Explain the appeal of critical fumbles to me

[JustKim]

There is already a statistical opposite to the critical hit. On a 1, you miss. On a 20 you deal double damage and on a 1 you deal none. Simple and effective. Consider:

• If a 1st level commoner has a 5% chance to wound himself in a 6 second period spent with weapon in hand, then a vanilla fighter has a 20% chance.
• If a vanilla fighter has a 20% chance to wound himself, then one with additional investment, training and magical aid has a 40% or higher chance to wound himself.
• Faced with multiple mooks who can only hit him on a natural 20, a character with multiple attacks poses greater risk to himself than his enemies do because he has the same chance to hit himself, and his own attacks will do more damage.
• If your confirmation system is a second natural 1, skill does not factor into the equation at all.
• If your confirmation system is a roll to hit the fumbler's AC, their skill is a direct factor in how badly they mangle themselves. Why is the fighter trying to gouge his eye out?
• If your confirmation system is a roll under the AC of the fumbler's target, iterative attacks become a liability.
• A 3th level fighter who rolls a critical fumble may do 2d6+6 damage to himself. A 3rd level wizard who rolls a critical fumble may do 4d6 damage to himself. That 3rd level wizard has 10 HP. He is now dead.
• Although wizards can utterly destroy themselves with ray spells, lightning bolts and fireballs pose no unusual risk because there is no attack roll involved. Explanation?
• Critical fumbles, by nature, bog down combat by intentionally throwing a wrench into the process. At higher levels when combat becomes much more complicated, critical fumbles further bog things down by occurring multiple times a round. The more dice you roll, the more ones you roll.

And so on, and so forth..

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Funny you should mention Dysentery, it actually did play a role at my last table. Well, more of an off-stage role. Whenever a player couldn't make the game, that particular character came down with a case of Dysentery and was out of action and don't even get me started about Dire Dysentery.

Okay, sophmoric humor at best.

See, that's the kind of thing that appeals to me. Certainly it's easier than coming up with complicated stuff on behalf of the guy not at the table.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Why? That's not really based in logic so much as in preference.

What does it add to your game that your level 18 fighter (or whatever) can accidentally shatter his own kneecap in the middle of a battle, no matter how experienced he might be with a mace, which just happens to be one blessed by the gods and which he was destined to carry into battle, according to an ancient prophecy?

It adds the idea that no matter how good of a warrior you are, accidents still happen. There are no guarantees in life, after all.

Plus, it makes the game more balanced. After all, if you get the benefit of a critical hit, then you should also get the detriment of a critical fumble to balance it all out.

What's the particular appeal of critical fumbles?

They're fun. Yeah, your guy may have had a bad break, but it may add something nifty to the development of a character. Or, it can be great fun when you see a goblin slip and fall on his own sword.

They entertain me. The DM.

'Nuff said!

 

[Slife]

My fumble rules are simple and straightforward:
Natural 1 on an attack roll is a critical fumble. See my table below for typical "fumble" results. I think critical fumbles add excitement to the game. Some people complain that critical fumbles on an attack roll unfairly penalize two-weapon fighters or high level fighters... but I guess in my opinion thats too bad. The more rolls you make, the more likely you are to fumble.

A natural 1 on a skill roll means nothing particular, it could still be successful
Critical Fumble Table (D100)
01-10 Automatic Miss
11-20 Your blade slips and your attack misses
21-30 You temporarily are off-balanced and your attack misses
31-40 A speck of dust gets in your eye and you miss
41-50 You get a splinter in your hand and you miss automatically
51-60 You briefly forget your combat training and your attack misses
61-70 You slip on some blood on the floor and your attack misses
71-80 An ally distracts you and your attack misses.
81-90 Your opponent dodges out of the way and you miss.
91-99 Automatic Miss
00 Roll twice on the table above.

