I, myself, like fumbles

[SangoProduction]

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).

[Renen]

If you want martials to be exciting, get tome of battle. If you want martials to do their job of swinging the sword even worse by stabbing themselves and dropping it, use fumbles.

[atemu1234]

Alright, good for you.

[Rhyltran]

Isn't there another thread that's kind of just like this?

[eggynack]

There are plenty of ways to make melee combat less boring that don't involve completely random, completely external things that act in a completely detrimental way to those who use it. I agree, standard melee combat is super boring, but any fix should really be none of those things I just said, or at least as few of them as possible. Tome of battle is a great method, but really, just about any method would be better than standard critical fumbles.

[Psyren]

I like the idea of fumbles, but most attempts at executing them are too harsh. My guidelines for fumbles would be:

1) Fumbles must be confirmed, much like crits.
2) To confirm a fumble, the player has to miss by 5 or more on the confirmation roll.
3) Fumbles apply to NPCs too.
4) The penalties should be short duration, minor debuffs at best. Things like sickened or shakened for a round or two, falling prone or dropping your sword in your square are okay. Things like hacking off your arm, impaling yourself, breaking your sword or hurling it across the room from you are not.
5) Use a deck/system that allows casters to fumble as well, even if only on attack roll spells. (Though if you're okay with the additional work, you can cause all kinds of spells to fumble, simply by using rules like mishaps or spellblights.)

[Yahzi]

a bit more interesting

By the same logic, I assume you apply a fumble rule to all spellcasting, since casters a) traditionally suffered from magic gone wrong, b) roll dice less often and thus need higher percentage of fumbles to create "interest", and c) bending the rules of reality ought to be more error-prone and dangerous than swinging around sharp bits of metal.

[Eldaran]

Why not give them interesting bonuses rather than interesting penalties?

[Brookshw]

Isn't there another thread that's kind of just like this?

Two others in fact.

[atemu1234]

Shouldn't this be in one of the other current fumble threads? I'm just not feeling it here.

[Mendicant]

Here's a really great way to get all the benefits of fumbles without punishing anyone: when one of your players rolls really badly, like a 1 or a 2, and that bad roll results in a failure because they don't meet the DC, just describe it in a funny way. Bam, good fumble rules.

[Xervous]

Just because self medication feels good doesn't mean... well...

Kids, don't do fumbles

[Occasional Sage]

Fumble rules are interesting.

They provide interesting results to rolls for martial characters, when those rolls are low. They then punish the characters that are lowest-tier.

Honestly I tend to enjoy fumble rules, and find the results of them fun, in my current game. However, our one primary caster engages in melee regularly and fumbles as much as our martials.

Generally, fumble charts are harmful to the people who are lowest-tier and least able to compensate for the punishment the chart inflicts. Don't do it.

[SowZ]

This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes, as it doesn't actually provide any meaningful choices.

[OldTrees1]

This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes, as it doesn't actually provide any meaningful choices.

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun".


@OP
Good for you. Continue to have fun! I recommend adding critical tables that are similarly structured(qualitative differences rather than mere damage multiplication).

[eggynack]

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun".

Or, more accurately, it's a way of saying that fumble rules don't actually expand the options associated with melee combat. Because it doesn't. I don't think there's much disputing that. If you want to make a class interesting to play, the best way is to give it things to do that are interesting.

[Kaidinah]

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun".


@OP
Good for you. Continue to have fun! I recommend adding critical tables that are similarly structured(qualitative differences rather than mere damage multiplication).

And don't forget spell fumble tables. Every time you cast a spell, roll a d20. On a 1 you have to make a concentration check or lose your spell. If you pass, you keep the spell but you get some other random effect from spell failure table.

[OldTrees1]

Or, more accurately, it's a way of saying that fumble rules don't actually expand the options associated with melee combat. Because it doesn't. I don't think there's much disputing that. If you want to make a class interesting to play, the best way is to give it things to do that are interesting.

Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes. Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does. Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No. Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion? That comic is more accurate than it looks at first glance.

[Kaidinah]

Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes. Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does. Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No. Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion? That comic is more accurate than it looks at first glance.

It does feel completely unfair to force fumbles onto just the weakest character type in the game, instead of to all character types. Hence my post. We really do need a good spell fumble table.

