Critical Fumble Chart

[Phantom_Genius]

Has anyone created a 3rd edition compatible Critical Fumble chart yet? (I use them like a reverse Critical Hit - a natural "1" and a miss results in a percentile check on the chart.) My second edition chart has gotten a lot of use and I could use one for 3E if anyone has already done it.

(I did a chart for Critical Hits for when players roll a critical threat and then another critical threat. I'll trade you for the Fumble chart. )

 

[Happiest_Sadist]

How precise of a chart do you want. I'm just thinking now and I see a few posibilities, on the roll of a natural 1. 4&5 are the only ones needing confirmation because the others require opposed rolls.

1. Charachter provokes a disarm attempt from the charachter he is attacking with a
2. Charachter provokes a trip.
3. Charachter provokes a sunder.
4. Charachter provokes an attack of opertunity.
5. Charachter looses control of their weapon and must take a draw action to use the weapon again.

 

[Argamath]

Weapon Fumbles

~~Fumbles~~

Any natural 1 threatens a fumble.

Check the confirmation roll, using the appropriate category below, to determine if a fumble actually occurs...

weapon specialization in weapon: no fumble occurs
weapon focus in weapon: 1
proficient in weapon: 1-2
not proficient in weapon: 1-6


Roll a d20 (no modifiers), to determine the nature of the fumble...

19-20 Flat-footed
16-18 Opponent gets free AoO (only one opponent gets this attack)
15 All threatening opponents get free AoOs
14 Fall prone (Fortitude save DC 12 or take 1d4 subdual damage)
13 Knock down (random target, opposing Str checks, loser falls down + 1d4 subdual damage, Reflex save DC 12 to avoid)
12 Next attack at -2
11 Next attack at -3
10 Next attack at -4
9 Lose next attack
8 Drop weapon
7 Throw weapon (1d4 + Str adj.) x 5', 1d8 for direction
6 Damage weapon for normal damage
5 Hit other for subdual damage (random target, roll attack normally; original target gains +4AC if targeted)
4 Hit other for normal damage (random target, roll attack normally; original target gains +4AC if targeted)
3 Hit self for subdual damage
2 Hit self for normal damage
1 Roll twice on this table, adding all results together

~ Argamath ~

 

[Al]

We normally play the inverse critical hit rules (i.e. a one and then a miss to confirm).
As to what happens, we roll d6:
1: Weapon breaks. For bows, string snaps; for crossbows, mechanism is destroyed. Masterwork weapons are more sturdy and another 1 must be rolled for them to be destroyed. Magical weapons cannot be destroyed. In both cases, use 2 instead.
2-5: Weapon dropped in a random square around character.
6: Character fumbles but catches hold of weapon at last moment. Fumble negated.

Note that a locked gauntlet removes 2-5, and magical weapons cannot break, so a character with locked gauntlets and magical weapons is immune to fumbling under the rules we currently play.

 

[N Hammer]

This is what I use...

Fumble: The following guidelines are used in combat.
The Fumble Threat Range (FTR) of a weapon is dependent on the unmodified Critical Threat Range (CTR) of that weapon. The dependency is as follows:
CTR FTR
20 -- 1
19-20 -- 1-2
18-20 -- 1-3
If you make an attack roll and the number on the d20 falls within the FTR you may have scored a fumble. To find out if it’s a fumble, you immediately make a fumble roll—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the fumble roll results in a miss against the targets AC, your original attack is a fumble. (The fumble roll just needs to miss for a fumble, not hit the FTR.) If the fumble roll results in a hit, then your original attack is just a normal miss.
When a combatant fumbles, all opponents within melee range receive an AoO. The fumbling combatant also loses his Dex. bonus to his AC for the remainder of that combat round. Any characters with Uncanny Dodge do not suffer the penalty to AC.
.
.
I'm thinking about putting something in there that lets Monks avoid the penalty to AC,

 

[pontus]

A critical fumble table, eh? How about

d%
1-50 Behead self
51-99 Castrate self
100 Drop weapon

 

[Al]

N Hammer: Why is the Fumble Threat Range proportional to the Critical Threat Range.
If for balance, it is mistaken. The critical threat ranges are balanced to take into account either the criticial multiplier, base damage or weapon class. For example, the longsword has a greater threat range than the morningstar due to its martial status, greater threat range than the battleaxe as the axe has a x3 critical modifier; whilst the scimitar has a greater threat range still to compensate for its decresed damage (d6 vs. d8).
If for logic, it is flawed. Weapons with greater threat ranges are such because they are more balanced or have greater scope for finesse (not Finesse the feat necessarily) and cunning manoeuvring. One is more likely to fumble with a cumbersome greataxe than a light rapier.
Ergo, if a variable Fumble Threat Range is introduced, it should be inversely proportional to the Critical Threat Range, i.e. the weapons with the larger unmodified threat range should fumble less often. Yet even this seems unsatisfactory: even according to the optional rules, only a natural 1 is a miss. A 3 could well be a hit, but under your rules it may instead be a fumble. There would be a strong migration away from the rapier and scimitar towards picks and axes.

 

[Ernst]

In my group we youse a fumble tabel, I made up. and I just wanted to hear what you thing of it, and if you use fumble i your group



Fumble Table Roll 1d20
1. Roll 1d6 on table 1
2. Roll 1d4 on table 2
3. Prone to all enemies -2AC; 1 round.
4. Prone to all enemies -2 AC ; 1d4 rounds.
5. Nothing happens.
6. prone to 1 enemy -2 AC; 1d4+2 rounds
7. Provoke attack of opp. From 1 enemy
8. Provoke attack of opp. From 1d4+1 enemy
9. Provoke attack of opp. From all enemies I range.
10. Prone to all enemies, lose Dex bonus for 1d2 rounds.
11. Prone to all enemies, lose Dex bonus for 1d3+1 rounds.
12. Lose weapon, take 1d3 rounds to finde.
13. Bade attack, lose faith and – 1 to all save for 1d4 rounds.
14. Bade attack, lose faith and – 2 to all save for 1d4 rounds.
15. Nothing happens.
16. Bade attack, lose faith and – 2 to all save during rest of combat.
17. Nothing happens.
18. Fall take 1d2 rounds to get up.
19. Roll 1d4+2 table 2
20. Roll 1d6+3 on table 1


Table 1.
1. Brake weapon (save)
2. Critical hit self (automatic hit)
3. Damage own Weapon, 1d10 dam(neglects hardness, no save), If magic; 5o gp pr damage point.(mastersmith needed), if not use rules in phb.
4. Bade attack, lose faith and – 2 to all save + lose dex bonus for 1d6+2 rounds.
5. Hit self (automatic hit)
6. Hit self ,attack roll needed (no dex bonus to AC)
7. Hit self ,attack roll needed (touch attack )
8. Hit self ,attack roll needed (Normal AC)
9. Nothing happens

Table 2.
1. Critical hit ally (automatic hit)
2. Hit ally (automatic hit)
3. Hit ally (no dex, to his/her AC)
4. Hit ally (normal AC), but if hit, fort save vs. dam or stud 1d3 rounds.
5. Hit ally (normal AC).
6. Nothing happens.

 

[N Hammer]

N Hammer: Why is the Fumble Threat Range proportional to the Critical Threat Range.
If for balance, it is mistaken. The critical threat ranges are balanced to take into account either the criticial multiplier, base damage or weapon class. For example, the longsword has a greater threat range than the morningstar due to its martial status, greater threat range than the battleaxe as the axe has a x3 critical modifier; whilst the scimitar has a greater threat range still to compensate for its decresed damage (d6 vs. d8).
If for logic, it is flawed. Weapons with greater threat ranges are such because they are more balanced or have greater scope for finesse (not Finesse the feat necessarily) and cunning manoeuvring. One is more likely to fumble with a cumbersome greataxe than a light rapier.
Ergo, if a variable Fumble Threat Range is introduced, it should be inversely proportional to the Critical Threat Range, i.e. the weapons with the larger unmodified threat range should fumble less often. Yet even this seems unsatisfactory: even according to the optional rules, only a natural 1 is a miss. A 3 could well be a hit, but under your rules it may instead be a fumble. There would be a strong migration away from the rapier and scimitar towards picks and axes.

Damit, I hate when people start to make sense...Stupid logic.

You make many very good points....A more balanced weapon would fumble less....

Back to the drawing board.....

Thanks for making me think...Ya big meanie

 

[wolfpunk]

We use a very simple method in our games. If you roll a 1 on yout attack roll, you immediately roll a 1d8. The result dictates the consequence of the fumble. On a roll of 1 it is a true critical fumble which can be a trip, sunder, disarm, or any other equally bad occurance that the DM decides is appropriate to the situation. On a roll of 2-7 the opponent gets an AoO regardless of whether they have an AoO available to them. On a roll of 8 the result is actually "amazingly dumb luck" the attack results in a hit, and the player rolls to see if it is a critical hit.

It works pretty well, almost always results in an AoO although my animal companion has had three "amazingly dumb luck" critical fumbles.