NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7694553" data-attributes="member: 22779">I missed where Luke slipped and fell in a fight with random mooks.  In fact, I'm kinda missing where the hero's weapon breaks in any situation other than a specific high tension one.  Han fails to open the doors to the Power Generator and the blast doors fall.  This has exactly zero consequence because two seconds later Chewie shows up to open the doors.  The problem with Fumble Mechanics in D&D is that they obviously disfavor the players.  That's the long and the short of it.  It doesn't matter how often the baddies roll fumbles because the DM has unlimited numbers of baddies.  The baddies are supposed to fail.  It's pretty rare to set up a scenario where the baddies are supposed to succeed because, typically, that means a TPK for the group and that's generally a bad thing.  Even arguments about the number of die rolls miss the point.  Sure, a PC might have more die rolls than any given monster, but, there's usually more monsters than PC's and, in the long run, since I have infinite monsters as the DM, I don't care if the baddies fumble.  In the long run, fumble mechanics only hurt the PC's.The 3e crit rules suffer from the same issue.  Sure, everyone has the same chances of critting but, the results of those crits are different.  I have infinite monsters that are supposed to die.  That you kill them in 2 rounds instead of 3 doesn't really matter.  But, killing your PC with a random die roll is pretty much guaranteed in the long run.  All I've done is make the monsters stronger.5e with its much less powerful crits removes the swinginess of crits.  Adding in some sort of fumble doesn't add tension, it just penalizes the PC's for no good reason.</blockquote>

Verification