it when the foe loses his/her weapon.
Roll BAB check DC 10. If you fail this check, you drop your weapon (if in melee) or drop your ammo bag/quiver (if fighting with range) in your square or one of the adjacent squares. Picking up items, as noted on the PHB, provokes attacks of opportunity.
Easy rule and my players dont complain about it much... they especially like it when the foe loses his/her weapon.