Good fumble rules

[Rhyltran]

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.



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.

Now we're getting somewhere that I think is entertaining. That instead of a disarm automatically happening when you fumble your opponent instead gets to use a feat based on what happens, if they have it, and this makes the feats more powerful because you're getting greater use of them. If someone builds something like a charger they won't get as much mileage out of fumbles but someone like monk who might have both disarm and trip he'll have more opportunities to exploit the enemies' weakness. This makes tripping/disabling builds even more useful because you'll have more opportunities to use them. It also means fumbles won't mean much against a wizard because he's not going to know how to exploit the opening. At the same time if the wizard somehow fumbles then suddenly he might end up on the floor or worse.

[Barstro]

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.

I originally had that order, but changed it to reduce rolls (no need to roll effect if the attempt failed). But I see your point; someone could be more skilled in a particular type of Reaction of Opportunity.

EDIT: my only counterargument would be that trying to disarm someone who has unsteady footing would still make for an easy disarm; their attention would be split between holding the weapon due to the RoO and balance due to the Fumble. Likewise, losing your grip on the weapon could make you easier to trip, since you are concentrating on not losing the weapon. Your argument, however, does lead to more varied feat choices.

[SowZ]

Honestly, a far more 'realistic' fumble is to provoke an Attack of Opportunity. The Disarm rules aren't actually very realistic because Disarming is actually really rare among people who know what they are doing at all. There's a thing called overrunning where you overextend and miss, (probably because the opponent steps to the side or because you foolishly swung toward the opponents weapon and they dropped their guard on purpose, knowing you would just whiff.) When you overrun, it is really easy to for the opponent to land a counter blow.

[Talakeal]

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?"

I have said about a dozen times that combat fumbles in 3.X are a bad idea without a major system overhaul, but that the idea of fumbles in RPGs is a good one if done right.

Why do you keep attacking my arguments if you are only talking about combat fumbles in 3.X, which we both agree are a bad idea?

[razorback]

What I think is getting muddied here is that an attack roll as determined by the roll of the dice isn't a single swing of the sword along with the fact that everyone gets their 'turn' within a 6 second Turn.
The abstract attack is really a combination of footwork, feints, swings, etc that happen simultaneously with your opponent doing the same. Within those 6 seconds your attack may be countered and riposted, you may swing wildly and miss, or you may misstep and slip among a myriad of things. That's where some DM arbitration and a little give and take from the players has to happen.

If he gets desperate and what he's doing isn't going to make me suddenly decide I should loosen my grip and hold it very casually. If I get desperate if anything I'm going to hold it tighter. I am not going to let go. I am not going to loosen my grip. I will not flail around. That's how you die. If he cuts my arm off that's not me accidentally dropping my blade. If he disarms me. That's not me dropping my blade. Nothing is going to make me accidentally drop my blade in a life or death situation. I don't do it in a CASUAL situation. I'm not going to do it in a life or death one where dropping it literally means "You die." Against a good swordsman the last thing I want is my blade on the floor.

I've done boxing and help teach martial arts. Now, sparring with 16oz gloves is a chore and having to yell at people who have been doing this for years while training to 'keep your hands up' because of the fatigue always happens. You know you need to keep them up and when you don't you pay for it but everyone does it because you're tired and been taking a beating and even your most basic training fails you at some point because you can't thinks straight.

At some point holding on to the sword tighter becomes detrimental. You are locking out your wrist and, probably, your elbow. At some point you have to relax that system in order to make the attack. If you're opponent is good enough or lucky enough, that is when they strike.
Within the 3.X framework, a fumble doesn't have to be a simple 'You drop your sword' but a more elaborate 'You swing but your opponent raises his sword or shield and turns your blow, driving your sword down. As it strikes the ground, the follow up pressure forces it out of your sweaty hands as it clangs on the ground." A disarm as a part of the natural flow of events, bad luck and timing as opposed to a disarm as a conscious effort on your opponents part.

