Natural 20's & 1's?

[El Mahdi]

Critical fumble house rules are terrible. They favor only sadistic DMs and low level characters.

[MENTION=31734]Infiniti2000[/MENTION]

I disagree. But...

...To me (and my group) D&D is about heroic fantasy. Its bad enough when you miss, but to make me stab my buddy or accidentally toss my weapon across the map? That's not very heroic. I'm not trying to play clumsy, real-world me. I'm Torro! Human fighter and ass-kicker who may miss, but is competent enough to hold on to his axe!

If I want that kind of "realism?" I play something else.

[MENTION=65116]Chris Knapp[/MENTION]

I have to 100% agree with this. Nobody likes their character looking stupid. As a DM, I don't want to, nor do I, seek to make a character look stupid (however, a player making their own character look stupid is an entirely other matter, and probably their own fault). I also don't like the "your weapon goes flying" penalty either. It compounds the penalty of not being able to attack, with the vulnerability(ies) experienced while attempting to retrieve the weapon - that to me, just doesn't seem fair.

What I do instead on a natural 1, is that there's a small chance (5%-10%) that they've broken their weapon (unless magical, or an heirloom/named weapon - which I give straight plot immunity). If they don't break their weapon, then they've simply overextended themself and made themselves more vulnarable than normal (providing a -1 to -3 penalty to defense for the next attack from that opponent - and that opponent only).

Even in heroic fantasy fiction, there's the precedent for the hero's weapon breaking, or the enemy getting a good shot in on them due to a mistake (it would still be just a normal attack, at a slight defense penalty, against only one opponent - not a critical or an automatic hit and no extra penalty against multiple attackers).

It kind of models fights like Kevin Costner and Alan Rickman (Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Notingham). The Sheriff, wielding Robins' Fathers' sword, breaks the sword that Robin is wielding (a simple, mundane sword) and gets in a "hit" that cuts Robins chin - giving him a scar to which the sheriff says: "Now we're even!".

It's a simple houserule that adds some extra dread to a fumble, without significantly altering the balance of the game, and provides for extra dramatic opportunities. (In other words, no sadism, only drama.)

 

[Infiniti2000]

What I do instead on a natural 1, is that there's a small chance (5%-10%) that they've broken their weapon (unless magical, or an heirloom/named weapon - which I give straight plot immunity).

So, a high level PC has the same chance of screwing himself up as a low level PC? That's something I don't like and falls into the second half of my statement (though maybe I didn't word it clearly). To make it less silly at high levels nearly entirely eliminates the possibility of fumbling occurring, and thus making the rule itself not even worth it.

I chose the word sadistic, because from what I've read in messages it is usually the DM imposing the rule and not the players even agreeing. In essence, bad DMing on two counts (bad house rule and not getting player agreement). With a rule of simply -1 to -3 it's not bad, but then again not really that interesting. Worse, it's yet something else that needs to be tracked by the DM and possibly confusing if there are multiple opponents.

PS. I apologize for picking specifically on your rule, but I felt it was worthwhile to constructively criticize a posted rule in this thread. That way, you can see where someone like me is coming from with regard to hatred vs. critical fumbles. As a disclaimer, I did have a very detailed critical fumble table from long ago (1e) that I got from BitNet (long ago I tell you) and we were all much happier when we stopped using it. The stupidest thing, btw, is that it severely punishes multiple attacks. Mathematically insuring 1-2 critical fumbles per session is just really really terrible.

 

[El Mahdi]

So, a high level PC has the same chance of screwing himself up as a low level PC? That's something I don't like and falls into the second half of my statement (though maybe I didn't word it clearly). To make it less silly at high levels nearly entirely eliminates the possibility of fumbling occurring, and thus making the rule itself not even worth it.

Yeah, I can see that. For those who want some kind of fumble result, it's worth it...but for those who don't, or who see other variables not addressed, it's probably more trouble than it's worth. I could see adding in a level bonus to the chance of a fumble, but then you start getting away from a simple system, and you're back into "it's probably more trouble than it's worth" territory.

I chose the word sadistic, because from what I've read in messages it is usually the DM imposing the rule and not the players even agreeing. In essence, bad DMing on two counts (bad house rule and not getting player agreement). With a rule of simply -1 to -3 it's not bad, but then again not really that interesting. Worse, it's yet something else that needs to be tracked by the DM and possibly confusing if there are multiple opponents.

Oh, I agree 100%. In such situations this is "sadistic", and a situation that truly sucks to be on the recieveing end of. There should always be agreement between players and DM, not just arbitrary rules mandates. In adjudication I believe that the DM is absolute...in decisions of the game and rules the group is playing, the group has to decide and agree.

PS. I apologize for picking specifically on your rule, but I felt it was worthwhile to constructively criticize a posted rule in this thread. That way, you can see where someone like me is coming from with regard to hatred vs. critical fumbles. As a disclaimer, I did have a very detailed critical fumble table from long ago (1e) that I got from BitNet (long ago I tell you) and we were all much happier when we stopped using it. The stupidest thing, btw, is that it severely punishes multiple attacks. Mathematically insuring 1-2 critical fumbles per session is just really really terrible.

Dude, you're not picking on anything. What good is posting an idea if nobody is going to analyze or vet it. I think your criticism was completely constructive. For instance, I hadn't even thought about the idea that a high level characters chance of a detrimental fumble would be the same as a 1st level character. That was a good point to bring up. Thanks!

Also, I used to use a fumble table too, but I'm finding lately that simpler is better for me. So I agree with you on that!

Thanks for the dialogue.