Requirements for a Fair Fumble System

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

I don't like fumble system. (So sod off if your gonna mouth off.) Yet,
I'm going go ask a question: what are the requirements for a fair fumble
system?

So far, in other threads, we've seen:

- Fighters (and other melee) types should fumble less as they go up levels
- Easy to administer/adjudicate. Does not slow down combat.
- Takes into account weapon specialization, weapon focus, moral bonuses,
other buffs, magic weapon bonuses, etc. (A fighter with a +5 sword
should not fumble more often than a level 1 rogue.)
- Fumble rolls be disconnected from number of attacks. (Attaching
fumbles to attacks in a 1:1 ration means that fighters get penalized for
using their primary combat ability.)
- Fumbles must penalized ranged, melee, and unarmed equally
- Fumbles must not have amazingly stupid results. (If I drop myself, can
I cleave?)

So, tell us what else a fumble system should not do, or should avoid?

CH

PS - For those who still have to rip at this, go sod off some more.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
> I don't like fumble system. (So sod off if your gonna mouth off.)
Yet,
> I'm going go ask a question: what are the requirements for a fair
fumble
> system?
>
> So far, in other threads, we've seen:
>
> - Fighters (and other melee) types should fumble less as they go up
levels
> - Easy to administer/adjudicate. Does not slow down combat.
> - Takes into account weapon specialization, weapon focus, moral
bonuses,
> other buffs, magic weapon bonuses, etc. (A fighter with a +5 sword
> should not fumble more often than a level 1 rogue.)
> - Fumble rolls be disconnected from number of attacks. (Attaching
> fumbles to attacks in a 1:1 ration means that fighters get penalized
for
> using their primary combat ability.)
> - Fumbles must penalized ranged, melee, and unarmed equally
> - Fumbles must not have amazingly stupid results. (If I drop myself,
can
> I cleave?)
>
> So, tell us what else a fumble system should not do, or should avoid?

1) Fumbles must be likely enough that the rules overhead involved
is not a waste of time.

2) Fumbles should have an effect beyond just missing an attack
or being hit by an attack, the system already includes a random
element for hits and damage and the flat 1 always misses and
20 always hits represents luck dominating skill within reasonable
limits.

3) Fumbles should not be so common or significant as to dominate
or even significantly rival other factors in determining most
combat results.

4) Fumbles should not involve skilled fighters cutting their own
head off, they should not even drop or break a weapon on more than
very rare ocassions.

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

DougL wrote:
> Clawhound wrote:

> 4) Fumbles should not involve skilled fighters cutting their own
> head off, they should not even drop or break a weapon on more than
> very rare ocassions.
>

funny you should mention that... I actually had a high level cambion
do this to himself in an old 2e game, totally different fumble rules,
and he was using a vorpal weapon...
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
> I don't like fumble system. (So sod off if your gonna mouth off.)
Yet,
> I'm going go ask a question: what are the requirements for a fair
fumble
> system?
>
> So far, in other threads, we've seen:
>
> - Fighters (and other melee) types should fumble less as they go up
levels
> - Easy to administer/adjudicate. Does not slow down combat.
> - Takes into account weapon specialization, weapon focus, moral
bonuses,
> other buffs, magic weapon bonuses, etc. (A fighter with a +5 sword
> should not fumble more often than a level 1 rogue.)
> - Fumble rolls be disconnected from number of attacks. (Attaching
> fumbles to attacks in a 1:1 ration means that fighters get penalized
for
> using their primary combat ability.)
> - Fumbles must penalized ranged, melee, and unarmed equally
> - Fumbles must not have amazingly stupid results. (If I drop myself,
can
> I cleave?)
>
> So, tell us what else a fumble system should not do, or should avoid?
>
> CH
>
> PS - For those who still have to rip at this, go sod off some more.

Once again, I hate the idea of fumbles, but I can work in theory.

Given what you've got above (I'm not totally convinces that a +5 sword
will make you less likely to funble than a normal sword, but whatever)
it's obvious that you're looking for somehting that is based on your
BAB as a check factor.

