Good fumble rules

[Psyren]

Last I checked none of which accounted for fighting a several ton dragon that's trying to eat your face

But more to the point this isn't a game that's trying to be a perfect simulation of actual combat, people in a fight aren't moving one at a time in discrete 6 second increments. What your arguing ultimately strikes me mostly as a dislike of a particular piece of fluff, e.g., swinging, missing completely, and dropping the weapon. None of that has to actually be any part of an explanation of why you've dropped the weapon. It deflecting off something, poor footing, many other explanations van be provided, choosing an absurd explanation (you swung and dropped the weapon) just means its an absurd explanation you've chosen, especially for a game that treats many nuances in combat purely in an abstract manner to begin with. Arguments for likelihood of events are well and good but at that point we're discussing mechanical preferences rather than a more general topic of the existence of fumbles at all.

Exactly this.

For all this talk of how boffers aren't relevant, how sparring is "optimal conditions and isn't a real swordfight", and how none of this thinks about dragons, and "well it wasn't a fight to the death", I find the "well I think mundanes should have more failure" accounts for the fact that none of us are Heracles. PC's are far more powerful and competent than any of us. You lose your footing. You drop your car keys because you're a level 1 commoner with BAB +0 and no weapon proficiencies. Heracles doesn't. A player character is beyond Heracles at level 6.

You do realize that the things you fight keep pace with "Heracles" as you level, right? Unless you're going to be exclusively fighting muggles, wolves and bandits from level 6-20? No?

[Brookshw]

Except nobody in the "People drop their swords by accident" camp are claiming real life experience. Most of the posters admit they don't have real life experience. It's the opposite. Those of us with real life experience are all claiming the same thing.

Not so, I have experience and have certainly dropped a sword. I've known many other people who've dropped weapons in sparring. I've watched people with decades of experience drop swords. Everytime I look in the mirror I see the scar across my forehead from the last time I did any form or weapon sparring. It's rare, exceedingly rare, but these things happen, its not "never".

However its not worth arguing personal experience and real world because it presumes a preference that is not going to be shared. The variety of preferences, theatrical, realism, mechanical, slapstick, what one person dislike isn't going to matter to someone who doesn't value that in a game or a fumble table. So why sit here getting bogged down debating a particular like dropping a weapon.

[Pex]

To arbitrarily make fumble rules for spellcasters casting any spell because warriors are given fumbles is itself a hint that the house rule fumble rules aren't a good idea. When a house rule itself needs a house rule to fix its affect on the game, the better solution is not to have the original house rule in the first place.

[Venger]

To arbitrarily make fumble rules for spellcasters casting any spell because warriors are given fumbles is itself a hint that the house rule fumble rules aren't a good idea. When a house rule itself needs a house rule to fix its affect on the game, the better solution is not to have the original house rule in the first place.

yep. this is known as the oberoni fallacy. "(rule) is not problematic, because you can use (houserule) to fix it."

when the first rule is a houserule... yeah. better not to use it.

[Psyren]

yep. this is known as the oberoni fallacy. "(rule) is not problematic, because you can use (houserule) to fix it."

when the first rule is a houserule... yeah. better not to use it.

This conclusion does not follow - "X is problematic, so better to throw it out than fix it with a houserule" would basically keep you from playing 3.5 at all.

[Flickerdart]

This conclusion does not follow - "X is problematic, so better to throw it out than fix it with a houserule" would basically keep you from playing 3.5 at all.

Except in this case it's "X is problematic, so let's not add it into the game in the first place."

[Venger]

Except in this case it's "X is problematic, so let's not add it into the game in the first place."

yeah, exactly. fumbles are not a part of the rules (for good reason)

[Psyren]

Except in this case it's "X is problematic, so let's not add it into the game in the first place."

Dull efficiency it is then I guess.

The fact that this topic keeps coming up (and multiple times on the front page even) suggests to me that some folks find them fun though.

[Brookshw]

Dull efficiency it is then I guess.

The fact that this topic keeps coming up (and multiple times on the front page even) suggests to me that some folks find them fun though.

Come to think of it, I think just about every rpg I've played had at least a fumble option if not having them as an intrinsic part of the rules. The prevalence speaks for itself I'd think.


