Critical hit and fumble tables?

[Enkhidu]

We adapted our old crit and fumble tables to #rd Ed by doing this:

At the beginning of the night, we roll a d4 to determine how closely the gods will be watching the character(s) during the gaming session (each player makes a roll). Then, that number become the "threat range" for something dramatic happening.

Example

- At the beginning of the night, Bob rolls the d4 and it come up 3, he records that in some way and proceeds with play. During a combat later in the fight, Bob rolls a natural 20 has a threat on weapon (doesn't matter what it is). He then rolls to confirm the critical, and succeeds with an attack roll of 23 after modifiers (natural 14 + 7 in mods). He then compares his actual rolled d20 # to 21 - the roll of the d4 (in this case that comes to 18) and determines if the gods played a roll in that attack. Since 14 does not fall under the 3 number of 18, 19, or 20 he finds that the hit was through skill alone, and rolls damage accordingly.

Later Bob (who rolls lots of attacks) rolls a natural 1, and has a "fumble threat." He rolls the dies again and gets 9 after mods (natural 2+7 in mods). For fumbles, he must compare his natural roll to 0+the d4 roll (or in this case, a total of 3). Since the 2 falls in the rang of 1,2 and 3, he has critically fumbled. If he had not critically fumbled, the opponent would have gotten an AoO on him (if in melee), but in the case, he must roll % dice to determine exactly how badly things turned out - the DM then makes a judgement call based on how high the % die roll is, and describes something suitably awful.

(results have included things like slipping and falling on rocks to a prone position for lower % rolls, all the way up through random environmental effects, like mudslides and falling trees (in the middle % range) and ending up at direct divine intervention through powerful magic, proxies, etc at 00).

Admittedly, now that I get iterative attacks the likelihood rises for fumbles, but it rises just as quickly for crits...

 

[Malakye]

If a character has multiple attacks you could have just the first roll count towards a possible fumble.

In other words, a 1 on the first roll is a fumble, a 1 on any roll after that is never a fumble, regardless of the first roll.

Make sense?

 

[Shalewind]

If you roll a 1, you roll another tohit roll, if u miss that you fumbled, if you make it you just missed and thats it.

Seems to work so far, and as you go up in levels your chances of missing that tohit roll should go down. A 1 on the second roll is not considered a failure, just a low roll.
Seems to work so far

Let me start by saying whatever works for you, go for it!
I tend to game at the 10th to 20th level and so my views are obviously different.

Let's say Joe (1st level dude) is fighting something moderately hard for his level (he hits on a roll of 14 or higher). He has a very low (1.75% chance of fumbling). Vex the Awesome is also fighting a moderate challenge and hits on a rolls of 14 or higher. With four attacks he has an 11.73% chance of fumbling in a given round. The math on this is tricky and I really don't want to go to the trouble of posting it.

But, since you don't deal with high levels all that much. Do what fits best for you. Best wishes.

 

[Shalewind]

If a character has multiple attacks you could have just the first roll count towards a possible fumble.

In other words, a 1 on the first roll is a fumble, a 1 on any roll after that is never a fumble, regardless of the first roll.

Make sense?

That, indeed, would balance. Not a bad idea.

 

[Dr. NRG]

I played with a DM that had a pretty ingenious system for this. With each attack roll, you rolled a percentile roll as well. The percentile was used to determine crits and fumbles. The chance of critting or fumbling was the amount that you hit or missed by.

For example, if you rolled and exceeded the armor class by 2 points, you had a 2 percent chance of a critical. If you missed by 10 points, you had a 10 percent chance of a fumble.

This does several things. First, it makes low AC creatures easier to critical, which makes perfect sense. It makes high AC creatures harder to critical, again this makes sense.

As for how this affects high level combatants versus lower level ones, it is relatively neutral. The high-level person still has more opportunities to fumble (due to making more attacks), but also has a pretty good chance of criticalling provided he's not using up his BaB on power attack.

All this said, this system was used in 2E... before crit ranges. I still believe it's along the right track, however. Some modification of it might work for 3E.

Finally, rolling a percentile with each attack is relatively unobtrusive, making it fairly unlikely to slow down combat once the players get used to it. This is a primary component of just about any combat add-on, IMHO.

NRG

 

[AuraSeer]

Should characters at high levels ever fumble?

A Ftr20 is one of the most dedicated and experienced warriors on the planet, at least the equivalent of a modern Green Beret. I find it hard to believe that he'll accidentally throw his sword across the room, or swing too far and embed it in the wall, or make any of the other stupid mistakes that fumble tables show. It just doesn't seem believable, much less heroic.

