Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Siuis" data-source="post: 5422198" data-attributes="member: 51622">Almost. A good fumble chart should be cinematic; again, I've had a lot of bad experiences. [sblock="Qute literally,"] the DM implemented A devastating fumble chart (where the best result, a broken limb, was still 50% likely to lead to death) because he had players roll 1d10+9 for stats, removed racial level maximums, and didn't play magic by segment, resulting in parties of 10/10 elven paladin/magic-user bladesingers with armor in the -6 to -12 range. Personally, I'd rather just play with the rules as printed than have the DM "balance" his own mistakes by giving me a 1/20 chance of murdering myself. Even better, of the three DMs I've had use fumble tables had them be player only. One game broke down into argument where every player jumped on the DM for rolling three 1's and not having anything happen to his ex-PC BBEG.[/sblock]Do you see my point?That sounds playable. It does the things I require of a cinematic device; it takes into account the skill of the user, and it doesn't jar horribly when compared to the rest of the ruleset. 3.5, et al has a confirmation mechanism for good crits. Why should I auto-confirm bad crits? I can't auto-kill on a good crit, why am I auto-killed on a bad crit? So long as it's a rule implemented like every other rule, it's neat. A hard balance between fun and highly irritating, but mileage and variance and all that.</blockquote>