However a possible option we could consider might be putting fumbles/criticals in as a trait/flaw combo. Or, alternatively a Prc, a melee wild mage in a sense.

[Talakeal]

You know, fumbles are a real rule. They are an (optional) rule in printed in no uncertain terms in the DMG of every edition of D&D I have ever seriously played, so it isn't like this is just a wild "house rule" people are making up on the spot.

Again, let me repeat, this implementation is pretty bad, but the concept of fumbles is a sound one and most RPGs that are not D&D include them without any major problems.

To arbitrarily make fumble rules for spellcasters casting any spell because warriors are given fumbles is itself a hint that the house rule fumble rules aren't a good idea. When a house rule itself needs a house rule to fix its affect on the game, the better solution is not to have the original house rule in the first place.

It does require a lot of effort to implement properly, yes. I don't think that just because a rule required a lot of effort to implement means it is a bad rule, if that was the case we would still be playing OD&D.

[OldTrees1]

Come to think of it, I think just about every rpg I've played had at least a fumble option if not having them as an intrinsic part of the rules. The prevalence speaks for itself I'd think.


However a possible option we could consider might be putting fumbles/criticals in as a trait/flaw combo. Or, alternatively a Prc, a melee wild mage in a sense.

Based on the prevalence and the polarizing nature of the topic, I think it is best implemented as a variant houserules (used only by those that enjoy them) rather than costing a trait/flaw/levels.

[Talakeal]

stuff.

Hoo-boy. Ok let me try and respond here.

1: I am not sure why not being able to control when it comes up makes it not a tool, but would you prefer if I called it an "opportunity" instead? Also, fumbles don't punish the players. The negatively impact the "characters". This isn't a punishment, and this isn't a bad thing. Maybe I am just not "old school" enough, but I find that being able to react in character to a new situation to be a reward, regardless of whether or not it helps me "win the game".

2: Ok, agree to disagree then,

3: No, PCs are not guaranteed to be the underdog, and no, fumbles are not guaranteed to turn the tide and lack of them doesn't mean that fights are always one sided. But they do tend to help the underdog, or at least upset the status quo, and that is a good thing in my book. Also, just because the printed fumble rules in D&D does it that way doesn't mean to all fumbles systems favor casters; look at any of the Warhammer RPGs if you want to see a system where fumbles are particularly detrimental to spell casters and are indeed one of the main limitations to their power.


4: Right, SOME of the skills have a built in fumble mechanic. Others do not. And this mechanic is totally different than the fumble mechanic for combats presented in the DMG. I would prefer if the game had a single unified mechanic rather than needing to look up the rules for it in each individual instance.

5: The secondary saves are more of a "DOT" mechanic than what I am talking about. I am more referring to something like the rules in World of Darkness where a werewolf can only become a vampire if they botch their test to resist the vampire's blood, on a mere failure they just die. It is something really rare and really bad, yet something that is a definite possibility. In real life most poisonous animals are not usually fatal, but there is a small chance that a person can die from them, much rarer than a mere 1 in 20 auto fails. Keep in mind that except for con damage it is literally impossible to die from any of the poisons listed in the DMG.

6: Yeah, always have a confirmation for fumbles. Disable Device has a built in consequence, if you fail by 5 or more you set off the trap. This is bad. This means that attempting to disarm a trap when you don't know what you are doing becomes a risk you need to weigh. This should be enough to dissuade non rogues from attempting to disarm the trap, but instead we just have a blanket "NOPE" for any trap with a DC higher than 20, which to me is less fun, less balanced, and less realistic, the trifecta of bad rules design imo.


7: Ok, "failure" means you don't accomplish the task. A fumble means something bad happens as a result of your attempt. Real life has plenty of negative consequences for doing things and getting unlucky or not knowing what you are doing. D&D has them for SOME tasks, but by no means all, and I would prefer a more unified system. As I said, knowledge is binary, you either know something or you don't, there is no mechanism for being wrong.

