Why do we need Fumbles?

[Kastil]

Even though there really is no 'official' criticial fumble chart in 3e, I use an old one from a Dragon magazine. I feel, as I tell my players, if there are ciritical hits, there should also be critical fumbles.

It has brought some flavor into the game and gvies us something to laugh about at the end of a good combat session. The one instance that comes to mind is when they were fighting a clan of desert people from my homebrew. With the last BBG standing, I had the chance to take one of the party with him. I rolled the dreaded one and a d100 later, it was the old 'damage to self' roll. Hmmmm.....I know! I'll have him slit his own throat so they don't get the glory of the kill!

It brought the flavor of how this desert clan felt about outsiders. the "I'd rather kill myself than to give you the pleasure". It also played on their place in the afterlife with their god. Actually that and I got to say "HAH! You didn't kill the last guy!"

It's the little things, really.

 

[Janx]

I think the lack of fumbles is just more along the lines of never having anything bad happen to the characters. They never really fail, they don't have to worry about death or really anything negative happening to them. Its like the coddling of newbies thread we had a few weeks or so back.

Crothian's statement in particular seems that Fumbles are designed to foil the PCs. That the emphasis is on the PCs with the desire to see them fumble. I think it is a misconception that you need fumbles to do this. I can TPK my party with a CR5 fire elemental, and they're sixth level. So it is erroneous to assume that without fumbles, the game is a walk in the park for the PCs.

I'm curious that nobody commented on my suggestion of using a random action method, for generating broken weapons, falls and dropped weapons. Seems like that's a more fair (in the existing rules) than a 1=bad method many people approach.

In that same vein, Particle Man hit on the idea of only using the 1st attack to determine if a fumble occurred. I was waiting for one of you to suggest that.

On the flip side, how do you fumble if you aren't swinging a sword (i.e. actively making attack rolls).

Personally, I'd be interested in seeing a fumble mechanic that wasn't based on attack rolls, wasn't complicated, and yielded results that make the story better. Self-decapitations are presumed to not make the story better.

 

[Ranger Rick]

I've always hated fumbles that trigger on a natural 1 because they mess up folks with multiple attacks. This can be a real pain for folks who use TWF. Of course soem DMs would say "TWF is cheesy anyhow", and I have definitely sensed a undertone of punishing the powerful in many fumble charts. If you have lots of attacks you will drop your weapons constantly. If you have powerful attacks you will accidentally kill yourself. If you are meek and humble and not very good at anything then you will not suffer the wrath of the DM fumble chart.

If I played with a fumble rule which weren't vindictive or annoyingly complex and time consuming I think I could learn to like it. I'm not sure I'd ever be a fan of having characters accidentally decapitate themselves even on "3 ones in a row" since if you play a character long enough it WILL happen, especially with my luck. An occassional dropped sword might be kind of interesting, but it could be annoying if spiked gauntlets and such flew off with similar frequency. This would make it tough to do without DM fiat, which can be a good or a bad thing for both players and DM.

Anyhow, there's always the obligatory discussion of whether a monk who fumbles should drop his arms. This is usually good for a few laughs so long as nobody takes it seriously

You are absoultely correct, the more swings you have, the greater the statistical probablity of a fumble. However, that is not a penalty. Do not confuse power with attempts. If you have that many attacks/swings/attempts than how is that different if someone else has only one attack/swing/attempt. If you feel that a natural one is that big of a penalty, then I would hope you also ignore the benifits of a natural 20.

As to a monk dropping his arms, that is taken a rule to literally. However, he can still take x rounds to recover as if he did drop a weapon.

 

[Crothian]

Crothian's statement in particular seems that Fumbles are designed to foil the PCs. That the emphasis is on the PCs with the desire to see them fumble. I think it is a misconception that you need fumbles to do this. I can TPK my party with a CR5 fire elemental, and they're sixth level. So it is erroneous to assume that without fumbles, the game is a walk in the park for the PCs.

TPK ends a game, fumbles are a slight inconvience. Big difference. Also, fumbles are there to hinder PCs, just like critical hits are their to hinder PCs. In a campaign wgho gets criticaled the most? The PCs since they are the focus of the game so all basically revolve around these guys. And I don't need fumbles to foil the PCs but it a simple additional way that they understand and is always there.

 

[Janx]

To modify RangerRick's suggestion for the Monk dropping his arm, I'd assume a fumble mechanic has 2 parts. A. Did a Fumble happen and B. what was the result.

If B. yields a nonsensical result (monk drops weapon) then reroll the result

I think people are confusing Critical Hits and their meaning with Fumbles and their meaning (or at least as I intepret them).

If we assume that in D&D3e, each die roll equals one sword swing (which is reasonable in a 6 second round, compared to 2nd Ed's 1 minute round), then we can discern the following:
For every HIT, there is a chance of it being a critical hit (i.e. hits a very sensitive spot)

Most people also seem to be coming to the following conclusion for the inverse:
For every MISS, there is a chance of it being a Fumble (i.e. you missed and hit a stone pillar)

I'd say they're half right. I think you can a fighter can fumble, regardless of whether he attacked, or hit or missed.

