Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 7151205" data-attributes="member: 6796661">Well, you convinced me. Like another poster above, I use the Nord critical hits and fumbles decks. They are fun, but I'm finding that they are worse than DMs discretion. Example. One of characters in the campaign I DM is 16th level fighter with the sharpshooter feet. In the past if he fumbles, the string broke, he got something in his eye, or something tangled up in his quiver, or—rarely—he would hit another target that was very close to the target. The impact wasn't terrible and made some sense. Something in your eye or your jostled, or lose your footing—you don't get the rest of your attacks that round. String broke? You don't get any further attacks with the bow until you take an action to restring it—assuming you have extra strings. A great archer firing three times in 6 seconds is putting his bow through a lot. I makes sense that the string may break every battle or so. As for hitting the wrong person, I try to avoid it, but I want it to be an option. Yeah, you are inhumanely accurate and quick with your bow, but battle is chaotic. Friendly fire is a really common in the real world. Not that I want my fantasy to be "realistic" but it makes sense that friendly fire is something that should be a concern. Generally, I would avoid breaking weapons. But sometimes it makes sense and can add to game. A sword may break and a fighter should have a backup. But I treat magic weapons as unbreakable. So, it is generally a lower-level concern. In all these examples, with a creative and conscientious DM, fumbles can add to the flavor of the game. Knowing that there is a good chance you will hit the wrong person, you may choose targets differently. The party may use different strategies. The broken string issue may lead the sharpshooter to have a backup bow so maybe he only loses his extra attacks that round and not another three attacks the next round. The problem with the Nord cards for fumbles is that you can have characters injure and even cripple themselves. I prefer to leave those threats to failed skill checks and failed saves. Maybe in some grim dark settings it makes sense. Front line fighters should have a much higher chance of being crippled, hurt, and other wise getting banged up when they fumble. But this is a game and many players would find that unbalanced and unfair and lead to selecting different classes and builds rather than just changing some behavior. Now that I have more experience under my belt and have read a number of arguments about this, I think my new approach will be:1. Most of the time, it is just a miss. 2. If something about the environment, combat situation, or other factors make the combat particularly treacherous, chaotic, or difficult, then I would still impose a chance for a situationally-appropriate complication to arise from the fumble. 3. For any fumble that I impose for a "1", the character will get a chance to make a save or skill check to avoid it so that more experienced/high-level characters are less impacted by fumbles over time.To me, these guidelines keep the fun flavor of fumbles without overly punishing high-level characters.</blockquote>

Verification