"Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

[Flickerdart]

I consider hitting a different target (which is always either a hazardous terrain item like a nearly felled tree or an ally) or being tripped a valid use of a double crit. fail under my houserule system, I don't see why they wouldn't be. And reload was a specific instance in regards to old timey rifles, which aren't exactly the easiest things in the world to reload, so have no bearing besides in your example.

As I've said (this being the third time) 'absolutely no reason' is also known as interesting storytelling and increasing dramatic elements to a story, which is important enough in my games to include the double crit. fail houserule.

Then we must have vastly differing conceptions of what's interesting. I, for instance, don't consider running a chance of defeating myself with my own attacks to be either interesting or dramatic.

[sreservoir]

I consider hitting a different target (which is always either a hazardous terrain item like a nearly felled tree or an ally) or being tripped a valid use of a double crit. fail under my houserule system, I don't see why they wouldn't be. And reload was a specific instance in regards to old timey rifles, which aren't exactly the easiest things in the world to reload, so have no bearing besides in your example.

As I've said (this being the third time) 'absolutely no reason' is also known as interesting storytelling and increasing dramatic elements to a story, which is important enough in my games to include the double crit. fail houserule.

... no, it doesn't; when it is a thing that happens at random, it simply becomes a thing which one must plan for -- and if one doesn't plan for it, iterative probability makes the chances of getting screwed over horribly by it approach 1.

once it becomes a thing one plans for, it is no more interesting and dramatic than, say, missing on a nat 1 attack role, or having an enemy make a save only by a nat 20.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Then we must have vastly differing conceptions of what's interesting. I, for instance, don't consider running a chance of defeating myself with my own attacks to be either interesting or dramatic.

... no, it doesn't; when it is a thing that happens at random, it simply becomes a thing which one must plan for -- and if one doesn't plan for it, iterative probability makes the chances of getting screwed over horribly by it approach 1.

once it becomes a thing one plans for, it is no more interesting and dramatic than, say, missing on a nat 1 attack role, or having an enemy make a save only by a nat 20.

Obviously we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe it's inherently dramatic to have to recover from some misfortune, like dropping your sword near a cliff and having to retrieve it while under attack by gargoyles (in the rain!). And because it's circumstance-specific it can't be completely planned for. But yeah, to each their own.

[sreservoir]

Obviously we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe it's inherently dramatic to have to recover from some misfortune, like dropping your sword near a cliff and having to retrieve it while under attack by gargoyles (in the rain!). And because it's circumstance-specific it can't be completely planned for. But yeah, to each their own.

of course you can -- you can always reduce the number of attack rolls you have to make; and even in cases where you have to make, you can stack on lots of rerolls.

mantle of second chances brings you down another 1/20 the original chance, a luck blade to 1/400, planar touchstone for catalogues of enlightenment on luck domain to 1/8000, fortuitous strike to 1/160000 -- an an ally who doesn't use weapons very much to take planar touchstone for catalogues of enlightenment on destiny domain to bring it down to 1/3200000 the original chance. if that original chance is 1/400, the chance of a critical fumble is now 1/1 280 000 000. yes, that is one in 1.28 trillion short scale. mind, they're all limited by daily restrictions; but still, if you're short on rerolls, you should probably do roughly the same thing a caster short on spells does.

this is probably overkill, of course.

but if it isn't, wishless luck blades don't seem to actually need to be wielded to use the rerolls -- lug around lots and lots of them.

I won't further comment on interesting value, but it's worth noting that if the effect is sufficiently bad, then enough planning can happen that it stops mattering.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Neat, that definitely makes sense, I didn't realize there were so many reroll abilities. I guess it's also about balance. I typically don't have a crit. fail affect them in more than a 1-round kind of way, such as tripping, dropping their weapon, taking roughly 1 round worth of damage, or allowing an NPC to escape. Those kinds of things. Also you could argue using those kinds of reroll abilities make sure they do exactly what they're meant to, which is avoid a tragic situation, so I'd be alright with that as well. Still, I like that there are so many options for the most headstrong of players, thanks for posting.

[Wookie-ranger]

the chances are very low in the way that you handle 'critical miss'/'critical fumble' it seams realistic enough, and not "unfair" against the player.

