Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Overmind69 Feb 04, 2009 0:12:00	My best friend is DM'ing a new campaign, and overall, its going well. We use a good number of house rules, but most of them make sense and its no big deal. However, theres one rule he made up that annoys the living hell out of me. If a PC rolls a natural 1 on their turn, it automatically ends, AND you automatically grant combat advantage until your next turn. Which means that if I'm playing my Tempest Fighter and use Rain of Blows, if I roll a 1 on my first attack, I lose them all and I cant even do anything else. He did add that area powers, where say a Wizard has to hit multiple targets, he would resolve all the other attack rolls first, then his turn would end. However, those suck as Rangers and others who roll multiple attack rolls seem to get the short end of the stick. Our odds of rolling a 1 are much higher. I know he wanted to make rolling a 1 seem "special", but I think this takes it too far, as I cant even justify my fighter in game all of a sudden losing 3 out of my 4 attacks, my minor, AND my move potentially. Forget about spending an action point too. Even worse, my human fighter likes to spend his action point right away, and use Rain of Blows and Tempest Dance all at once. I could potentially lose so much, and in game its, to be blunt, retarded. Please note that this affects monsters and NPC's as well, but I think this hurts the Ranger and I more than anything. I also want to point out that I believe this also encourages meta game thinking, in that the PC's may be afraid of rolling a one, so they use a minor and their move earlier than they would otherwise, in fear of losing the rest of their actions. Thoughts?
#2 salla Feb 04, 2009 0:14:47	Critical Fumble rules always suck and always hurt PCs more than enemies. If the rest of the party agrees with you, you can all basically say 'sorry, we're not playing under that rule', as a DM with no players is not a DM.
#3 kouk Feb 04, 2009 0:45:11	Step 1: Decide with the rest of the players that you don't want to play with that rule. Step 2: Ask the DM to rescind the rule in timed unison (more effective that way if you show you put in practice rehearsing it). Step 3: If he still won't, then direct him to threads like this: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1142671
#4 jaz0n Feb 04, 2009 1:13:29	I think critical fumbles can add a lot of depth to the game, so in that respect, I'm sorry OP, but I can't agree with you. However, having the same effect every time doesn't add fun or immersion, it simply adds annoyance.
#5 Overmind69 Feb 04, 2009 1:22:17	I think critical fumbles can add a lot of depth to the game, so in that respect, I'm sorry OP, but I can't agree with you. However, having the same effect every time doesn't add fun or immersion, it simply adds annoyance. Your opinion of critical fumbles is irrelevant to my OP, as all this rule does is add randomness at the heroes expense, which makes us not feel like heroes at all. Most critical fumble rules add nothing to the game, but if done correctly its not the end of the world. As you said, all it truly does is add annoyance. Especially this one. Not that I ever stated critical fumbles cant add depth in my OP at all, of course.
#6 durendal_mn Feb 04, 2009 1:49:06	I would point out to your DM that most criticals against players have been removed. Looking through the MM it becomes apparent that monsters do not deal expansive critical damage. ( a few do get bonuses) It's a basic fact that players will deal and recieve far more criticals and critical failures than any npc. With four to five rounds in a combat and around 8 or so combats a level, a player will roll approximately 32 d20s a level. With dual strikes 64 d20s a level, averaging 3 critical failures a level. Honestly I appreciate the lack of critical fumbles.
#7 jaz0n Feb 04, 2009 1:51:37	Your opinion of critical fumbles is irrelevant to my OP, as all this rule does is add randomness at the heroes expense, which makes us not feel like heroes at all. Most critical fumble rules add nothing to the game, but if done correctly its not the end of the world. As you said, all it truly does is add annoyance. Especially this one. Not that I ever stated critical fumbles cant add depth in my OP at all, of course. All you did was state why you were annoyed and asked for thoughts. I gave mine. So as you can see, my post was completely relevant. If you just want somebody to agree with you, say so, instead of asking for honest opinions.
#8 Overmind69 Feb 04, 2009 2:17:50	All you did was state why you were annoyed and asked for thoughts. I gave mine. So as you can see, my post was completely relevant. If you just want somebody to agree with you, say so, instead of asking for honest opinions. I wasnt asking about whether or not critical fumbles add depth to the game. I just asked for thoughts about the points I made about why this specific critical fumble rule is a bad idea. Thank you Durendal for the statistics. Dual Striking makes it even worse than I thought...
#9 syrsuro Feb 04, 2009 2:49:21	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1142671 Carl
#10 eldiran Feb 04, 2009 13:36:14	You could ask for a critical miss to require a confirmation roll, of sorts -- whenever you roll a 1, roll another d20, and if that result is a 1, then you've critically missed. I find this helps a lot keeping the heroes heroic, rather than having them be bumbling klutzes that utterly fail every 20 attacks.
#11 Krusk Feb 04, 2009 15:37:50	Ask the DM why they give this exception to casters. Then point out how their reasoning works just as well for non casters making multiple attack rolls a round. If the DM doesn't conceed this, then I would take it as a sign of poor dming, and possibly leave. Provided the rest of the game were only "just ok".
#12 icedcrow Feb 04, 2009 15:46:24	I use the same rule as your DM does. However, it's universal. Monsters and NPCs who roll a "1" also have the same effect hit them. So it's not just the PCs that have to deal with it.
#13 Overmind69 Feb 04, 2009 18:32:46	I use the same rule as your DM does. However, it's universal. Monsters and NPCs who roll a "1" also have the same effect hit them. So it's not just the PCs that have to deal with it. Too bad the rule sucks more for the players than the monsters. Name one monster who rolls 8 attack rolls in one round with an action point like my Tempest Fighter does. Then consider that since Im Human, all these attacks are almost auto hits. Rolling a one on an early attack and potentially losing 7 attacks is a bunch of crap. I can understand auto combat advantage however.
