Critical Failure!

[Keneth]

In that case, to be perfectly honest, you should play a different game. 3.5 is best at modelling superheroes.

Whoever said I'm playing 3.5? We play a heavily houseruled version of Pathfinder. It's a thread about a houserule in an undefined system and setting. It's always portrayed in the worst possible light, but the simple fact is, if you're already houseruling, there are ways of making it (more) viable.

Besides that, organic characters aren't defined by how often they stab their allies. It's defined by who the characters are, and how they're played.

Combat is part of the system. An enormously large part in most cases (D&D is poorly designed for just about everything else). How you fight defines your character just as much as your 10 page background.

[eggynack]

Whoever said I'm playing 3.5? We play a heavily houseruled version of Pathfinder. It's a thread about a houserule in an undefined system and setting. It's always portrayed in the worst possible light, but the simple fact is, if you're already houseruling, there are ways of making it (more) viable.

Well, the fact that you're in a thread that's ostensibly about adding critical fumble rules to standard 3.5 certainly heavily implied it. Sure, in a different game, things could be different. That's always going to be reasonably true. The fact is, however, that most fumble rules I see do not assume a game that's house ruled to the point where there is a neutral or positive impact on balance as a result of those rules. If you managed such a thing, then that's a nifty thingamajig, I suppose.

[Flickerdart]

Whoever said I'm playing 3.5?

3.5 is one of the thread's tags. One would consider it common courtesy to mention if you are talking about a different system.

[Seerow]

Well, the fact that you're in a thread that's ostensibly about adding critical fumble rules to standard 3.5 certainly heavily implied it. Sure, in a different game, things could be different. That's always going to be reasonably true. The fact is, however, that most fumble rules I see do not assume a game that's house ruled to the point where there is a neutral or positive impact on balance as a result of those rules. If you managed such a thing, then that's a nifty thingamajig, I suppose.

Pathfinder is similar enough to 3.5 it doesn't change any of the arguments. And from the sounds of the houserules he's specified, they boil down to "After you roll a 1, make another roll at the same target number, if you fail the GM makes up something negative that happens to you". And the converse side seems to be "When you roll a crit, the GM makes up something negative that you do to your enemy". And given the example of chopping off the enemy's hand so he can't use a two-handed weapon, it seems to me the only way a PC fighter lives to high enough level to get access to regeneration is by the GM being nicer in what he adjudicates happens to the PCs than happens to the enemies.

Basically the whole thing boils down to GM fiat in the name of "spicing up the game". It's not so much a rule as random wacky stuff happens when you roll high or low. It's quite literally something out of a saturday morning cartoon, in the name of realism.

[eggynack]

Pathfinder is similar enough to 3.5 it doesn't change any of the arguments.

I was referring more to the "heavily house ruled" half than the "Pathfinder" half, though the latter might occasionally prove relevant.

And from the sounds of the houserules he's specified, they boil down to "After you roll a 1, make another roll at the same target number, if you fail the GM makes up something negative that happens to you". And the converse side seems to be "When you roll a crit, the GM makes up something negative that you do to your enemy". And given the example of chopping off the enemy's hand so he can't use a two-handed weapon, it seems to me the only way a PC fighter lives to high enough level to get access to regeneration is by the GM being nicer in what he adjudicates happens to the PCs than happens to the enemies.

Sounds about right, though there's a lot I don't know about this, and from what I understand, this system suffers from a lot of the same balance problems as any critical fumble system. Primarily, the issue is that casters can do more without touching the system than melee guys can. Some clarification on what actually happens could probably help as well, particularly as the outcome of a fumbled enervation presumably does something different than the outcome of a fumbled stinking cloud. I don't even know how a fumbled stinking cloud works exactly. That's another big problem with trying to apply fumble rules uniformly.

[Seerow]

I was referring more to the "heavily house ruled" half than the "Pathfinder" half, though the latter might occasionally prove relevant.


Sounds about right, though there's a lot I don't know about this, and from what I understand, this system suffers from a lot of the same balance problems as any critical fumble system. Primarily, the issue is that casters can do more without touching the system than melee guys can. Some clarification on what actually happens could probably help as well, particularly as the outcome of a fumbled enervation presumably does something different than the outcome of a fumbled stinking cloud. I don't even know how a fumbled stinking cloud works exactly. That's another big problem with trying to apply fumble rules uniformly.

