Do fumbles add anything to the game?

[RangerWickett]

Simple.

On a natural 1, roll a Reflex save (DC 15). On a failure, you fumble, and either incur an attack of opportunity, or 'lose' your weapon, and are considered unarmed until you spend a move action to recover the weapon. This might mean you drop the weapon, or that you get it stuck in a wall, or that in the middle of combat you got jarred, lost your grip on your bow, and had it fall on your arm.

Easy enough, right?

 

[Silver Moon]

I never use fumbles in my games* simply because it would slow me down too much when DMing attacks with large groups of monsters. I have one player in my group who does use a simplistic "oops" table when he DM's and it does make for some comical moments.



*My one exception is in our western campaign where a roll of a "1" while firing a rifle indicates a jammed shell. I took that from the original "Boot Hill" rules that we've adapted for D&D play.

 

[Gnarlo]

Absolutely love fumbles; they've added some wonderfully hilarious moments to the game. I don't go as grim and gritty as a lot of folks do though. Even then, I'd probably still use them, as I like what the old Dragon articles from several millenia ago ("Good Hits and Bad Misses" and "How Hrothgar One-Ear Got His Name" great articles, still use the spirit of them) had to say about how broken and shattered weapons should litter a battlefield. When I think post combat, I see the Fords of Isen scene from the extended Two Towers DVD, a field littered with bodies with arrows jutting out everywhere and broken swords and lances scattered about.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Looks like I'm the only one weighing in against them so far.
Severe fumbles, to me, are un-heroic. They add embarassment, don't suggest a feel of myth, legend, or fantasy literature or movies, and make the PCs look incompetent. The auto-miss on a 1 and auto-hit on a 20 already add that unpredictable element. The fact that fumbles happen to NPCs too is no consolation - I'd *much* rather have my character disarm the enemy than have the enemy disarm himself. PC critical hits are balanced by NPC critical hits, they don't need to be further balanced by PC fumbles.
Certain fumbles are both un-heroic and unrealistic (especially to occur with a 1/20 or even 1/400 chance). Hitting oneself with one's own weapon is probably the worst fumble imaginable. How humiliating. Conan wouldn't hit himself with his own weapon, nor would Legolas, Gimli, Inigo Montoya, Duncan MacLeod, Han Solo, or Hercules. As I've said before, the only example I can think of is the Ewok from Return of the Jedi who hits himself in the head with his sling. Right. I don't play Ewoks. I think a previous D&D book said "Characters impaling themselves on their own weapons is simply not a logical outcome of combat, no matter how frenzied." I'm with that (unless you're trying to use a dire flail or two-bladed sword). I've probably fired well over 400 arrows and 400 rifle rounds and have never injured myself. Go me. A generic "injure self" might mean a twisted ankle or pulled groin muscle. At least that gets you back into the realm of logic, if not heroism.
Broken weapons are certainly both plausible and within the realm of heroic stories. But the Sunder mechanic already exists for that - if you're going to use a fumble chart to break weapons, would you design it so that breaking weapons on purpose is easier than breaking them by accident? (Likewise for disarm - if you want to get the blackguard's sword out of his hands, the best option should be to try to disarm him, not to fight defensively and hope he rolls a 1)
Minor fumble events such as stumbling and being off-balance for a round or losing an action are basically fine by me. They don't turn the tide of the fight and they are entirely plausible if imagining the combat as an episode from a movie or a myth.

 

[Haradim]

I use fumbles, but I'm very loose with them. I don't use a chart or roll a random event. I try to tie them into what's unfolding in the battle, and sometimes, that means merely missing as usual.

 

[Grayhawk]

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.

I use the exact same house rule for the same reasons.

My consequences for fumbling:

If you're armed you drop your weapon in a random adjacent square.

If you're unarmed you lose your next action.

 

[molonel]

Nope. Don't use fumble rules. Never will. Brother MacLaren and takyris already covered most of the reasons why: they punish the people hardest who are supposed to be the best at fighting, they add nothing to the game, there are enough balancing factors against crits already. Unless you use a lot of foes who wield weapons themselves, fumble rules normally work against players - who nearly always use weapons, unless they are monks. If the dragon rolls a fumble, oh well, you can't fumble a claw. If the player fumbles his weapon, he's screwed. I also tend to think about how rules work in high level play, which is often not a consideration amongst the folks who are the biggest proponents of fumble rules.

 

[DrSpunj]

I do use a simple "Fumble" rule that looks similar to others posted here, but I don't believe it suffers from the drawbacks others have listed. We actually call it the "Stumble" rule, for reasons that I hope will become quickly apparent.

First, I don't use auto-hit and auto-miss. A natural 20 counts as a 30, and a 1 counts as -10.

If your Total Attack Roll is 0 or less, you may have Stumbled.

You then make a DC 10 Dex check. If you succeed, nothing happens.

If you fail, you lose you next available Move Action, this round if possible, next round if not. The only caveat here is someone in the middle of the Full Attack Action:

* if they Stumble with their first attack their turn ends (since there first attack is essentially a Standard Action, so they lose the remainder of their attacks they get from their Move Action);

* if they Stumble with their second or later attacks, they finish their Full Attack Action but are limited to a Standard Action next round.

It adds a bit of randomness and fun from time to time, but doesn't occur so often that it upsets anyone. We're very happy with it!

Thanks.

DrSpunj

EDIT: I just read molonel's post after submitting mine, and agree with a lot of it. That's why I like this setup. Very low-level PCs and weak enemies can Stumble somewhat often, but even by mid-levels it's pretty rare (and non-existant once your total attack bonus is +11 or higher unless you're in an odd situation like using an improvised weapon or whatever where it makes sense to me you might Stumble).

Furthermore, taking away the Stumbling creature's Move Action is easy and and an equal/fair penalty to all. You don't know (or care) whether the creature was armed, unarmed, or whatever.