[The Evil DM]

It does feel completely unfair to force fumbles onto just the weakest character type in the game, instead of to all character types. Hence my post. We really do need a good spell fumble table.

Second Ed Tome of Magic, Wildsurge table. roll d100, apply random effect.

[SowZ]

Interesting way of saying "Your playstyle/fun is WrongFun".


@OP
Good for you. Continue to have fun! I recommend adding critical tables that are similarly structured(qualitative differences rather than mere damage multiplication).

If you find it fun, great! I've used fumbles before and they can be fine. But I just don't see how they make martial characters more interesting to play. The OP is welcome to argue why, but I don't see that it adds interest to the player of the martial character. At best, it adds interest to everyone at the table equally by throwing in something amusing. But making a class more interesting to play, to me, implies giving that class more options/choices/things to do.

Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes. Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does. Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No. Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion? That comic is more accurate than it looks at first glance.

When will the presence of fumble rules change what a martial class does in combat except make him weigh the benefit of not attacking at all? As a Fighter, generally speaking, I can attack or not. Fumbles rules will not change which attack I use. At most, they might make me say, "Well, we are likely going to win without my intervention, is it worth the risk of ganking myself?" If the only choice added is, "Should I engage with the game or not?" I wouldn't call that a meaningful choice. Again, it is fine if you enjoy the random variable of fumble rules. I'm not at all saying your playstyle is fun. I'm saying that the argument, "It makes the martial class more interesting to play," is a false reason. Just like if someone said, "We don't use Psionics," that would be fine. There are several reasons a table might not use Psionics. But if someone said, "We don't use Psionics because it is so much more powerful than traditional magic," I'd point out that this is not a valid argument.

[OldTrees1]

It does feel completely unfair to force fumbles onto just the weakest character type in the game, instead of to all character types. Hence my post. We really do need a good spell fumble table.

I agree although for a different reason.

I don't think people that like fumble tables are that concerned about balancing. I think they find fun in fumbles regardless of the balance impacts. People that enjoy similar things tend to group together. Thus it is likely that if a group likes melee fumbles, then they are likely to also like caster fumbles.

If you find it fun, great! I've used fumbles before and they can be fine. But I just don't see how they make martial characters more interesting to play. The OP is welcome to argue why, but I don't see that it adds interest to the player of the martial character. At best, it adds interest to everyone at the table equally by throwing in something amusing. But making a class more interesting to play, to me, implies giving that class more options/choices/things to do.

If you think "If the OP finds it fun, great!" then you don't want to say "This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes" since that implies "If the OP finds it fun, terrible!". I suggested "I don't understand how that makes martial characters more interesting to play, would you please explain?" instead. The first is an accusatory tone while the second is an honest questioning tone.

[eggynack]

Options? No. But do they increase the number and variety of qualitative effects in the combat? Yes.

But it's completely out of the player's control, so it doesn't really alter what you do as a fighter. It just means that some arbitrary hardship befalls the character.

Can that increase the opportunities/variety of meaningful choices? Yes it usually does.

I don't really see how.

Is it wrong for someone to like fumble rules? No.

Didn't say it was, but typically, there are better ways to accomplish the thing you're doing with traditional fumble rules. In this case, the better way is probably more complicated melee rules, like ToB, or perhaps something like the "interesting times" variant that was proposed in the other threads.

Is it wrong for the forum to crucify this minority merely for having the audacity for openly having a different opinion?

Yes, saying that this ruleset fails to accomplish the thing it was proposed to do to a meaningful extent is a crucifixion. The proponents of fumble rules are victims of the highest order, especially in this case.

[SowZ]

If you think "If the OP finds it fun, great!" then you don't want to say "This is a false way to add interest to the martial classes" since that implies "If the OP finds it fun, terrible!". I suggested "I don't understand how that makes martial characters more interesting to play, would you please explain?" instead.

Sure, I could have phrased it in a more passive way. If the OP wants to explain why it makes the martial characters more interesting to play, they are welcome to explain. I just can't see how it makes the class more interesting to play, since the only choice I can see it providing is, "attack or don't attack," and actively not participating is of course more boring.

