There's a lot of variety in how games handle critical hits and fumbles from simple damage multipliers/bonuses/penalties to DCC style tables with effects that range from yawn inducing to insane.
Fumbles in particular are, I dunno, kinda lame? Hyperborea has a lot of fumbles that are like "you embarrass yourself with a bad miss." Okay, does anyone actually role play that? Most I've seen from this one is a smirk or chuckle.
Then you have DCC crits, with stuff like a Giant literally hammering you into the ground like Wile E Coyote.
A lot of players seem to hate the concept fumbles because they're jarring and penalize martial classes. Perhaps there's something about a natural 1 meaning you did something you didn't intend to do that is insulting to players.
I have a half-baked idea for fumbles. It gives the player some choice, but it's a bit "meta." If you roll a natural 1, you've overextended yourself or left yourself open, and so if the next attack against you hits, it results in a permanent injury. This would be a way of introducing permanent injuries in games that use simple bonuses for critical hits. It's meta because it warns the player that something bad is going to happen. But it also gives the player a chance to withdraw for a round to avoid the effect.
What do you think of this idea or what do you think about crits and fumbles in general? What system has worked well for you?
I stopped using crits & fumbles years ago. Crits are much harder on PCs than on monsters within the context of the game. Fumbles if any should be rarer than one in twenty attacks. They should also not be rolled for but adjudicated by the GM based on total circumstances (this includes the fighting proficiency of the recipient PC) and to add color to the game.
From the 10,000 feet perspective, I think that critical hits and fumbles need to be built into the system to work properly. I don't mind the occasional "double damage on a natural 20" kind of thing in B/X for example, but when it gets much more extensive than that, I want it integrated.
ArmsLaw/ClawLaw, the early Role Master supplements meant to be bolted on to D&D or other systems is the big elephant in the room against my view, in some ways. It it bolted on, not built in. OTOH, it's coherent within itself, not merely bolted on, and meant to somewhat replace some of the existing mechanics.
My main reason is that the system has an implied sensibility (or at least a range around a sensibility) and expected math in the mechanics. The critical system has to take that into account. It doesn't need to necessarily do exactly the same as before (otherwise, what would be the point?) but it does need to consider various side effects.
At a more granular level, I think it tends to work a little better in practice if critical hits and fumbles are asymmetrical. I've designed my own system with that in mind, where critical hits are an integrated part of the system math and options. For example, "great weapons" used with the appropriate training are more likely to do critical hits, and this is an expected part of the balance of the system. Fumbles, however, come in two flavors: Edge cases and Extensions of the Critical Hits.
Edge cases include things like shooting into melee, where normally it's only a minus to hit, but a fumble means you've shot a friend in the back. Extensions of the critical hits are things such as failing to react/resist to a fall or an area effect spell, where it means for you the fall or spell has now done a critical hit.
IMO fumbles are usually lame, unless you're playing it for laughs (e.g., DCC or runequest with its invisible turtles)
If a PC fumbles, he looks stupid.
If the PC wins because the villain fumbled a roll, it detracts from the victory.
And, as you mentioned, it is specially insulting to fighters - who usually roll more often (and are outshined by wizards anyway in many systems, although DCC has fumbles for wizards, which is fine IMO).
High level fighters with multiple attacks look particularly stupid, fumbling every few rounds.
I'd occasionally say "nat 1 means something horrible happens" if a PC is trying to do something incredibly risky (e.g., shooting into melee), but not under ordinary circumstances.
CRITS, OTOH, are cool and do not need to be too punishing. For example, maximum damage in B/X, or an extra attack on a nat 20.
They make fighters cooler and monsters scarier.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/11/crits-are-fun-fumbles-are-funny.html
Here's what we do for the two games we normally play:
Swords & Wizardry
Criticals are inflicted on a natural 20, then roll another d20:
o 1-15: x2 damage
o 16-17: x3 damage
o 18-19: x4 damage
o 20: x5 damage
Then roll hit location die and describe your critical!*
A natural 1 is a fumble; see below
Fumble Table
o 1: Damage self for 1-8 hp
o 2-3: Damage self for 1-4 hp
o 4-6: Break weapon; magic weapons get save
o 7-10: Hit nearest ally for normal damage
o 11-15: Drop weapon; lose next round's action
o 16-20: No fumble; weapon slips but grip is regained
If a PC or foe rolls a natural 1 on a save vs. a damage causing spell, they take a critical as outlined above
*I have a d20 hit location die I got in the Modiphius Conan RPG
Castles & Crusades
On a natural 20 a critical hit is scored; see table below. This also applies to spells that require an attack roll to hit. See below.
