Fumbles

[the Jester]

If you use an exploding d20, your system makes multiple attacks a potential liability, which has the consequence that the people who are better at fighting are more likely to fumble. This is not reasonable.

I hadn't thought of that, but keep in mind that you need a modified 0 or less to fumble in this system. Though you have more opportunities to roll a 1 (and explode downward), you also have more bonuses. Heck, I've seen high-level fighter-types roll a 1 and explode downward... and still hit. So I'm not sure better fighters are more likely to fumble; it takes more than a natural 1.

Granted, I think fumbles are a really bad idea on both plausibility and game-mechanical grounds. People just don't screw up catastrophically in combat that much.

Wow, that's an interesting perspective. I totally disagree- in my limited experience with fencing, staff fighting, etc, I have found it's easy to break your weapon, snag your foot on a root or whatever. I've never run myself through, but I have almost put out the eye of a friend. If you read soldiers' accounts of battle, you'll find all kinds of stuff that could be termed 'fumbles', from helmets slipping down and blinding them for a few seconds to people shooting themselves in the leg by accident to weapons fouling and not firing. None of that happens in 'standard' dnd.

Now, I realize that my system adds a little complexity to the game- there's another potential roll in combat, if you fumble- but I think the trade off is worth it in terms of added realism and fun (yes, fun- I think fumbles are great fun).

 

[Hand of Evil]

I have always kept it simple: Combat: Balance Check DC 15 or flatfooted next round, Magic: Spell Casting Check DC 15 or loss of spell.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For my game, a fumble opens you up to an attack of opportunity. Works pretty well and is simple enough that everyone can remember it. Same rules as a critical, you have to confirm the fumble by rolling a one and then missing again.

 

[Funeris]

In the campaigns I play and run we use:

If you roll a one...reroll if you still miss the required AC then you fumble. If you fumble you automatically drop weapon (or whatever...wand...lose spell, etc.) and you also have to roll a d6. If the d6 comes up a 1 or 2...then adjacent enemies get AoO's. Its simple. Its fast. It doesn't give a lot of options for fumbles...but when stories get transfered to Story Hours...that's one place where the creativity of the writer shows through.

 

[jstater]

I treat a "1" as a critical failure. They make a DC 15 Reflex save (or CL 0 Dexterity save since I converted to a C&C campaign) or drop their weapon (or snap a bowstring, etc). Either way, they attract an AoO from anyone who threatens them. Same rules for the monsters they fight.

 

[jeffh]

The fumble system I use is similar, but the fumble confirmation roll is an attack roll versus AC 15. The reason to use an attack roll instead of a reflex save is simple - who should fumble less, a low level rogue, or a high level fighter? .

Guess what? If your fumble chance is per attack, you STILL have that problem.

 

[jeffh]

IMC we treat Fumbles similar to Critical Hits.. If you roll a 1, roll again to confirm a fumble, if you miss (roll + att bonus) then it's a fumble, if you hit with the second roll it's just a miss.

I'm confused. Why is it easier to fumble against someone in full plate? With a bow?

Honestly, almost every fumble system I've seen suggested here is really poorly thought out in terms of at least one of
* Who fumbles the most
* What determines the odds of fumbling
* The effects of a fumble
Granted, I'm biased - I think the best thought-out fumble system around is to just not have one - but if you're going to use one at all, at least give a little thought to these issues.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I'm confused. Why is it easier to fumble against someone in full plate?

Weapon gets stuck in the armour? Or jars the person's sword arm throwing him off balance.

With a bow?

Weak string getting pulled too hard and snaps as the bowman tries to give his arrow that little extra 'umph'

Honestly, almost every fumble system I've seen suggested here is really poorly thought out in terms of at least one of
* Who fumbles the most
* What determines the odds of fumbling
* The effects of a fumble
Granted, I'm biased - I think the best thought-out fumble system around is to just not have one - but if you're going to use one at all, at least give a little thought to these issues.

I would say JoeK's fumble rule is the simplest way to avoid all three of the pitfalls you describe here. I don't think I'll use it as my PCs would die in the next fight given how many 1's get rolled in any given combat (one player failed to roll above 10 for the entire session last game)

 

[Evilhalfling]

I'm confused. Why is it easier to fumble against someone in full plate? With a bow?
Honestly, almost every fumble system I've seen suggested here is really poorly thought out in terms of at least one of
* Who fumbles the most
* What determines the odds of fumbling
* The effects of a fumble
{snip}

The two issues are covered with my system, the targets AC has no importance, and the results are just fine, and adjudicated of the fly for relevance. Oh the DC of the reflex save is modified for difficult situations.
But I admit a problem with who fumbles the most. The easy (dc12) reflex save gives more experianced adventures better odds of not fumbling, and ungraceful people have it worse. But why should the 6th lvl fighter fumble twice as often as the 6th lvl cleric ? So I propose this change:
You can only fumble on your first attack, but addtional 1's are automatic failures with no other consequences. If you are fighing with two weapons, or using rapid shot or multishot
the reflex sv DC is 16.

I like fumbles, I think they add flavor, drama and randomness to combat. I used to use a simple crit hit system in 1st and 2nd ed. But the 3.x criticals make so much more sense. I also use on the fly critical fumbles and successes for skill checks.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Wow, that's an interesting perspective. I totally disagree- in my limited experience with fencing, staff fighting, etc, I have found it's easy to break your weapon, snag your foot on a root or whatever.

I've probably swung a baseball bat five thousand times and seen a bat swung fifty thousand times more. Exactly how many times have you seen a baseball player injure himself with his own bat to anywhere near the severity of injury that would be inflicted if he were swinging at another person with intent to injure?
It's not possible. Given the grip on the bat, the range of motions needed to inflict injury, a baseball player isn't going to hit himself with the bat as hard as he could hit someone else.
Bad example? Okay, how about this. How could a warrior with a longspear injure himself with his weapon? He doesn't even threaten the space he's in. The spearpoint is six to ten feet away. In both cases, there are aspects to how the weapon is used that make damaging oneself with the weapon as if it were an actual attack illogical.
I've also shot bows and rifles thousands of times each (about 100 days at summer camp as a kid? Sounds about right). The only self-injury would be fletching cuts, which are not comparable to actually being shot with an arrow. None of this is actual combat, but combat to a trained warrior should be what practice is to me.

"Injure self" in the sense of sprained ankle makes some sense if it happens very rarely. Losing one's grip on one's weapon, possible once in a few thousand swings for someone proficient in the weapon, but it should not outpace active disarms. "Hit self with weapon" seems ludicrous and unnecessarily humiliating.

Now, a totally unskilled person trying to use a two-headed weapon, yes, they deserve to disembowel themselves with their Darth Maul 2-bladed sword.