#14 shadow_viper Feb 04, 2009 18:44:00	In my group's 3.5 games we have a rule for critical misses, it's one I've gotten off these forums. A Critcal miss works simular to a critical hit, if you roll a natural 1, you make a confirmation roll: 10 and below you take -2 to AC until the start of your next turn. 11 and above, you've simply just missed. We used to have a simular rule with the confirmation, but the effects were things like unstringing bows, dropping weapons, hitting another unintended target, etc.
#15 Crimson_Concerto Feb 04, 2009 20:19:30	I think critical fumbles can add a lot of depth to the game Sure, in the same way that setting your house on fire can produce a good reading light. I agree completely with the OP. The house rule is ridiculous and adds nothing good to the game. It's just not worth it. All it serves to do is screw over people who make more attacks. It's not in any way balanced, and I'd never tolerate such a nerf in any game I play in. I echo everybody who told you to talk to the other players and then have them help you confront them DM with your concerns.
#16 _radagast__dup Feb 04, 2009 21:15:46	I use a slightly modified version of this Critical Fumble rule. In my home game if you roll a natural 1, it's meaningful in a way that rolling a natural 20 is. Natural 20s deal maximum damage, and natural 1s cause your turn to end immediately (they don't cause you to grant combat advantage). I've flavored this much like many Critical Fumble systems in many campaigns. Basically, something happens that causes the hero to either lose their focus or cause them to devote themselves to completing a task before they can continue with their normal plan of strategy... I believe it's cinematic and adds a lot to a game (especially our Eberron game where the players aren't gods... They can make mistakes and get beat up) and in many cases is present in most movies and books. I also think it makes combat seem more vibrant and realistic. Combat in movies and life is never seamless... People make mistakes and fall down, bash their knuckles, etc... Think of Aragorn dropping his sword in the fight against Lurtz. It causes him to improvise and re-evaluate his strategy. Usually I flavor the player ending their turn with something like this, their bow string breaks and they spend the rest of their turn re-stringing it quickly, they drop their sword and spend the rest of their turn picking it up, etc... Naturally, the description changes depending on the action. Since this is 4th Edition, I'll usually try to let the player keep their weapon as it's pretty much the design philosophy of 4th Edition to keep effects like "disarm" out of the game. So instead I just describe them dropping it and immediately retrieving it. As far as balance goes, I don't really understand how players would get more Critical Fumbles than the monsters... Generally I run many more monsters than there are PCs. Sure, each individual monster may not last as long, but I'm rolling more d20s for the hordes of monsters each turn than each player is rolling by far. And, as far as character's with multiple attacks, they usually roll of them at the same time anyways, so we just count the 1 as the last attack made and end their turn after that. Seems to make it balanced for everyone that way. So, do I think this critical fumble rule is unfair or unfun? I'd say it depends on how your DM uses it and the interesting and fun descriptions he comes up with when you roll a 1... If his response is, "Ok, your turn is over.r Jim you're up!" - Well, that's not as cool as, "You cut into the orc with a series of slashes from your twin swords causing specks of blood to spray across your face, as your last blow comes crashing down the orc raises his shield and your hand slams into it causing a pulse of pain surge up your arm and you to drop your sword. You quickly catch it as it rattles to the floor - ending your turn..."
#17 guntherfuzz8 Feb 04, 2009 21:18:03	I've played under the "Natural 1 = Fumble" houserule for years and yes, it does tend to bite characters with multiple attacks in the butt more frequently. However, I also feel that it isn't that big of deal but I would cry foul about his version of it for casters. In my 3E games a critical failure for a caster resulted in the spell slot being lost. In 4E I've ruled that the power (Arcane or Martial) fails and for encounter or daily powers a Save is made or the power is expended as well as granting Combat Advantage until your next turn. However, the fumble does not prevent you from continuing your turn and using your Move or Minor action or even spending your Action Point.
#18 rmn498 Feb 04, 2009 22:15:16	In case anyone thinks the fumble rule from the OP sounds familiar, it's actually in the House Rules section of the DMG. I guarantee that's where the DM got it from. Fumble Whenever you make an attack roll of natural 1, your turn immediately ends, and you grant combat advantage to all attackers until the start of your next turn. If the roll is part of a close or area attack, resolve all the other attack rolls before ending your turn The relevant passage continues to say, The exception for close and area attacks is something that you’d likely discover a need for in play. Such powers affect all targets at once, as opposed to those that let you blast one foe at a time, so it doesn’t make sense to cancel the remaining attacks. This way, if a wizard fumbles a single attack roll with fireball, the spell still fries the other monsters in its area. Unfortunately, it looks like this house rule was qualified based on the realism of previous editions rather than the preservation of balance we see in 4e. From a realistic perspective, fumbling should probably make you lose the rest of your (melee) attacks. However, with the new mindset of balancing the classes, it's just not fair to apply unequal penalties to different classes.
#19 spasheridan Feb 04, 2009 22:37:06	i've always found crit fumbles to be lame. And the whole "it works on monsters also" thing - look, I play a single model on the board and the DM plays all the rest. I think the "you loose your turn" is a bit more of a big deal to the player than the DM. If a 20 gave you an extra action them maybe a 1 would be worth loosing actions, but I think auto-miss is a good balance to auto-hit + some extra damage.
#20 navar100 Feb 04, 2009 23:09:24	I use the same rule as your DM does. However, it's universal. Monsters and NPCs who roll a "1" also have the same effect hit them. So it's not just the PCs that have to deal with it. But that monster and npc only exist for that one combat. They might never roll a 1 for that combat. If they do roll a 1, they're dead at the end of the combat anyway so won't be rolling another 1 next combat. Meanwhile, the player characters are in every combat and roll an infinite number of natural 1s compred to any one particualr monster or npc who exists only for that one combat.
