Close, but no cigar....

[Kid Charlemagne]

"Closing the gap" is an interesting idea. It reminds me of something that we used in 2E, that past a certain level the automatic failure for saves and attack rolls increased from a natural 1 to a natural 1 or 2 (or even 1-3) on a d20 roll. Is that logical? I mean, does it seem weird that a higher level character with greater skill suddenly have a greater automatic failure range?

Hey, lookie here!

Actually, I remember that rule from the 2e days - I think it was part of the Players Option (a misinterpretation on our DM's part) - that when combined with the fumble system, ended up making our fighters more dangerous to themselves than our supposed enemies were. So no, not logical, IMO. 5% failure is still plenty (as has been recently born out just this past weekend...)

 

[eris404]

Really? I mean, that's what that rule was supposed to do? Damn, that's weird.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Really? I mean, that's what that rule was supposed to do? Damn, that's weird.

I think it went like this - and my memory may be faulty, as I pretty much tried to lock my recollections of Player's Option rules in the same dark recesses of my mind along with my memories of owning "Bread" albums and liking the A-Team.

Crits in PO were similar to 3E, roll 18-20 and then confirm. I'm not sure if there were fumbles or not, but our DM at the time (who we both know plays a little fast and loose with the rules, despite his otherwise excellent DM'ing skills) extrapolated that so that Fumbles were likewise a 15 % chance, and I think he didn't have us confirm either crits or fumbles.

We were pretty tough, and our fighters especially so. So any time we rolled a 3, we'd fumble, and do damage to ourselves. It ended up with us being more dangerous to ourselves than anyone we ever fought.

Luckily I played a wizard.