As far as a 'roll a 1 and kill yourself' thinking goes, I would never use that. To me, anyone that does is being extremely punitive.
I use: on a roll of 1 on a d20, roll D100 and if it is less than or equal to (20-BAB, minimum of 1), then roll no a modified for d20 Rolemaster chart. From 1-100, only 100 has a 'see Critical chart X'. On said Crit Chart, only 100 on a 1-100 has a chance of instant kill.
So, if my math is right, a 1st level wizard has a 1% chance of failing and (.05*.2*.01*.01) or 1 in a million while a 19th+ level fighter has a 1 in 2000 chance to fumble and (.05*.01*.01*.01) has a 1 in 20 million chance of instant killing themselves. This would be for game life and death combat, not swinging at some target that doesn't react, counter and swing back.

[SowZ]

What I think is getting muddied here is that an attack roll as determined by the roll of the dice isn't a single swing of the sword along with the fact that everyone gets their 'turn' within a 6 second Turn.
The abstract attack is really a combination of footwork, feints, swings, etc that happen simultaneously with your opponent doing the same. Within those 6 seconds your attack may be countered and riposted, you may swing wildly and miss, or you may misstep and slip among a myriad of things. That's where some DM arbitration and a little give and take from the players has to happen.




I've done boxing and help teach martial arts. Now, sparring with 16oz gloves is a chore and having to yell at people who have been doing this for years while training to 'keep your hands up' because of the fatigue always happens. You know you need to keep them up and when you don't you pay for it but everyone does it because you're tired and been taking a beating and even your most basic training fails you at some point because you can't thinks straight.

At some point holding on to the sword tighter becomes detrimental. You are locking out your wrist and, probably, your elbow. At some point you have to relax that system in order to make the attack. If you're opponent is good enough or lucky enough, that is when they strike.
Within the 3.X framework, a fumble doesn't have to be a simple 'You drop your sword' but a more elaborate 'You swing but your opponent raises his sword or shield and turns your blow, driving your sword down. As it strikes the ground, the follow up pressure forces it out of your sweaty hands as it clangs on the ground." A disarm as a part of the natural flow of events, bad luck and timing as opposed to a disarm as a conscious effort on your opponents part.

As far as a 'roll a 1 and kill yourself' thinking goes, I would never use that. To me, anyone that does is being extremely punitive.
I use: on a roll of 1 on a d20, roll D100 and if it is less than or equal to (20-BAB, minimum of 1), then roll no a modified for d20 Rolemaster chart. From 1-100, only 100 has a 'see Critical chart X'. On said Crit Chart, only 100 on a 1-100 has a chance of instant kill.
So, if my math is right, a 1st level wizard has a 1% chance of failing and (.05*.2*.01*.01) or 1 in a million while a 19th+ level fighter has a 1 in 2000 chance to fumble and (.05*.01*.01*.01) has a 1 in 20 million chance of instant killing themselves. This would be for game life and death combat, not swinging at some target that doesn't react, counter and swing back.

Except that the odds of me dropping my sword are identical against the greatest swordsman in the history of time, a commoner wielding a rusty spoon, and an orc who is paralyzed by Hold Person.

[razorback]

Except that the odds of me dropping my sword are identical against the greatest swordsman in the history of time, a commoner wielding a rusty spoon, and an orc who is paralyzed by Hold Person.

Perhaps adding in some qualifier based on your opponents ability?,
But the rules as stated say that no one has a chance of ever dropping their sword in combat, slipping due to bad footing, or dropped their grenade in their own foxhole.

[razorback]

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?"

The thing is, not everyone wants to play a heroic figure and would like the game to run a certain way, which is why they have to come up with some house rules to get the feel of what they want. Which would be why E6 games have some popularity is my guess.