#21 Enlightened1 Feb 04, 2009 23:47:37	Off the top, I don't much care for fumble rules either. In my experience, I haven't seen hardly any that were more than an excuse to screw players for bad luck - as if bad luck wasn't penalty enough. Re the OP, it looks like it's pretty heavily weighted - not only d oyou miss with the attack, you lose any remaining attacks and actions *and* you grant advantage? C'mon! When you roll a critical hit, you get two things: maximuim result on your weapon dice (which you could theoretically get with a normal hit) and bonus damage if you have a magic weapon/implement. You don't get advantage against anyone you crit (let alone giving all your friends the bonus!). You don't strip away any of their actions. No, that fumble rule strikes me as just unbalanced punishing. In 4e, rolling a 1 is an automatic miss anyway. If this is your daily or even encounter power, it hurts bad enough just to have that power fail. So, without fumble rules, you've missed and you've probably wasted the potential of your most potent attacks. That seems punishment enough, to my thinking. Adding combat advantage means that it is not unlikely that you will suffer sever damage for your bad roll. And making your turn end means that you are unable to do anything to compensate for your bad luck, such as shift away. In addition, the spectre of rolling a 1 would suggest to me that no one would ever start their turn with their attack/standard action, effectively reducing the tactical options for players - which hardly adds to most players' enjoyment. *If* one has to have a fumble rule, I might see imposing one of the effects, and reducing even those: 1) Rolling a 1 means your attack ends at that point (As already discussed, there should not be a difference between martial powers and others. It's just as reasonable to interpret a sudden surge/blockage of arcane energy as it is to interpret a broken bowstring.). You can still use any remaining actions for that turn. Considering that all that's left is move and minor (and action point), this should not be a dire penalty. 2) Rolling a 1 means that you grant combat advantage until the start of your next rurn to the target of that attack roll. This means one enemy gets a free bonus on you, not everyone who hapens to be within sight. This strikes me as a penalty that at least does not immediately threaten the life of the character. Again, I don't care for fumble rules - as either GM or player - but they should not be dire penalties, since they are likely to happen regularly (like, say, 1 in 20 attack rolls?).
#22 syrsuro Feb 05, 2009 8:06:24	In case anyone thinks the fumble rule from the OP sounds familiar, it's actually in the House Rules section of the DMG. I guarantee that's where the DM got it from. The relevant passage continues to say, Unfortunately, it looks like this house rule was qualified based on the realism of previous editions rather than the preservation of balance we see in 4e. From a realistic perspective, fumbling should probably make you lose the rest of your (melee) attacks. However, with the new mindset of balancing the classes, it's just not fair to apply unequal penalties to different classes. Note: It is not in the DM as an example of a good optional rule. It is in the DMG as an example of a possible house rule to show what kinds of things might be changed in a house rule and some of the factors that a DM should consider before using house rules. Carl
#23 sjmcc13 Feb 05, 2009 8:16:04	In case anyone thinks the fumble rule from the OP sounds familiar, it's actually in the House Rules section of the DMG. I guarantee that's where the DM got it from. The relevant passage continues to say, Unfortunately, it looks like this house rule was qualified based on the realism of previous editions rather than the preservation of balance we see in 4e. From a realistic perspective, fumbling should probably make you lose the rest of your (melee) attacks. However, with the new mindset of balancing the classes, it's just not fair to apply unequal penalties to different classes. I just checked the whole passage, and there are 2 things there you failed to mention. 1) the example also states a type of group it is for, it is for people who want random elements of danger, so it is not for everybody. 2) It even states in the discussion that it affects multiple attackers more, and will frustrate them more. THe DM may have say over houserules, but they also state that you need to consider the players and how they find the rule for play. If a houserule adds to everyones experience, it is probabilly a good one (might still need tweaking), but IF if detracts from one or more players experience, withour realy adding to anyone elses, it shold be re-considered. Now Imight have missed it, but I do not remember the OP stating how his group feels about this, as his opinion is clear. Persionally I do not like this rule, It feels like too much because they needed to cover all bases. I think something where the effect depends on what you have left for your turn might make more sense. but be more complaicated for writing out.
#24 strayth Feb 05, 2009 9:12:25	My best friend is DM'ing a new campaign, and overall, its going well. We use a good number of house rules, but most of them make sense and its no big deal. However, theres one rule he made up that annoys the living hell out of me. If a PC rolls a natural 1 on their turn, it automatically ends, AND you automatically grant combat advantage until your next turn. Which means that if I'm playing my Tempest Fighter and use Rain of Blows, if I roll a 1 on my first attack, I lose them all and I cant even do anything else. He did add that area powers, where say a Wizard has to hit multiple targets, he would resolve all the other attack rolls first, then his turn would end. However, those suck as Rangers and others who roll multiple attack rolls seem to get the short end of the stick. Our odds of rolling a 1 are much higher. Please note that this affects monsters and NPC's as well, but I think this hurts the Ranger and I more than anything. I also want to point out that I believe this also encourages meta game thinking, ... Thoughts? Brief defense of your DM's house rule, so we're on similar terms: Show Well, actually the chances of a Wizard rolling a 1 are much higher than yours, but I think you meant: they suffer less for the 1. (You roll a d20 ten times, there are ten chances of hitting a 1, not just the one usual chance, that your ranger seems to suffer.) The bare-faced chances of hitting only one 1 in ten rolls would be lower, by contrast. Anyway- The DM is practically consistent; he's essentially saying the wizard's fireball is impacting all these guys at once but that a ranger could screw up one shot and thus miss out on trying another separate shot. The wizard isn't making separate fireballs, to put it another way.
