The wizard/fighter frequency thing is only a problem if the wizard is just another flavor of fighting (spewing cantrips instead of sword swings).  If the wizard is more like the older rules, an operational asset, then that doesn't hold anymore.  The fighter may get more critical hits and fumbles, while the wizard gets less of both.  It's also possible that the wizard's relatively low frequency will be countered somewhat by nastier effects.  In any case, it's the whole package considered together that matters, not every specific detail.

No, you're wrong.

Ok, lets try this a different way.  Forget about the wizard.  A level 1 fighter gets one attack per round, a level, I dunno, 10 fighter gets two attacks per round (or any number more than 1). 

The level 10 fighter will generate twice as many 1s.  He'll be clumsier with a sword because he'll make twice as many "critical failures".  That's dumb. 

Maybe it's 3ed and the fighter has two short swords and has 4 attacks per round.  He's generating quadruple the self-stabs of a level 1 fighter.  That's the wrong result. 

Or whatever.  Do you see?  Multiple attacks represents expertise with a weapon, and if the system increase the screwups-per-minute as you gain expertise, then it's a bad system.  If the system is "you rolled a 1, roll on the Table Of Your Guy Sucks Lol", without considering the skill of the character in question, that's a problem.

Only if you insist on symmetrical rules, which is the drift of my point.  The same thing applies if you leave the wizard out of it.  Yes, if you insist that fumble and critical results be symmetrical, then multiple attacks will works as you say.  However, if you, as I indicated in my original post on this topic, deliberately want the fumbles to be less consequential than the critical hit, then now the high level fighter with multiple attacks is getting the critical hits more often on sheer volume, while the increase volume of fumbles is not parallel, and thus not that intrusive.

Now, I also happen to agree that it works best when the fumbles and criticals are set up to be something besides double damage or hitting yourself with a weapon.  If that's all they do, then I'd just as soon change the base math of the system and leave the fumble/critical out of it.  And I've mentioned elsewhere before that I really appreciate the Dragon Quest critical hit tables because one of the things they do is provide "no additional result" on many entries, depending on the nature of the weapon. 

However, in the bigger picture, chasing symmetry is the worse design, regardless of whether fumbles/criticals are in or how they work.  That's why WotC D&D gets relatively little payoff from it's complexity.  And once again repeating myself, fumble/critical systems cannot be judged in isolation, but only in how they fit into the larger system as a whole, which is why the best ones are built into the system from the ground up.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 02, 2023, 09:29:08 PM
Only if you insist on symmetrical rules, which is the drift of my point.  The same thing applies if you leave the wizard out of it.  Yes, if you insist that fumble and critical results be symmetrical, then multiple attacks will works as you say.  However, if you, as I indicated in my original post on this topic, deliberately want the fumbles to be less consequential than the critical hit, then now the high level fighter with multiple attacks is getting the critical hits more often on sheer volume, while the increase volume of fumbles is not parallel, and thus not that intrusive.

Now, I also happen to agree that it works best when the fumbles and criticals are set up to be something besides double damage or hitting yourself with a weapon.  If that's all they do, then I'd just as soon change the base math of the system and leave the fumble/critical out of it.  And I've mentioned elsewhere before that I really appreciate the Dragon Quest critical hit tables because one of the things they do is provide "no additional result" on many entries, depending on the nature of the weapon. 

However, in the bigger picture, chasing symmetry is the worse design, regardless of whether fumbles/criticals are in or how they work.  That's why WotC D&D gets relatively little payoff from it's complexity.  And once again repeating myself, fumble/critical systems cannot be judged in isolation, but only in how they fit into the larger system as a whole, which is why the best ones are built into the system from the ground up.

Why do  you say chasing symmetry is the worst design? Or do you mean just in the case of crits and fumbles, and not in general?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on October 03, 2023, 01:48:23 AM
Why do  you say chasing symmetry is the worst design? Or do you mean just in the case of crits and fumbles, and not in general?

In general.  By "chasing" I mean pursuing it as a primary design principle.  If symmetry arises naturally from what the game is intending to do, by all means, keep it.  If the designer reaches one of those points where a decision has to be made between symmetry and some other secondary design principles, then symmetry will sometimes win out. 

Whereas chasing symmetry is the designer letting his OCD run amuck. 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 02, 2023, 09:29:08 PM
Only if you insist on symmetrical rules, which is the drift of my point.

Insisting on symmetric rules is the only reason everyone thinks that a 1 is important.  Since everyone loves 20s making crits, the argument goes, we add a mirrored effect to the 1.  Barring that design, no one has a critical fumble concept.

QuoteHowever, if you, as I indicated in my original post on this topic, deliberately want the fumbles to be less consequential than the critical hit

Ok so in this case, here's what you do.  You have a critical fumble table, and some spaces are just "miss no other effect".  Then if someone rolls a 1, you have them roll on that table as many times as they get attacks in a round normally, and they pick the effect they want.  That will mostly solve your problem.

Other ways to do this include, if the fighter has three attacks per round, he ignores the first two 1s he rolls, only getting penalized by the table for the third.

The extra hits and crits are an intended part of weapon mastery in any system that grants multiple attacks to skilled martial combatants; extra critical fumbles are not.  A 1st level fighter should fumble the same amount of time or more than a 20th level fighter, and the fact that the 20th level fighter will hit and crit more in that time is good.  The idea that he's able to fail faster and get more fumbles is not.  All you need is a control to prevent his extra attacks from proccing bad stuff at a higher rate, and there's almost anything you can do.

Another one is simply to add whatever essence your game provides as a bonus to his "bad stuff happens" roll, thus making it more likely he gets "mere miss" and less likely he gets whatever the worst result is.  In a percentile table in 3ed this might be his base attack bonus, in a d20 based table in AD&D 1e this might be one quarter his levels achieved in fighter or any of its subclasses or one sixth his levels achieved in monk, thief, or assassin, whichever is higher.  It's easy to counteract the "more attacks equals shittier fighter" effect as long as you know it's a problem with a proc-based system.

QuoteAnd once again repeating myself, fumble/critical systems cannot be judged in isolation, but only in how they fit into the larger system as a whole, which is why the best ones are built into the system from the ground up.

I think critical fumbles subtract realism and add chaos, and they are worth it if you want that chaos (and are willing to pay the cost in realism).  I dislike how many of them create more effects at high levels, or mostly exist to create funny moments at the expense of PCs.  A good table can fix both of those complaints however.