8: Ok, seriously, you must be using some different definition of "fumble" than I am if you think it is "demonstrably lacking in real life." Again, I am using the definition of something goes wrong and there is a negative consequence that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't attempted the task. As I said, you might quibble about the frequency of how often fumbles occur or what their specific effect is, but to climb they don't happen in real life is ludicrous. Just open the newspaper on any given day and I guarantee you will find a long list of fumbles, many of them from professionals who "should know better".

People get hurt and die in accidents, be it household activities, sports, play, driving, hunting, cleaning their guns, construction, or actual combat all the time. People accidently burn down, lose, or break valuable possessions. People are wrong about important issues. Doctors and other professionals get sued for malpractice. Athletes botch easy tasks in hilarious ways. Products are recalled and structures collapse.

This is the world we live in, and if you can't see how misadventure is all around us all the time then your view of the world is literally so different from mine that I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation.

[Terazul]

People get hurt and die in accidents, be it household activities, sports, play, driving, hunting, cleaning their guns, construction, or actual combat all the time. People accidently burn down, lose, or break valuable possessions. People are wrong about important issues. Doctors and other professionals get sued for malpractice. Athletes botch easy tasks in hilarious ways. Products are recalled and structures collapse.

This is the world we live in, and if you can't see how misadventure is all around us all the time then your view of the world is literally so different from mine that I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation.

I can see that in the world we live in, because we're all a bunch of commoners flailing about.

Let me put it this way, I don't see what people dying and becoming injured from, in your own examples, cleaning their guns in DnD adds to the game.

Yeah, we're not going to have meaningful conversation. I'm out.

[SowZ]

Not so, I have experience and have certainly dropped a sword. I've known many other people who've dropped weapons in sparring. I've watched people with decades of experience drop swords. Everytime I look in the mirror I see the scar across my forehead from the last time I did any form or weapon sparring. It's rare, exceedingly rare, but these things happen, its not "never".

However its not worth arguing personal experience and real world because it presumes a preference that is not going to be shared. The variety of preferences, theatrical, realism, mechanical, slapstick, what one person dislike isn't going to matter to someone who doesn't value that in a game or a fumble table. So why sit here getting bogged down debating a particular like dropping a weapon.

Was this sword dropping after contact with another sword or just randomly after a miss?

[Talakeal]

I can see that in the world we live in, because we're all a bunch of commoners flailing about.

Let me put it this way, I don't see what people dying and becoming injured from, in your own examples, cleaning their guns in DnD adds to the game.

Yeah, we're not going to have meaningful conversation. I'm out.

That particular case, no, I doubt it would anything to the game, it was just an example of something that seems easy but is fatal a disturbing often amount of the time which I used to counter the argument that deadly fumbles for trivial tasks was unrealistic.

I can't see why a player would ever be rolling to clean their gear, let alone often enough that dying from it would be a real possibility; HOWEVER I can see it being a potential plot hook for an NPC, and there are many players who get mad when a DM uses a narrative tool that is not a mechanical possibility. I remember a very long thread on this forum a couple of years ago about a high level NPC knight dying by breaking his neck in a horseback riding accident and leaving his unfinished quest to the PCs and the PCs refusing to accept it as a valid plot hook because "there are no rules for a high level character being killed by falling of a horse therefore it shatters my image of the game world for the DM to declare it."

But, back on topic, saying that you prefer to play a larger than life character who never fumbles because he is flat out better than humanity is a valid stylistic choice. It isn't a game I would want to play in, but there is nothing wrong with it. And I agree that in such a game fumbles (and perhaps meaningful failure of any sort) is perhaps not appropriate. But that still doesn't mean that fumbles can never be mechanically or thematically appropriate for games of any sort.

[Terazul]

But, back on topic, saying that you prefer to play a larger than life character who never fails because he is flat out better than humanity is a valid stylistic choice.

Stop. Stop treating "lack of fumbles" as "lack of possibility failure".

[SowZ]

That particular case, no, I doubt it would anything to the game, it was just an example of something that seems easy but is fatal a disturbing often amount of the time which I used to counter the argument that deadly fumbles for trivial tasks was unrealistic.

