Pathfinder 1E Critical Fumbles: Need Help Convincing DM

[Noah Fentz]

I recently got back into a gaming group and playing Pathfinder.

LOVING it, I might add.

The main issue here is the DM feels it necessary to damage our weapons on every roll of a natural 1 in combat. After 2 critical fumbles, the weapon is useless!

I am hoping the great members of EN World can help me approach this problem with tact and solid facts to persuade my DM that critical fumbles aren't just about damaging one's weapons (or in the case of monks, self, since they use their fists!)

By the way, here's the table I made in the hopes he'd adopt a different system. Feel free to critique it, use it, or ignore it ...



Thank you.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I assume that the "Why do 20th-level monks kill themselves faster than 1st-level monks" argument has already been tried and failed?

Also, have you tried pointing out that there is no such thing as a good critical fumble rule anyway? This is objecive fact. ;0) (And, sorry, but this includes your proposed table.)

 

[Noah Fentz]

I assume that the "Why do 20th-level monks kill themselves faster than 1st-level monks" argument has already been tried and failed?

Also, have you tried pointing out that there is no such thing as a good critical fumble rule anyway? This is objecive fact. ;0) (And, sorry, but this includes your proposed table.)

Couldn't agree more, but I don't think convincing him of no fumbles is even an option.

 

[Volaran]

One of my DMs used to use a 'weapons break on a 1' rule back in 3.5.

It came to a head when our party fighter, had just spent thousands of gold pieces on an adamantine double-bladed sword rolled two consecutive 1's in the next encounter, making the sword useless.

At that point, after the session, we had to sit down with the DM and ask why, with all the rules about weapon hardness and sundering, did he insist on a 1/20 chance of a weapon breaking every time it was used, regardless of magic or material.

We made clear that we were perfectly fine with 'dropping a weapon on a 1', or even if every warrior he sends us up against being a sundering specialist, but that his fumble rule was unfair to the group. At that point, he agreed.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Do spellcasters face any repurcussions in his houserules of note? IME, it's a lot easy to just opt out of a stubborn DM's idiotic houserules by playing a class that can ignore them, rather than trying to use logic and reason. If they were capable of those things, the critical fumble table wouldn't exist in the first place in his game.

Last game I joined, the DM had a STUPID fumble rule that if you roll a 1 (on any attack, even bows, reach weapons, and rays, mind you), you roll again. I forgot the exact rules beyond that, but it was something like "if that roll misses the target, you hit yourself and roll damage; if you roll another 1 you crit yourself." At the time, I was plaing a level 1 Barb with a dwarven warpike (reach and 2d6 damage, 3x crit) with power attack. A hit would kill me if I was semi damaged, and a crit would auto kill me. I complained frequently about how stupid it was (especially fighting the pugwampi enemies that make you roll everything twice and take the lower result!) using logic and facts, and after 2 weeks he bitterly relented and scrapped it. But he was clearly angry about dropping it and I think i made him my enemy after that point. "Luckily" the game folded like 2 weeks after that. *Sigh*

Anyway, IME when a DM implements fumble rules, it's for a definite purpose, not just by happenstance, and they REALLY like those rules. Any critquing those rules to them is like trying to strangle their baby in its crib.

 

[Noah Fentz]

Do spellcasters face any repurcussions in his houserules of note?

Only if they use weapons.

IME, it's a lot easy to just opt out of a stubborn DM's idiotic houserules by playing a class that can ignore them, rather than trying to use logic and reason. If they were capable of those things, the critical fumble table wouldn't exist in the first place in his game.

I'm one of those few players that likes to multiclass from a 1st level rogue. Skills are where it's at IMO.

Last game I joined, the DM had a STUPID fumble rule that if you roll a 1 (on any attack, even bows, reach weapons, and rays, mind you), you roll again. I forgot the exact rules beyond that, but it was something like "if that roll misses the target, you hit yourself and roll damage; if you roll another 1 you crit yourself." At the time, I was plaing a level 1 Barb with a dwarven warpike (reach and 2d6 damage, 3x crit) with power attack. A hit would kill me if I was semi damaged, and a crit would auto kill me. I complained frequently about how stupid it was (especially fighting the pugwampi enemies that make you roll everything twice and take the lower result!) using logic and facts, and after 2 weeks he bitterly relented and scrapped it. But he was clearly angry about dropping it and I think i made him my enemy after that point. "Luckily" the game folded like 2 weeks after that. *Sigh*

Anyway, IME when a DM implements fumble rules, it's for a definite purpose, not just by happenstance, and they REALLY like those rules. Any critquing those rules to them is like trying to strangle their baby in its crib.

He just called me and told me he wanted to see the DC of drop weapon (01-40) changed to 15 and the weapon damage range increased, and he'll adopt the system.

As a rogue who makes his own masterwork bows, I was tired of taking the time (even fast tracking) out of the party's adventuring time to replace broken or damaged weapons. At least this way, we have a save vs fumbling and it's not always damaging our weapons.

I'd still like to hear more opinions, stories, etc on this, as so far they've been pretty entertaining!

LOL @ "... Any critquing those rules to them is like trying to strangle their baby in its crib."

 

[Tharian]

Well, you could always introduce your GM to the Critical Fumbles deck from Paizo. It provides a lot of variety when it comes to rolling a critical fumble and has variant rules to show how they would implement them (have to confirm that critical fumble much like having to confirm a critical hit).

 

[Nikmal]

I might suggest using the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks by Paizo through their Gamemastery Line. They have a Pathfinder Edition of those decks. Sometimes they can be very deadly... sometimes very light. But the main thing is that your DM might actually use them as an official means of dealing with criticals one way or other.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

I'm also a fan of the 'Critical' decks from Paizo - both the Hit and the Fumble versions. I use them in the games I run and my players seem to have a good time with them. The variety it adds to the game is really cool and goes over well.

One great example is the wizard who cast a spell in a Legacy of Fire combat and it ended up backfiring into a stinking cloud centered on him . . . without missing a beat he came staggering out of the cloud apologizing for losing his manners. He had the others rolling!

I use the Critical Fumbles deck for PCs and adversaries alike; the Critical Hits deck is for the PCs and major bad guys - the 'run of the mill' folk don't get to use it.

 

[concerro]

There is a thread on either the WoTC or Paizo website that basically says: A 20th level fighter is god-like in battle to most people. How he can be so terrible at fighting make no sense if you use this rule. Maybe if he can explain this nonsense we can help you out though.