If you don't want the liklihood of fumbling to be based on your weapon
in any way, then I say your best bet is to rule that you always
threaten a fumble at your highest base attack bonus. Other itterative
attacks are an abstraction anyway, so all you can really be sure of and
focus on is the highest BAB. Your first attack.

So say you roll a one on your first attack and this threatens a fumble.
Then you roll to confirm it just like a critical hit against a flat AC
(DC) of 20. If you hit, then you don't fumble. if you miss, you do.

that seems to take care of issues 1-5.

Issue six (amazingly stupid results) is the reason I hate fumbles.
What can you do? Dropping a weapon, we have already decided, is a bad
idea because it's really unreasonable. Possible .. . but not likely.

You can't really handle it like a critical hit because those modify
damage and you aren't doing any damage with a fumble, nor can it afect
the damage of later attacks because you don't nessisarily have any
other attacks that round.

Striking adjacent people (allies or opponants or trees, whatever is
nearby) is not AS bad, but really sort of silly because it is fairly
rare, IMO. Not that I've never seen anyone miss and hit a wall or
another person, but ALMOST never (maybe once or twice in my whole
life).

I think the ideal (realistically) would be a table with several options
ranging from the worst possible (losing the weapon or nailing a nearby
something) to the less severe (you look stupid, something else worse
that *just* missing but not that bad). And then there would be a roll.
Either a percentile or something dependant on hte AC you hit on the
check.

the problem with that is it kills speed (rule 2) so what you would need
is some static effect for a fumble akin to the static effect for a
critical hit (for referance, it could be seen as just as appropriate
for a critical hit to do ability drain of some sort of stun your
opponant but all that takes longer so double danage is just easier and
we use it).

saddly, this is hte part that makes me hate fumble rules. I think
working out the theory behind them occuring is all well and good, but I
can't come up with a reasonable consequence for them. Sorry.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

DougL wrote:
> Clawhound wrote:
> > I don't like fumble system. (So sod off if your gonna mouth off.)
> Yet,
> > I'm going go ask a question: what are the requirements for a fair
> fumble
> > system?
> >
> > So far, in other threads, we've seen:
> >
> > - Fighters (and other melee) types should fumble less as they go up
> levels
> > - Easy to administer/adjudicate. Does not slow down combat.
> > - Takes into account weapon specialization, weapon focus, moral
> bonuses,
> > other buffs, magic weapon bonuses, etc. (A fighter with a +5 sword
> > should not fumble more often than a level 1 rogue.)
> > - Fumble rolls be disconnected from number of attacks. (Attaching
> > fumbles to attacks in a 1:1 ration means that fighters get
penalized
> for
> > using their primary combat ability.)
> > - Fumbles must penalized ranged, melee, and unarmed equally
> > - Fumbles must not have amazingly stupid results. (If I drop
myself,
> can
> > I cleave?)
> >
> > So, tell us what else a fumble system should not do, or should
avoid?
>
> 1) Fumbles must be likely enough that the rules overhead involved
> is not a waste of time.
>
> 2) Fumbles should have an effect beyond just missing an attack
> or being hit by an attack, the system already includes a random
> element for hits and damage and the flat 1 always misses and
> 20 always hits represents luck dominating skill within reasonable
> limits.
>
> 3) Fumbles should not be so common or significant as to dominate
> or even significantly rival other factors in determining most
> combat results.
>
> 4) Fumbles should not involve skilled fighters cutting their own
> head off, they should not even drop or break a weapon on more than
> very rare ocassions.

I agree with all those as well. Consequences are the real problem.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Also, regarding consequenses, have we debated the merits and flaws of
provoking an AoO? I don't recall, but I can't believe it didn't come
up.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> DougL wrote:

> I agree with all those as well. Consequences are the real problem.

You could try actually reading my "yet another fumble system"
post rather than going "LALALA I can't HEAR you!".

Although since Dirk is the only other direct reply I have
received you did substantially improve the quality of the
discourse.

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

DougL wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
> > DougL wrote:
>
> > I agree with all those as well. Consequences are the real problem.
>
> You could try actually reading my "yet another fumble system"
> post rather than going "LALALA I can't HEAR you!".
>
> Although since Dirk is the only other direct reply I have
> received you did substantially improve the quality of the
> discourse.