He specified that the wizard might buff a bunch of enemies instead of debuffing them on a fumble. So a fumbled stinking cloud would miraculously turn into haste on all enemies targetted, or a cloud of fast healing, or something silly like that. Similarly a wizard who rolls a crit on an attack can just spontaneously open a rift to another dimension that the BBEG gets sucked through.

Like he's actually given us a lot of information on what crits/fumbles do, it's just so much of it is so unbelievable that your mind tries to forget it immediately after reading.

[eggynack]

Like he's actually given us a lot of information on what crits/fumbles do, it's just so much of it is so unbelievable that your mind tries to forget it immediately after reading.

I think my issue is that I don't know what it all means. Like, maybe stinking cloud extrapolates out in one of the ways you've indicated, or maybe it works in an entirely separate way. There's lots of information, but working out the underlying rule set, if one exists, is next to impossible from where I stand.

[Keneth]

Sure you mess up. But do you mess up to the degree that you literally throw away your weapon on any regular basis? Do you regularly go to attack the enemy in front of you, miss them and smack your friend sitting on the sidelines with the backswing? This is probably a once a month of constant practice occurrence, not a once a fight occurrence.

Why would you assume that those are the only two options? I don't flip a coin, I literally have hundreds of different occurrences, ranging anywhere from a slap on the wrist, to severely crippling effects which almost always have a saving throw for yet another chance to avoid them.

And if that is something that happens to you literally every time you fight, then seriously you need to get out of martial arts entirely. Because that's ridiculous.

It doesn't happen in every fight in real life and it doesn't happen in every fight during gameplay.

High level fighters aren't normal people. D&D is not real life.

Granted. And like I said, if you want to run your games like that, that's perfectly fine. I respect that entirely. In my games everyone is fallible, whether they're 1st level warriors, or 20th level wizards with mythic tiers.

Wait so you're not making the fumble roll a set number, but instead against the intended target's AC? And this is better?

I never said that anywhere. I am merely surprised that you would assume a 50/50 miss chance while simultaneously accusing me of shafting mundanes.

Do you actually know what slapstick comedy is? Here's a hint: It's literally exactly what you just described.

The point was that I am not actively trying to evoke these situations, but they do happen on rare occasions. Especially for fodder monsters which are supposed to be that way.

Saying that critical fumbles are fine because most of the time you will make the confirmation roll/Reflex save/voodoo dance not to turn a natural 1 into a fumble is not actually a defense of the rule. It's saying "I will add one or more rolls to the game for absolutely no payoff because the likelihood of the roll mattering is intentionally negligible."

So what you're saying is that if the rules don't benefit players, they should not exist? Because fumbles do benefit gameplay, at least in our case.

"Critical fumbles should exist" is as of yet an unsubstantiated statement, yet one that many posts in this thread rely on. We should not be discussing how to make them bearable. We should be discussing why we need them, and from the fruits of that discussion, determine how they should function with an actual goal in mind.

You don't need them. You don't need wizards either. Or that horrible D&D weapon system. Or level adjustments. Or experience points. There's a lot of barely functional rules in D&D.

In fact, you need an extremely small amount of rules to actually play a roleplaying game. But there are always reasons to use more.

3.5 is one of the thread's tags. One would consider it common courtesy to mention if you are talking about a different system.

Ugh, tags. They hover down at the bottom of the thread, mocking me. They need to be added to the thread list next to the title or something. I just figured this was a discussion about fumble rules in general.

Edit: Huh, they actually are next to the title. You just gotta hover over the tag icon. That's a lot of unnecessary work...

Still, it is a discussion about house rules. Assuming a core 3.5 system is kinda pointless since it's got enough problems without adding a more mess to it. Like I said, if you're gonna house rule, go all the way.

And from the sounds of the houserules he's specified, they boil down to "After you roll a 1, make another roll at the same target number, if you fail the GM makes up something negative that happens to you". And the converse side seems to be "When you roll a crit, the GM makes up something negative that you do to your enemy". And given the example of chopping off the enemy's hand so he can't use a two-handed weapon, it seems to me the only way a PC fighter lives to high enough level to get access to regeneration is by the GM being nicer in what he adjudicates happens to the PCs than happens to the enemies.

I don't make up anything. I wouldn't presume to do so in the middle of combat, even though I am a very objective person. It's a preexisting set of effects that was agreed upon.

And the cutting off a hand thing is an extreme case (as is sending enemies to the abyss). It's usually a small bonus or penalty for flavor, like +2 to attacks (besides double damage), or an extra 1d4 Str damage.