Let's take a game with guns that is a percentile system. There might be a situational fumble where on a 1, certain guns jam. But guns like revolvers and double barreled shotguns and bolt action rifles have no such fumble. That actually adds a meaningful decision, so I don't really mind it. But, "on a 1, roll on a table where you might shoot yourself," doesn't really add a meaningful choice. As eggynack said, it doesn't really accomplish the goal of making playing a gunfighter more interesting.

[OldTrees1]

But it's completely out of the player's control, so it doesn't really alter what you do as a fighter. It just means that some arbitrary hardship befalls the character.

I don't really see how.

Consider different types of terrain and obstacles/hazards. Those are hardships that are out of a player's control but there existence increases the variety and number of meaningful choices since 2 squares are no longer equivalent.

Yes, saying that this ruleset fails to accomplish the thing it was proposed to do to a meaningful extent is a crucifixion. The proponents of fumble rules are victims of the highest order, especially in this case.

I used hyperbole, but that does not change the fact that certain forum members were reacting with hostility towards someone stating a mere personal preference in their thread made for the sole purpose of merely stating their personal preference. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that?!

[SowZ]

Consider different types of terrain and obstacles/hazards. Those are hardships that are out of a player's control but there existence increases the variety and number of meaningful choices since 2 squares are no longer equivalent.


I used hyperbole, but that does not change the fact that certain forum members were reacting with hostility towards someone stating a mere personal preference in their thread made for the sole purpose of merely stating their personal preference. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that?!

The terrain thing is not the same. You actively choose how to deal with the terrain. Is it worth it to take three turns to close distance, or should I switch to my longbow? Can I use the terrain to my tactical advantage against the enemy? Are there things I have to mitigate the terrain difficulty? You can plan based on the terrain. You cannot make active choices regarding fumbles. If, say, there was a house-rule where a player could choose to do a 'desperate gambit' which guaranteed max damage roll, or halved ranged penalties, or allowed the player to roll two d20s and take the highest, but on a 1 the character would have to roll on a fumble chart, that would be a meaningful decision which would keep the element of randomness and risk but also increase a player's options.

[OldTrees1]

The terrain thing is not the same. You actively choose how to deal with the terrain. Is it worth it to take three turns to close distance, or should I switch to my longbow? Can I use the terrain to my tactical advantage against the enemy? Are there things I have to mitigate the terrain difficulty? You can plan based on the terrain. You cannot make active choices regarding fumbles.

Depending on the content of the fumble table, you have just described a fumble table. However since this is the 3rd thread I doubt you will actually consider this point. Goodbye.

[eggynack]

Consider different types of terrain and obstacles/hazards. Those are hardships that are out of a player's control but there existence increases the variety and number of meaningful choices since 2 squares are no longer equivalent.

Their existence is out of player control, but the way you can deal with them tend to offer some tactical complexity, both because you know about the terrain before you encounter it, and because there are a few different ways to deal with them. For example, with a large patch of difficult terrain, you can move through it, or take one or two paths around it. Choices, right there. By contrast, a rule that causes you to hit yourself or an ally doesn't really expand options. There's no way around it, and the way to deal with the aftermath is incredibly straightforward. The same is the case with most fumbles. A bad thing happens, and then that's it. No options involved.

I used hyperbole, but that does not change the fact that certain forum members were reacting with hostility towards someone stating a mere personal preference in their thread made for the sole purpose of merely stating their personal preference. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that?!

I'm aware that it was hyperbole, but I still think it absurd even in non-hyperbole form. The only thing you've pointed to is, "This doesn't add options," and that strikes me as ridiculously far from hostile.

[SowZ]

Depending on the content of the fumble table, you have just described a fumble table. However since this is the 3rd thread I doubt you will actually consider this point. Goodbye.

How are terrain disadvantages at all a fumble table? I am talking about terrain disadvantages with consistent penalties that I can account for and mitigate. A fumble table inherently adds random penalties. How are these at all the same? I don't understand what you are saying. Some fumble tables change the terrain and add terrain disadvantages? Some fumble tables force you to switch to your longbow? What do you mean?

Also, because I haven't changed my mind to agree with you, I am closed off to the idea?

[OldTrees1]

Also, because I haven't changed my mind to agree with you, I am closed off to the idea?

I was referring to how this forum's argumentation becomes more and more irrational, misrepresenting, and stubborn the deeper/longer an argument goes on. Since it is on the 3rd thread it is not worth my time.