I actually did reaad it and I thought it was way better, I just wasn't
in hte mood to start another fumble screaming match at that point. Now
that the previous 300+ thread of screaming and name calling is just
about finished I feel ready to move on. Sorry about that.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>Clawhound wrote:

>> - Fumbles must not have amazingly stupid results. (If I drop myself,
>>can I cleave?)

Seems to me there's an interesting feat or prestige class there.
Suicide Fighter, or some such. Stupid, but interesting.

>1) Fumbles must be likely enough that the rules overhead involved
>is not a waste of time.

Conversely, if they're set up to be rare, the rules overhead
should be very simple.

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

Clawhound wrote:
> I don't like fumble system. (So sod off if your gonna mouth off.) Yet,
> I'm going go ask a question: what are the requirements for a fair fumble
> system?
>
> So far, in other threads, we've seen:

1. Good probabilities. This *bloody* *obviously* can't be
achieved with 1d20, or indeed with any 1dX-based roll mechanic.

2. Fumbles serving as a deterrent to characters attempting
things that are very difficult relative to their individual
prowess.

> - Fighters (and other melee) types should fumble less as they go up levels
> - Easy to administer/adjudicate. Does not slow down combat.
> - Takes into account weapon specialization, weapon focus, moral bonuses,
> other buffs, magic weapon bonuses, etc. (A fighter with a +5 sword
> should not fumble more often than a level 1 rogue.)
> - Fumble rolls be disconnected from number of attacks. (Attaching
> fumbles to attacks in a 1:1 ration means that fighters get penalized for
> using their primary combat ability.)
> - Fumbles must penalized ranged, melee, and unarmed equally
> - Fumbles must not have amazingly stupid results. (If I drop myself, can
> I cleave?)
>
> So, tell us what else a fumble system should not do, or should avoid?

3. Should apply to all skill rolls, not only those skill
rolls that pertain to combat.

> PS - For those who still have to rip at this, go sod off some more.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Suddenly, Peter Meilinger, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness
and exclaimed:

> Seems to me there's an interesting feat or prestige class there.
> Suicide Fighter, or some such. Stupid, but interesting.
>

Judean Peoples' Front Suicide Squad Attack!!!

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:

> 1: Already represented in game by a missed attack with opponent
> hitting or critting on his next action.
> 2: Only penalises those within melee reach of enemies.

I consider point two to be slightly more valid and you're absoloutly
right. I hadn't thought of that. Bummer.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> Given what you've got above (I'm not totally convinces that a +5
sword
> will make you less likely to funble than a normal sword, but
whatever)
> it's obvious that you're looking for somehting that is based on your
> BAB as a check factor.
>
> If you don't want the liklihood of fumbling to be based on your
weapon
> in any way, then I say your best bet is to rule that you always
> threaten a fumble at your highest base attack bonus. Other
itterative
> attacks are an abstraction anyway, so all you can really be sure of
and
> focus on is the highest BAB. Your first attack.
>
> So say you roll a one on your first attack and this threatens a
fumble.
> Then you roll to confirm it just like a critical hit against a flat
AC
> (DC) of 20. If you hit, then you don't fumble. if you miss, you do.
>
> that seems to take care of issues 1-5.
>

Interesting. At the higher levels warriors can easily hit DC 20 on a
roll of 2. That means a fumble would happen on rolling two 1's in a
row - once for the first attack to call for a fumble, the second on the
confirm. That's a 1/400 chance. Not bad.

> Issue six (amazingly stupid results) is the reason I hate fumbles.
> What can you do? Dropping a weapon, we have already decided, is a
bad
> idea because it's really unreasonable. Possible .. . but not likely.
>
> You can't really handle it like a critical hit because those modify
> damage and you aren't doing any damage with a fumble, nor can it
afect
> the damage of later attacks because you don't nessisarily have any
> other attacks that round.
>
> Striking adjacent people (allies or opponants or trees, whatever is
> nearby) is not AS bad, but really sort of silly because it is fairly
> rare, IMO. Not that I've never seen anyone miss and hit a wall or
> another person, but ALMOST never (maybe once or twice in my whole
> life).
>
> I think the ideal (realistically) would be a table with several
options
> ranging from the worst possible (losing the weapon or nailing a
nearby
> something) to the less severe (you look stupid, something else worse
> that *just* missing but not that bad). And then there would be a
roll.
> Either a percentile or something dependant on hte AC you hit on the
> check.
>
> the problem with that is it kills speed (rule 2) so what you would
need
> is some static effect for a fumble akin to the static effect for a
> critical hit (for referance, it could be seen as just as appropriate
> for a critical hit to do ability drain of some sort of stun your
> opponant but all that takes longer so double danage is just easier
and
> we use it).
>
> saddly, this is hte part that makes me hate fumble rules. I think
> working out the theory behind them occuring is all well and good, but
I
> can't come up with a reasonable consequence for them. Sorry.

An idea brought up that I really like is that your opponent gets an AoO
upon you. If you are using a ranged weapon and no one is threatening
you, you become flat-footed until your next turn.

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
> >
> >Also, regarding consequenses, have we debated the merits and flaws
of
> >provoking an AoO? I don't recall, but I can't believe it didn't
come
> >up.
>
> It did. Provoking AoOs is fine for melee combatants without reach,
> but if you use a reach or ranged weapon you're basically immune to
> "fumbling" if the only penalty is an AoO.
>
>
>
> Ed Chauvin IV
>

True. For now I'm liking for ranged and reach weapon users that you
become flat-footed until your next turn.

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

Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
>
>Also, regarding consequenses, have we debated the merits and flaws of
>provoking an AoO? I don't recall, but I can't believe it didn't come
>up.

It did. Provoking AoOs is fine for melee combatants without reach,
but if you use a reach or ranged weapon you're basically immune to
"fumbling" if the only penalty is an AoO.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Hadsil hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
>> >
>> >Also, regarding consequenses, have we debated the merits and flaws of
>> >provoking an AoO? I don't recall, but I can't believe it didn't come
>> >up.
>>
>> It did. Provoking AoOs is fine for melee combatants without reach,
>> but if you use a reach or ranged weapon you're basically immune to
>> "fumbling" if the only penalty is an AoO.
>>
>
>True. For now I'm liking for ranged and reach weapon users that you
>become flat-footed until your next turn.

Not a bad idea, but why only ranged and reach weapon users? Why not
just make the penalty for fumbling that you provoke an AoO and become
flat-footed until your next turn? Yeah, it punishes those within
melee range a bit more, but why shouldn't it?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Hadsil hastily scrawled:
> >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >> Mere moments before death, Anivair hastily scrawled:
> >> >
> >> >Also, regarding consequenses, have we debated the merits and
flaws of
> >> >provoking an AoO? I don't recall, but I can't believe it didn't
come
> >> >up.
> >>
> >> It did. Provoking AoOs is fine for melee combatants without
reach,
> >> but if you use a reach or ranged weapon you're basically immune to
> >> "fumbling" if the only penalty is an AoO.
> >>
> >
> >True. For now I'm liking for ranged and reach weapon users that you
> >become flat-footed until your next turn.
>
> Not a bad idea, but why only ranged and reach weapon users? Why not
> just make the penalty for fumbling that you provoke an AoO and become
> flat-footed until your next turn? Yeah, it punishes those within
> melee range a bit more, but why shouldn't it?

The reduced penalty at range is fine since there is also a reduced
benifit at range. (i.e. your foes can't take full advantage of
your fumbles, but you can't take full advantage of theirs either.)

My worry would be that Rogues just got a bit more powerful unless
fumbles are fairly rare.

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

Mere moments before death, DougL hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, Hadsil hastily scrawled:
>> >
>> >True. For now I'm liking for ranged and reach weapon users that you
>> >become flat-footed until your next turn.
>>
>> Not a bad idea, but why only ranged and reach weapon users? Why not
>> just make the penalty for fumbling that you provoke an AoO and become
>> flat-footed until your next turn? Yeah, it punishes those within
>> melee range a bit more, but why shouldn't it?
>
>The reduced penalty at range is fine since there is also a reduced
>benifit at range. (i.e. your foes can't take full advantage of
>your fumbles, but you can't take full advantage of theirs either.)
>
>My worry would be that Rogues just got a bit more powerful unless
>fumbles are fairly rare.

