I, myself, like fumbles

[SowZ]

I had to deal with broken bow string bs in one of my first D&D games w/ my archer, too. It was ridiculous, really pissed me off. I also went with the "carry obscene amounts of bows" route. Because the string broke super easily, but it sure as hell wasn't quick to repair/replace. Even being new to D&D, I could tell the fumbling was stupid. I think I even asked if a line of archers fire in real life, do some of their strings break each volley (rhetorically, I knew damn well that doesn't happen).

And realistically, that adventurer shouldn't drop his sword due to one bad swing ever throughout his career. Fumble rules almost always reduce realism drastically. I've swung swords maybe hundreds of thousands of times. Never dropped it. I don't hit myself. I might hit an ally in a chaotic battle, but not in a small skirmish with only a couple allies to worry about.

For the triple ones=death rule, let us assume that you have 13 encounters per level and each encounter averages 6 rounds. Let's say it takes 1 round to close distance/notice the enemy/get set up, leaving 5 rounds of actual combat. To be conservative, we will assume you never have haste, never start in melee range, never have longer fights, (or shorter ones,) and let's say 3 of those encounters are resolved with 0 combat, leaving only 10 combats per level. Let us then assume you can only full attack 50% of the time rounded up. We will use Fighter McGee or any full BAB class with no extra attack abilities and no pounce to be conservative.

For level 1-5, that's 5 attacks per encounter. For levels 6-10, only 8. For 11-15, 11. For levels 16-20, 14 attacks. This is a fairly low estimate and most groups have more than 10 fights per level I think. Also, lot's of groups get off full attacks a lot and have long, epic fights that go 10+ rounds, at least occasionally. We will throw that out just to be merciful to the triple 1s houserule. Fighter McGee has a very typical 6 man party. He has his Barbarian friend who makes the same number of attacks, a rogue friend who uses TWF, (this means he should attack more, but since his BAB is lower and he has to move more to get flanks, we can be conservative and say he gets the same number of attacks,) a Wizard who almost never attacks so let's pretend like he never makes an attack roll, a Cleric who, between a lower BAB and spellcasting, makes one third the number of attacks rounded down, and a Ranger archer buddy who has Rapid Shot so he should get more attacks AND will get Full Attacks more since he is archery, (but since he casts spells occasionally, we will be extremely conservative and say that he gets the same number of attacks. I'm being way nice to you, triple 1s rule!)

If your party makes it to level 13 without someone having killed themselves, you are very lucky. If you make it to 18? Wow. By 20, odds are at least two members of the party are dead by their own sword. What can this possibly add to the game? I used to think this was a rule. It did come up once at level 4. I never cheat dice, but I thought it was so stupid, I told the player to re-roll because he 'dropped the die' the third time and it hadn't rolled, (which was true, but mostly me looking for an excuse not to have a player lose his first ever D&D character in such a stupid fashion. Also, how do you shoot yourself with a bow, anyway?)

Also, every other TWF Fighter will kill themselves by level 20.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Triple-20's = instant death is also a very bad houserule, it should be noted. How many mooks take swings at you throughout your career? One of them getting a 1 in 8000 chance is almost certain in a long term campaign.

[SowZ]

Triple-20's = instant death is also a very bad houserule, it should be noted. How many mooks take swings at you throughout your career? One of them getting a 1 in 8000 chance is almost certain in a long term campaign.

And for every mook that takes a swing at you, a PC takes a swing at it. Certain builds are actually more like than not to have killed themselves by the time they reach level 17 or so.

[Ken Murikumo]

Your rules essentially say that if you gather an army of three thousand warriors, to clash against another three thousand, 15 of them will harm themselves at any given instant. And that every minute another 8 of them will kill themselves. If those thousands of warriors are very experienced (bab 6), these numbers will nearly double.

Yeah, the odds are low for hte players that they'll not see it. It's still a thing that a) happens more often as people get better, which is counter to the very idea that the character is actually getting better and b) still punishes classes that are weak far more than it punishes classes that are stronger. I don't need to personally suffer from a bad rule to dislike a bad rule.

I would never roll iterative attacks for 3,000 warriors during a game, so this will never happen. I understand that THEORETICALLY this would be the case, but rolling a d20 20 times by no means guarantees you at least one "20". This essentially comes down to the argument of gameplay mechanics vs realism by fantasy standards. Do you think an expert swordsman has 20 degrees of precision as employed by the d20?

[Elbeyon]

I would never roll iterative attacks for 3,000 warriors during a game, so this will never happen. I understand that THEORETICALLY this would be the case, but rolling a d20 20 times by no means guarantees you at least one "20". This essentially comes down to the argument of gameplay mechanics vs realism by fantasy standards. Do you think an expert swordsman has 20 degrees of precision as employed by the d20?

No, it doesn't guarantee it. It has at least a 65% chance of coming up at least once a turn. Is this 65% chance so rare that it won't see combat with an alarming frequency?

[Talakeal]

So I just played a game of Arkham horror for the first time, and in this game almost every time you fail a roll you suffer some rather severe consequences. Now THAT seemed like a slapstick comedy game, and if that is the sort of system the anti-fumble crowd is basing their views on I agree with them 100%.