I can't see why a player would ever be rolling to clean their gear, let alone often enough that dying from it would be a real possibility; HOWEVER I can see it being a potential plot hook for an NPC, and there are many players who get mad when a DM uses a narrative tool that is not a mechanical possibility. I remember a very long thread on this forum a couple of years ago about a high level NPC knight dying by breaking his neck in a horseback riding accident and leaving his unfinished quest to the PCs and the PCs refusing to accept it as a valid plot hook because "there are no rules for a high level character being killed by falling of a horse therefore it shatters my image of the game world for the DM to declare it."

But, back on topic, saying that you prefer to play a larger than life character who never fails because he is flat out better than humanity is a valid stylistic choice. It isn't a game I would want to play in, but there is nothing wrong with it. And I agree that in such a game fumbles (and perhaps meaningful failure of any sort) is perhaps not appropriate. But that still doesn't mean that fumbles can never be mechanically or thematically appropriate for games of any sort.

There are also no rules for having a heart attack, yet it is valid to have heart attacks be a thing in setting. Certain things are so rare or unfun that they don't need rules. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen as a plot hook.

I have the exact opposite philosophy. This is not OOTS or Goblins Comic. Rules are an abstraction that makes playing the game possible. They are not hard and fast laws of physics. I can see a case to be made that anything NPCs can do, PCs should theoretically be able to do at some point. I do not see a case that anything that happens should be backed up by mechanics. There are no rules for how often you need to poop, either.

[Talakeal]

There are also no rules for having a heart attack, yet it is valid to have heart attacks be a thing in setting. Certain things are so rare or unfun that they don't need rules. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen as a plot hook.

I have the exact opposite philosophy. This is not OOTS or Goblins Comic. Rules are an abstraction that makes playing the game possible. They are not hard and fast laws of physics. I can see a case to be made that anything NPCs can do, PCs should theoretically be able to do at some point. I do not see a case that anything that happens should be backed up by mechanics. There are no rules for how often you need to poop, either.

I don't think that way either, but a lot of players do, and when you have one of them at the table I find it best to have a rule to point to. Unless it is actively getting in the way of the game I find it is better to have a rule and not need it than need it and not have it.

Frankly I like it when I suffer setbacks, but I prefer them to happen naturally. As a player I would feel better if misfortune befell my PC as a result of a string of bad dice rolls rather than the DM just steeping in and heaping misfortune on me arbitrarily.

Stop. Stop treating "lack of fumbles" as "lack of possibility failure".

Chill man, that's what I meant, no need to yell. I will edit my post to fix it if it makes you that mad.

Although I am a little perplexed as to how you can think I am arguing that a fumble and a failure are the same thing or you can't have failure without fumbles as I have already said:

"It allows more possibilities from a narrative perspective. Going by RAW, for example, you could never have a sage misidentify a monster, have a surgeon commit malpractice, see someone injure them self in a hunting accident, or break a piece of equipment in the field.

Which I then clarified with:

" 7: Ok, "failure" means you don't accomplish the task. A fumble means something bad happens as a result of your attempt. Real life has plenty of negative consequences for doing things and getting unlucky or not knowing what you are doing. D&D has them for SOME tasks, but by no means all, and I would prefer a more unified system. As I said, knowledge is binary, you either know something or you don't, there is no mechanism for being wrong..

If you want me to clarify further; as I said before a failure means you don't accomplish anything of note, a fumble means you make the situation worse.

For Example:
A blacksmith goes to make a sword. On a failure he doesn't produce a useable item, on a fumble he ruins the materials.
A doctor attempts to treat a disease. On a failure he doesn't cure the disease, on a fumble he harms the patient by giving them the wrong drugs.
A sage tries to identify a monster. On a failure he doesn't know, on a fumble he is mistaken and gives false information.
An archer fires an arrow. On a failure he misses his mark, on a fumble he shoots an ally in the back.
A climber tries to scale a wall. On a failure he doesn't make any progress, on a fumble he falls.
A rogue goes to pick a lock. On a failure he can't get it open, on a fumble he makes enough noise to alert the guards to his presence.


In short, a failure is still a failure, it does not succeed. But it does not have negative consequences, at least no worse than if you had done nothing at all.
Some skills have a built in "fumble" mechanic (although they don't call it such) which occurs if you fail the roll by 5 or more, others do not.