None-the-less; do you really think that none-magic-users need MORE downsides? Wiz/Clr/etc are Tier1 for a reason, and the fighter is Tier5 also for a reason. Why penalize Low tiers even more?

[Doug Lampert]

Skill checks (such as drive) are not subject to fumble rule except by houserule

Strangely attack rolls are ALSO only subject to fumble by houserule, since autofail on a 1 is not a fumble. So EXACTLY THE SAME! Houserule either way. If you're houseruling in for one case why not the other?

If tripping over your sword in combat adds "drama" then SURELY tripping in your bathtub and breaking your skull adds even more "drama".

[Gnomish Wanderer]

The chances are very low in the way that you handle 'critical miss'/'critical fumble' that it would seem realistic enough and not "unfair" against the player.

Apparently I do it right because I've had no complaints. When I can get 4 to 5 people on the edge of their seat staring at a little dice hoping it doesn't reroll a one again and half-laughing when it does, I consider the way I handle critical fails really well-done. Also, fixed your post for you.

Nonetheless; do you really think that non-magic-users need MORE downsides? Wiz/Clr/etc are Tier1 for a reason, and the fighter is Tier5 also for a reason. Why penalize low tiers even more?

It entirely depends on your idea of balance. Mine apparently differs from others, seeing as I don't go for mathematically balanced and instead go for effect on the game world. Roy is statistically a weaker character than V. Does that make him a worse character?

Strangely attack rolls are ALSO only subject to fumble by houserule, since autofail on a 1 is not a fumble. So EXACTLY THE SAME! Houserule either way. If you're houseruling in for one case why not the other?

If tripping over your sword in combat adds "drama" then SURELY tripping in your bathtub and breaking your skull adds even more "drama".

Pretension noted.

[whibla]

Mention of the Luck Blade did make me remember one oddity, in the 3.5 rules:

Ring of Three Wishes (full): Cost to create is 11,475gp + 15,918xp

Luck Blade (full): Cost to create is 71,480gp + 5,718xp*

Seems, xp-wise anyway, the crafter of the Luck Blade got the lucky break in the change from 3 - 3.5. *It's clear from the costs of luck blades with a reduced number of wishes in it that this is not a simple typo where a '1' got missed off either.

I'll add my 2c to the critical fumble rules too. As an optional rule it can add some 'dramatic tension' to combats, but it is unduely harsh. Even if you rule that you must confirm the fumble (roll 1 followed by rolling a 1) it hugely penalises multiple attack based characters. However, there are ways of shifting the balance back. Possible options being:
The confirmation is a simple hit roll (similar to crit confirmations), but if you miss, which is more likely for a non-melee class, that confirms the fumble;
The fumble results in you losing your next attack or action, as you readjust your grip / stance etc. For a character with only 1 attack that means they lose their next action, for characters with multiple attacks they merely lose their next attack, a much smaller loss.
As for whether the system is 'realistic', not sure that's the point of the thread. Is it dysfunctional, well if you fumble, and drop your weapon on a single roll of a natural 1, damn right it's dysfunctional.

[Eldariel]

If I were using crit fumble, you'd have to confirm the fumble and only another natural 1 would confirm it. Further, every single ability like spells or powers would be subject to them regardless of if casting them normally requires a roll or not.

That's the only way I could see it existing without being overtly annoying; and even then I'd have to rule that only the first attack roll somebody makes on a round can fumble or some such (maybe make the fumble only happen on two natural 1s followed by missing the target number?).

[Drelua]

I think this argument about crit fails is kind of missing the point; it really doesn't matter what everyone outside of Gnomish Wanderer's games think of them. It doesn't matter what he thinks. All that I think matters is that what his players think. If the fighter drops his sword and everyone, most importantly the fighter, laughs, then there's no problem. If everyone laughs except for the fighter who just looks annoyed, you've got a problem.

