Fumble House Rule

[Kusuf ibn Zaid]

I just thought I'd reiterate that I think it's the wrong move to make a fumble check dependent on a reflex save. THat means that rogues (who aren't really skilled warriors) are less likely to fumble than highly skilled fighters.

For example, if you make it a DC 10 Reflex save, a 1st level rogue with an 18 DEX will make that on a roll of a 4 or better on a d20.

A fighter with a 10 DEX would have to be 18th level to fumble as rarely.

Is that how you want it to work?

Seems reasonable to me. Of course my fumble results usually involve dropping to a knee, stumbling against a wall, etc. Only rarely is a weapon dropped. I could easily see the argument that a straight Dexterity check is more appropriate. However, I want the chance of fumbles to decrease as levels increase. This decrease should more than compensate for the fact that characters on average get more attacks per round at high levels, and therefore roll more 1's. Better suggestions are always welcome.

- Kusuf

 

[Drawmack]

So you throw away your weapon more often when fighting someone in full plate than in leather?

I mistyped what you quoted. It should have read crit miss, not fumble.

Your fumble chance on any given attack is 0.05 * 0.05 = 0.25% chance of a fumble.

However your chance of a critical miss is 0.05 * % chance of missing. A critical miss causes only the loss of additional attacks gained from a full round attack in the current round. It's more like a stumble, where as a fumble is very very bad.

Of course if you read the initial post you'd already know that

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I agree about the reflex save, ideally it should be skill dependant rather than reflexes but that was the best I could do without getting a player riot.

Originally, like the dmg says it was a dex check but that hardly improves with level. My players told me that they like fumbles... so we use reflexes, a compromise. Yes I would prefer to use BAB and AC but there we are.

 

[Obryn]

I just use a simple attack roll using only the character's BAB vs. an AC of 10 for a confirmation check. Failure causes a fumble. Sure, it means no warrior-types above level 8 ever fumble, but I'm just peachy with that.

-O

 

[Staffan]

However your chance of a critical miss is 0.05 * % chance of missing. A critical miss causes only the loss of additional attacks gained from a full round attack in the current round. It's more like a stumble, where as a fumble is very very bad.

Ah. Sorry, that's just my knee-jerk reaction about things related to AC that shouldn't be, ever since the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook where it was harder to disarm someone wearing plate.

 

[Drawmack]

Ah. Sorry, that's just my knee-jerk reaction about things related to AC that shouldn't be, ever since the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook where it was harder to disarm someone wearing plate.

I think my rules do a fairly good job of simulation while keeping it simple.

Since it's just another attack roll you use all the number already floating in your head which is nice.

It's easier to stumble against someone wearing plate then leather, but it should be. You sword will not bounce off of leather no matter what angle you hit it at, but if the arc is wrong coming at plate mail it'll bounce of and vibrate slowing immediate reactions and causeing the loss of all further full attack action attacks that round.

I think it makes sense that way.

 

[totoro]

simple fumble rule

We use a simple fumble rule. If you make a negative attack roll, you fumble. If you roll a '1' you have to reroll and subtract 20 from your attack roll. If you roll another '1' then you reroll and subtract 40, etc. The lower negative your attack roll, the worse your fumble.

We also use the optional rule from the epic level book where a '20' allows you to reroll your attack and add 20 (so that you always have a chance to hit).

P.S. I don't have a problem with the increased likelihood of a fumble for characters with multiple attacks because they can choose to only make their best attacks. Nobody is forcing a 6th level fighter to make an attack at +1 (as good as a 1st level fighter, ignoring feat mods, etc.)

 

[Kusuf ibn Zaid]

In second edition I played in a campaign where there was no fumble confirmation. Rolling a 1 always resulted in a fumble. In addition many of the fumble results included damaging your own weapon as well as the weapon of your ally. I remember one particular battle in which one of the dual weilding fighters broke 4 separate weapons. Three of those were broken in the same round (both his weapon, plus his allies sword). We lost about 1/5 of the party's net worth that round since three of the weapons were magical. This is probably the reason for my intense desire to have criticals become less common at higher levels.

- Kusuf

 

[Judas]

The system my groups uses:
Roll a natural 1 = Fumble Check
Fumble roll: Attack vs. AC10
2+ = Normal miss
1 = Fumble: Roll again for greater fumble

Effects of fumble:
Lose your next highest attack, or if you don't have any or anymore attacks in current round, next round is a partial action only round.

Roll a third one = Greater fumble

Effects of greater fumble:
Weapon dropped, only action that can be done next round is picking weapon up. (No 5ft. step allowed)

 

[Drawmack]

In second edition I played in a campaign where there was no fumble confirmation. Rolling a 1 always resulted in a fumble. In addition many of the fumble results included damaging your own weapon as well as the weapon of your ally. I remember one particular battle in which one of the dual weilding fighters broke 4 separate weapons. Three of those were broken in the same round (both his weapon, plus his allies sword). We lost about 1/5 of the party's net worth that round since three of the weapons were magical. This is probably the reason for my intense desire to have criticals become less common at higher levels.

- Kusuf

Breaking a magical weapon on a fumble. I think there's rules against that, mundane means are not supposed to break a magical weapon.