If a fighter stands there for 6 seconds blocking blows (fighting defensively? I forget what they call it), he's making no attack rolls, but getting a higher AC. What's undocumented in the mechanics is that essentially, he's still moving around in his 5' square and swinging his sword to deflect blows.

Logically, he could slip on some blood, drop his sword, break his sword in a mighty block.

My point is, it is bad design to put fumble detection on the Attack roll of the person making the attack. Since that means you only fumble when you attack.

My wording above leads us to another proposed solution, Attackers may cause defenders to fumble. Put a mechanic on the Attack roll, that checks to see if there is additional effect on the target.

This would support the following logic of non-fumbling:
if you are doing nothing, and nobody is trying to do something to you, you shouldn't fumble.

Just standing there is pretty safe, but if somebody is trying to hit me, I could slip, drop my weapon, or it could even break when you hit it.

If we were to assume that the attack rolls are NOT the only sword swings going on, than my argument is still supported. A 1st level PC making a Full Attack action would be waving his sword around just as much as a 20th level PC, it's just that the high level PC has more real chances of connecting a hit.

Basically, I'm against the most popular mechanic for determining a Fumble, which is, rolling a 1 for attacks triggers a Fumble check.


To sum up what a "realistic" fumble system would have to support, I propose the following criteria:
anybody can fumble
higher level character has less chance of fumble (overall, not just per attack)
I can fumble whenever I try to do something
I can fumble if someone is trying to do something to me
if I'm doing nothing, and nothing is happening, I won't fumble
doing mundane things has no chance of fumble
doing things under pressure has a chance of fumble

A fumble implies one or more of the following effects:
drop something
tangled in gear/clothes
break something
slip
slip and fall
hit the wrong thing (friendly fire, or scenery damaged)
locked blades (or arms on a monk)

I think the effects of a fumble is pretty trivial to figure out. That's just a table with your favorite effects, weighted towards the most likely. To each his own. But the mechanics for determing when a fumble effect occurs have been pretty weak.

I also think that 3.x's combat actions have been moving towards fumble effects, in terms of you actively take an action to induce the effect on your opponent. Rather than it being a purely random incident. Take the Book of Iron Might for instance. Lots of cool things to do to your enemy.

Janx

 

[Mark]

If people enjoy Fumble charts, more power to them, but they invariably will harm the PCs beyond what they need expect from the RAW (which can present some balance issues). I'd suggest avoiding anything that does automatic death to a "fumbler" or has a chance of destroying primary equipment (especially at higher levels). Those are two areas where a simple fumble can then derail a campaign to the point of completely becoming the main focus.

 

[Cor Azer]

I think Janx summed (well, maybe not "summed") up my thoughts pretty good; but to expand.

The fact the PCs can score critical hits doesn't need to be offset by them also being able to fumble; it's offset by the fact that opponents can score critical hits on them!

Consider the situation where NPC 1 scores a critical hit on PC 1 - maybe it was because NPC 1 got a luck strike against PC 1's spigglyspooch, but maybe it was because PC 1 "fumbled" his sword and didn't have it in the right position, thus taking more damage than he should have.

 

[tetsujin28]

So I saw a thread title in the House Rules on Fumble rules, and it got me thinking. Why do gamers feel the need for "Critical Fumbles" and such in the game?

What value to the story does it add?

I don't need them. But fumble rules have led to some of the funniest moments I've ever experienced in gaming. They're funny.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

To all of those who see no need for fumbles or just say "out of ammo", do you roll play or role play?

If you want your character to have all 18s, than I agree fummbles are a waste of time. But if you are trying to make a non heroic character heroic, than fumbles are necessary. They bring in the element of luck and seat of the pants thought.

If your artifact sword falls into a lava flow, are you nothing without it? Is your PC nothing but your actual weapon in hand? I think some of the better stories are written of those that "fumble" and recover, rather than those that have they enemy handed to them on a platter.

So if I don't use fumble charts I'm a power gamey munchkin? Uh, yeah, sure. Generalizing is fun isn't it?

And I would say that using fumble charts seems more 'roll play' to me since you are letting the dice decide the result.

 

[GreyRat]

I like to keep things simple. In most of my games, if an action is important enough to warrant a roll, then the highest number always succeeds and the lowest always fails. Any time a roll is involved there needs to be a chance of success and a chance of failure, otherwise the GM should just say no roll is needed. Fumbles add interest because they create unexpected situations and thus force the players to innovate ('My primary weapon is temporarily unusable? Ok, I pick up a bar stool and start swinging!').
As long as they do not derail the plot or ruin the players' enjoyment, and the PCs' opponents are subject to the same risks, I think they're fine. Although they should be in line with criticals (if used); I was in one game where a crit was max damage (no big deal), but a fumble almost always meant a broken weapon; every battle resulted in equipment lost, which was a big drag, given we had trouble replacing gear. Oh, and if somone rolled a crit *and* a fumble during the same attack, the fumble cancelled the crit. V. annoying.