[Psyren]

Stop. Stop treating "lack of fumbles" as "lack of possibility failure".

Fine - how about "lack of the possibility of failure that has no unintended consequences beyond the failure itself whatsoever." Better?

[Terazul]

Fine - how about "lack of the possibility of failure that has no unintended consequences beyond the failure itself whatsoever." Better?

At this point we're talking past each other, because now it's "well shouldn't every action have a possibility of unintended consequences?" as opposed to fumble rules within the context of DnD and combat. This is ignoring the fact that failures already have consequences by virtue of being failures. If you fail your Heal check you don't stabilize/fix the person, and they will typically die. If you fail an Intimidate check, you just piss off the guy instead of him being neutral or whatever it is before. If you fail a Survival check, you get lost or stuck in quicksand or something. You are saying "those types of things cannot happen without fumbles" and I'm saying that:

A) You're wrong, because that type of thing is already accounted for and
B) I'm still talking about fumbles within the context of 3.5 which has everything to do with attack rolls and combat.

...

See, most (4/6) of the things you listed there, in 3.5 are a result of a normal failure of a check (Archer is the light cover/firing into melee rules), not fumbles within the context of this discussion and thread.

You can keep using your own definitions if you want. Don't tell me to chill. I am particularly tired of pointing out how combat fumbles within the context of DnD 3.5, which we are discussing, are non-realistic, non-applicable to real life people let alone heroic figures (which the game represents), and then being immediately told "oh, so you don't like consequences for failure?"

[Brookshw]

Was this sword dropping after contact with another sword or just randomly after a miss?

A number though I know I've had my grip simply slip for one at least. Iirc I believe another was the wrap on a handle being very worn and shifting. I get where you're coming from and agree its a pretty rare occurance. If someone wanted a realistic fumble table that included likelihood they're probably want to refluff it.

[Psyren]

At this point we're talking past each other, because now it's "well shouldn't every action have a possibility of unintended consequences?" as opposed to fumble rules within the context of DnD and combat. This is ignoring the fact that failures already have consequences by virtue of being failures.

Those failures are largely a known quantity though, i.e. dull and boring. If people didn't find the added uncertainty/chaos of a true fumble engaging, it wouldn't keep coming up in gaming fora or be mentioned in multiple editions/versions of the game.

You are saying "those types of things cannot happen without fumbles" and I'm saying that:

A) You're wrong, because that type of thing is already accounted for and
B) I'm still talking about fumbles within the context of 3.5 which has everything to do with attack rolls and combat.

Except I didn't say a thing about skill checks, did I? So I don't know who you're responding to here, but it isn't me.

[Rhyltran]

Not so, I have experience and have certainly dropped a sword. I've known many other people who've dropped weapons in sparring. I've watched people with decades of experience drop swords. Everytime I look in the mirror I see the scar across my forehead from the last time I did any form or weapon sparring. It's rare, exceedingly rare, but these things happen, its not "never".

However its not worth arguing personal experience and real world because it presumes a preference that is not going to be shared. The variety of preferences, theatrical, realism, mechanical, slapstick, what one person dislike isn't going to matter to someone who doesn't value that in a game or a fumble table. So why sit here getting bogged down debating a particular like dropping a weapon.

Did you drop your weapon on a missed swing or because someone hit your hand? Disarmed you? Etc. This is not what we're talking about. I mean, with no one in the way did you swing and accidentally throw your weapon? I can relate to the scar but I think these are important. As for why dropping a weapon? A lot of fumble rules people use involve weapon dropping. Also someone else brought up realism. I'm only arguing from that angle because trying to convince people it's not fun when they think it's fun is a fool's errand because the whole point of an RPG is to use what you find fun. The DM has the power to do so and I would never debate against someone who's entire table enjoys doing it.

I missed that you answered this question but I did answer your later post. I don't argue against people who like the system. Just those that claim realism as already mentioned.

Now if it's about realism.. that I can argue against.

[Psyren]

Can we all then agree that the best way to model a fumble causing you to (potentially) drop your weapon then is the free disarm from the opponent, perhaps with a bonus of some kind? That way everybody wins and we can move on from that bone of contention.