[Psyren]

Honestly, a far more 'realistic' fumble is to provoke an Attack of Opportunity. The Disarm rules aren't actually very realistic because Disarming is actually really rare among people who know what they are doing at all. There's a thing called overrunning where you overextend and miss, (probably because the opponent steps to the side or because you foolishly swung toward the opponents weapon and they dropped their guard on purpose, knowing you would just whiff.) When you overrun, it is really easy to for the opponent to land a counter blow.

If you provoke a generic AoO, they can just use that to disarm (or trip etc.) anyway if they're good at it. I actually consider that less realistic since it means that every fumble is equally suitable for any kind of attack by your opponent - for me it's more immersive if you have a specific kind of fumble that can be capitalized on in a specific way (and that if you're adept at defending against that particular method, even being off-balance of caught off guard won't let them get the best of you.)

[SowZ]

Perhaps adding in some qualifier based on your opponents ability?,
But the rules as stated say that no one has a chance of ever dropping their sword in combat, slipping due to bad footing, or dropped their grenade in their own foxhole.

Practically no one ever would drop their sword in combat. The odds aren't zero, but pretty close. It is not a thing that happens just as boxers don't miss a jab and punch themselves square in the nose. It just plain doesn't happen. When people drop their swords, it is with collision to another sword, or getting struck in the arm, and even then it is very rare. I've never been disarmed with a real sword. I've been struck in the hand or arm with real swords, (the force being identical to a real sword hitting you if you were wearing padded armor,) and never come close to dropping it. Again, it could happen, but people just dropping it because their hands are sweaty? A swordsman could swing his sword a hundred thousand times and not do such a thing. Maybe it would happen once or twice in one's life. I've never seen it happen.

As to, "There is a chance, but there are no rules for it," well, there are no rules for having a heart attack in battle. There are no rules for an aneurysm. There are no rules for choking on your food and dying. There are no rules for tying your belt wrong so that your pants fall about your ankles at inopportune times.

[Flickerdart]

As to, "There is a chance, but there are no rules for it," well, there are no rules for having a heart attack in battle. There are no rules for an aneurysm. There are no rules for choking on your food and dying. There are no rules for tying your belt wrong so that your pants fall about your ankles at inopportune times.

Keep them coming - I'm trying to make my games more realistic out of combat, and these are all excellent for the table I roll on if the PCs fumble their "stay alive while walking around" checks.

[Talakeal]

So how about ranged combat?

It seems to me that friendly fire incidents, hunting accidents, ricochets, and simply missing and hitting a bystander with a stray bullet happens pretty frequently irl, although nowhere near 1 in ever 20 shots, and at the same time something like the enemy getting an AoO or a free disarm attempt don't work in ranged combat.

Anyone have any ideas there?




On a related note, are there any rules in 3.X for friendly fire, or are these house rules? Because I have played in games where we shot each other in the back, and my DM told a story the other night about how the last time he was a player his allies kept shooting him in the back so he eventually had enough and intentionally TPKed his own party to teach them a lesson, but actually looking at the rules I don't see anything aside from a -4 penalty for shooting into melee.

Practically no one ever would drop their sword in combat. The odds aren't zero, but pretty close. It is not a thing that happens just as boxers don't miss a jab and punch themselves square in the nose. It just plain doesn't happen. When people drop their swords, it is with collision to another sword, or getting struck in the arm, and even then it is very rare. I've never been disarmed with a real sword. I've been struck in the hand or arm with real swords, (the force being identical to a real sword hitting you if you were wearing padded armor,) and never come close to dropping it. Again, it could happen, but people just dropping it because their hands are sweaty? A swordsman could swing his sword a hundred thousand times and not do such a thing. Maybe it would happen once or twice in one's life. I've never seen it happen.

As to, "There is a chance, but there are no rules for it," well, there are no rules for having a heart attack in battle. There are no rules for an aneurysm. There are no rules for choking on your food and dying. There are no rules for tying your belt wrong so that your pants fall about your ankles at inopportune times.

Does getting your weapon stuck in your opponent's armor / dead body happen irl? Because I have actually heard about that far more often in media and "historical documentaries" than I have people just dropping their weapons.