Shamelessly stolen from http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12188095#post12188095

 

[Lanefan]

We've used fumbles (1/d20* followed by 1/d6 followed by d% on a fumble table) since day 1. Most of the time, one of three things might happen: damage self (wrench wrist, stub toe, whatever), damage friend (if one is near), or break/drop/throw weapon. The advent of 3e gave us another obvious fumble result: free AoO for opponent(s). There's other things can happen...on rare occasions becoming very painful...but those cover most of the results.

* - or if penalties e.g. a '-' for offhand weapon or non-proficient bring your roll to 1 or lower (there's a less-significant table for these "minor fumbles"). In 3e we had to rule that the cumulative -5's for secondary attacks don't count toward fumbling.

As monsters can fumble too, most players don't mind...and fumbles add to the drama/humour; just for that reason alone I'll keep 'em.

Lanefan

 

[GSHamster]

I'm not really a big fan of them, but critical fumbles do make fights a bit more tactical than strategic.

A critical hit changes the fight in an expected manner. One side's plan is advanced by a round or so. It doesn't really change the game plan to a great degree.

A critical fumble can change the fight in an unexpected manner. All of a sudden you don't have your weapon, which your plan relied on, or a character is in an unexpected location. It forces you to scramble a little to recover your original plan.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

We're a bit crazy with the natural 20 rule at our table. I like high drama during combat in my games, so when I DM a natural 20 on an attack roll is an automatic crit. Doesn't matter what weapon (or its critical threat range) you're using. You don't need to roll to confirm. Likewise, a natural 1 is a critical fumble. You won't be asked to roll to confirm.

Critical fumbles do two things--best I can tell--for our table. First, they add nail-biting drama. It's a rarity that when someone rolls a natural 1, the rest of the table doesn't boom out, "Oooh! Natural one!" And then everyone leans forward to see what happens next. Second, they add hilarity. I'm prone to graphic description of violence when I DM. Natural 1s play right into that.

Logical? Nope. But we use them to good effect and have a lot of fun with them.

I noticed that for the games I ran online for what I consider to be a crowd more grounded in the statistics and rules of D&D that no one wanted to use critical fumbles. People who post on the internet about D&D seem to take their gaming a lot more seriously than lay gamers. I do not mean that meanly. But I figure--we're posting here, so to a lot of us D&D is probably more than just an excuse to drink mountain dew and eat cheetohs on a Friday night.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I go with other posters here, the draw of Critical Fumbles are:

- Comedic relief.. one of my favorite characters from ICE Middle Earth was a Dwarven Battleaxe weilding mad man that would, invariably, roll a fumble each combat and uncannily end up with the same result... 'trip over an imaginary deceased turtle and spend two rounds burying it'.... needless to say I had to wax eloquently mid-combat regarding the loss the world had taken as the turtle passed on to the next life, and starting purchasing 'funeral kits' with which to tend proper honors

- Balance. If 5% of all hits are good, then 5% of hits should be bad.

The problem with fumbles is the complication in play and reliance on the GM to fit the fumble effect into the narrative without drawing ire for lack of fair play. I tried the 'fumble = AoO' once.. and dropped it after a CR+3 encounter turned to chop suey with a first round fumble while within melee reach of the entire party...

So, while I do not currently use fumbles in my game, next Paranoia or ICE game... players better watch out for that turtle!

 

[Jhulae]

Never seen the need for them and I'm glad I don't play in any games that have them.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I see the need for them and I'm glad I play in (and GM) games that have them. No really, I do and I am.

Basically, #@%! happens. It gives a slightly different feel to the game, but for those who like it, it's a lot of fun. My personal take is to more or less mirror the critical effect (i.e., using fumble threat ranges and such.)

I do also use something kind of similar to Action Points, however, and this fact changes the overall effect somewhat.

If you've ever played and/or run game systems that have this kind of thing in them, you know what I mean. Otherwise, you don't. Of course, if you've tried it and just don't like it, then cool! Whatever works for you. I don't consider it to be a necessary component of a game system, for that matter. Just an enjoyable one, regardless of which side of the screen I'm on.