Fumble system that mirrors the critical hit system

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
off the system already in place for critical hits.

If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
you lose your next attack as you regroup. If you have multiple attacks
(claw, claw, bite, etc.), only the attack that fumbled is thus penalized. [If
your next attack occurs in the following round, you may not make attacks of
opportunity with this attack form until your action comes up in that round]*

This system has the major benefit of simplicity. No tables or extra stats to
keep track of. Fumbles become less likely as abilities increase. Multiple
attack fighters are not unduely penalized. The penalty is roughly
proportional to the benefit gained by a critical hit.

* I'm not sure about this part. It makes a fumble in the early stages of a
full-attack action much less severe than one on the last attack.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:08:18 -0500, Brian Merchant
<cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:

>It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
>off the system already in place for critical hits.
>
>If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
>same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
>you lose your next attack as you regroup.

What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble more
often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination in which
Matt Frisch said...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:08:18 -0500, Brian Merchant
> <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:
>
> >It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
> >off the system already in place for critical hits.
> >
> >If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
> >same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
> >you lose your next attack as you regroup.
>
> What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble more
> often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?

With a bow, yet.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Matt Frisch wrote:
>>If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
>>same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
>>you lose your next attack as you regroup.
>
>What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble more
>often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?

The same sensible reason that moving 30 feet and then stopping to drink a
potion can provoke an AoO at the *beginning* of the movement. D&D combat is
simplified and abstracted to promote gameplay.

If you want to eliminate the armor/dex or the other guy from the equation, you
could make the second attack versus a fixed AC. Set the AC depending on the
number of fumbles you want to occur. (AC 10, almost never. AC 27, LOTS.)

Or you could just not use any of the systems. I doubt that anything will ever
be made perfect for all partys concerned.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <42iv11912228bndlu6uiqfe0luhlb9ie4f@4ax.com>,
Brian Merchant <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote:

> It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
> off the system already in place for critical hits.

Ron?

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Kevin Lowe wrote:
>In article <42iv11912228bndlu6uiqfe0luhlb9ie4f@4ax.com>,
> Brian Merchant <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
>> off the system already in place for critical hits.
>
>Ron?

Not the last time I checked.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <ccqv11d15vjadcpa0vieu1pleak2f83amo@4ax.com>,
Brian Merchant <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote:

> In the borning days of the third millennium, Kevin Lowe wrote:
> >In article <42iv11912228bndlu6uiqfe0luhlb9ie4f@4ax.com>,
> > Brian Merchant <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote:
> >
> >> It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
> >> off the system already in place for critical hits.
> >
> >Ron?
>
> Not the last time I checked.

Good troll anyway.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Kevin Lowe wrote:
>In article <ccqv11d15vjadcpa0vieu1pleak2f83amo@4ax.com>,
> Brian Merchant <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote:
>
>> In the borning days of the third millennium, Kevin Lowe wrote:
>> >In article <42iv11912228bndlu6uiqfe0luhlb9ie4f@4ax.com>,
>> > Brian Merchant <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
>> >> off the system already in place for critical hits.
>> >
>> >Ron?
>>
>> Not the last time I checked.
>
>Good troll anyway.

Actually, it was a failed wisdom check. I thought I might inject an idea I
had into the screaming flamefest. Apparently the idea was already brought up
in some form, but I wasn't about to wade through 300+ posts of people yelling
"you're a poopie head" at each other, just to find this out. Sorry for the
duplicated effort.

You all may continue. I shall not.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Brian Merchant" <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote in
message
> >What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble more
> >often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?
>
> The same sensible reason that moving 30 feet and then stopping to drink a
> potion can provoke an AoO at the *beginning* of the movement. D&D combat
is
> simplified and abstracted to promote gameplay.

<shakes head sadly>
In order to be able to drink a potion after moving - in the same round -
you have to move away quickly. The AoO has nothing to do with drinking the
potion and everything to do with HOW YOU MOVED. It's perfectly sensible.

> If you want to eliminate the armor/dex or the other guy from the equation,
you
> could make the second attack versus a fixed AC. Set the AC depending on
the
> number of fumbles you want to occur. (AC 10, almost never. AC 27, LOTS.)

Please. Stop peddling your MORONIC fumble system. Hint- it makes better
fighters fumble vastly more often, because they get more attacks per round.
All the flaws have already been discussed. It is irredeemable, and you are
a fool for having conceived it.

-Michael
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In the borning days of the third millennium, Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> Please. Stop peddling your MORONIC fumble system. Hint- it makes better
>fighters fumble vastly more often, because they get more attacks per round.
>All the flaws have already been discussed. It is irredeemable, and you are
>a fool for having conceived it.