[Rhyltran]

Can we all then agree that the best way to model a fumble causing you to (potentially) drop your weapon then is the free disarm from the opponent, perhaps with a bonus of some kind? That way everybody wins and we can move on from that bone of contention.

Why give the players/enemies a chance at something someone else must take a feat in? To me it kind of lowers the value of the feat itself. Yes being able to target and do it at need be is more powerful but it still lowers the value if a simple unlucky dice roll basically provides the equivalent of said feat. In most games if you have a chance to do something and there's a "Skill" or "Feat" you can pick that enables you to actively aim to do it barely anyone ever takes it. It's more powerful to have something you can't do as opposed to something that can happen whether you have it or not.

This is true in most competitive RPGs. While D&D is more casual the point still stands. I will also say "Knight falling from horseback breaking his neck" is also an annoying idea to me. D&D past level six you're no longer a simple human. D&D portrays the real world very good from level 1-6. Past that you can do things like survive a fall from orbit. Someone bringing up heracles is making a very good but interesting point. Your characters past level 6 resemble heroes/demi-gods from legends as opposed to normal human beings. Falling from a horse? Your character gets back up. I mean, the average person can move 20-30 feet according to D&D in a round. We have monks that can hit 80-120. These aren't normal people and shouldn't be treated as such. If a level 12 knight fell off his horse and broke his neck it would take me out of the mood as well. This should be a man of LEGEND.

[Psyren]

Why give the players/enemies a chance at something someone else must take a feat in? To me it kind of lowers the value of the feat itself.

Actually it's quite the opposite. If you give them a free disarm attempt, even with a bonus, then any feats or abilities they have that help disarm would play into that. You're actually increasing the value of said feats rather than decreasing them. Similarly, for the guy who fumbled, any rules elements they possess to help them resist disarm would apply. This way is even superior because it allows things like weapon chains or locked gauntlets to play a role, just like they would in a real fight.

D&D past level six you're no longer a simple human. D&D portrays the real world very good from level 1-6. Past that you can do things like survive a fall from orbit. Someone bringing up heracles is making a very good but interesting point. Your characters past level 6 resemble heroes/demi-gods from legends as opposed to normal human beings. Falling from a horse? Your character gets back up. I mean, the average person can move 20-30 feet according to D&D in a round. We have monks that can hit 80-120. These aren't normal people and shouldn't be treated as such. If a level 12 knight fell off his horse and broke his neck it would take me out of the mood as well. This should be a man of LEGEND.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that your "man of LEGEND" is fighting legendary threats. So I agree, maybe he would never ever be disarmed while fighting a common brigand or dockside rowdy. But pit him against a Marilith, or Oni, or Zelekhut, or Storm Giant, and suddenly he is pressed again.

The point is that the game assumes threats scale with you. Being legendary doesn't make you immune to failure, nor even to very specific/spectacular kinds of failure. And a disarm or sunder attempt would represent that, because an extremely strong monster - one who could crack boulders, say - would certainly have a chance at damaging or relieving even a "supernormal" combatant of their weapon.

[Sacrieur]

Good fumble rules are no fumble rules.

For a very good reason too. Never use your DM powers to arbitrarily decide what happens to their detriment in combat. In order for fumble rules to be even remotely fair for players you'd have to write a few pages about how it works and what happens with what weapons and at what percentages that they roll a d100 for. The whole thing is a big mess and I haven't met a player that likes it.

You could, and I don't suggest it, replace the natural 1 miss with simply provoking an attack of opportunity (but you don't automatically fail the attack). I think that could be a reasonable fumble rule.

[Rhyltran]

Actually it's quite the opposite. If you give them a free disarm attempt, even with a bonus, then any feats or abilities they have that help disarm would play into that. You're actually increasing the value of said feats rather than decreasing them. Similarly, for the guy who fumbled, any rules elements they possess to help them resist disarm would apply. This way is even superior because it allows things like weapon chains or locked gauntlets to play a role, just like they would in a real fight.



The problem with this line of reasoning is that your "man of LEGEND" is fighting legendary threats. So I agree, maybe he would never ever be disarmed while fighting a common brigand or dockside rowdy. But pit him against a Marilith, or Oni, or Zelekhut, or Storm Giant, and suddenly he is pressed again.

