Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7211633" data-attributes="member: 4937">Can't be done.   For example, passive or reactive builds inherently interact with the enemy less often than active ones.  If I have a bard or a cleric in a support role, I'm just not going to fumble as often.   A more reasonable goal might be, "No approach to combat is so highly discouraged by the fumble rules that it becomes deprecated, ineffective or unpleasant to play."   Pure balance might be unobtainable, but the point is that you should take care to avoid getting into obvious traps like making melee, weapon wielding fighters nearly the sole bearer of the burden of fumbles.Can't be done.  Inherently, adding a mechanic is going to slow down the game.   If you don't want complexity, you shouldn't go there.   A more reasonable approach is to consider the density of fun over time.   The extra time required to resolve the fumble should add an amount of fun appropriate to the time spent, contributing to the density of the fun.   I would tend to see that as redundant.  If the results are fun, then they aren't game-breaking.   And if they are game-breaking, then they aren't fun.But I also see it as trivial.  Fun is ultimately the reason we do anything.   What needs to be described is how fumbles achieve the result of being fun, so that even the players don't mind that they fumble from time to time.Absolutely.  Catastrophic failure should be associated with low skill, and become increasingly rare over time.   And this is essential to not punish characters that can attack more often than normal.I think this goes back to the requirement of "fun" and how you achieve it.   One critical element of a fumble is they have to feel fair.   In that, they shouldn't break the normal expectations about how the game works.   My example of a fumble table with a "weapon breaks" absolute result, is an example of that.  The better quality the weapon, the less often it should break.  Having a +6 holy avenger suddenly break in a fight with a kobold is not fun because it isn't fair and it isn't avoidable.   It's just wild random chance.Similarly, having someone else's fumble effect your character should only happen when it makes sense - like when you are in a grabble with a spirit naga and your buddy tries to stab the Naga with a spear.  In that case, if your buddy misses, you might feel that makes some sense.   And both of you might feel that there is risk in the situation and consider steps to prevent that - like making a decision not to use a heavy weapon against a foe in a grapple with your buddy (maybe enter the grapple and use a light weapon instead?  maybe use a non-lethal attack?).  Random "decapitate ally" results off a normal attack are simply not fair as neither side could do anything about it.This is a good call out because the DM always has a massive amount of work compared to a player. It's a complex topic and I think part of the answer involves stepping back and looking at a wider picture than the potential fumble rules.   Is the basic problem that being a "front end fighter" is already getting the short end of the stick anyway?   D&D has tended to privilege missile weapons and ranged combats heavily.   So is the problem that going toe to toe with foes already sucks and adding critical fumbles to the mess just makes the problem worse?</blockquote>

Verification