Vorpal and Sharpness and Fumble rules...

[Dandu]

Just to make sure I'm getting this down correctly...
Crit fumbles for casters: Optional
Crit fumbles for warriors: Non-optional
That about the gist of it?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I would rule against it. If it were that easy to kill yourself, then any feature on a sword would be equally harmful to the subject. The cool thing about magical items is that it is willed by the wielder: once it is unwielded, its magical properties become inert, thus negating the magical property. That is why a firebrand +1 will not burn inside its sheath. If a natural one causes the character to lose grip of the weapon, the magic should automatically deactivate, accept for obvious reasons that makes the magic still active when it is unwielded, like a returning dagger +1. There is a reason why mages need high intelligence and to study often.

I don't know what game you're playing, but in D&D 3.x at least the magic is always on the weapon regardless of whether it's being wielded. Most (probably all except cursed) weapons are enchanted such that they don't deal damage to their containers for obvious reasons. There are rules for gear getting saves and such, and there are times when weapons aren't being used but might still be the target of an effect that requires a save. Since a magic weapon gets a save bonus based on its enhancement, are you suggesting that the save bonus goes away too once it isn't being used? Or perhaps the bonus hit points and hardness? As per the 3.x rules, a magic item always has its enhancements on unless there is a specific way to deactivate it which usually requires a certain action as well as an action to reactivate it. I add the part about activation and deactivation because even though I haven't yet seen a weapon that has a deactivation entry, I wouldn't put it past WotC to have published one.

Also, not all magic users need to be intelligent. Sorcerers and clerics come to mind since they use Charisma and Wisdom, respectively. Heck, in the case of psionics the various psion disciplines were all keyed off different abilities, including strength, dexterity, and constitution. From all I've read about it, it was actually fairly balanced that way.


As for having fumbles with vorpal and sharpness... I assume sharpness means keen in this case? IIRC during 3.0 having keen on a vorpal weapon would double the chance vorpal went off since it was based on crit range. 3.5 rebalanced vorpal to only work on a natural 20 which is probably for the better since a chance to automatically kill certain opponents, while fun, happened so often that it might become boring or perhaps leave the players to keep counting on it to happen and then become frustrated when the dice don't cooperate as often as they'd like.

 

[Wyvernhand]

Heck, in the case of psionics the various psion disciplines were all keyed off different abilities, including strength, dexterity, and constitution. From all I've read about it, it was actually fairly balanced that way.

3.0 specialist disciplines were pretty balanced. Unfortunately, they were the ONLY part of 3.0 psionics that were. Wow, that system was messed up...especially in the case of a psionic character vs a non-psionic character...psionic combat was brutal on your PP total.

For the record, I have 2 groups that I play in. One, I'm a PC, and if you roll a 1 (only on attack rolls), you have to roll a DC10 dex check or drop your weapon. Minor. Doesn't make a HUGE difference in the game, especially since my PC can make that on a roll of 4+ for a total of a 3/4% chance per swing (thats .0075 or 1 in 133 chance) and he seldom attacks with his sling anyway. The other, I'm the DM, and we don't use any crit fumble rules. Roll a 1, auto-miss, that is all. And we don't miss it.

If a (variant) rule makes very little impact on your game, why even have it? If you like it, fine. If you've always just played that way, try a session without it and see if it makes the game any less suspenseful or exciting or fun. I bet most people wouldn't even miss it.

Its the same thing with Death by Massive Damage rules. Especially at higher levels, nearly every hit is 50+ damage, and even if you have a +14 Fort save, you still have a 5% chance to auto-die on nearly every hit. So what if a bad guy fails his every once in a while...he'd probably die anyway a 1/2 a round later. Its different from a death spell, since it could happen EVERY round, sometimes multiple times in a round. It just doesn't add that much more excitement to the game, and dying to a botched massive damage save is so anti-climactic. Another variant rule that I personally feel doesn't make the game any more fun, and in fact, often makes it less fun, and no one misses when you stop playing with it.

 

[kitcik]

I like the fumble rules which we use - which are basically this: if you roll a 1 to hit, you lose all remaining attacks that round (if you have multiple attacks) and the DM makes up something funny that happens to you, but that is not catastrophic (you fall prone, you drop your weapon, you get your weapon stuck in a table, you are dazed for a round, etc.).

I think the reason it currently works is we have the opposite of a killer DM, so anything that gives an advantage to the bad guys makes things more interesting (the bad guys don't incur fumbles).

I think fumbles are something every group has to figure out for themselves, although I generally agree with the point that nerfing melee characters is a bad idea. And that vorpal fumbles are a very bad idea.

 

[Nezkrul]

enemies can't fumble, and yet again, a 6th level fighter now fumbles twice as often as a 1st level fighter? Even worse for twf'ers. Stupid needless nerf to weapon users.

 

[kitcik]

enemies can't fumble, and yet again, a 6th level fighter now fumbles twice as often as a 1st level fighter? Even worse for twf'ers. Stupid needless nerf to weapon users.

I sincerely apologize, and am deeply regretful, for my badwrongfun.

I will work diligently to ensure that it does not happen again.



(Look, I agree with your logic, but I still enjoy it, what can I say?)

 

[James the Newbie]

Our solution to the whole fumbled impact people negatively if they have more attacks thing, was you can only fumble on your first attack each round. We didn't justify it other than mechanically.

However if I was asked to do so it could be along the lines of the idea that you are gaining your footing after your attack, or something threw you off but once you are 'in a groove you cant mess up'

This tended to give the PC's better footing, since they enjoyed cutting through hordes, and watching 3 or 4 enemies mess up for each one of their own, tended to be rather moralizing.

An interesting eventuality was there where 14 characters in play, I forget how many where PC's, and 12 of them fumbled, skipping their actions and being flat footed, seeing that played out was rather amusing and grew our love for fumble rules more, but it could be turned into an argument against fumbles of course.

As a side note of why do we argue, maybe its because its interesting to see other coherent arguments on the internet, and we all still haven't got used to it yet?