Explain the appeal of critical fumbles to me
- Thread starter Whizbang Dustyboots
- Start date
VengefulGazeofGod
First Post
I played in a campaign years back that involved a complex 20 minute fumble pamphlet that was broken down by class/weapon/level and that involved rolling on no less then four charts before it actually gleaned a result. The results included things like: "You tripped and landed face first on the ground, loss 1d4 points charisma." Or, "I don't care if you wield a +7 Holy Vorpal Keen Flaming Burst Animated Bane Longstick of Smiting, you simply didn't hit your opponent and the weapon shatters into millions of tiny pieces." As well as, "Spell rebounds on caster who takes full damage and is allowed no save."
I played with them for almost a year out of lack of an alternative group and lost no less then 9 total ability points and had to be resurrected once as a result of the "Pamphlet of Doom and Despair".
My current group has you re-roll the attack you rolled a 1 on, if that roll does not hit the targets AC then that attack misses and you loss all remaining attacks for the round. If the re-roll would fit the targets AC then the attack is simply a miss. Simple right? Not if you get 7 attacks a round and you roll a 1 on the first and you can't seem to roll higher then a 5 that day.
But I can live with that.
When I DM I use the 1 is a -20, 20 is a +20 rule. It is simple and still seems to make sense at higher levels.
*I just realized that I have broken my own lurkers creed!!*
I played with them for almost a year out of lack of an alternative group and lost no less then 9 total ability points and had to be resurrected once as a result of the "Pamphlet of Doom and Despair".
My current group has you re-roll the attack you rolled a 1 on, if that roll does not hit the targets AC then that attack misses and you loss all remaining attacks for the round. If the re-roll would fit the targets AC then the attack is simply a miss. Simple right? Not if you get 7 attacks a round and you roll a 1 on the first and you can't seem to roll higher then a 5 that day.
But I can live with that.
When I DM I use the 1 is a -20, 20 is a +20 rule. It is simple and still seems to make sense at higher levels.
*I just realized that I have broken my own lurkers creed!!*
Last edited:
Jin_Kataki
First Post
It really seems to me that whizbangs opinion here is not going to be changed by anything anyone has to say on the subject. Critical fumbles help balance Critical hits. If a critical was JUST an automatic hit then rolling a one only being a miss would be just fine. However a critical hit isn't just an automatic hit it deals DOUBLE damage in some cases even triple or quadruple. This can amount to a butt load of damage. Also it lends it self to putting a little bit of realism in the game. Yes it is D&D and by definition not realistic, but that doesn't mean there can't be at least a little bit of a realistic aspect to help immersion. Also it leads to far more entertaining battle sessions for those that aren't so entertained by straight hack and slash. To me personally a battle that is just I roll and I either hit or miss is not entertaining. Now I am not saying critical fumbles have to be slap stick or funny to be entertaining. I think the way a good DM handles describing the situation is what makes or breaks it. If the DM rolls a 1 for a monsters bite attack and simply says "The Hell Hound bites himself" that is boring. However a description of "The hell hound runs up on you attempting to snap down on your leg. You luckily move to the side causing it to slam its head on the ground." that immerses me much more in the scene. As far as the heroes go I can't say anything anyone else hasn't already said. Yea you are a hero, but it doesn't mean everything is always gonna go right. Also with the addition of the confirmation role it isn't as if you are gonna be screwing up all over the place. In the game I play in both critical fumbles and critical hits don't get a confirmation role and I personally think they should.
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
I am with Whizbang, here. I absolutely hate them and never use them in games I run. In games in which I'm a player, I'd gladly offer to give up the chance to ever crit in exchange for immunity to fumbles.
1) They are far too frequent. I have fired hundreds of bullets and hundreds of arrows and never once broken a bowstring, jammed a rifle, or shot myself. Perhaps at 12 years old I was just that incredibly skilled?
2) They are far too severe. Weapons break WAY too easily on most fumble charts I've seen, compared to how hard they are to break with attacks.
3) At mid-to-high levels, the auto-miss on a 1 is ALREADY significant. In many cases, the only way the fighter can miss is if he screws up. Oh look, he rolled a 1 and missed. Guess he screwed up. No need to make him look stupid on top of that.