Perhaps the combatant's level should make fumbles less serious as well as less frequent. For instance, if you use a fumble table that takes a d20 roll, maybe you actually roll d20+1-level. So for a 1st-level fighter, the worst possible roll might mean he slipped on a rock, fell down, and injured himself with his sword. A 10th-level fighter making the same roll would slip on the rock, partially recover, but end up kneeling and Off Balance. A 20th-level fighter would step on the same rock, recover easily, and have only a -1 to his next attack.

Anyway, shouldn't this be in House Rules?

 

[Shalewind]

Should characters at high levels ever fumble?

A Ftr20 is one of the most dedicated and experienced warriors on the planet, at least the equivalent of a modern Green Beret. I find it hard to believe that he'll accidentally throw his sword across the room, or swing too far and embed it in the wall, or make any of the other stupid mistakes that fumble tables show. It just doesn't seem believable, much less heroic.

I totally agree.

Anyway, shouldn't this be in House Rules?

Yes.

 

[Caliber]

I use Critical Hits as standard.

For Critical Misses, a 1 is a Critical Miss Threat. Just like a Critical Hit, you have to "confirm" the Critical Miss, ie roll again and if you STILL miss, you've Critically Missed.

For Critical Misses I use a chart.

You roll a d10 and consult one of two charts, depending on whether its a Melee Attack or a Ranged Attack.

Melee
1-2: You have overextended yourself. Lose 1 attack at your highest bonus next round.
3-4: You have left an opening in your defense. Opponent gets a free AoO against you instantly. This does not bestow your opponent with an extra AoO.
5-6: Fickle Finger of Fate. Through some accident, you have managed to wound yourself. Take 1d10 points of damage.
7-8: Fumbled! Your weapon slips from your grasp and tumbles to your feet. Be careful next time.
9-10: GM Choice. Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.

Ranged
1-2: You have overextended yourself. Lose 1 attack at your highest bonus next round.
3-4: Fumbled! Your weapon slips from your grasp and tumbles to your feet. Be careful next time.
5-6: Fickle Finger of Fate/ Through some accident you have managed to wound yourself. Take 1d10 points of damage.
7-8: Dropped your ammo! Requires a full-round action to gather it back up.
9-10: GM Choice. I hope your friends like you. Cause you just shot one.

Critical Misses with Unarmed Attacks result in 1d6 damage to self on a result of 7-8.

Critical Misses with rays, energy missiles, or other "non-droppable" weapons results in 1d6 damage to self on a result of 3-4.

Critical Misses with the result of 7-8 cause a spellcaster to drop his spell components.

Overall, the misses haven't come up that often and they don't seem to be that unbalancing.

While higher level character and monsters do get more attacks, and are thus more likely to roll a 1, they also normally have higher attack bonuses so they are less likely to confirm the roll.

High AC monsters nearly guarantee a Critical Miss on a roll of a 1, just like low AC monsters nearly guarantee a Critical Hit on a roll of 20 (or whatever the range is)

 

[AuraSeer]

For Critical Misses, a 1 is a Critical Miss Threat. Just like a Critical Hit, you have to "confirm" the Critical Miss, ie roll again and if you STILL miss, you've Critically Missed.

This doesn't seem sensible to me. You'll always have more fumbles against higher-AC monsters, even if the combat situation is otherwise identical. That has some totally weird consequences.

Say I'm an archer, and I've got a readied action to shoot the first creature who comes through a doorway. Unfortunately, as soon as this happens, I roll a natural 1. My confirmation roll is also pretty low, at 15.

If the monster I see is a goblin, then no problem. I miss the shot of course, but he has AC 15, so I didn't confirm the fumble. Fine.

But what if the goblin is carrying a small shield? Oh crap, that gives him an extra +1 to AC! My second roll missed by a point, which means I fumbled.

How does the goblin's nonmagical shield make me more likely to drop my quiver? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Caliber]

The idea is really to use that principle, but in reverse.

People with high Attack Bonuses will Critically Miss less often, since it be harder for them to miss again. Counter wise people with a lower Attack Bonus will miss more often, since they aren't as skilled in combat.

Originally we played with just a Critical Miss occuring on a 1, but it was much too common and the fact that every attack only made it more likely didn't sit well with anyone.

My method brought the Critical Misses back into the realm of rarity.