[SowZ]

If you provoke a generic AoO, they can just use that to disarm (or trip etc.) anyway if they're good at it. I actually consider that less realistic since it means that every fumble is equally suitable for any kind of attack by your opponent - for me it's more immersive if you have a specific kind of fumble that can be capitalized on in a specific way (and that if you're adept at defending against that particular method, even being off-balance of caught off guard won't let them get the best of you.)

Well if it really is about realism, then just say it is a generic AoO that must be used for a standard attack. If we made realistic disarm rules, no one would ever play them because the build would be totally useless. Yesterday I went to longsword practice. Two days before I went to a tournament where I watched literally hundreds of bouts, with experience levels going from a few weeks to many years. No one was disarmed. The closest thing was once during a grapple someone literally ripped the sword out of a much smaller person's hand.

We have hundreds of pages of historical manuals of arms masters training people in sword play and none of the stances or guards focus on disarming, even though incredibly obscure moves were recorded. Disarming was not, historically, something people were expected to do. You wouldn't base a strategy on it. Provoking a disarm isn't realistic, either. But as I've said, it is something that happens occasionally so I can suspend my disbelief. But provoking a general AoO is very realistic. And honestly, when someone overruns, there are going to be lots of ways to counter it. At the tournament, I overran a man whose sword was held above his head, so he crashed it down on my arm. Point him, bruised bone me. A guy overran me once, but I was crouched low to the ground, so I responded by bull rushing him, getting to close to swing a sword, and pommeling his face. If I had been in the Ox guard, (the sword is high up and pointed forward,) I probably would have just stabbed him. If I was in the Heedless guard, (the sword behind your neck.) I would have Zwerched his head, (kind of this helicopter swing.)

Which counter would have worked against my overrunning opponent had nothing to do with the opponent and everything to do with the stance I am in. I can't think of an instance where the opponent leaves himself exposed in such a way that it would be easier to disarm him than it would be to just slice his arms.

Does getting your weapon stuck in your opponent's armor / dead body happen irl? Because I have actually heard about that far more often in media and "historical documentaries" than I have people just dropping their weapons.

Yes, that could happen. Clearly never to me, but yeah, it is sensible. Your sword can get caught up in the person's ribs or your spear head stuck on the other side of the armor. An axe can be tough to get out of a skull. Swords break sometimes, too. Which is why I prefer more narrative fumble systems that gives the GM more discretion. In D&D, a 1 is an insta miss, so getting your weapon stuck in the body is a non issue. In a more narrative fumble system, the GM has more adduction. If you were fighting a mook that you could easily kill, the GM might decide it hampers you more to kill the enemy but lose the weapon, (or else choose to lose a turn retrieving it.) A more narrative fumble system also allows for friendly fire. Before you shoot, the GM might say, "If you miss, there is a chance to hit your allies. Still want to take the shot?" which has the added benefit of giving players meaningful decisions.

Keep them coming - I'm trying to make my games more realistic out of combat, and these are all excellent for the table I roll on if the PCs fumble their "stay alive while walking around" checks.

Don't forget randomly tripping and falling while walking at normal speed. I saw someone do that just two days ago IRL.

[Psyren]

As to, "There is a chance, but there are no rules for it," well, there are no rules for having a heart attack in battle. There are no rules for an aneurysm. There are no rules for choking on your food and dying. There are no rules for tying your belt wrong so that your pants fall about your ankles at inopportune times.

The unspoken secondary statement of course being "...and there shouldn't be." But none of these are equivalent to fumbles anyway, particularly since they all involve activities the character is presumably undertaking outside of a pressured combat situation.

Well if it really is about realism, then just say it is a generic AoO that must be used for a standard attack.

So stumbling/overreaching shouldn't make you easier to trip? Caroming or glancing your blade shouldn't make it easier to knock out of your hand? How is that more realistic?