#sigh#

I foolishly thought there was some redeemable content in this dicsussion.

You all may continue yelling at one another. I'm out.

--
Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)

Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
them from enjoying it.
--Father Joe Breighner
Country Roads
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in news:eP%
Td.6205$873.4888@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> It is irredeemable, and you are
> a fool for having conceived it.
>

Nay Michael, to conceive it does not see foolish. To ignore the
flaws and pretend none can exist, that seems foolish.

--
Marc
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Brian Merchant" <cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> wrote in
message > #sigh#
> I foolishly thought there was some redeemable content in this dicsussion.

There would be, if YOU COULD HAVE OFFERED SOME.

-Michael
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:59:17 -0500, Brian Merchant
<cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:

>In the borning days of the third millennium, Matt Frisch wrote:
>>>If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
>>>same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
>>>you lose your next attack as you regroup.
>>
>>What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble more
>>often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?
>
>The same sensible reason that moving 30 feet and then stopping to drink a
>potion can provoke an AoO at the *beginning* of the movement. D&D combat is
>simplified and abstracted to promote gameplay.

You aren't drawing an AoO for drinking the potion, you are drawing an AoO
for your movement. In point of fact, if you simply moved 30 feet, you would
get that AoO too. The potion has nothing to do with it.

Why would you FUMBLE (not miss, fumble) against a more protected target?
There's no reason, and therefore any system which models this is
fundamentally flawed.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:13:40 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:59:17 -0500, Brian Merchant
><cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:
>>The same sensible reason that moving 30 feet and then stopping to drink a
>>potion can provoke an AoO at the *beginning* of the movement. D&D combat is
>>simplified and abstracted to promote gameplay.
>
>You aren't drawing an AoO for drinking the potion, you are drawing an AoO
>for your movement. In point of fact, if you simply moved 30 feet, you would
>get that AoO too. The potion has nothing to do with it.

This is why they introduced the withdraw action, to make this clear.
If at the start of your movement, you conciously plan to move away
while keeping your guard up, you get no AoO for the first 5'. BUT,
since you are being carefull you don't have time to take any action
but move that round.

If you just move away and perform another action, you weren't being as
carefull as you moved away, and opened yourself up to an Attack of
Opportunity from that first 5'.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:7042219u16st50g14sgemic6h5c8pgeig1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:59:17 -0500, Brian Merchant
> You aren't drawing an AoO for drinking the potion, you are drawing an AoO
> for your movement. In point of fact, if you simply moved 30 feet, you
would
> get that AoO too. The potion has nothing to do with it.

No; if
allyoudoismovethefirstsquarefromwhichyoumoveisconsideredunthreatened. Or did
3.5 junk that and call it withdrawing explicitly?

-Michael
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> No; if all you do is move the first square from which you move
> is considered unthreatened. Or did 3.5 junk that and call it
> withdrawing explicitly?

The latter, which makes a goodly amount of sense. The Withdraw
full-round action, including the "Restricted Withdraw" as a standard
action when you are limited in actions.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination in which
Nikolas Landauer said...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >
> > No; if all you do is move the first square from which you move
> > is considered unthreatened. Or did 3.5 junk that and call it
> > withdrawing explicitly?
>
> The latter, which makes a goodly amount of sense. The Withdraw
> full-round action, including the "Restricted Withdraw" as a standard
> action when you are limited in actions.

And in case it's not clear to anyone, particularly Mr Merchant, I will
note explicitly that this, contrary to popular belief when the books
came out, is *not* a functional change to anything; it is simply a more
intuitive way to explain what the rule always was.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
> I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination
> in which Nikolas Landauer said...
> > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > No; if all you do is move the first square from which
> > > you move is considered unthreatened. Or did 3.5 junk that
> > > and call it withdrawing explicitly?
> >
> > The latter, which makes a goodly amount of sense. The
> > Withdraw full-round action, including the "Restricted
> > Withdraw" as a standard action when you are limited in
> > actions.
>
> And in case it's not clear to anyone, particularly Mr
> Merchant, I will note explicitly that this, contrary to
> popular belief when the books came out, is *not* a
> functional change to anything; it is simply a more
> intuitive way to explain what the rule always was.

Yup. And a nice, clean way of removing an exception that didn't
really fit as "part of the movement rules" anyway.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:45:00 GMT, Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:08:18 -0500, Brian Merchant
><cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:
>
>>It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
>>off the system already in place for critical hits.
>>
>>If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
>>same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
>>you lose your next attack as you regroup.
>
>What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble more
>often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?