[Rhyltran]

Unlike what seems to be the common consensus on this site, I like fumbles. No, it's not for mechanical reasons, but because it makes the martial classes a bit more interesting. Rather than just swinging your sword ad infinitum, something actually happens every once in a while (indeed, depending on the DM, what happens can be quite amusing, and breaks up the tedium that is D&D combat).
Sure, you've got crits, but normally, even with the more creative of DMs, it's just more damage, and is no more interesting than just hitting the target (unless they used something like http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemasterin...ical-generator).

I made a post testing level 1 warriors hitting straw dummies 100 times each. 10 of them using that fumble generator. Of the 6 out of the 10 were no longer capable of fighting. Five died and one broke his sword. It's terrible.

[Renen]

1) Make bowstrings out of adamantine.
2) Shoot till you fumble
3) ???
4) Boast how you are strong enough to break adamantine with bare hands.

[NightbringerGGZ]

I like the idea of fumbles myself, but there are very few supporting mechanics for them in 3.5. I hate the fumble card decks that are out there, they're way too harsh. I also am not fond of GMs who make up fumbles on the spot, as I never see the same penalties applied to NPCs and opponents to same degree they're applied to heroes.

One of the few things Pathfinder firearm rules did well was create a fumble system, via misfires. Each gun has a base misfire range and there are supporting rules and options which increase and decrease the range. The penalties for a misfire are clearly defined, and thus can be balanced.

A system that was similar to that, applied to weapons, magic and skills would be an interesting addition to D&D.

[P.F.]

misfires

I played one of these, my very first Pathfinder character, as I recall, and it felt like my action was usually "I target the lead manticore and ... Click! ... spend the rest of my turn fixing my pistol."

[NightbringerGGZ]

I played one of these, my very first Pathfinder character, as I recall, and it felt like my action was usually "I target the lead manticore and ... Click! ... spend the rest of my turn fixing my pistol."

Well to clarify, I'm not saying that firearms needed misfires specifically, just that the way the rules are defined you know why your gun misfired and potentially exploded. This is as opposed to mechanics like fumble decks, where you can draw a card and randomly maul yourself.

[P.F.]

Well to clarify, I'm not saying that firearms needed misfires specifically, just that the way the rules are defined you know why your gun misfired and potentially exploded. This is as opposed to mechanics like fumble decks, where you can draw a card and randomly maul yourself.

Agreed, those fumble decks are awful. At least with my gunslinger I knew what to expect, and could potentially take action to avoid it. I had a choice to fire again and risk catastrophic failure, or spend my next turn fixing the gun instead of shooting it.

[atemu1234]

Agreed, those fumble decks are awful. At least with my gunslinger I knew what to expect, and could potentially take action to avoid it. I had a choice to fire again and risk catastrophic failure, or spend my next turn fixing the gun instead of shooting it.

I still don't like them. The only PF game I ever took part in ruled that Gunslingers use d20 Past weapons. It worked better.

[Andreaz]

This essentially comes down to the argument of gameplay mechanics vs realism by fantasy standards. Do you think an expert swordsman has 20 degrees of precision as employed by the d20?

Do you think an expert swordsman, by no action or circumstance other than his own, looses his footing, drops his weapon, or nicks himself just about every other fight? Sometimes multiple times?
Do you think an expert swordsman commits more mistakes as he transitions from expert to master?
Do you think expert swordsmen kill themselves through sheer bad luck often enough every tribe, legion and army could conceivably have a full roster of sword-to-own-throat events?

My point with fumbles is, has always been and will always be twofold:
1) It makes not mechanical sense, much less no realistic sense. So both simulationist and simplified systems make no sense with fumbles
2) It doesn't add to the fun in general, for it takes a competence you bothered to develop and mocks it into nothing when it happens.

[Venger]

Do you think an expert swordsman, by no action or circumstance other than his own, looses his footing, drops his weapon, or nicks himself just about every other fight? Sometimes multiple times?
Do you think an expert swordsman commits more mistakes as he transitions from expert to master?
Do you think expert swordsmen kill themselves through sheer bad luck often enough every tribe, legion and army could conceivably have a full roster of sword-to-own-throat events?

My point with fumbles is, has always been and will always be twofold:
1) It makes not mechanical sense, much less no realistic sense. So both simulationist and simplified systems make no sense with fumbles
2) It doesn't add to the fun in general, for it takes a competence you bothered to develop and mocks it into nothing when it happens.

plus it penalizes the weakest characters in the game while leaving the strongest ones untouched, further widening the gap between casters and mundanes.

[atemu1234]

plus it penalizes the weakest characters in the game while leaving the strongest ones untouched, further widening the gap between casters and mundanes.

And the only argument for them is, "I had fun in a game that had them."

[Elbeyon]

And the only argument for them is, "I had fun in a game that had them."

The chances are that the same or a greater amount of fun could have been generated with better rules.

[Venger]

And the only argument for them is, "I had fun in a game that had them."

yeah, there's probably some association fallacy going on there. if it was a fun game, then it was a fun game, you probably didn't enjoy it solely because of terrible rules that make mundanes kill themselves every fourth sword swing.

The chances are that the same or a greater amount of fun could have been generated with better rules.

absolutely.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: As there are several threads on discussing Fumbles now on this very forum, I'm going to start closing a few in favor of the older threads, to adhere to the One Thread, One Topic policy. Please feel free to carry on this discussion this in this thread.