[SowZ]

The unspoken secondary statement of course being "...and there shouldn't be." But none of these are equivalent to fumbles anyway, particularly since they all involve activities the character is presumably undertaking outside of a pressured combat situation.



So stumbling/overreaching shouldn't make you easier to trip? Caroming or glancing your blade shouldn't make it easier to knock out of your hand? How is that more realistic?

It's just odd that the AoO is specific to tripping or disarming. My point is that if I overreach, you could respond with a dozen techniques. Yeah, I'm off balance and overstretched, so it will be easier to trip me or stab me or even disarm me but all are valid, (although disarming is a risky move since it is unlikely to work. Of course, if you hit the base of my blade hard enough, even if I hold on you might have knocked my guard to the floor making stabbing me easier, so it isn't a total loss. It is hard to represent this in a game since most checks have a flat DC where you either fail or succeed, incorporating rules where you fail but set yourself up for a follow up attack would be difficult.) My point is that a general AoO that gets a +5 bonus no matter what it is used for is more realistic. If you want more specific AoOs, like provoke a trip, that is not so unrealistic that I would question it. I would be fine with that at a table. But it isn't the most realistic.

[Barstro]

So how about ranged combat?

I think this is why there is a -4 for shooting into melee (harder to hit your opponent when you are being careful to not hit your ally), and provoking an attack of opportunity for doing this in melee. Despite being in a stressful battle, holding a bow in combat is not nearly as difficult as holding a sword in combat. People at the range do not routinely drop their bows (or guns) 5% of the time.

Besides, by my method it would provoke; it just so happens that there is nobody around to make a Combat Maneuver check to trip the ranged person when he provides an opening.

[Barstro]

It's just odd that the AoO is specific to tripping or disarming. My point is that if I overreach, you could respond with a dozen techniques. Yeah, I'm off balance and overstretched, so it will be easier to trip me or stab me or even disarm me but all are valid, (although disarming is a risky move since it is unlikely to work. Of course, if you hit the base of my blade hard enough, even if I hold on you might have knocked my guard to the floor making stabbing me easier, so it isn't a total loss. It is hard to represent this in a game since most checks have a flat DC where you either fail or succeed, incorporating rules where you fail but set yourself up for a follow up attack would be difficult.) My point is that a general AoO that gets a +5 bonus no matter what it is used for is more realistic. If you want more specific AoOs, like provoke a trip, that is not so unrealistic that I would question it. I would be fine with that at a table. But it isn't the most realistic.

Is this about being realistic, or about having Fumbles that are not ridiculously unbalanced? I don't think you can ever be realistic when you use a 5% die. I question getting a +5 bonus to an AoO (straight AoO, maybe). Responding with one of "a dozen techniques" will still probably have only one of a few results. D&D has only so many conditions that are relevant to combat; tripped and disarmed being the main ones spoken here, but you could easily have a maneuver that makes one fatigued for a round, makes one flat-footed, gives a negative to hit. In the end, they are all simply changes to the die roll.

I find it amusing that we can ask if Fumbles are realistic in a world where planets can be destroyed because someone has a large gemstone and slept for eight hours.

[SowZ]

Is this about being realistic, or about having Fumbles that are not ridiculously unbalanced? I don't think you can ever be realistic when you use a 5% die. I question getting a +5 bonus to an AoO (straight AoO, maybe). Responding with one of "a dozen techniques" will still probably have only one of a few results. D&D has only so many conditions that are relevant to combat; tripped and disarmed being the main ones spoken here, but you could easily have a maneuver that makes one fatigued for a round, makes one flat-footed, gives a negative to hit. In the end, they are all simply changes to the die roll.

I find it amusing that we can ask if Fumbles are realistic in a world where planets can be destroyed because someone has a large gemstone and slept for eight hours.

Sure, my point isn't that we should make the game some perfect simulation. I was just responding to the statement than a fumble which provokes disarming AoOs might be more realistic than general AoOs, as I didn't really agree.