The point is that the game assumes threats scale with you. Being legendary doesn't make you immune to failure, nor even to very specific/spectacular kinds of failure. And a disarm or sunder attempt would represent that, because an extremely strong monster - one who could crack boulders, say - would certainly have a chance at damaging or relieving even a "supernormal" combatant of their weapon.

To be fair I was more commenting about "High level knight falls off his horse and breaks his neck." I do agree your way does sound better than any fumble rules I've seen. If I was at your table I'd be more agreeable to your fluff reasoning of "Enemy knocks your sword away. Enemy manages to get a lucky opportunity and disarms you." I can go by that. "You accidentally toss your sword 16 feet away from you." No but your way actually has an explanation.

[Barstro]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that your "man of LEGEND" is fighting legendary threats. So I agree, maybe he would never ever be disarmed while fighting a common brigand or dockside rowdy. But pit him against a Marilith, or Oni, or Zelekhut, or Storm Giant, and suddenly he is pressed again.

While I 100% agree with the above statement, I think it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The fact that the PC is fighting a Marilith is viewing an external scenario. Fumbles, being a result of the PC's roll, are internal factors. As they are a result of what the PC is doing, the value of the enemies should not be taken into effect.

After typing the above, I now somewhat disagree with my statement, and provide a different view;
1) A "Fumble" provides an opening for the opponent to exploit, similar to the Attack of Opportunity rules. This is an internal view; the PC created the opening.
2) The opening DOES require looking at what the opponent can do (again, like AoO) and rolls are needed. The is is external view; power of the opponent determines if the opening can be exploited.

The above is somewhat logical and inherently fair. (My personal view is that even stupid rules are inherently fair if they are applied equally, but that's besides the point and I can always find a way to prove that they are not applied equally. ) At any rate, allowing an opening gets rid of the chance of a fighter dying due to a dummy because a dummy cannot take an action due to an opening.

I would then change my views on fumble to;
1) Rolling a 1 on the first attack of the round creates an opening.
2) Opponent makes some sort of check (Combat Maneuver, maybe) to take advantage of the opening. (Reaction of Opportunity?)
3) Successful RoO leads to a 1d6 to determine the effect.

While this DOES punish melee, I don't care. It benefits opponent melee just as much and is a wash. Spellcasters from across the room do not get harmed by a failure because nobody is there to take advantage of it. But, a spellcaster foolishly in melee could be torn apart.

[Psyren]

While I 100% agree with the above statement, I think it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The fact that the PC is fighting a Marilith is viewing an external scenario. Fumbles, being a result of the PC's roll, are internal factors. As they are a result of what the PC is doing, the value of the enemies should not be taken into effect.

But the external factors do matter if (as we were discussing, and as you mention later in your post) the fumble provokes a free AoO/maneuver instead of being "you automatically drop your weapon." So if you provoke a disarm attempt for instance, a common bandit just won't be able to take proper advantage of that momentary lapse in your defenses (you are too legendary/well-trained for that), while a Sword Archon or Chain Devil easily would, depending on your level.

At any rate, allowing an opening gets rid of the chance of a fighter dying due to a dummy because a dummy cannot take an action due to an opening.

I would then change my views on fumble to;
1) Rolling a 1 on the first attack of the round creates an opening.
2) Opponent makes some sort of check (Combat Maneuver, maybe) to take advantage of the opening. (Reaction of Opportunity?)
3) Successful RoO leads to a 1d6 to determine the effect.

While this DOES punish melee, I don't care. It benefits opponent melee just as much and is a wash. Spellcasters from across the room do not get harmed by a failure because nobody is there to take advantage of it. But, a spellcaster foolishly in melee could be torn apart.

Yeah, basically this, except I would roll for the type of "reaction" when the fumble happens, just like we do now, because no two fumbles are exactly alike. If your fumble is that you overbalance for instance, that provokes a trip attempt, and if the enemy is terrible at tripping then that sucks for them, they have no chance to try for a disarm instead, because the nature of the fumble was that you briefly had unsteady footing.