4) They make the characters look pathetic and incompetent. In my mind, a level-1 fighter is still a "veteran" as in BD&D -- a trained soldier. The only morons who hit themselves with their own weapons in a cinematic scene are the frickin' Ewoks in RotJ. I don't want to play an Ewok.
5) Being disarmed or having your weapon broken should more often be the results of actions than accidents. Stick these on the fumble chart and you make Disarm and Sunder basically useless. Just go full defense and sooner or later your enemy will disarm himself.
6) Critical hits are already balanced by the enemies having critical hits. However, they aren't particularly necessary and the game would be fine without them.
1) They are far too frequent. I have fired hundreds of bullets and hundreds of arrows and never once broken a bowstring, jammed a rifle, or shot myself. Perhaps at 12 years old I was just that incredibly skilled?
2) They are far too severe. Weapons break WAY too easily on most fumble charts I've seen, compared to how hard they are to break with attacks.
3) At mid-to-high levels, the auto-miss on a 1 is ALREADY significant. In many cases, the only way the fighter can miss is if he screws up. Oh look, he rolled a 1 and missed. Guess he screwed up. No need to make him look stupid on top of that.
4) They make the characters look pathetic and incompetent. In my mind, a level-1 fighter is still a "veteran" as in BD&D -- a trained soldier. The only morons who hit themselves with their own weapons in a cinematic scene are the frickin' Ewoks in RotJ. I don't want to play an Ewok.
5) Being disarmed or having your weapon broken should more often be the results of actions than accidents. Stick these on the fumble chart and you make Disarm and Sunder basically useless. Just go full defense and sooner or later your enemy will disarm himself.
6) Critical hits are already balanced by the enemies having critical hits. However, they aren't particularly necessary and the game would be fine without them.
Woas
First Post
I always liked the idea that critical fumbles result in an AoO. I never liked the idea of critical fumbles resulting in shared weapons or self mutilation... thats a little too much. But people whiff once in awhile. Just plane out swing their sword at air or flinch and let the bow string go before its even raised to aim which allows opponents, if there are any near by to get a free shot in during the confusion.
prosfilaes
Adventurer
Jin_Kataki said:
True; it would be nice if Whizbang would accept that our opinion isn't going to be changed, and acknowledge that (hopefully) he now understands why critical fumbles appeal to people.
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
I have never seen a critical fumble table that required that the PC be under attack. All that is required is that the PC be attacking a target.Gryffyn said:
Now, if fumbles simply provoke AOOs, then indeed they do require someone else to be attacking you for it to matter.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Well, as I make casters roll to aim any spell being cast at range greater than "touch" (except Magic Missile due to the auto-hit thing), fumbles become a very real and dangerous possibility. And if you're trying to cast a "touch" spell on someone already in combat, you can fumble with that too.Numion said:
Caster tries to put a fireball behind the enemy front line and fumbles...the little ball of bat guano wrecks on the back of your party tank's head, or sails past everything and does nothing except possibly set the forest on fire. Best one I've ever seen was a high-level 1e PC wizard fumbling with a fireball...some very unlucky random rolls determined he'd slipped and sent it straight down instead of where it was supposed to go, effectively setting it off between his own feet. He was wearing a fireproof full-length cloak. Everyone else around hears a low whoomph and sees the mage collapse in a smoking pile with cloak still intact, for no obvious reason...the fireball went off *inside* the cloak!
If fumbles only applied to weapon-based actions, you'd be absolutely right.
Lanefan
We've used fumbles occurring only on the first attack roll of a sequence to avoid embarrassment to fighters with multiple attacks. The results are usually -2 to attack next round or -2 AC for a round, with weapons dropped or free AoOs or similar only on a 1 or 2 on the confirmation roll. No accidental legs chopped off under ordinary circumstances.
We also use spellcraft checks to place area spells accurately. If you want to place that fireball so that the orc front line gets hit but yours doesn't, a roll may be in order. These rolls can also be fumbled...
It's all in fun, but not everyone's cup of tea I guess.
We also use spellcraft checks to place area spells accurately. If you want to place that fireball so that the orc front line gets hit but yours doesn't, a roll may be in order. These rolls can also be fumbled...
It's all in fun, but not everyone's cup of tea I guess.
Similar Threads
