D&D 5E What are your favourite fumble tables?

[Hawk Diesel]

And even with all of that, the high level fighter is going to fumble at least 3 times more often than the rogue of the same level. More than that when the fighter action surges.

I've played around with fumbles because in theory they're fun. I've just never found a method to balance out classes that get multiple attacks or builds that dual-wield weapons versus single attack classes.

I'm not telling you how to run your game, but in your game (if I stuck around) I would never play a fighter. The cost is just too high. Anyway, I didn't mean to XXXX all over your thread or your ideas. Have fun gaming!

I think what you state is a valid concern. I'm sorry your experience with fumble tables hasn't been good (Me and my group have thoroughly enjoyed them). One way you could do it is allow a fighter to reroll a fumble confirmation once for each attack they have over 1. This way, they get more chances to avoid a true fumble that increases for each attack they can make. You could do the same for confirmation of crits, making the fighters more likely to make crits than the rogue or wizard.

 

[Oofta]

Depends very much on how you implement fumbles. It's not at all guaranteed that a fumble chart means a high level fighter fumbles more often than a low level one. That confusing a very specific implementation of a fumble chart with fumbles generally.

Huh? A high level fighter gets 3 attacks per round. So 3 chances to fumble vs 1 chance to fumble ... last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. Add in action surges and it probably goes from around 20% chance to roll 1 in a combat to around 100%. Heaven forbid you do a two weapon fighter.

A 1 being an auto-miss and a 20 being an auto-hit (I actually prefer the 3.x crit confirm myself) as the only penalty/reward is my preference. There are other ways to create dynamic combats.

I'm a computer geek so I probably just over-analyze the statistics too much.

 

[aco175]

We do not crit and fumble in 5e, some of it is because a halfling can reroll a 1 and thus never fumbles. I 3e we simplified it to miss one of your next attacks or gain an extra attack. In 2e we had a chart one of the DMs liked, but we used it only for a short time. One of the fighters rolled a 1 and had a chance to break the magic sword and rolled a 1 again. It blew up.

I can see giving advantage or disadvantage to next attack to make things simple.

 

[Celebrim]

Huh? A high level fighter gets 3 attacks per round. So 3 chances to fumble vs 1 chance to fumble ... last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. Add in action surges and it probably goes from around 20% chance to roll 1 in a combat to around 100%. Heaven forbid you do a two weapon fighter.

A 1 being an auto-miss and a 20 being an auto-hit (I actually prefer the 3.x crit confirm myself) as the only penalty/reward is my preference. There are other ways to create dynamic combats.

I'm a computer geek so I probably just over-analyze the statistics too much.

So, again, you are so stuck in what you expect fumbles to look like, that you can't back up and look at it.

So, the high level fighter attacks 4 times per round. The low level of fighter attacks but once. But if the low level fighter has a 5% chance of fumbling, and the high level fighter has but a 0.25% chance of fumbling, then the low level fighter fumbles more often.

1 - (.9975 * .9975 * .9975 * .9975) = ~1% chance of a fumble per round, compared to the low level fighters 5%. The low level fighter fumbles five times as often despite making only 1/4th as many attacks.

 

[Oofta]

So, again, you are so stuck in what you expect fumbles to look like, that you can't back up and look at it.

So, the high level fighter attacks 4 times per round. The low level of fighter attacks but once. But if the low level fighter has a 5% chance of fumbling, and the high level fighter has but a 0.25% chance of fumbling, then the low level fighter fumbles more often.

1 - (.9975 * .9975 * .9975 * .9975) = ~1% chance of a fumble per round, compared to the low level fighters 5%. The low level fighter fumbles five times as often despite making only 1/4th as many attacks.

Someone that rolls a d20 one time has a 5% chance of rolling a 1. Someone that rolls a d20 4 times has a 20% chance to roll a 1.

This is simple math and you seem to be making an assumption that I'm not following.

 

[Celebrim]

Someone that rolls a d20 one time has a 5% chance of rolling a 1. Someone that rolls a d20 4 times has a 20% chance to roll a 1.

This is simple math and you seem to be making an assumption that I'm not following.