[Talakeal]

I find it amusing that we can ask if Fumbles are realistic in a world where planets can be destroyed because someone has a large gemstone and slept for eight hours.

Looks like we have a classic "But dragons!" fallacy here.

So glad I finally got to use the name

[Flickerdart]

Looks to me like a classic "But dragons!" Fallacy to me.

So glad I finally got to use the name

I knew there were a whole bunch of different dragon types. Butt dragons are just too much, though. Watch out for its breath weapon - a cone of poison gas!

[Ashtagon]

Speaking of which, does anyone have a good fumble rule for dragon breath?

[Brookshw]

Speaking of which, does anyone have a good fumble rule for dragon breath?

Yeah, I have a hiccup great one, everytime the hiccup. Whoops, sorry, as I was hiccup. No, forget it. I give up.

[Flickerdart]

Speaking of which, does anyone have a good fumble rule for dragon breath?

00: The breath weapon comes out of the wrong end.

[Ashtagon]

00: The breath weapon comes out of the wrong end.

So basically, a bonnacon?

[Pex]

Practically no one ever would drop their sword in combat. The odds aren't zero, but pretty close. It is not a thing that happens just as boxers don't miss a jab and punch themselves square in the nose. It just plain doesn't happen. When people drop their swords, it is with collision to another sword, or getting struck in the arm, and even then it is very rare. I've never been disarmed with a real sword. I've been struck in the hand or arm with real swords, (the force being identical to a real sword hitting you if you were wearing padded armor,) and never come close to dropping it. Again, it could happen, but people just dropping it because their hands are sweaty? A swordsman could swing his sword a hundred thousand times and not do such a thing. Maybe it would happen once or twice in one's life. I've never seen it happen.

As to, "There is a chance, but there are no rules for it," well, there are no rules for having a heart attack in battle. There are no rules for an aneurysm. There are no rules for choking on your food and dying. There are no rules for tying your belt wrong so that your pants fall about your ankles at inopportune times.

While I agree fumbles are a bad idea, I remember hearing a while ago a boxer did exactly that.

(Does a google search.)

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcBmf6dDmeE

[Barstro]

While I agree fumbles are a bad idea, I remember hearing a while ago a boxer did exactly that.

(Does a google search.)

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcBmf6dDmeE

To be fair, the other boxer blocked (just a bit) and that caused the punch to hit the original boxer in the face.

[OldTrees1]

To be fair, the other boxer blocked (just a bit) and that caused the punch to hit the original boxer in the face.

To be fair, that is considered a fumble by several in this thread.

[YossarianLives]

I really like the "fumble" rules from the Mouse Guard RPG.

Basically, depending on how much "damage" you take in a combat unforeseen complications can occur. Such as your character getting angry and losing concentration, sustaining a minor wound that can make fighting difficult, or as an example from my groups most recent session the bridge you were fighting on becoming damaged and collapsing. However, if you perform well in a combat and lose only a very small amount of health you can avoid these complications entirely.

[Rhyltran]

While I agree fumbles are a bad idea, I remember hearing a while ago a boxer did exactly that.

(Does a google search.)

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcBmf6dDmeE

To be fair we're talking about an isolated incident that's barely happened in the course of boxing history. In a system where there's twelve rounds. Each round consisting of three minutes. So that's about 36 minutes of fighting if someone makes it that far. Now in D&D each combat round is six seconds. So that's 10 attacks in a single minute. So 30 attacks in one boxing round. So we're talking 360 attacks in a match. This guy didn't even do this each match. This guy has had many matches his entire career. This happened once. It hasn't even happened to most of his opponents and not every boxer has this even happen. It's a fluke. Then you realize that high level characters can roll 4+ attacks in a single combat round. So let's go with four attacks. Now 360 x 4.

[Barstro]

To be fair, that is considered a fumble by several in this thread.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that it was not something the Fighter did to himself (practicing on a dummy would not have caused it). The opponent's action was required as well. It was a bad punch coupled with an improbably well placed block.