Funnily enough, I've been using these rules for years now, and not a single mundane has died as a result of a fumble. It's the critical hits that tend to make or break a battle at our table.

[Ravens_cry]

Uh, my group insists on using a -10 on a 1, +10 on a 20 system. In itself fair enough, and, in fact, more forgiving than a flat fail success but they got this idea ingrained that it should *also* apply to skill checks, which I abhor.

[AugustNights]

In theory I don't hold with Fumbles; I'm largely opposed to the myriad of negative effects that often debilitate a character for any amount of time greater than the action it took to make the attack, such as "Stunned 1d4 Rounds" or "Disarmed" and the like.

In practice, my players *love* fumbles. They don't get much into the philosophy of game, or mechanics as I do, and they feel cheated when their characters aren't doing fantastically absurd things on natural 1s. I also like rolling on random effect tables, so I've got a person fumble system for when my players want to use it.
It *is* a bunch of extra rolling and book-work, but it works for my crew.
It also is *not* a bunch of debilitating effects, they are mostly minor penalties that last until the beginning of their next turn.
Dedicated fighters are less likely to roll the worse effects.
And I have a spell-failure system as well (also a bunch of extra rolling and book-work).

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that Fumbles aren't for everyone, but they can be fun. If they are going to be used, you should use them carefully and watch out for a number of the traps that many have already mentioned (adding unnecessary rolling, punishing twf, punishing fighters, creating absurd situations where trained warriors become slapstick buffoons).

[Flickerdart]

So what you're saying is that if the rules don't benefit players, they should not exist? Because fumbles do benefit gameplay, at least in our case.

You don't need them. You don't need wizards either. Or that horrible D&D weapon system. Or level adjustments. Or experience points. There's a lot of barely functional rules in D&D.

In fact, you need an extremely small amount of rules to actually play a roleplaying game. But there are always reasons to use more.

Rules for the sake of rules. Fun.

[Keneth]

Rules for the sake of rules. Fun.

Maybe, but there's a reason why we still play 3rd edition. We like rules.

[Big Fau]

So what you're saying is that if the rules don't benefit players, they should not exist? Because fumbles do benefit gameplay, at least in our case.

Rules that don't benefit the players are fine. Rules that actively punish half the table while simultaneously rewarding a playstyle that's widely agreed to be the second-most-powerful tactic available to a little under 1/3 of the classes in the game are not, especially not when the those being punished are playing the least efficient classes.

Fumbles do nothing but add another layer of offensive capabilities to the Wizard's repertoire. If you can't see what I mean, stop using fumbles.

[Keneth]

That has nothing to with fumble rules as a concept and everything to do with the person implementing them.

As long as everyone, including spellcasters, fumbles roughly as often as everyone else, the argument becomes invalid.

[Zanos]

I don't think fumbles have a place in serious games, but are suited fine to one shots or certain groups who may enjoy that sort of thing. Most groups I play with would be pretty upset if they're character was killed because of some fumble effect because we get pretty invested in our characters.

I also like the 3d6 roll variant though.

[Pex]

It has been an interesting thread's worth of discussions, without a single ad hominem against me! Well done, playground!

Since the playground seems (with the understandable amounts of variance) unified on this, what changes to Critical Success would balance the notion of critical failure, and what restrictions of what "Critical Failure" and "Critical Success" entailed would you put on it?

At best:

After rolling a Natural 1 need to confirm the fumble. It can't be against the opponent's AC because that means some monsters induce "clumsiness" more than others which makes no sense. Roll anything but another Natural 1 is not a crit failure is one way to go, but that defeats the purpose of having a crit failure chance presuming you really, really want one. Make it a flat BAB check against DC 15 at the character's highest BAB regardless of which iterative rolled the 1. No other bonuses (ability score, flanking, etc.) apply to this roll. Optional: Luck, Sacred, Profane, and Insight bonuses could. Another Natural 1 is still a failure. Failure to beat DC 15 is a crit fail. The result of the crit fail is you provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent you were attacking.

[eggynack]

As long as everyone, including spellcasters, fumbles roughly as often as everyone else, the argument becomes invalid.

It looks like the argument is valid in this case, however. At least unless I'm missing something and polymorph, solid fog, and greater teleport actually are hit by these fumble rules. Even summons aren't hit as hard, because you're not the one in danger when the summons accidentally falls over in the middle of combat.

[Keneth]

I don't think fumbles have a place in serious games, but are suited fine to one shots or certain groups who may enjoy that sort of thing. Most groups I play with would be pretty upset if they're character was killed because of some fumble effect because we get pretty invested in our characters.

Why would it be any different than getting killed by any other effect? You can get upset if the rules are unreasonable, but otherwise bad luck is just part of the game.

Saying it doesn't have a place in "serious games" seems kinda biased.

At least unless I'm missing something and polymorph, solid fog, and greater teleport actually are hit by these fumble rules. Even summons aren't hit as hard, because you're not the one in danger when the summons accidentally falls over in the middle of combat.

Those spells have different issues. Incidentally, I have house rules for all of those, except solid fog.

Not every spell needs to be affected by critical fumble rules. Not everything a fighter does should be either, assuming fighters do anything other than swing weapons around as fast as they can in your games.

[nyjastul69]

It has been an interesting thread's worth of discussions, without a single ad hominem against me! Well done, playground!

Since the playground seems (with the understandable amounts of variance) unified on this, what changes to Critical Success would balance the notion of critical failure, and what restrictions of what "Critical Failure" and "Critical Success" entailed would you put on it?

When my players, against my advice, insisted on using critical failures I made a system up. If you roll a 1 you must confirm it with a roll. This roll must also be a miss. I then used a chart that was dependent upon how much they missed by. I don't have the chart handy however. What do recall is a confirmed crit failure by 5 or less was no penalty. Between 6 and 9 were small penalties. A 10 provoked an AoO from your opponent. Nothing worse could ever happen. I failed to include spell casting though. If a fighter can fumble an attack, a caster should be able to fumble a spell, even one that does not require an attack roll, such as sleep. My house rule failed in this regard, but then again, I never really wanted to use it. Heh, I fudged a bunch with it anywho. If your players really want it, give it to them. I would proceed with caution though.

- - - Updated - - -

It looks like the argument is valid in this case, however. At least unless I'm missing something and polymorph, solid fog, and greater teleport actually are hit by these fumble rules. Even summons aren't hit as hard, because you're not the one in danger when the summons accidentally falls over in the middle of combat.

Or maybe the summons is out of control and attacks randomly. Maybe it specifically targets the caster.

[eggynack]

Those spells have different issues. Incidentally, I have house rules for all of those, except solid fog.

I can see potential room for such house rules, but there are other solid fogs out there. In the meantime, even with only solid fog, that's any quantity of advantage that wizards have over fighters within these rules. Hitting both types of character equally is extremely difficult, is what I'm saying, and if that intrinsic inequality is tilted in favor of the high tier casting guy, that's a rule that I'm not going to like.

Not every spell needs to be affected by critical fumble rules. Not everything a fighter does should be either, assuming fighters do anything other than swing weapons around as fast as they can in your games.

I'm not entirely sure what your fighters are doing that doesn't involve rolling. There's not all that much.

[Hytheter]

Why would it be any different than getting killed by any other effect? You can get upset if the rules are unreasonable, but otherwise bad luck is just part of the game.

If you seriously can't see why accidentally cutting off your own head is worse than nobly going down in combat, then I don't think this discussion can ever come to an agreeable conclusion.

[Zanos]

Why would it be any different than getting killed by any other effect? You can get upset if the rules are unreasonable, but otherwise bad luck is just part of the game.

Saying it doesn't have a place in "serious games" seems kinda biased.

Usually characters are killed because an enemy takes an action that results in their death, or they are careless. A fumble is just their dice having the audacity to roll low. If a wizard hits you with a finger of death and you 1 the fort save, you died because you got finger of death cast on you. If you fail a reflex save on a spike trap and die, you died because you did something careless. Dying because you suck and you cut your own leg off is ridiculous. It's also not preventable. You can prevent walking into a trap, or you can run from an encounter you think is overwhelming. You can't run from having to make rolls(barring some niche builds).

And again, it's my opinion that critical fumbles don't have a place in a serious game, and yeah it's biased, because it's my opinion. I wouldn't play in any game where the DM expected me to RP my character seriously and he used crit fumbles.

[eggynack]

Or maybe the summons is out of control and attacks randomly. Maybe it specifically targets the caster.

I'm not entirely sure how that applies here. The only roll that is occurring here is presumably an attack roll. There's no real room for spell failure on a summons, at least currently. At some point, however, it just has to be asserted that I don't know how the fumble rules will alter some arbitrary game that I don't know the rules to. I know how they impact this game, because I know the rules to this game. Such is the nature of things.

