Vorpal and Sharpness and Fumble rules...

[Dandu]

And how do crit fumble rules help achieve the desired goal of a gritty game?

 

[Celebrim]

I don't like critical fumble rules for several of the reasons posted above. Most particularly, however, is game balance. Why put in a rule that dynamically NERFS melee types while doing absolutelynothing with casters?

- emphasis added

I'm really fighting a bunch of strawmen at this point, because everyone arguing against fumbles would seem to want to have the effects of fumbles be absolute and continues to color their descriptions with lots of extreme absolute adjectives.

No, I can understand you don't like fumbles, but can we stop attempting to justify that dislike on the basis of absolutist language?

Who said absolutely nothing is being done with casters? Since casters aren't part of this conversation, we can perhaps assume that people who like fumbles also like dramatic spellmisfires that do things like suck the soul out of your body or turn you into hamburger meat. Maybe running around with a sharp stick is supposed to be immensely safer than wielding the eldritch powers of darkness under these house rules despite the fumbles? I mean, we can't really say what has happened with the casters. Maybe in the particular game system with the fumbles, spellcasting was so weak that fumbles were introduced to level the playing field. The point being that you can't use casters to prove absolutely that fumbles are bad.

Yes, it's worth noting that fumbles can hamper people who use attacks more often than those that don't, but that hinderance need neither be absolute nor is it something that can't be compesated for. I've had no problems balancing casters and non-casters so far, and when and if the balance falls apart it won't be because of the fumbles.

Why does a 6th level character have a 2x more likely chance of screwing up than a 5th level character?

But does the 6th level character have twice the chance of screwing up? There are some big assumptions in that statement.

If you put in a series of checks and balances to make sure it doesn't happen often, as [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] pointed out, and the actual chance is only 1 in over 9000, why even have the rule?

Because, even though the chances are low, it does come up and players still remember those events with the big successes and big failures and occasions were they preformed stunts and manuevers far more than they remember the normal give and take of combat. The main thing that you want to avoid is clownish swinginess in your combat, where things are so random that they break suspension of disbelief, because that isn't actually gritty. But, clownish swinginess in a system can occur completely without fumbles (as in some d% systems), or it can occur when the system has hidden fumble/critical mechanics in the form of exploding dice - Savage Worlds and similar systems for example annoy me to no end.

If it doesn't come up in 99% of games, it obviously isn't something that is super important.

- emphasis added

Again, despite using me as an example, you have totally ignored me as a source of information. I have just told you that it occurs. I'm not 100 sessions into the game, and its occurred a countable number of times. Clearly it is adding something to the game - the occasional stumble, the occasional scramble for a weapon, the occasional mishap, pulled muscle, clumsy attack - these are all things that happen in a game and will be familiar to anyone engaged in atheletic activity and/or combat. That versimlitude is important, and is just as important as my gritty descriptions of medieval life, the consequences of villainy, and the tangible messy environments in which adventures occur. I have a specific effect I'm trying to achieve, or I wouldn't have the rule.

One important consequence of fumbles is that they can change the round to round state of the game. That in my opinion is very important, because what you don't want is one round looking much the same as the last one or the next one. You want reasons to be dynamic, even if they are simple as, "I'm going to take a defensive fighting stance this round.", or "My opponent dropped his guard; I'm totally doing an all out attack this round!" Fumbles aren't the whole of that, but a part. They aren't necessarily the most important part, but they have several important roles. The fumbles are designed to interact with my rules as a synergistic whole, where each round you can be greeted with new problems to solve, new oppurtunities to take advantage of, and new actions you can take to steer the combat.

 

[Wyvernhand]

The only strawmen in this argument are the training dummies that have a random chance of killing a professional soldier. I see people who like critical fumbles defending their points, and people who don't like them expounding on their reasoning. That's how arguments work.

And casters ARE totally a part of the conversation, because they are a part of the game, and they do not suffer from the same mechanical "houserule" as proposed by the PHB.