I used to play with the rule that on a 1 you automatically missed and provoked an AoO from the guy you attacked. It isn't that unrealistic for a trained warrior to leave an opening like that. It's a bit of a nerf, but we also had multi-crit rules, so it evened out. Basically, our rule was the triple 20 auto-kill and that a threat on a confirmation roll, assuming it was a hit, threatened for the weapon's multiplier squared, then if you threatened again it was cubed, and so on. A quintuple threat was also an instant kill. I have no idea where my DM came up with these ideas, but he was new too I guess. The chance of both increases as you level, so it makes up for more experienced fighters screwing up more. It also made for some very short fights. We stopped using this crazy rule a long time ago, and I stopped playing so many TWFers.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

I think this argument about crit fails is kind of missing the point; it really doesn't matter what everyone outside of Gnomish Wanderer's games think of them. It doesn't matter what she thinks. All that I think matters is that what her players think. If the fighter drops his sword and everyone, most importantly the fighter, laughs, then there's no problem. If everyone laughs except for the fighter who just looks annoyed, you've got a problem.

Hear hear.

[Qwertystop]

Mention of the Luck Blade did make me remember one oddity, in the 3.5 rules:

Ring of Three Wishes (full): Cost to create is 11,475gp + 15,918xp

Luck Blade (full): Cost to create is 71,480gp + 5,718xp*

Seems, xp-wise anyway, the crafter of the Luck Blade got the lucky break in the change from 3 - 3.5. *It's clear from the costs of luck blades with a reduced number of wishes in it that this is not a simple typo where a '1' got missed off either.

Hmmm... I wonder what the ratio is for gold-cost to xp-cost?
60005 gold difference
10200 xp difference
so about 5.88284 gold per XP, or 0.169986 XP per gp.

[Mithril Leaf]

Hmmm... I wonder what the ratio is for gold-cost to xp-cost?
60005 gold difference
10200 xp difference
so about 5.88284 gold per XP, or 0.169986 XP per gp.

Standardized cost is 5 gold per XP. So rightly, an empty luckblade should cost about 9000 gp. The empty one is about 22000 gp according to the SRD. Silly designers.

[Oscredwin]

If everyone laughs except for the fighter who just looks annoyed, you've got a problem.

The real problem is if the fighter is a good player and a nice person she might just laugh about it to be a good sport and not want to make the rest of the table feel bad since they're all having a good laugh. No one wants to be a wet blanket, which means people can be stepped on accidentally.

[Kamai]

A new one: Mind Over Body heals abiliity damage equal to 1 + your con score.


Take the feat, now it's impossible to recover from con damage naturally.

I don't know if it was mentioned, but the feat has a requirement of Con 13, so the feat has no effect if you take that much Con damage. Also, at least on the SRD has it noted as Constitution bonus, not modifier.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Giant infants are 2 size categories larger than juveniles, and 1 size category than adolescents.

"When a group of giants includes children, roll d% for each child to determine
maturity: 01–25 infant (no combat ability); 26–50 juvenile
(two sizes smaller than an adult, 8 fewer HD, –8 Strength, –8
Constitution, and 1 rank in each skill that an adult has); and
51–100 adolescent (one size smaller than an adult, 4 fewer HD,
–4 Strength, –4 Constitution, and 2, 3, or 4 ranks in each skill that
an adult has). Giant children can throw rocks if they meet the
minimum size requirement (see above). Except when otherwise
noted, giant children are identical with adults of their variety."

[TuggyNE]

I don't know if it was mentioned, but the feat has a requirement of Con 13, so the feat has no effect if you take that much Con damage. Also, at least on the SRD has it noted as Constitution bonus, not modifier.

I believe it was mentioned, but I'm still not sure whether they understood what they were doing, or whether the rules randomly aligned to get the right result.

Giant infants are 2 size categories larger than juveniles, and 1 size category than adolescents.

"When a group of giants includes children, roll d% for each child to determine
maturity: 01–25 infant (no combat ability); 26–50 juvenile
(two sizes smaller than an adult, 8 fewer HD, –8 Strength, –8
Constitution, and 1 rank in each skill that an adult has); and
51–100 adolescent (one size smaller than an adult, 4 fewer HD,
–4 Strength, –4 Constitution, and 2, 3, or 4 ranks in each skill that
an adult has). Giant children can throw rocks if they meet the
minimum size requirement (see above). Except when otherwise
noted, giant children are identical with adults of their variety."

That's beautiful.

[willpell]

Giant infants are 2 size categories larger than juveniles, and 1 size category than adolescents.