No, I'm making the assumption that you're not thinking out of the box. And you've just verified to everyone that you aren't.

Moreover, for someone who has just been presented math that should have seemed unexpected, you are awfully confident and unquestioning of your assumptions.

Why would you implement a fumble resolution mechanic like that? The vast majority of fumble resolution mechanics that have ever been published for D&D - and certainly those that involved tables - did not have auto fumble on a 1. Indeed, I can't think of an example that actually did a fumble on a miss without a confirmation roll of some sort.

For example, the table that started it all 'Good Hits and Bad Misses' in Dragon magazine, you could fumble on any miss - not just on a 1! But the chance of a fumble on a miss was 1% per 1 point you missed the attack by. Since high level fighters frequently only needed a '2' to hit, they generally could only expect to fumble 1 in 2000 attacks. Indeed, depending on your interpretation of that rule (and certainly you could implement it as a house rule), a fighter that needed a 2+ to hit could not fumble, since the only reason they missed at all was the automiss on a 1, but their total to hit exceeded what they needed in order to make a hit otherwise.

 

[Oofta]

No, I'm making the assumption that you're not thinking out of the box. And you've just verified to everyone that you aren't.

Moreover, for someone who has just been presented math that should have seem unexpected, you are awfully confident and unquestioning of your assumptions.

Why would you implement a fumble resolution mechanic like that? The vast majority of fumble resolution mechanics that have ever been published for D&D - and certainly those that involved tables - did not have auto fumble on a 1. Indeed, I can't think of an example that actually did a fumble on a miss without a confirmation roll of some sort.

For example, the table that started it all 'Good Hits and Bad Misses' in Dragon magazine, you could fumble on any miss - not just on a 1! But the chance of a fumble on a miss was 1% per 1 point you missed the attack by. Since high level fighters frequently only needed a '2' to hit, they generally could only expect to fumble 1 in 2000 attacks. Indeed, depending on your interpretation of that rule (and certainly you could implement it as a house rule), a fighter that needed a 2+ to hit could not fumble, since the only reason they missed at all was the automiss on a 1, but their total to hit exceeded THAC0.

You're making a lot of assumptions with your "vast majority of fumble resolutions..." if you have an option you want to discuss feel free. Just don't start throwing numbers around and assume that everyone knows exactly what system you are using.

Taking into consideration how much you miss by will change the math. However, higher level characters also tend to face opponents with higher ACs.

For example in a fight with a 20th level character has a +12 to hit versus opponents with a 20 AC compared to a 1st level fighter with a +5 to hit versus opponents with a 13 AC. Both hit on an 8 or higher, and miss on a 7 or lower.

Both will hit or miss on a single hit by the same amount, and the same percentage of times. The high level character, however will have 4 chances to roll a 1 instead of 1 chance. Even if rolling a 1 only results in a fumble 5% of the time, the high level character is still 4 times more likely to fumble.

I don't know what "box" you've condescendingly put me in, I'm talking basic math.

Obviously this is going to vary a great degree depending on the AC of opponents and campaign assumptions.

 

[Mercule]

I haven't used critical hit/fumble effects for years. When I did, though, I borrowed those from Role Master. Because it's awesome to know that you could disembowel yourself.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] I am curious about you thoughts of getting to reroll a fumble confirmation for each extra attack you get. Seems like a decent solution to account for those individuals that attack more often and have greater expertise in making attacks.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] I am curious about you thoughts of getting to reroll a fumble confirmation for each extra attack you get. Seems like a decent solution to account for those individuals that attack more often and have greater expertise in making attacks.

Even if you only have a .25% chance to fumble per hit, the character with more attacks per round is still more likely to fumble.

Assume 4 hits per turn, that's a 1% chance per turn.

Compare that to a halfling rogue that has a .125% chance to fumble per turn (depending on how you handle halfling luck).

Reducing the chance of crits doesn't reduce the difference between people that have more attacks. A person that has twice as many attacks is going to fumble twice as often if all other factors are the same.

But it's a weird mechanic IMHO. If you're only fumbling 1% of the time, what's the point other than a lot of extra rolls? Why should the human fighter fumble 8 times more often that his halfling rogue buddy?