And I don't see how fumbles change the round-to-round flow of combat. Again, if they happen infrequently, then they aren't really changing the combat often. If they happen frequently, they are more likely to hamstring the PCs because statistically speaking, a single PC swings more often than any given single NPC over the lifetime of that PC. If it happens infrequently, or the consequences are minimal or easily negated by another check or roll, why even have it? All you are doing is forcing every melee PC to make sure they can automatically make a DC 10 balance check, or make a DC 12 Ref save, or whatever. Smart players will design their melee oriented PC to minimize this danger and you've just created yet another hoop to jump through and added needless complications to an already complicated game, or they will suffer, potentially get frustrated, and reroll a wizard or other non-weapon oriented PC like SotS did.

I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced that critical fumble rules (or, by extension, massive damage save rules) add anything meaningful to the game. They are either high impact and often unfun, not to mention difficult to believe, or they are a minor aspect of the game, another rule to remember but seldom actually use.

And if you want immerse, round by round dynamic combat where balance, parrying, stance, etc comes into play, try playing a more rules-lite game. D&D just doesn't carry the chassis to support that type of play, sad as that is. If you want to create a whole in-depth set of rules to handle it in a fair, balanced, yet non-trivial way, good on you. I'd rather just ignore the fact that that rule even exists and move on with my game.

 

[the Jester]

And casters ARE totally a part of the conversation, because they are a part of the game, and they do not suffer from the same mechanical "houserule" as proposed by the PHB.

For some of us with fumble systems, casters are affected by them, at least when there is an attack roll.

I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced that critical fumble rules (or, by extension, massive damage save rules) add anything meaningful to the game. They are either high impact and often unfun, not to mention difficult to believe, or they are a minor aspect of the game, another rule to remember but seldom actually use.

It all depends on your playstyle. Clearly, to you (and SotS and Dandu and...), fumbles don't add anything. Just as clearly, some of us find that they add a great deal to the game. That's fine. Maybe you like Forgotten Realms and I hate it. That's fine too. Playstyle differences aren't a terrible thing; they're just differences in how we like to play the game.

And if you want immerse, round by round dynamic combat where balance, parrying, stance, etc comes into play, try playing a more rules-lite game. D&D just doesn't carry the chassis to support that type of play, sad as that is.

And yet, for many years, quite a few gamers have managed to incorporate exactly that type of play into our D&D games and been perfectly happy with it. The whole "go play a different game if you aren't playing it my way!" thing isn't very useful.

If you want to create a whole in-depth set of rules to handle it in a fair, balanced, yet non-trivial way, good on you. I'd rather just ignore the fact that that rule even exists and move on with my game.

Nobody's trying to tell you not to. Is there any reason why the fumble-lovers should give up their fumble systems, which in many cases make them quite happy, in order to appease you?

 

[Dandu]

For some of us with fumble systems, casters are affected by them, at least when there is an attack roll.

Warriors must make attack rolls in order to do their jobs. Casters do not. That is the difference.

Nobody's trying to tell you not to. Is there any reason why the fumble-lovers should give up their fumble systems, which in many cases make them quite happy, in order to appease you?

Has anyone actually said so?

 

[Wyvernhand]

Just because you can fix it, doesn't mean it's not broken.

I only have the zeal I do because I've seen it impact games negatively on both sides of the DM screen. Thats why I don't use it anymore. It wasn't fun for me, and it wasn't fun for those I was playing with.

And anyways, why do people debate ANYTHING on the internet? Generally, its not to convince the strong proponents of the opposite side. Generally, its so that others reading in the debate, or who stumble upon this thread in the future, can read about the topic and form their own opinion. I'm not saying that playing with crit fumbles is wrongbadfun. I'm merely saying that I don't think its fun, and I don't think the current system models it well, and the effort spent on fixing it is probably not worth it vs time spent on other aspects of the game that need more attention, or time just plain spent staring at a tree.

I don't think I've insulted anyone by stating my opinions. I've simply said why I believe it doesn't work, and why I don't believe other proposed fixes might actually add something meaningful to the game.

And D&D doesn't really model combat well, either cinematic or real, especially above level 6 or so. At mid-high levels, its a better option for a fighter to full attack and get his iterative attacks (plus Haste and other goodies) than it is for him to leap dramatically onto a table top to attack down from higher ground. And it is more advantageous for the foe he's attacking to full attack back, rather than try to attempt some sort of check to flip the table over out from under him because at most, the foe will take 1d6 damage for falling and possibly be prone vs 3 attacks at ~20 damage apiece, for example. Barring ToB, full attack is king, and anything a melee character does that isn't a full attack (or a charge for a properly built charging character) is generally a sub-par action compared to that full attack with all of it's bonuses. You can't roll away from attacks easily in a dramatic fashion like heroes do on TV, because per the rules, crawling is a full round action to move 5' and provokes an AoO and there are no rules for tumbling while prone. The best option there is to stand up and eat the AoO to get at least 1 attack (better PA for a lot), attack from prone at -4, or, if you have it, utilize some sort of short range teleport (via item or spell) to move away from the threat.

If you really want a style of combat like that, Fate is EXCELLENT for it. The more creative you are, the more likely your crazy antics or realistic combat options work. D&D 3.5 just doesn't model it well, and changing it so that it DOES work like that only proves my point. D&D fails at gritty combat, especially at higher levels. Adding critical fumbles doesn't make the game more gritty. It just makes the game more silly (IMO).

 

[kstout]

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.

 

[Dandu]

You know, I have an interesting character for a D&D game involving high-lethality crit fumble rules. He focuses entirely on avoiding hits and waits for his enemies to kill themselves.

 

[Treebore]

I don't like critical fumble rules for several of the reasons posted above. Most particularly, however, is game balance. Why put in a rule that dynamically NERFS melee types while doing absolutely nothing with casters? Why does a 6th level character have a 2x more likely chance of screwing up than a 5th level character? If you put in a series of checks and balances to make sure it doesn't happen often, as [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] pointed out, and the actual chance is only 1 in over 9000, why even have the rule? If it doesn't come up in 99% of games, it obviously isn't something that is super important.

It either messes with PCs who don't need to be messed with anymore than already fighting for their lives, or it comes up so seldom that devoting time and effort to remembering it and enforcing it doesn't achieve any more immersion into the game.

I don't like rules that aren't applicable, and I don't like rules that kick a downed dog. I don't play with either fumble OR death by massive damage saves because statistically speaking, they mostly only really mess with melee oriented PCs, and rolling a 1 already sucks enough as it is.

They actually do nerf casters in my games, but that is because I allow SIEGE rolls to be made to change their spells. Common changes are changing energy type, maximizing damage, extending range, and increasing number of targets that can be affected. Now if they do nothing to modify the spell, its fire and forget, but they rarely leave a spell alone. If they roll a "1" on those SIEGE checks, things can get ugly, especially when they are Fireballs and such.

 

[Treebore]

And anyways, why do people debate ANYTHING on the internet?

I'm not debating anything. I've been using crits/fumbles for about 28 years now. I like them, my players like them, and my groups tend to stay together for years (My newest group is working on its 6th year together, with 4 of 6 of my players being originals).

So it works for me and my players. So I am stating what I do and why, I am not debating anything.

Not that I don't see the opposing points. Like I said, I have been running or playing in games for 28 years, often 2 or more games per week, 3 right now, and all have used crit/fumble rules of some kind. So I have seen the negative effects, but we like the positive effects enough to keep the rules. Mainly the adrenaline rush it gives.

So while I have seen all the negative results first hand, many times, I have also seen all the positive, and on the whole it has been very positive, so we continue.

Now to be clear, I do not use the detailed charts like were published in Dragon. I did, but for a short period of time. I have since adopted a much simpler, much faster system. If it weren't for crit and fumble systems, I'd never allow Vorpal or Sharpness weapons in the first place. They are simply too powerful to allow in game without such a drawback limiting how often they are used.


So ultimately, it is up to my players. Don't like the thought of cutting off your head or other limb? Don't use the weapon. Simple.

Like I said earlier, thats how I play, thats how I like it, nothing says anyone here has to like it, and I am not asking you to. The only ones who have to do that are people who play in my games. Since my tables are full for my fantasy games, I am not asking anyone to make that decision either.

I do have an opening in my Aces and Eights Roll 20 game, though.