Your weapon could have bounced off the unforgiving steel of the armor, and
rattled you silly, as opposed to get stuck in the juicy flesh of the less
fortunate.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Brian Merchant wrote:

> It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
> off the system already in place for critical hits.
>
> If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
> same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
> you lose your next attack as you regroup. If you have multiple attacks
> (claw, claw, bite, etc.), only the attack that fumbled is thus penalized. [If
> your next attack occurs in the following round, you may not make attacks of
> opportunity with this attack form until your action comes up in that round]*
>
> This system has the major benefit of simplicity. No tables or extra stats to
> keep track of. Fumbles become less likely as abilities increase. Multiple
> attack fighters are not unduely penalized. The penalty is roughly
> proportional to the benefit gained by a critical hit.
>
> * I'm not sure about this part. It makes a fumble in the early stages of a
> full-attack action much less severe than one on the last attack.
>
> --
> Brian Merchant (remove 'remove' and 'example' from email)
>
> Puritanism didn't keep the puritans from sinning, it just kept
> them from enjoying it.
> --Father Joe Breighner
> Country Roads

I have come to believe that D&D is a positive system. When something
unusual takes place, it is a POSITIVE for the roller. Fumbles are a
NEGATIVE system. They penalize the roller.

So in essence, you don't have fumbles, you have critical hits. It's your
opponents that get lucky.

CH
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:26:48 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> scribed
into the ether:

>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:45:00 GMT, Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:08:18 -0500, Brian Merchant
>><cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
>>>off the system already in place for critical hits.
>>>
>>>If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to hit the
>>>same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you fumble,
>>>you lose your next attack as you regroup.
>>
>>What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble more
>>often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?
>
>Your weapon could have bounced off the unforgiving steel of the armor, and
>rattled you silly, as opposed to get stuck in the juicy flesh of the less
>fortunate.

Accurately represented by a miss, and you'd think that someone taking a
swing would be prepared for that. A swing could just as easily rebound off
of a weapon parry, and that is far less predictable.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0b521lo5lvgq7sqiq1im67i53gplsino9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:45:00 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:08:18 -0500, Brian Merchant
> ><cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:
> >
> >>It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
> >>off the system already in place for critical hits.
> >>
> >>If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to
hit the
> >>same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you
fumble,
> >>you lose your next attack as you regroup.
> >
> >What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble
more
> >often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?
>
> Your weapon could have bounced off the unforgiving steel of the armor,
and
> rattled you silly, as opposed to get stuck in the juicy flesh of the
less
> fortunate.

He asked for a sensible reason.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:31:36 -0500, Clawhound wrote:
> I have come to believe that D&D is a positive system. When something
> unusual takes place, it is a POSITIVE for the roller.

Many instances of negative effects have vanished with 3.x, true.
But if you're unlucky Teleport can kill you still...

<snip>

> So in essence, you don't have fumbles, you have critical hits. It's your
> opponents that get lucky.

What if fumbles happen to the target when a critical hit is rolled,
instead of extra damage?

Maybe let the attacker choose between extra-damage and the roll on
a fumble table. The effects must be balanced somehow to be worth it,
of course.

LL
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:59:19 -0000, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:

>
>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:c0b521lo5lvgq7sqiq1im67i53gplsino9@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:45:00 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:08:18 -0500, Brian Merchant
>> ><cheebie2001.rgfd.remove@comcast.example..net> scribed into the ether:
>> >
>> >>It seems to me the best way to make a fumble system fair is to base it
>> >>off the system already in place for critical hits.
>> >>
>> >>If you roll a natural 1, it is a fumble threat. Roll a second time to
>hit the
>> >>same AC with the same bonuses. If you _miss_, it is a fumble. If you
>fumble,
>> >>you lose your next attack as you regroup.
>> >
>> >What sensible reason can you think of that would cause you to fumble
>more
>> >often against someone wearing platemail than someone in no armor?
>>
>> Your weapon could have bounced off the unforgiving steel of the armor,
>and
>> rattled you silly, as opposed to get stuck in the juicy flesh of the
>less
>> fortunate.
>
>He asked for a sensible reason.

I know. There isn't one. :)

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:31:36 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I have come to believe that D&D is a positive system. When something
>unusual takes place, it is a POSITIVE for the roller. Fumbles are a
>NEGATIVE system. They penalize the roller.

Saving throws penalize the roller because you must make a certain number to
avoid something bad happening to your character. Saving throws are therefore a
negative system also, meaning that D&D isn't entirely positive.

>So in essence, you don't have fumbles, you have critical hits. It's your
>opponents that get lucky.
>
>CH

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom