Vorpal and Sharpness and Fumble rules...

[Nezkrul]

/agree with Dandu plus

fumble rules only hurt the players, because the protagonists keep going in the game, whereas the monsters don't care if they get a fumble because they were destined to die when they attacked the PCs

It also makes no sense that a level 100 fighter would have the same chance of killing himself, lopping off his own arm/leg, dropping his weapon, or slipping and falling as a level 1 warrior has.

 

[the Jester]

It also makes no sense that a level 100 fighter would have the same chance of killing himself, lopping off his own arm/leg, dropping his weapon, or slipping and falling as a level 1 warrior has.

Ahh, but the beauty of a severity-based system is that highly competent characters (e.g. high-level fighters) can have automatic reductions in severity (either a flat "reduce severity by 1/2 your BAB" or a "reduce severity by 1d6 at 1st level, 2d6 at 9th level and 3d6 at 17th level" type thing).

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I likewise agree with Dandu. Fumble rules of any kind only hurt the player and serve to stroke the DM's want to make things unnecessarily complicated just because it sounds "fun" to put that into place. Not only that, but fumbles can often get worse as the players get strong because of better weapons, especially when Vorpal and similar effects are allowed to work. It's enough of a letdown that it's an automatic miss anyway.

 

[Treebore]

I personally have the Fumble rules kill or remove limbs from the PC to encourage the PC's to only use such weapons as rarely as possible. It has always worked, so I have always been happy with it.

Far better than having them cutting off limbs on a 17 or better with no danger to themselves all day long.

 

[Shaghayegh]

Most fumbles should be non-lethal and they should get progressively less common and less lethal as the character becomes more competent and skilled...

 

[Treebore]

Most fumbles should be non-lethal and they should get progressively less common and less lethal as the character becomes more competent and skilled...

Nope. Seen too many "experts" still screw up, royally, in real life, to believe such a rule is anything close to being "realistic", even in a fantasy setting.

Add the fact that combat is a highly chaotic and high stress environment, I don't care how good you are, your still going to fumble, and badly.

 

[Dandu]

Because realism is exactly what we need in a game with giant fire breathing magical lizards.

 

[the Jester]

Because realism is exactly what we need in a game with giant fire breathing magical lizards.

For some groups, yes.

 

[Celebrim]

Because realism is exactly what we need in a game with giant fire breathing magical lizards.

1) This would be a reasonable argument if fumbles were advanced and defended solely on the grounds that they were realistic.
2) Gritty sword play occurs in my games probably with about 1000 times the frequency that giant fire breathing magical lizards are encountered.

 

[Treebore]

Yep, the accuracy of fumble systems is just as "realistic" as any fire breathing dragon the size of a house or five.

Just to be clear, I am not saying anyone else must use fumble rules, I am just saying why I do. No requirement to agree, let alone like it.

I also allow for Raise Dead, Reincarnation, etc... so even when a PC dies, it is not the end of the line for them unless the player wants it to be, or they cannot arrange to pay for such services, if unable to do it themselves. So if a limb gets cut off, they can get it regenerated. I had one player who liked his PC being one armed, so never got it fixed.

So to sum up, its all about what is fun to you and what is fun for me, and that is how we should play.