[Kazudo]

To derail the current train of conversation a bit.

Should one decide, against all logic and odds, to try to fabricate the system to incorporate some degree or other of critical failure, what changes to the fairly stable notion of spellcasting would make it equivalent to the thoroughly random chance of fighting?

[nyjastul69]

I'm not entirely sure how that applies here. The only roll that is occurring here is presumably an attack roll. There's no real room for spell failure on a summons, at least currently. At some point, however, it just has to be asserted that I don't know how the fumble rules will alter some arbitrary game that I don't know the rules to. I know how they impact this game, because I know the rules to this game. Such is the nature of things.

We are in agreement. Since there is no roll it can't fail. If it can't fail there can't be a critical failure. I thought you were saying if a summons could fail the creature might just fall over. I was just trying to point out nastier potentials. I apologize for having misunderstood.

[Keneth]

I'm not entirely sure what your fighters are doing that doesn't involve rolling. There's not all that much.

They do plenty of things that doesn't involve attack rolls. Attack rolls are simply something they're good at (having fair fumble rules doesn't change that).

If you seriously can't see why accidentally cutting off your own head is worse than nobly going down in combat, then I don't think this discussion can ever come to an agreeable conclusion.

Dying because you suck and you cut your own leg off is ridiculous.

Who would ever make you cut off your own hand or leg on a fumble? Seriously, what kind of horror stories have you been listening to? Out of all the DMs who use fumble rules, there's probably not even 1% of them who would do such a thing, and in those rare cases, it's the DM that has issues, not the system.

Also, there's nothing noble, honorable, or dignified about failing your Fortitude save against a slay living spell. At least if you're subject to a critical fumble, you get one, maybe two extra rolls to avoid it, potentially even more. In both cases, you failed because you suck, and whether or not you suck is (mostly) dictated by the dice rolls.

[nyjastul69]

To derail the current train of conversation a bit.

Should one decide, against all logic and odds, to try to fabricate the system to incorporate some degree or other of critical failure, what changes to the fairly stable notion of spellcasting would make it equivalent to the thoroughly random chance of fighting?

I think any spell requiring an attack roll are clear enough. Spells that don't are much trickier. Apply some sort of d20 roll. Base it upon caster level maybe. Maybe base it upon the save result. This wouldn't help with 'no' spells though. Dunno. It's probably why a fumble mechanic has never been included in the game.

[eggynack]

They do plenty of things that doesn't involve attack rolls. Attack rolls are simply something they're good at (having fair fumble rules doesn't change that).

Do ya have some examples? I'm pretty sure that there aren't many in 3.5, though there may be more in PF. The broader question is whether there are things that don't have rolls at all, because presumably those would provide room for fumbles also. I mean, I'm pretty sure you previously stated that it's only attack rolls and saving throws, but then apparently polymorph got wrapped into it, and I have no idea how that happened, and it all just hurts my brain in a million different ways.

[Keneth]

Do ya have some examples?

I only impose fumbles on attack rolls, and DC rolls for spells and SLAs. I also use scaling DCs for all magic items (baring spell completion and spell trigger items), so magic items that produce effects can be used efficiently in combat. It's not really a fighter thing, anyone can do it with appropriate ability scores and equipment, but that's not really the point.

They can also use any Su or Ex abilities they might have if they don't require attack rolls. Not sure about fighters specifically, but Pathfinder has a myriad of archetypes for every class, and it's very generous with class abilities.

There are skills that can be used in combat, which are likewise not subject to fumble rules in my games.

Whether any of that is better than making a full attack is a different matter. I said before that making as many attacks as possible isn't always necessarily the best tactical option, and I do my best to provide my players with viable alternatives. It's why I have hundreds of houserules, and a lot of them are aimed at improving the adventuring life of mundanes.

[Arbane]

Since the playground seems (with the understandable amounts of variance) unified on this, what changes to Critical Success would balance the notion of critical failure, and what restrictions of what "Critical Failure" and "Critical Success" entailed would you put on it?

I like the way Legends of the Wulin handles criticals aka "Interesting Times": If you get a roll than ends in a zero, the GM can offer you a luck point. If you accept it, you succeed or fail as usual... but the situation gets MORE COMPLICATED somehow. "Oh, wow - you cut that guard right in half... and the support pillar behind him. The roof starts to collapse!" But you don't _have_ to take it.