Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="phindar" data-source="post: 3300562" data-attributes="member: 37198">I like the Crit/Fumble table I came up with (big surprise, a gamer likes a rule he thought up), but I'll admit its a little cumbersome for regular play.&nbsp; I devised it as part of vastly stripped down combat system for a Gladiators! game, basically to take out all the unnecessary complications in D&amp;D combat to add in complications I thought were more interesting.My system was based on the 3e concept of Confirming the Critical.&nbsp; When you rolled a crit chance or a fumble, you rolled again to confirm and if that confirmation roll would have hit (for a crit) or missed (for a fumble), you got a special effect.&nbsp; For Crit Confirmations, if you rolled under a 10 and still hit you got a free opposed roll based on the combat manuevers (trip, disarm, sunder, etc).&nbsp; For Fumble Confirmations, if you rolled over a 10 and still fumbled, you did something bad (dropped weapon, hit self, damaged weapon, etc).&nbsp; None of the critical or fumble effects involved decapitations, dismemberment or special damage; they were all based around exisiting manuevers, except for the 20/20.&nbsp; As a hold-over/tribute to my old 2e group, a 20/20 was an Instant Kill, which immedately reduced your opponent to 0 hit points (disabled, not dying).&nbsp; As I have pointed out, this may or may not jive with your idea of D&amp;D combat.&nbsp; I designed it for a game where the only combat (more or less) takes place within a gladiatorial arena, and so I wanted that arena to be a place where random, chaotic things happened.&nbsp; I wanted that arena to be a little scary, for every sword strike to offer a chance (400:1 in fact) of death (or at least, incapacitation).&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; I still like this system, but in order for me to be comfortable with the level of complexity it adds, I had to take a lot of complexity out in other areas.&nbsp; YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="phindar, post: 3300562, member: 37198"] I like the Crit/Fumble table I came up with (big surprise, a gamer likes a rule he thought up), but I'll admit its a little cumbersome for regular play. I devised it as part of vastly stripped down combat system for a [b]Gladiators![/b] game, basically to take out all the unnecessary complications in D&D combat to add in complications I thought were more interesting. My system was based on the 3e concept of Confirming the Critical. When you rolled a crit chance or a fumble, you rolled again to confirm and if that confirmation roll would have hit (for a crit) or missed (for a fumble), you got a special effect. For Crit Confirmations, if you rolled under a 10 and still hit you got a free opposed roll based on the combat manuevers (trip, disarm, sunder, etc). For Fumble Confirmations, if you rolled over a 10 and still fumbled, you did something bad (dropped weapon, hit self, damaged weapon, etc). None of the critical or fumble effects involved decapitations, dismemberment or special damage; they were all based around exisiting manuevers, except for the 20/20. As a hold-over/tribute to my old 2e group, a 20/20 was an Instant Kill, which immedately reduced your opponent to 0 hit points (disabled, not dying). As I have pointed out, this may or may not jive with your idea of D&D combat. I designed it for a game where the only combat (more or less) takes place within a gladiatorial arena, and so I wanted that arena to be a place where random, chaotic things happened. I wanted that arena to be a little scary, for every sword strike to offer a chance (400:1 in fact) of death (or at least, incapacitation). I still like this system, but in order for me to be comfortable with the level of complexity it adds, I had to take a lot of complexity out in other areas. YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification