Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8123994" data-attributes="member: 6987520">You're taking a reasonable concept (if you can critically hit, you should be able to critically fumble) to an absurd extreme, it only lessens the value of your post.It doesn't have to.As I have pointed out numerous times (in case you didn't read my prior posts), I agree having a fumble on a flat nat 1 is not appropriate in 5E due to the nature of the game mechanics. As such, I have always stated a confirmation roll with a fixed DC, but which your bonus improves as you level, is viable. It even works if higher level fighters get more attacks per round.5% also represents the base-level for statistical significance in pretty much any random event. Also, you might be competent but if a roll is actually called for then you are in a situation where failure will likely have consequences. 5E removed the ideas of taking 10 or 20, which IMO was a horrible omission because they made a lot of sense. Without a stressful event, the idea of taking your time and using your full competence is logical. But, in the heat of combat, with injury or your life on the line, in the moment you're about to be discovered picking a lock and facing the temple guards, etc. that tiny, little 5% of something potentially bad happening works well. It represents the negative outlier, just as critical hits represent the positive one. Of course you aren't meant to "feel good" when those moments happen--but if your entire game revolves around you "feeling good" then we have very different D&D experiences. I want challenge and the unexpected, and critical fumbles can represent another way of bringing those elements into the game.LOL whatever path works for you. Fumbles work for me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I have other peoples' posts in this thread about how bad fumble rules can ruin the game for them.If the fumble rule supported those odds, I would agree with you, and anyone who uses a flat nat 1 for "dropping" your sword probably is IMO.That is because they don't add the confirmation rolls I've discussed in this thread. We currently use DC 15, but you could even do DC 10 to make a fumble a 1 in 400 chance and a "disaster" (more severe which our table uses) would then be 1 in 8000.I return to my golf example. Even pro-golfers will likely hit a bad-ball (i.e. fumble) once or more times in a round averaging 72 strokes.</blockquote>

Verification