Do fumbles add anything to the game?

[Belbarrus]

I use a simplistic fumble system:

If you roll a 1 for an attack, make a Dex check (DC 10). If the check succeeds, nothing else happens. If this check fails, you drop the weapon and it is at your feet. If your character is not using a weapon, or cannot drop the weapon (i.e. using unarmed attacks, natural attacks, spell or locked gauntlet), then if you fail your Dex check, you fumble and can only take a partial action on your next turn.

B

 

[el-remmen]

I use a simplistic fumble system:

If you roll a 1 for an attack, make a Dex check (DC 10). If the check succeeds, nothing else happens. If this check fails, you drop the weapon and it is at your feet. If your character is not using a weapon, or cannot drop the weapon (i.e. using unarmed attacks, natural attacks, spell or locked gauntlet), then if you fail your Dex check, you fumble and can only take a partial action on your next turn.

B

The problem with this system is that characters never get any better at avoiding fumbles unless they happen to gain Dex boosting magic.

 

[Quickbeam]

I love using fumbles, but don't think they need to be complicated. In one group we roll to confirm the fumble, in another we use an appropriate saving throw. Then based on circumstance (which includes proximal PC's, area layout, intended action, etc.) the DM determines what happens. This leaves a fair amount of discretion up to the DM, but my group is generally cool with the results I describe.

 

[Gnimish88]

I like fumble rules- if you can critically hit, you should also be prone to fumbling. If a PC rolls a natural 1, I have them make a DC 15 Reflex save, and if they fail, they fumble. Here are my tables:

Result
1 Drop weapon
2 Damage weapon
3 Provoke AoO/Distracted, no further missile attacks this round if missile
4 Hit target nearest intended target (roll separate attack roll)- if no other target near, roll attack on self
5 Off balance: Suffer -1 AC until next action
6 Move 5' in random direction due to momentum of attack
7 Trip self
8 Pull muscle, -1 on all physical activity (attacks, skill checks) for next 1d6 rounds

Not a bad system, nothing too hideous, has a countering factor. Think I would probably use a lower save DC though.

 

[takyris]

The problem I have with fumbles is that they penalize, ruleswise, the people who are supposed to be the best at combat. If I'm a 20th-level dual-wielding fighter with max'd out two-weapon fighting, I have attacks at:

+18/+13/+8/+3 and +18/+13/+8 with my off-hand. (Or thereabouts, yes?) If a Natural 1 is a fumble, I'll be fumbling and having something humorous happen about once every three rounds in which I take full-round attacks, on average (7 attacks means that, on average, I get a 1 at least once every three rounds, says the English major, fully aware that it's more complex than that but attempting to boil it down a bit). This applies to either the "any 1 is a fumble", the "confirm your fumble with another miss", or the "Dex check, DC10" methods. The guy with more attacks will, on average, fumble more often.

- If it's a simple Dex check, then a high-level character is not really any better than a low-levle character, barring Dex-boosting items. And a fighter should not HAVE to have the greatest Dex in the world (although the two-weapon-wielder will have a good one, in order to qualify for those feats).

- If it's a "confirm your miss", then you will tend to fumble more often against high-AC opponents. I don't like the idea of fumbling more often in a really tough battle (against an opponent with a high AC) than in a relatively easy battle.

 

[Numion]

I like fumble rules- if you can critically hit, you should also be prone to fumbling. If a PC rolls a natural 1, I have them make a DC 15 Reflex save, and if they fail, they fumble.

Wouldn't this create situations where a more experienced combatant would fumble more often, if his ref save doesn't increase sufficiently compared to number of attacks. That would seem a bit counter-intuitive.

EDIT: Oh, just what takyris said

 

[Rel]

We recently instituted a fumble rule whereby if you roll a 1 and confirm with another 1, you hit yourself with the weapon. So far it hasn't happened even once. I'm not really bothered by the "If I attack 6 times per round, I fumble 6 times as often as the Goblin" issue. It's a 1 in 400 chance so I'm not sweating it.

What really puzzles me though is where Quasqueton gets all these REALLY interesting thread topics. My last couple of threads totally bombed. I think he has some kind of magic bag that he pulls them from.

 

[MichaelH]

I no longer use fumbles in my games, but I used two methods in the past. One method was after rolling a natural 1 on an attack roll, roll a confirmation attack roll. If your confirmation attack roll was less than the AC of your target, you fumble. This ensured that higher level, more skilled combatants fumbled less than novices. The other method I used required a DC 10 Str or Dex check (whichever was higher) after rolling a natural 1 on an attack roll. I reduced the DC by 2 for every base attack beyond the first. So a 6th level fighter or 8th level cleric would roll their check against a DC of 8. A 20th level fighter would roll against a DC of 4. In this system, highly skilled combatants would rarely or never fumble.

 

[Desdichado]

Odd, really, that I don't remember seeing any fumble rules in UA. I thought for sure it'd have that, and called shots as options.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I use a "confirm the fumble with an attack roll at current attack bonus vs. AC 15" to eliminate the two downfalls of most fumble systems (which have been brought up):

• using Dex checks means highly skilled fighters fumble more than low-level rogues, and,
• using opponent AC means you fumble more against a well-armored 1st level warrior than against a 20th level fighter in his pajamas.