#25 Draco_Whitewind Feb 05, 2009 20:04:50	Since I still play 3.5, I came up with a silly list of after you roll, you roll again. since you automatically missed, you get a ridiculous reason as to how badly or why you missed, despite normally not being able to somehow (if it applies) natural 1 list What happens when you roll a natural 1 that makes you miss so badly? 1: Moe walks by, and tries to catch you in the eyes with his fingers. You stop mid swing to put your hand up to block. 2: The Noid attacks! you're so busy avoiding your weapon completely avoids your foe. 3: You sneeze, and your helm snaps down and shut. Pretty surprising, if you're not wearing a helm 4: you are hit with the backsplash from a watermelon smashed by gallagher and his trusty Sledge-o-matic. You stop for a second to shake off the seeds 5: Someone mashes the pause button and you lose your concentration. The Bastard! 6: You stop to wonder how many licks there are to the center of a Tootsie-roll pop. 7: You're so fired up you swing your weapon furiously! Next time take it out of the sheath. 8: The enemy shows you a sad crying kitten. You go "Awww" Instead of "Yarrrr!" and Miss. 9: You pause for the enemy to take off their glasses. You wouldn't hit someobody with glasses on now, would you? 10: Your weapon gets mad and veers off course. you yell at it. If the weapon is not intelligent, you may have other problems. 11:You said the secret word. Everyone and everything including the walls yells real loud and distracts you. 11a for Extraplanar realms that are wall-less> You discover that there are muther-fuggin snakes on this muther-fuggin plane. You scream and swing like a girl. 12: You swing, and the universe dodges. Fancy that. 13: You swing carelessly, and your foe gets you goat. You stop for a second to mourn your lost goat. 14: You enemy sprays themself with Acme-brand weapon repellent. 15: You swing, but get hit in the face with a pie from a clown in a car. 16: You swing, but your opponent roars fiercely and your weapon hides in is sheath. 17: Did everything just taste purple all of a sudden? 18:Your foe tries to lay a finger on your butterfinger. You pull back to stop them. 19: You finally get the meaning of all those songs on the radio. It's so awakening you stop and cry. 20: You forgot to reload. Damn these manually loading...Swords?
#26 johnnii Feb 06, 2009 9:12:05	We use the critical houserule the way you use it, with a difference You can only fumble on your FIRST attack roll for a power. This balances it among the classes, especially the Ranger and the Wizard.
#27 CCS Feb 06, 2009 17:07:34	However, having the same effect every time doesn't add fun or immersion, it simply adds annoyance. What, you don't like crit hits always doing max damage? You don't like power x always doing its effect? If you do, then hows having one standard result for a crit miss any different?
#28 CCS Feb 06, 2009 17:13:50	I would point out to your DM that most criticals against players have been removed. Looking through the MM it becomes apparent that monsters do not deal expansive critical damage. ( a few do get bonuses) It's a basic fact that players will deal and recieve far more criticals and critical failures than any npc. With four to five rounds in a combat and around 8 or so combats a level, a player will roll approximately 32 d20s a level. With dual strikes 64 d20s a level, averaging 3 critical failures a level. Honestly I appreciate the lack of critical fumbles. Yeah, but I'll bet that you're just fine with the idea of dealing out those 3 or so crit hits per lv, right? See, this is what I hate about most of the current stuff/attitudes. That as long as somethings a bonus to the players it's all fine & dandy. But its oppisite? No, BAD. That must be purged from the game....
#29 navar100 Feb 06, 2009 19:24:22	Yeah, but I'll bet that you're just fine with the idea of dealing out those 3 or so crit hits per lv, right? See, this is what I hate about most of the current stuff/attitudes. That as long as somethings a bonus to the players it's all fine & dandy. But its oppisite? No, BAD. That must be purged from the game.... Auto-missing on a natural 1 is "BAD" enough.
#30 Overmind69 Feb 06, 2009 20:46:40	We use the critical houserule the way you use it, with a difference You can only fumble on your FIRST attack roll for a power. This balances it among the classes, especially the Ranger and the Wizard. Possibly the best fix for this I have seen. However, Ill make sure to add on "for that turn" in there. Otherwise if you get the same power back, you couldn't fumble again.
#31 quiterjon_dup Feb 06, 2009 23:46:01	Funny that no one seems upset about being able to roll a crit.
#32 etarnon Feb 07, 2009 3:27:12	It's all about that whole "Johnny can't fail, it's bad for his self-esteem" mentality. I say fix it by giving every PC +5 Weapons, armor, and a personal artifact, and when the encounter begins, all monsters drop their weapons, and their guts explode, yielding conveniently carried Gems. Oh, and a power-up, free healing surge. Plus a gold star for the sheet, or a little sticker with a handwritten "Good job!" by the DM. I can't believe there are all these threads with this same topic. Let's get wrecan in here with stamping out the Critical hits and fumbles war, because that's where this is going. People that like Criticals & Fumbles (Both), like them, and don't say "Not having them, I won't play." The opposite camp is "You guys suck, and are all player killing, multi-attack PC nerfing morons." Am I the only one here seeing this trend? Sheesh.
#33 Krusk Feb 07, 2009 12:52:48	Am I the only one here seeing this trend? Yes. I think I'd be ok playing in a game without critical hits, if it ment the DM would not include fumbles. I think it boils down to this, people like to do somthing extrodinary every once in a while. So we max damage. Most people don't like to suck randomly, so we don't include something for them. Personally I think a 1 should be a "if it hits, it does min damage" and a 20 should be "if it hits, it is max damage." Instead of the auto hit and max damage vs auto miss. That probably is more balanced between a poor roll and a good one without destroying the game balance. And the added bonus of a 1 never hits anyway in 4e, unless the guy is just that specacular. It doesn't boil down to johnny can't fail, but to "Johnny shouldn't pass or fail because of random chance, but based on his own merit, skill, and a small ammount of luck". One is fun one isn't. Imagine we are playing poker with aces wild. Essentially a wild card means you will win the hand, provided they don't have any wilds either. Should this really be balanced out by "and if you draw a 2, you actually have to discard your hand and draw two cards instead? (Assuming 5 card).
#34 Overmind69 Feb 07, 2009 15:10:01	It's all about that whole "Johnny can't fail, it's bad for his self-esteem" mentality. I say fix it by giving every PC +5 Weapons, armor, and a personal artifact, and when the encounter begins, all monsters drop their weapons, and their guts explode, yielding conveniently carried Gems. Oh, and a power-up, free healing surge. Plus a gold star for the sheet, or a little sticker with a handwritten "Good job!" by the DM. I can't believe there are all these threads with this same topic. Let's get wrecan in here with stamping out the Critical hits and fumbles war, because that's where this is going. People that like Criticals & Fumbles (Both), like them, and don't say "Not having them, I won't play." The opposite camp is "You guys suck, and are all player killing, multi-attack PC nerfing morons." Am I the only one here seeing this trend? Sheesh. Thank you for the great insight and help into why the houserule is broken, and what fix is appropriate. 3 threads in 3 different forums a trend does not make. Its appreciated. As for the "Johnny cant fail crap", that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, and I never stated such a thing. I dont mind my character failing, as long as its not in a totally unbalanced way compared to the other PC's 1/20 times. If you want to add something constructive to the discussion, please feel free to do so.