Actually, they only don't become more powerful if fumbles are so rare
as to be completely nonexistent. I still wouldn't worry about it,
it's not like Fighters aren't getting a bit of an edge here as well,
considering the loss from being flat-footed gives them extra Power
Attack points to play with and makes them more likely to Crit.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> Also, regarding consequenses, have we debated the merits and flaws of
> provoking an AoO? I don't recall, but I can't believe it didn't come
> up.

It did, sort of. Summary.

1: Already represented in game by a missed attack with opponent
hitting or critting on his next action.
2: Only penalises those within melee reach of enemies.

There was also mention of using AoO fumbles to increase the rate of
unusual combat manoeuvres by explicititly calling for them against
fumblers; a free trip, grapple, kick, disarm, sunder, or whatever.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109341577.676975.60940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> tussock wrote:
>
> > 1: Already represented in game by a missed attack with opponent
> > hitting or critting on his next action.
> > 2: Only penalises those within melee reach of enemies.
>
> I consider point two to be slightly more valid and you're absoloutly
> right. I hadn't thought of that. Bummer.
>

Ranged weapon users would lose their next attack, fumbled the ammo for a
second.
Reach weapon users, or reach monsters, would be vulnerable to a free Sunder
attack?

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

Hadsil wrote:

> True. For now I'm liking for ranged and reach weapon users that you
> become flat-footed until your next turn.

Good for reach weapons. I won't know about ranged weapons. if I'm
shooting into a melee and I fumble and I am flat footed that's all well
and good, but the whole point of range is to be away from the enemies
anyway. Not that they can't have ranged weapons themselves, but it
seems like a) it's not a penalty that is always a bad thing and b) it
doesn't really follow the logic of having screwed up too well. The AoO
works nicely because it leaves you open, but being flat footed isn't
quite the same thing.

No that it isn't the best solution I've seen yet.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Not a bad idea, but why only ranged and reach weapon users? Why not
> just make the penalty for fumbling that you provoke an AoO and become
> flat-footed until your next turn? Yeah, it punishes those within
> melee range a bit more, but why shouldn't it?

Not bad. You really should be in more danger when you fumble right
next to your opponants (or when they are just waiting for you to mess
up). I suppose a ranged fumble isn't that bad a thing. After all, if
an archer fumbles in the woods . . .
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1109533393.894572.184200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hadsil wrote:
>
> > True. For now I'm liking for ranged and reach weapon users that you
> > become flat-footed until your next turn.
>
> Good for reach weapons. I won't know about ranged weapons. if I'm
> shooting into a melee and I fumble and I am flat footed that's all well
> and good, but the whole point of range is to be away from the enemies
> anyway. Not that they can't have ranged weapons themselves, but it
> seems like a) it's not a penalty that is always a bad thing and b) it
> doesn't really follow the logic of having screwed up too well. The AoO
> works nicely because it leaves you open, but being flat footed isn't
> quite the same thing.
>
> No that it isn't the best solution I've seen yet.
>

FWIW, ranged weapon fighters with Combat Reflexes mostly laugh at this
kind of fumble too.

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

Kevin Lowe wrote:

> FWIW, ranged weapon fighters with Combat Reflexes mostly laugh at
this
> kind of fumble too.

I can't see why. Are you saying this is because you can't make AoO
with ranged weapons? True, but if the archer is flat footed till his
next turn he's in trouble from other archers. Granted, it's not as
bad, but I'm not sure it should be.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in news:1109626912.279642.10120
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> Kevin Lowe wrote:
>
>> FWIW, ranged weapon fighters with Combat Reflexes mostly laugh at
> this
>> kind of fumble too.
>
> I can't see why. Are you saying this is because you can't make AoO
> with ranged weapons? True, but if the archer is flat footed till his
> next turn he's in trouble from other archers. Granted, it's not as
> bad, but I'm not sure it should be.
>
>

Combat Reflexes prevents flat-footedness.

--
Shadow Wolf
shadowolf3400 at yahoo dot com
Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
AIF at http://www.geocities.com/shadowolf3400

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom