Critical Fumble?

[The Thayan Menace]

House Rule: No Fumbles for Natural Attacks

Hmmm, I wonder what happened to the monk using his fists when he fumbled?

Even we used critical fumbles, we ruled that you could not fumble a natural attack (incl. monk fists ... regardless of how you classify them).

 

[Ovinomancer]

The BEST critical fumble system I've ever seen is the one for Spycraft. Even then, however, it does punish the combat oriented characters with multiple attacks much more than other classes.

 

[irdeggman]

pg 28 of the 3.5 DMG has a variant rule on critical misses (fumbles).

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Fiat Fumbles Anger Players

pg 28 of the 3.5 DMG has a variant rule on critical misses (fumbles).

Yeah, but most players find that variant to be more arbitrary than a specifc reference chart.

 

[Tarangil]

My house rule is a common one I think.

Roll a 1, then roll again, a second miss then confirms the fumble. Fighters may roll more 1s but they shouldnt confirm as many.

I bascially make up what the fumble is depending on the situation, lose dex, lose rest of attacks, trigger and AoO. If its a drop weapon or something, the player gets a save.

That's EXACTLY what I've done. I figger if there's going to be criticals, there should be a chance for fumbles.

I usually end up rolling 2d10 for severity, the higher the roll the worse it would be. Beware if you roll a 99 or a 00.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I agree with the 'if Crit, then Fumble'.
I use a Ref save DC 10, normally resulting in drawing an AoO from melee opponents within range.

It tends to come up more often with my bad guys and I have lost a couple string opponents due to a badly timed Fumble

Oh well.

 

[irdeggman]

Yeah, but most players find that variant to be more arbitrary than a specifc reference chart.

But it is no less or more detailed than the critical hit rules (X2 or X3 damage on a critical hit).

 

[Shane_Leahy]

Alot of people are saying that any fumble rule hurts those with multiple attacks. Isn't that balanced by the fact multiple attacks means more chances to critical also?

As to power attack...I figure that is one of the risks of it. You are putting more 'umph' into your swing, if you miss then there may be more risk of a fumble.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Alot of people are saying that any fumble rule hurts those with multiple attacks. Isn't that balanced by the fact multiple attacks means more chances to critical also?

No.

A critical hit results in bonus damage - no more, no less.

A critical fumble in your system results in "How does the DM wish to futz with the player?"

This is an inherently unbalanced dichotomy.

As for Power Attack, the problem with your ruling means that a Fighter can PA for enough to make it worthwile on his initial attack, but this will cause him to "autofumble" on his later attacks, because of the -10 and -15 penalty they have already.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Alot of people are saying that any fumble rule hurts those with multiple attacks. Isn't that balanced by the fact multiple attacks means more chances to critical also?

As Patryn said, but in addition, you get odd cases that are impossible to balance. You can't critical undead, oozes, etc., does that mean you don't fumble against them either? In at least one system suggested here a fumble could mean no more attacks that round, or possibly giving up your NEXT round actions (omg that's a bad rule). That could mean losing a lot of attacks (especially for a TWF fighter with natural attacks). On the other hand, there's no critical rule than GIVES you those attacks. You merely get double damage (or triple, whatever), and you don't even double the whole damage.

The only critical fumble rule that doesn't suck outright would be something like roll a 1, confirm a miss on another roll using your highest BAB, and then get half base damage (or perhaps the d20 you rolled / 20 % of the base damage). Really, anything else is gonna suck for players. Bad DMs love critical fumble charts because they screw with PCs far more than NPCs.