#35 navar100 Feb 07, 2009 15:30:53	Funny that no one seems upset about being able to roll a crit. It's all about that whole "Johnny can't fail, it's bad for his self-esteem" mentality. I say fix it by giving every PC +5 Weapons, armor, and a personal artifact, and when the encounter begins, all monsters drop their weapons, and their guts explode, yielding conveniently carried Gems. Oh, and a power-up, free healing surge. Plus a gold star for the sheet, or a little sticker with a handwritten "Good job!" by the DM. I can't believe there are all these threads with this same topic. Let's get wrecan in here with stamping out the Critical hits and fumbles war, because that's where this is going. People that like Criticals & Fumbles (Both), like them, and don't say "Not having them, I won't play." The opposite camp is "You guys suck, and are all player killing, multi-attack PC nerfing morons." Am I the only one here seeing this trend? Sheesh. Auto-failing on a natural 1 is bad enough. It's a failure at a task that, however disappointing, is all part of the fun of the game. So I won't apologize for being against critical fumbles. I see no reason to add insult of tom-foolery stab your ally to the injury of failing to use my daily power/encounter power/awesome feat combo/tome of battle maneuver strike.
#36 tensu_of_the_moon Feb 07, 2009 18:44:01	I'd say the problem is less the fumble and more the severeity of said fumble, and that it is unfair to certain classes and such. if it where some minor annoyance that wouldn't effect the battle in any significant way unless the battle was being decided by luck anyway and if it was equally bad-but-not-a-death-sentence for all classes it would be fine.
#37 navar100 Feb 07, 2009 22:03:24	I'd say the problem is less the fumble and more the severeity of said fumble, and that it is unfair to certain classes and such. if it where some minor annoyance that wouldn't effect the battle in any significant way unless the battle was being decided by luck anyway and if it was equally bad-but-not-a-death-sentence for all classes it would be fine. Auto-missing on a natural 1 is fumble enough. More severity is not necessary.
#38 manion Feb 07, 2009 23:29:16	I'm going to be leaving my current group over critical failure houserules. I wanted to play D&D so I can play as a devious Warlock badass wielding dark powers! Being guileful and sophisticated all the while. What I got was a guy who drops his weapon, shoots friends in the back by accident, accidentally hits trap triggers from across the room, and just ends up acting like an incompetent halfling almost every combat. It's like I'm playing a Looney Tunes slapstick cartoon. All the other players love it. I brought my issue up with the DM, but he wanted to keep using it, but he promised to change how he handles it. Which is when the tree fell on me because Hellish Blast misfired, knocked me prone, and did 1d8. I stated my objection to the houserule again, to which the 1d8 got knocked off... Imagine my annoyance when I roll a 1 again later in the same battle with my encounter power. Half damage to myself... Yeah, kind of killing any fun for me when I make as many attacks against myself in an encounter as succesful ones against the enemy. I'd say the problem is less the fumble and more the severeity of said fumble, and that it is unfair to certain classes and such. if it where some minor annoyance that wouldn't effect the battle in any significant way unless the battle was being decided by luck anyway and if it was equally bad-but-not-a-death-sentence for all classes it would be fine. It it's not significant, then all you're doing is bogging down the encounter with needless houserules because the DM thinks "LOL, it's hilarious!" to make your character act like a jackass.
#39 quiterjon_dup Feb 08, 2009 2:23:21	Auto-failing on a natural 1 is bad enough. It's a failure at a task that, however disappointing, is all part of the fun of the game. So I won't apologize for being against critical fumbles. I see no reason to add insult of tom-foolery stab your ally to the injury of failing to use my daily power/encounter power/awesome feat combo/tome of battle maneuver strike. The Op never said any of what you are against is played out. Just turn ends and you grant combat advantage. The odds of rolling a crit is the same as rolling a fumble. Auto-missing on a natural 1 is fumble enough. More severity is not necessary. If you are playing a game where you miss only on a 1... I find it odd that some are so steadfast against fumbles, but are such staunch proponents of crits. The PCs have a huge advantage over creatures when it comes to crits.
#40 manion Feb 08, 2009 3:08:45	The Op never said any of what you are against is played out. Just turn ends and you grant combat advantage. The odds of rolling a crit is the same as rolling a fumble. Assuming that you're using expensive vegas dice, which costs more to ensure they're even. But that's somewhat beside the point. The PCs have a huge advantage over creatures when it comes to crits. No, they don't. "Chance favors the underdog." What this means, is that even if the big dog gets lucky, the status quo is maintained. That's the absolute best he can achieve. But, if the underdog gets lucky enough, he can upset that status quo. And then it's game over for the big dog. That aside, critical hits are moments of awesome. Everyone's allowed a little awesome. Critical fumbles are moments of idiocy. Nobody likes their character being turned into an idiot. Or the session becoming brief episodes of Looney Tunes or the Three Stooges with people smacking their friends by accident or stepping on rakes that smack them in the face. That's not exactly the fantasy most people have in mind when thinking heroic fantasy. Compare and contrast: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/CrowningMomentOfAwesome?from=Main.CrowningMomentOfAwesome http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DarthWiki/DethroningMomentOfSuck?from=Main.DethroningMomentOfSuck Now, imagine someone wants to play a character in a heroic fantasy games. NAturally, he wants to play a hero in accordance to his fantasies. Which of these two do you think he'd like to be viewing his character doing more often? The awesome? Or the suck? Equal shares, I doubt it.