Roll on the hit location die & describe your critical
Fighters and barbarians have higher threat/crit ranges as noted below
Crit Ranges for Fighters & Barbarians
Levels 1-5: 19-20
Levels 6-10: 18-20
Levels 11+: 17-20
Critical Table
1-15: Double Damage
16-7: Triple Damage
18-19: Quadruple Damage
20: Quintuple Damage
Fumbles occur on a natural 1. Use MERP fumble tables
Spells fail due to SR or foe rolling natural 20 on save; roll on MERP spell failure table
If you roll a 1 on a save vs. a damage causing spell you take a critical as above or on appropriate MERP table
I have all the MERP Crit & Failure tables laminated as extra sheets to use with my DM's screen.
These can get pretty lethal, but no group I've used them with has ever complained and we've had some really epic moments both for and against the players.
Hackmaster 4E is famous/infamous for it's critical hit and fumble tables. It's complicated enough that I used an Excel spreadsheet that someone made a long time ago to generate the results
Now? Since I don't run HM 4E anymore, I keep it simple: nat 20, roll damage twice. I don't do fumbles.
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 21, 2023, 11:46:28 AM
What do you think of this idea or what do you think about crits and fumbles in general? What system has worked well for you?
If I had my way, I'd use Arms Law for every game, even if it's ridiculously unforgiving...the results are just too entertaining and funny.
That said, for current D&D game which is really Palladium FRP with some houserules and custom character classes, the combat types already have crits built into them so it's pretty easy to run. Otherwise double-damage on a 20 works. Fumbles on a 1 if the players want to use them, but we have some shared charts we all add to with stupid nonsense. Last game someone else was running and I lost two characters to fumbles, so I decided not to use them for current game.
The best crit rule I've seen is in Traveller; if you succeed in an attack then anything you rolled in excess of the target number gets added to you damage roll.
The only time I use fumble rolls in any game is when the PC attempting the action is trying something outside their skill set that could have serious consequences if they failed. Then it becomes obvious as to what the outcome is going to be if you don't get it right.
We'll use or not use them depending on the type of game being run. Fumbles require a lot of on-the-spot thinking, I feel, which means I struggle with them. Also they seldom apply to most casting systems, which almost seems to penalize martials. Like, why is the martial just as likely to drop his sword as a novice wizard is to drop their weapon in pitched melee? Aren't they supposed to be good at that? ???
I feel they work well when you want the dice rather than player or character skill to determine outcomes, or when you want the impossible or improbable to feel theoretically in reach, but otherwise, *shrugs*.
EGG pointed out that criticals and fumbles will end up affecting player characters far more in the long run and why he didn't include them in D&D.
Personally, I've had more than one character die by a fumble playing Rolemaster. And Rolemaster is not a quick game to make new characters for. Which is why we stopped playing Rolemaster
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 21, 2023, 01:39:37 PM
IMO fumbles are usually lame, unless you're playing it for laughs (e.g., DCC or runequest with its invisible turtles)
Pssst, it's Rolemaster with the invisible turtles.
Quote from: JeremyR on September 21, 2023, 06:56:04 PM
EGG pointed out that criticals and fumbles will end up affecting player characters far more in the long run and why he didn't include them in D&D.
Which one of the many reasons I still prefer classic D&D. Low level PCs in classic are already fragile as it is. No need to add splatting them with crits.
I am definitely in the camp that thinks fumbles, as they're usually played, are immersion-breaking in their silliness. I competed in Olympic fencing for over a decade, and have done plenty of HEMA and other kinds of mock battle. I don't think I've ever seen someone accidentally throw their weapon, and I can count maybe a handful of times I've seen someone unintentionally drop a weapon without being actively disarmed. Accidentally hitting an ally with a melee weapon is marginally more common, but not by much. The only way I've seen it happen is if in a chaotic melee someone actually mistakes friend for foe.
I've also can't recall having ever heard or read a historical account of any of these things happening. Though I'll concede I might have.
On the other hand, the idea of a roughly 5% chance of something going catastrophically wrong in in the chaos of battle does make sense to me, so I tend to regard fumbles as something to be fixed rather than discarded.
Apologies if I've posted this before and forgotten about it, but a while back I set out to write my own fumble tables, based on things I felt were more plausible for real combat. I think it started off as me wanting to fix gun fumbles, since I don't believe anyone would use a weapon with a 5% chance of exploding in their face every time they pull the trigger. But it quickly expanded for bows and melee weapons. I've never been totally satisfied with it, especially with the bow fumbles, but I'll post it here in case people find it interesting.
Musket Misfire Table:
1: Blowback! Make a Reflex save or take weapon damage. Weapon is useless until repaired by a gunsmith.
2-4: Bent Barrel! -1 to attack rolls with this weapon, until it is repaired by a gunsmith.
5-7: Barrel Fouled! Take 1d4 turns to clean it before firing again.
8-9: Forgot to Remove the Scouring Stick! 1:4 chance of recovering it, or else can't reload until it is replaced.
10-12: Broken Flint! Weapon will not fire until the flint is replaced (1d4+1 rounds to replace)
13-15: Clumsy Firing Position! Take 1 point of damage from mishandling the recoil.
16-17: Sparks in your Eyes! Take -2 on all attack rolls for 1d6 rounds.
18-19: Bad Powder! Reload and fire again.
20: No Spark! Weapon can be fired again without reloading.
Crossbow Misfire Table:
1: Broken Bow! Weapon is useless until repaired by a skilled smith.
2-6: Cracked stock! Weapon takes a -2 two accuracy until repaired.
7-11: Snapped your String! Cannot shoot until the bow is restrung (1d4 minutes to replace)
12-15: Broken nut! Weapon will not shoot until the nut is replaced (1d4+1 rounds to replace)
16-19: Loaded the Bolt Wrong! 1:2 chance to drop the bolt. If not, shoot again without reloading.
20: Wobbly Shot! A crooked bolt flies wildly, dealing one point of damage to a random target downrange.
Bow Misfire Table:
1: Broken Bow! Weapon is permanently destroyed
2-5: It's the Damp! Wet wood makes weak shots. Weapon takes -1 damage permanently
6-11: Snapped your String! Cannot shoot until the bow is restrung (1d4+1 rounds to replace)
12-15: Slap on the Wrist! Hurt yourself with your own bowstring. Take 1 point of damage; Make a Fortitude save or drop your bow.
16-19: A Garish Pincushion! Hit your target, but deal no damage, as the arrow fails to penetrate.
20: What were you thinking! Lost your concentration. Roll another attack against a random target downrange.
Melee Mishap Table:
1: Broken Blade! Weapon is destroyed, and may or may not be able to be repaired.
2-5: Disarmed! Drop the weapon used in the attack.
6-9: Fools Rush In! Unintentionally find yourself grappling with your opponent.
10-14: Overextended Attack! Enemy makes an immediate counterattack at +4 to hit.
15-16: Treacherous Footing! Slip, trip or stumble, and fall prone.
17-19: Clumsy Swing! You look like an idiot, but take no penalty.
20: Take What You Can Get! You missed with the blade, but managed to punch the target with the hilt or handle. Deal 1 point of damage.
Prowlers doesn't have criticals or fumbles at all. The more successes you get, the better you do; the fewer, the worse. And its resolution system encourages players to use their imagination and get immersed in the world, without ever being heavy handed or feeling contrived. I would never trade it for the restrictive clunkiness of a random table.
Quote from: JeremyR on September 21, 2023, 06:56:04 PM
EGG pointed out that criticals and fumbles will end up affecting player characters far more in the long run and why he didn't include them in D&D.
That exact reasoning is why I don't do fumbles at all, barring the 'I try to do something outlandish' choices coming into play.
I use a system slightly modified from Combat and Tactics for damage, but nothing crazy and it's all easy to do during play.
Nat 1 Miss
Nat 20 Hit
Roll Nat 18+ and hit by 5 or more - double damage dice
10 or more - treble
15 or more - quadruple
and so on
It gives a reasonable but not outlandish damage bonus to fighters with a bigger damage bonus the more they outclass the target, and can still be achieved by Clerics/Thieves often, with Mage types still being able to pull it off but not as frequently. Plus no tables to roll on makes it super fast at the table. And yes, it also means that the Clerics, Thieves, and especially Mages might get critted themselves more often than the fighters. I leave it to the players to figure out the tactics to prevent this.
In The Dark Eye, you always roll three d20s, not just one. As a result, the chance of rolling a fumble is only one in 8,000 rather than 1-in-20.
Quote from: ForgottenF on September 21, 2023, 08:48:07 PM
I am definitely in the camp that thinks fumbles, as they're usually played, are immersion-breaking in their silliness. I competed in Olympic fencing for over a decade, and have done plenty of HEMA and other kinds of mock battle. I don't think I've ever seen someone accidentally throw their weapon, and I can count maybe a handful of times I've seen someone unintentionally drop a weapon without being actively disarmed. Accidentally hitting an ally with a melee weapon is marginally more common, but not by much. The only way I've seen it happen is if in a chaotic melee someone actually mistakes friend for foe.
I've also can't recall having ever heard or read a historical account of any of these things happening. Though I'll concede I might have.
On the other hand, the idea of a roughly 5% chance of something going catastrophically wrong in in the chaos of battle does make sense to me, so I tend to regard fumbles as something to be fixed rather than discarded.
I agree with your logic here - but your tables still have a 1% chance of dropping a melee weapon. I'd think you've seen far more than 100 attacks given your experience, and you say you've never seen it. (Given that there are many attacks on either side in a match, and you've seen/participated in a lot of matches.)
I think both "critical" and "fumble" mechanics tend to greatly expand luck, beyond reality or especially fantasy fiction. I've considered some mechanics that throw in complications, but more as random circumstances than fumbles. (I like the card mechanics from Torg, for example, though I haven't used them much.)
I do like degree of success mechanics like James Bond 007 "Quality Rank" or Savage Worlds "raises" -- especially where it has them be affected greatly by skill. A skilled master should regularly get a success better than a beginner.
Crits are much more necessary to emulate Appendix N fiction than fumbles, BTW.
Think of Conan killing foes with one blow, or the death of Smaug, etc.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 22, 2023, 02:07:45 PM
Crits are much more necessary to emulate Appendix N fiction than fumbles, BTW.
Think of Conan killing foes with one blow, or the death of Smaug, etc.
For those kind of finishing blows I think the crit range needs to be 3-20, because those are one in a million shots, which as everyone knows, succeed 9 out of 10 times. :P
Now if the odds were 1,000,001 to 1-never gonna happen.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 22, 2023, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 22, 2023, 02:07:45 PM
Crits are much more necessary to emulate Appendix N fiction than fumbles, BTW.
Think of Conan killing foes with one blow, or the death of Smaug, etc.
For those kind of finishing blows I think the crit range needs to be 3-20, because those are one in a million shots, which as everyone knows, succeed 9 out of 10 times. :P
Now if the odds were 1,000,001 to 1-never gonna happen.
Conan killing foes in one blow sounds more like just damage mechanics that take into account PC skill and ability.
Killing Smaug is better emulated by stuff like Savage Worlds bennies or Unisystem Drama Points, rather than having a rare roll at just the right moment.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 22, 2023, 02:49:28 PM
For those kind of finishing blows I think the crit range needs to be 3-20, because those are one in a million shots, which as everyone knows, succeed 9 out of 10 times. :P
Now if the odds were 1,000,001 to 1-never gonna happen.
Unless one is eating weird smelling mystery sausage on a bun
Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 04:11:37 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 22, 2023, 02:49:28 PM
For those kind of finishing blows I think the crit range needs to be 3-20, because those are one in a million shots, which as everyone knows, succeed 9 out of 10 times. :P
Now if the odds were 1,000,001 to 1-never gonna happen.
Unless one is eating weird smelling mystery sausage on a bun
Well there are exceptions of course.