"When a group of giants includes children, roll d% for each child to determine
maturity: 01–25 infant (no combat ability); 26–50 juvenile
(two sizes smaller than an adult, 8 fewer HD, –8 Strength, –8
Constitution, and 1 rank in each skill that an adult has); and
51–100 adolescent (one size smaller than an adult, 4 fewer HD,
–4 Strength, –4 Constitution, and 2, 3, or 4 ranks in each skill that
an adult has). Giant children can throw rocks if they meet the
minimum size requirement (see above). Except when otherwise
noted, giant children are identical with adults of their variety."

They probably figured that the phrase "no combat ability" obviated any need for the players to know what size the giant baby was; it's almost certainly -3 sizes from the original, unless that would make it smaller than a human. Personally, though, I see no reason to assume that the babies of a really large giant breed shouldn't make for good low-level Tarrasque substitutes. "No combat ability" stops being a meaningful phrase when your hand is large enough to crush a house while you're crawling around gurgling happily.

[Mithril Leaf]

Maybe doesn't quite belong here, but 10 headed hydras have worse will saves than both 9 and 11 headed varients. Confirmed as the case in the monster manual as well.

[willpell]

Maybe doesn't quite belong here, but 10 headed hydras have worse will saves than both 9 and 11 headed varients. Confirmed as the case in the monster manual as well.

Well obviously. Having an even number of brains is just asking to be unable to make up your own mind without a Beguiler around to tell you what to do.

[Ksheep]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Balance doesn't quite work with different size categories. As far as I can see, there are no penalties given for larger creatures or bonuses for smaller creatures. Therefore, a Pixie, a Human, and a Giant would all have the same amount of difficulty walking along a 6-inch wide beam, even though it's wider than the pixie is tall, should be moderate difficulty for a human, and about the same as walking on a razor's edge for a giant…

[TuggyNE]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Balance doesn't quite work with different size categories. As far as I can see, there are no penalties given for larger creatures or bonuses for smaller creatures. Therefore, a Pixie, a Human, and a Giant would all have the same amount of difficulty walking along a 6-inch wide beam, even though it's wider than the pixie is tall, should be moderate difficulty for a human, and about the same as walking on a razor's edge for a giant…

While your point is basically accurate and well-taken (and not previously mentioned), it should be noted that pixies are actually 2½' tall, not 4", and many giants are only a few feet taller than humans (10½' for hill giants, for example, some of the shortest).

[Ksheep]

While your point is basically accurate and well-taken (and not previously mentioned), it should be noted that pixies are actually 2½' tall, not 4", and many giants are only a few feet taller than humans (10½' for hill giants, for example, some of the shortest).

OK, swap giants for Tarasque and pixies for a toad. That better? Couldn't think of good examples off the top of my head when first posting…

[TuggyNE]

OK, swap giants for Tarasque and pixies for a toad. That better? Couldn't think of good examples off the top of my head when first posting…

Yeah, like I said, you do have a good point, I was just nitpicking the examples.

A creative DM might fudge it by sticking squeezing rules in somehow, but it's not specifically indicated that I know of.

[willpell]

The picture on page 291 in the PHB shows Jozan, cleric of Pelor, casting symbol of pain, an evil spell. Earlier, the book shows the same cleric turning undead.

Oh, there's an explanation for this one if you've read Heroes of Horror. Granted that wasn't published until much later, so it probably was a mistake when first printed (probably they hadn't decided Symbol of Pain should be Eeeeevil until after a few playtests, and the art had already come in by then), but retroactively it's justified.

[noparlpf]

Oh, there's an explanation for this one if you've read Heroes of Horror. Granted that wasn't published until much later, so it probably was a mistake when first printed (probably they hadn't decided Symbol of Pain should be Eeeeevil until after a few playtests, and the art had already come in by then), but retroactively it's justified.

How so? Having just woken up, digging through books seems like a hassle.

[willpell]

Spoiler for those who haven't read Heroes of Horror and want to.

Spoiler

Show

Jozan shows up as a vampire in one of the intro fics.

[Qwertystop]

Spoiler

Show

Jozan becomes a vampire at one point.

How does that let him cast SoP while still worshipping Pelor?

[willpell]

How does that let him cast SoP while still worshipping Pelor?

Presumably he wasn't worshipping Pelor at the time; maybe he just forgot to take off the now-inappropriate holy symbol, or now used it as an unholy symbol while acting as a cleric of the force of Evil (there's something fitting in that).