#41 Krusk Feb 08, 2009 18:23:43	I find it odd that some are so steadfast against fumbles, but are such staunch proponents of crits. The PCs have a huge advantage over creatures when it comes to crits. Eh, If a DM were decent, but wanted to include fumbles, Id be fine giving up crits to negate the fumble rule. Actually the monsters have the advantage vs crits though. if the monster dies from a lucky crit, kobold #14 is dead. There will be plenty more to finish the game. If a PC dies from a lucky crit, well bill has to go spend another couple hours rolling a new one and making a backstory.
#42 etarnon Feb 09, 2009 6:49:37	Maybe put more personality into Kobold # 14.
#43 icedcrow Feb 09, 2009 10:10:18	If we removed crits I'd remove fumbles too. As it is, a "1" causing an AOO is not game breaking nor does it "screw" the PCs over. It would screw them over if the monsters would not be subjected to the same rule. I've never really had anyone have a problem with this ever. If they did, it wasn't that big a deal enough to warrant causing drama over. I also play under DMs who use the same rule and I don't see the big deal with it. A "1" causing something stupid to happen... I can see that being an issue. Like the old MERP or Rolemaster tables where you'd trip, fall, crit your friends, etc... But just opening up for an AOO is minor. And the PCs sure appreciate it when the bad guys fumble and they get their extra hits on them as well.
#44 Krusk Feb 09, 2009 13:58:50	Maybe put more personality into Kobold # 14. Do you really expect your DM's to give a name and full backstory to every single kobold in the warren. Or is it ok if the DM simply gives them the backstory of "These are the 14 kobold gaurds whose job is to keep people out of this room. They enjoy their job, and are loyal to their king." I understand if it were Loxo the Kobold King who was killed by the random crit, sure, the PCs might notice, and care. But not for minion #14.
#45 yrogerg Feb 09, 2009 18:27:37	Do you really expect your DM's to give a name and full backstory to every single kobold in the warren. Or is it ok if the DM simply gives them the backstory of "These are the 14 kobold gaurds whose job is to keep people out of this room. They enjoy their job, and are loyal to their king." I understand if it were Loxo the Kobold King who was killed by the random crit, sure, the PCs might notice, and care. But not for minion #14. Also, for that matter, the DM is populating the entire game world, and in particular, is populating a whole lot of the non-scenery with the expectation of it getting killed by the PCs at some point or another. I think it's pretty safe to say that even when it comes to major NPCs, the DM hasn't put nearly as much, time, energy or emotional investment in it as the players have each put in the single character that's supposed to serve as their avatar in the game world. I mean, he might be a bit disappointed that a climactic battle was cut short or a little bit of a railroading via scripted combat was averted by said lucky crit, but that's really about it. I mean, you're free to argue that players shouldn't invest so much in their characters, but that comes across as a bit of an argument against Roleplaying, at least to these ears. /me would would probably not want to return to the days where players were advised not to name their characters until they reach third level.
#46 linkthehero74 Feb 10, 2009 18:22:08	The times I have DM'd, I had a house rule that on a 1, they would roll a saving throw and if they failed, they fell prone. The exception was for wizards because it was just weird. Sometimes I would do silly thing but the saving throw was a deciding factor. On a critical hit though I would add something funny such as the arrow hitting another guy. I never did anything to hard, and I think if it were to be a multiple attack power I wouldn't count the critical miss. But I ran a really cartoony campaign and my PCs liked it (my first time DMing). However what it seems to me is that you are getting alot of crappy rolls which means he should lay off the rule until you roll better, or just stop all together. If you are making someones character the butt of a joke then that means you should re-evaluate your DMing abilities. OFF TOPIC: My DM has this rule that if you do more than the bloodied value on an attack, the enemy automatically dies. Unfortunately, I play a wizard who has 24 hp. Not looking forward to getting hit and my defenders aren't very good yet because they are new to the role.
#47 GelatinousOctahedron Feb 10, 2009 19:38:41	For the past few months our house rule is that when you roll a natural 1 or 20 you have to eat an jellybelly "beanboozled" every flavor bean. We keep the beans in a glass container in the shape of skull. It adds drama to both crits and "fumbles" since you really do not want to get a "bad bean". When the rare sequencial crit or fumble occurs you have to eat two at once, which can be very bad.
#48 vivijen Feb 19, 2009 3:08:17	In our house rules we do the same exact thing as you posted. We do a save but you are completely done with your turn. The reason being is every round is 6 seconds, you can lose your footing, twist something, drop your weapon, etc... real stuff happens in combat we dont want. Yes it sucks to have 1329048324 attacks and lose all of them cus of a 1 but how often do you really roll ones to confirm a hit? If you answer A LOT get new dice....
#49 chaosturtle Feb 19, 2009 13:50:08	my logic 20= auto hit, max damage 1= auto miss, min (0) damage Fumbles make it uneven...using the op's example 20= auto hit, max damage 1= auto miss, min damage, loss of all other attacks, combat advantage.
#50 cheeze21084 May 18, 2009 22:44:40	How about this, I am the OP's DM (not joking). I pulled this house rule directly from the DMG's list of suggested house rules and the OP is the only person in the group who has a problem with that (forgot to mention that, didn't he). The only exceptions to the rule are Wils Mage PP sorcerers and powers that are bursts and blasts. Because the burst/blast affects all people in it at once, they all must be rolled for. If the caster of the burst/blast rolls a nat 1 on one of the people in the blast/burst, then after the blast/burst power is resolved, their turn is over and they grant CA. This is all in the DMG. Its not my fault he made a habit of spending his AP to get bonuses and then rolling a nat 1 on his first attack roll. I even told him he could trade his iron armbands of power for couters but he wouldn't do it. I cannot be blamed for him having no re-rolls. Edit: The monsters and NPC's are also subject to this and it is very RARE that i flub any of their rolls.
