crit hits n' fumbles

[unan oranis]

here's my system:

Critical hits; all normal rules apply *plus* roll the critical hit die, an oversized d12 that has 11 conditions on it (dazed, stunned, slowed etc) and one "amputate" label.

The dm describes the hit according to your roll (a "slow" might be a blow to the knee's for example), and the condition rolled is applied to the target, save ends.

Unless you rolled "amputate" in which case you roll again, and the condition applied is either permanent or until end of encouter (dm choice).

A roll of amputate twice in a row is instant death. This goes way out of the design style of 4e, but we play with a lot of old-schoolers; change to double damage or ignore according to taste.

--

Critical misses; on a natural one roll vs level. This is done by rolling a d30 (finally usefull!), and if you roll your level or lower, ignore the fumble.

Else, roll the critical fumble die, an oversized d6 with effects written on each face such as:

trip (drop prone)
impale (roll basic attack damage on yourself)
break (weapon/attack loses a magical "+", or shatters)
throw (dm choice where it lands)
missfire (roll basic attack vs adjacent ally, if any)
drop (weapon drops at feet)


Well thats it; our group finds the one or two extra rolls to be a lot of fun, and we now have three new interesting dice waiting to be rolled sitting in front of the dm screen.

Nothing brings a cheer like a bbeg's devestating attack getting slipped up by a banana peel!

 

[Chainsaw]

Nothing brings a cheer like a bbeg's devestating attack getting slipped up by a banana peel!

I like critical hits and fumbles, but my fellow players (and DM's) only seem to like critical hits. This may be because they can accept an enemy getting a "lucky hit" on them (the downside of a critical hit system), but can't accept their own character stabbing himself or dropping his sword or whatever (the downside of a critical fumble system). I'm cool with it. I have always thought it helps mix up the standard combat, but I think I'm in the minority.

 

[N0Man]

First of all, statistically speaking, introducing more randomness favors the underdogs. The typical D&D encounter is designed to be challenging to a player, but with the player expected to win, making the monsters the underdogs. Therefor, adding additional randomness like fumbles (or more dangerous crits) will in general harm players more than their enemies.

Secondly, when I'm a player, I find it really hard to swallow the idea that one out of 20 times I cast a spell, swing a sword, or fire a bow, something very bad is going to happen. If this is the case of the trained adventurers, how did the initiates ever survive their basic training?

 

[N0Man]

I might also add... that the consequences for a monster fumbling and accidentally killing himself or an ally, or breaking their weapon are amusing. However, when these happen to a player due to some dumb unlucky dice roll, it feels cheap.

 

[Camelot]

If that's what your group finds fun, go for it! It does sound like a lot of laughs when the monsters slip up. Particularly when fighting a god or similarly scary monster. Oops, Tiamat bit herself again!

I do agree with Noman that the fumbles do seem a bit much, and could be very devastatingly annoying. The grants combat advantage rule suffices for me. I do like the d30 level rule, though. It clearly simulates that the PCs become more adept as they advance in level. They are better at covering up their mistakes.

So though I'll stick with my max damage and combat advantage, I hope you have a lot of fun amputating monsters and impaling yourself! =)

 

[unan oranis]

First of all, statistically speaking, introducing more randomness favors the underdogs. The typical D&D encounter is designed to be challenging to a player, but with the player expected to win, making the monsters the underdogs. Therefor, adding additional randomness like fumbles (or more dangerous crits) will in general harm players more than their enemies.

So the game gets deadlier for pc's... thats a good thing! Especially for 4e vs experienced players who want a grittier game.

Secondly, when I'm a player, I find it really hard to swallow the idea that one out of 20 times I cast a spell, swing a sword, or fire a bow, something very bad is going to happen. If this is the case of the trained adventurers, how did the initiates ever survive their basic training?

One round of "real" combat is going to have more room for panic and error than several thousand hours of basic training combined. No plan survives contact with the enemy, as they say.

Epic failing 1 in 20 times does suck, but making a "save vs level" roll 1 in 20 times is a blast in my groups experience.

Everyone gives you their attention, you make the big roll with a huge die - and you're either a hero or all your pals get a laugh.

Note that half of the actual fumbles nothing bad happens to you specificly, your weapon is harmed... secondary weapons gain value in this system as a side effect; not to mention the promotion of classic battle scenerios where your sword is hanging precariouly off a cliff etc.

 

[insideru]

The big minus to a fumble is that it totally ruins the fun. Rolling a 1 is already a pain to bear and always gets my players down, usually from the 3rd 1 in the same encounter they get really nervous If I'd ask them to roll a fumble die that would totally ruin the night. So it's up to your group ... if they have fun impaling themselves, then why not at least try it out.

PS: If i where to add this to my rules, then i would have to balance things around on the other side tho. Like ... there's a 50% chance on a critical hit that the monster suffers an effect on the fumble die.

 

[Droogie128]

This adds a bit of slapstick humor that I don't think belongs in the game. A 1 is already an automatic miss, which can be devastating in itself. The other downside to this system is that it punishes classes with AoE powers and multiple attacks far more than others.

 

[unan oranis]

This adds a bit of slapstick humor that I don't think belongs in the game.

Thats nice, but the slapstick is hardwired into the game.
Does not the rogue have powers that make badguys punch themselves in the face?

A 1 is already an automatic miss, which can be devastating in itself. The other downside to this system is that it punishes classes with AoE powers and multiple attacks far more than others.

Very true. I forgot to mention that we only count the first roll to see if you trip up in cases of multiple attacks.

 

[Alex319]

Secondly, when I'm a player, I find it really hard to swallow the idea that one out of 20 times I cast a spell, swing a sword, or fire a bow, something very bad is going to happen. If this is the case of the trained adventurers, how did the initiates ever survive their basic training?

And worse than that: the more highly trained you are, the more likely you are to critically fumble, because at higher levels you get more ways of getting multiple attacks in a round.