#51 daidojitaidoru May 18, 2009 23:02:25	The Op never said any of what you are against is played out. Just turn ends and you grant combat advantage. The odds of rolling a crit is the same as rolling a fumble. Yes. But the game is balanced around having Crits. The game is not balanced around having fumbles. GMs who add fumbles are either trying for slapstick (which is a fair choice), bad at the game, or enjoy lording their power over their players. Player who demand to not have fumbles aren't asking for anything but a fair chance. To the OP. You have 3 choices: 1 - Play a Wild Mage. Your class feature should override the house rule. That way you can not only continue your turn but actually benefit the party on a 1. 2 - Bail. No reason to bother with this. Classes are balanced well enough that you don't need the randomness, and you aren't going to have fun with the slapstick. 3 - Lie. 1s are now 2s for you. You'll still miss, but you won't have to deal with the issue. My suggestion is 2. No reason to change character concepts for a game where you'll most likely have other issues with later, and cheating really is a terrible solution. (Edited to remove rage bleedover towards the people who may not deserve it.)
#52 thorn-wychkin May 19, 2009 1:54:45	two things I hate: the wish spell from earlier editions rolling a 1 reasons being, dungeon masters always use these as excuses to screw players over Funny that no one seems upset about being able to roll a crit. critically hitting is a game mechanic. critically fumbling is a stupid house rule.
#53 etarnon May 19, 2009 2:15:30	High five to Cheese. It's tough to DM for guys that won't play by the established rules. OP, life is tough, even in game life. C'est la Vie.
#54 thorn-wychkin May 19, 2009 2:49:36	High five to Cheese. It's tough to DM for guys that won't play by the established rules. OP, life is tough, even in game life. C'est la Vie. how was anyone not playing by the rules?
#55 Electricbee May 19, 2009 5:51:29	For me and my players, critical misses disrupt mood and just don't add to the fun of the game. If i were to play in a game with critical miss rules i would have to consider playing an avenger, 2 rolls for most attacks means one in 400 attack rolls fumble instead of one in 20.
#56 _jayne_cobb_ May 19, 2009 13:31:38	If a PC rolls a natural 1 on their turn, it automatically ends, AND you automatically grant combat advantage until your next turn. Terrible rule. Though a perfect example of how bad the vast majority of Fumble systems are.
#57 mock26 May 19, 2009 13:37:26	To the original poster: You (and everyone else in the group) need to ask yourself one simple question: Is the house rule so overwhelmingly bad that it ruins the entire game for you? If so, then talk to the DM to rescind it. If, however, the rule does not detract from the overall enjoyment of the game then just let it go and enjoy the game.
#58 mock26 May 19, 2009 13:42:16	Yes. But the game is balanced around having Crits. The game is not balanced around having fumbles. GMs who add fumbles are either trying for slapstick (which is a fair choice), bad at the game, or enjoy lording their power over their players. Player who demand to not have fumbles aren't asking for anything but a fair chance. Oh really? There are only three possible reasons for a DM adding fumbles? Thank you, good Sir, for telling everyone that you opinion is the only ones in regards to this matter. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, some DM's do it to add a bit of versilimitude to the game? You may find this hard to believe but I have been in several campaigns with several DM's who has added critical fumbles to the game and it did not ruin or detract from the game in any way, shape, or form.
#59 mock26 May 19, 2009 13:47:40	two things I hate: the wish spell from earlier editions rolling a 1 reasons being, dungeon masters always use these as excuses to screw players over Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is, however, just your opinion. It is not fact.
#60 thorn-wychkin May 19, 2009 14:04:34	Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is, however, just your opinion. It is not fact. Whatever, to quote Douglas Adams "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." the views i posted were based on a lot of firsthand observation and complaints made by others. it's a fact that more often than not, dungeon masters will use critical fumbles and the wish spell to shaft players.
#61 illraven May 19, 2009 14:19:17	I'm going to be leaving my current group over critical failure houserules. I wanted to play D&D so I can play as a devious Warlock badass wielding dark powers! Being guileful and sophisticated all the while. Reread your last sentence. "...all the while." This is a game with random dice rolls. No character gets to be Doctor Uber-Cool all the time. Do you think your DM enjoys it when his cackling BBEG fumbles his devastating attack? Get REAL. Every player rolls badly and looks like an idiot at some point. Call it 'art reflecting life'. What I got was a guy who drops his weapon, shoots friends in the back by accident, accidentally hits trap triggers from across the room, and just ends up acting like an incompetent halfling almost every combat. It's like I'm playing a Looney Tunes slapstick cartoon. Depending on the 'tone' of the campaign, your complaint may be valid. If you are the only character with devastating 'looney tunes' moments and the rest of the party get 'regular' fumbles - then you are right to complain to the DM. If there is a standard, then the DM should apply it to everyone - including his BBEGs. All the other players love it. I brought my issue up with the DM, but he wanted to keep using it, but he promised to change how he handles it. Which is when the tree fell on me because Hellish Blast misfired, knocked me prone, and did 1d8. I stated my objection to the houserule again, to which the 1d8 got knocked off... Sounds like you are being used for comic relief. If this is an allegedly serious high fantasy campaign, that seems inappropriate to me. No one wants to be the continual butt of jokes. Perhaps you should track other players' (and DM - if he rolls openly) fumbles and see how many times the DM makes outrageous crap happens to everyone else. Then report your findings to the DM. He may not realise that he is 'biasing' the game against you.
#62 Electricbee May 19, 2009 14:35:05	I also have to question the arbitrary nature of choosing to penalize some classes that make more than one attack role in a round while choosing not to punish others. Doesn't sound fun very fun to me.
#63 thorn-wychkin May 19, 2009 14:39:39	I also have to question the arbitrary nature of choosing to penalize some classes that make more than one attack role in a round while choosing not to punish others. Doesn't sound fun very fun to me. yeh, i get what the DM means by doing that but it's still unfair. the martial classes end up wasting dailies and encounter powers this way. In the DM's post he said something about how the guy uses his action points. now who the hell is he to be telling his player how to use his action point providing that the player isn't trying to use more than one in each encounter
#64 mock26 May 19, 2009 14:52:18	it's a fact that more often than not, dungeon masters will use critical fumbles and the wish spell to shaft players. Actually, it is NOT a fact. It is an opinion.
#65 thakowsaizmu May 19, 2009 14:56:58	In the DM's post he said something about how the guy uses his action points. now who the hell is he to be telling his player how to use his action point He is the DM. He obviously knows what is better from a metagame point of view. Generally if the DM suggest something, it is for a reason. "You could just save the action point incase you need it later" (Said knowing the monster has but one hit point left) "Bwa, no! I am teh heroez!!1 I use my action point to make extra attacks on it, because I am teh awesomez!!1" (Later on, said player) "What? Botch! This is unfair, I hate this game. You obviously don't know how to run a game." "Well, you should've saved that action point you needed to waste to kill that goblin..." As for the botching rule, well I won't touch that.
#66 thorn-wychkin May 19, 2009 15:07:10	and i totally understand that but based on what the dm said, the fact that the guy is using his action points unwisely and rolling 1s when he chooses to is one of the reasons he's keeping the house rule. in his eyes the player is not suffering because of the unfairness of the rule but because of his bad choices concerning his action points
#67 daidojitaidoru May 19, 2009 15:14:51	Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, some DM's do it to add a bit of versilimitude to the game? There is no verisimilitude to having a trained warrior act like a moron 1 out of every 20 swings. There might be fun if you enjoy people messing up badly. But there's no verisimilitude. You may find this hard to believe but I have been in several campaigns with several DM's who has added critical fumbles to the game and it did not ruin or detract from the game in any way, shape, or form. So you enjoy your characters blundering more then normal people. I believe I covered that possibility, and even added a note saying it was a perfectly acceptable way to play. But some people don't like that.
#68 Stuntman May 19, 2009 15:17:17	How about this, I am the OP's DM (not joking). I pulled this house rule directly from the DMG's list of suggested house rules and the OP is the only person in the group who has a problem with that (forgot to mention that, didn't he). What is your reason for deciding to use this as a house rule? The only exceptions to the rule are Wils Mage PP sorcerers and powers that are bursts and blasts. Because the burst/blast affects all people in it at once, they all must be rolled for. If the caster of the burst/blast rolls a nat 1 on one of the people in the blast/burst, then after the blast/burst power is resolved, their turn is over and they grant CA. This is all in the DMG. Do you realise that it penalises certain characters way more than others? Any character that has multiple attacks will be at a disadvantage. There is no advantage with this house rule. A ranger who constantly uses Twin Strike (and most rangers do) will consistantly fumble way more often than a fighter who uses Reaping Strike. There is absolutely no advantage when using this house rule for characters who uses multi attacks. There is a perception of unfairness when you apply this house rule compared to not applying it. I even told him he could trade his iron armbands of power for couters but he wouldn't do it. I cannot be blamed for him having no re-rolls. What do you mean by "couters?" Looks like a typo. Edit: The monsters and NPC's are also subject to this and it is very RARE that i flub any of their rolls. I find that benefit of a monster fumbling does not make up for the disadvantage of a PC fumbling. The reason is that PC's generally have better and cooler powers than many monsters. Monsters do not have daily powers. At best, they have encounter powers. PC's have daily powers. A PC fumbling on a multi-attack, daily attack power is much worse than most monsters fumbling on their best encounter power.
#69 _jayne_cobb_ May 19, 2009 15:37:05	How about this, I am the OP's DM (not joking). I pulled this house rule directly from the DMG's list of suggested house rules… It is still a terrible rule. From where you got the idea is immaterial. …and the OP is the only person in the group who has a problem with that (forgot to mention that, didn't he). So what? It is a terrible rule. Fumble rules most punish the characters least likely to screw up royally while doing virtually nothing to those most likely to. The only exceptions to the rule are Wils Mage PP sorcerers and powers that are bursts and blasts. Because the burst/blast affects all people in it at once, they all must be rolled for. If the caster of the burst/blast rolls a nat 1 on one of the people in the blast/burst, then after the blast/burst power is resolved, their turn is over and they grant CA. This is all in the DMG. Whether it is in the DMG, the Quran, the Talmud or the Bible is immaterial. It is a bad rule. Its not my fault he made a habit of spending his AP to get bonuses and then rolling a nat 1 on his first attack roll. I even told him he could trade his iron armbands of power for couters but he wouldn't do it. I cannot be blamed for him having no re-rolls. It is your fault for implementing a bad rule. Edit: The monsters and NPC's are also subject to this and it is very RARE that i flub any of their rolls. Fumbles punish PCs much more than any NPC or monsters. Players make many hundreds, even thousands, of attack rolls while your average enemy makes a handful at best. The vast majority of enemies will likely fumble at most once in their existence, and most will never even live long enough to do even that, while you average PC will likely be fumbling every encounter, and often more than that.
#70 mock26 May 19, 2009 17:53:15	There is no verisimilitude to having a trained warrior act like a moron 1 out of every 20 swings. There might be fun if you enjoy people messing up badly. But there's no verisimilitude. That, good sir, is your opinion. It is possible to incorporate fumbles that do not have trained warriors act like morons 1 out of every 20 swings. So you enjoy your characters blundering more then normal people. I believe I covered that possibility, and even added a note saying it was a perfectly acceptable way to play. But some people don't like that. You will, of course, tell me where I said that I enjoy characters blundering more than normal people. Right? There are ways to do fumbles so that they do not penalize the fighter types more than other classes.
#71 ostracized May 19, 2009 21:00:38	dont really have much to add, only this. I ran for many many years with custom/modified critical tables both on 20 and on 1. It was great... but not for DnD. I did it on my first play session for 4e... and it just felt weird. Instead of adding, it took away. There is something about the balance system for 4e that really kills the fun part of it. So I decided to drop it completely. No crit fumbles.
#72 _jayne_cobb_ May 20, 2009 8:21:31	That, good sir, is your opinion. Of course it is his opinion. Who else's opinion would you imagine he is qualified to give?