Critical hits are generally good because they increase the tactile feedback the system gives, but they can be implemented poorly. The systems where they cause problems typically sell themselves as having tight balance and do not give players good ways to absorb damage. IMO, RPGs are something that fundamentally can't be balanced that tightly and the problem of crits killing PCs is not actually a problem with the crit; it's a problem with overdoing making crits powerful, which is probably because the crit is too rare. In other words, the core damage and health mechanics are making crits too rare, too powerful, and not giving the players leeway to deal with a crit or crit-string as a result.
There are two key problems with fumbles. They slow the game down as you consult a table, and they get caught in a catch-22 where rare enough to feel realistic feels pointless, and common enough to feel impactful breaks immersion. Fumbles should get cut from most games because they do not work.
Forge-related trigger warning: the better way to do fumbles is for an antagonist crit to have an option to force a fumble onto a PC. This means that the GM can manually tune the mechanic to go for damage and danger or for flavor and to go easy on the player characters.
Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2023, 01:02:42 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on September 21, 2023, 08:48:07 PM
I am definitely in the camp that thinks fumbles, as they're usually played, are immersion-breaking in their silliness. I competed in Olympic fencing for over a decade, and have done plenty of HEMA and other kinds of mock battle. I don't think I've ever seen someone accidentally throw their weapon, and I can count maybe a handful of times I've seen someone unintentionally drop a weapon without being actively disarmed. Accidentally hitting an ally with a melee weapon is marginally more common, but not by much. The only way I've seen it happen is if in a chaotic melee someone actually mistakes friend for foe.
I've also can't recall having ever heard or read a historical account of any of these things happening. Though I'll concede I might have.
On the other hand, the idea of a roughly 5% chance of something going catastrophically wrong in in the chaos of battle does make sense to me, so I tend to regard fumbles as something to be fixed rather than discarded.
I agree with your logic here - but your tables still have a 1% chance of dropping a melee weapon. I'd think you've seen far more than 100 attacks given your experience, and you say you've never seen it. (Given that there are many attacks on either side in a match, and you've seen/participated in a lot of matches.)
The underlying logic would be that a clumsy attack leaves you open to being disarmed, but you're still right. It might be better to have that roll give the opponent an option to make a disarm check. If I was going to put this table into practice, I'd want to adjust the probabilities, or I might institute some kind of confirmation roll for fumbles (like what some games have for criticals). I don't mind a 5% chance for an attack that will always hit. That basically represents a "puncher's chance". But yeah even a 1% chance to get disarmed is probably too high.
EDIT: I should probably add that I don't actually use that table in play. I usually just go with a standing rule that rolling a 1 (or a 20 if the goal is to roll low) automatically gives the target a free counterattack. It's simple, avoids silliness, and speeds combat along without unduly punishing the players. In my Dragon Warriors campaign I allowed the players to let their weapon or shield make a saving throw in lieu of taking the counterattack. I also made it so that critical hits didn't do extra damage; instead they damaged the opponent's armor, reducing its protection by one point until repaired.
Quote from: JeremyR on September 21, 2023, 06:56:04 PM
EGG pointed out that criticals and fumbles will end up affecting player characters far more in the long run and why he didn't include them in D&D.
Whether PCs can get critical hits and whether NPCs can do it to PCs are two entirely separate things. There's no reason that monsters should have the ability to do critical damage to PCs even if PCs can do critical damage to monsters. Which is why EGG's conclusion is nonsense.
Personally, I give each monsters a "Special Attack" which activates when that monster rolls a critical. So Zombies have a grab, Goblins have a Infiltrate (i.e. moving through the PC to attack from behind next round), etc. PCs can either do double damage (i.e. rolling twice as many damage dice) or they can activate any skill they have learned such as disarm, push, grapple throw, etc.
Criticals and Fumbles area a chance to add spice to combat, so its not just two guys beating on each other.
I have Criticals give the player a free stunt in addition to their damage. Player Fumbles give enemy a free stunt.
The funny thing about MERP was that they had all these elaborate and lethal crit tables, but then the powerful NPCs like Gandalf, Galadriel, etc. all literally had "plot armor" in the form of unique magic items that negated various crits. So even if, say, you wanted to have one of those characters fight a big bad like Shelob, or a Ringwraith or whatever, they probably could not be killed anyhow. Meanwhile, half our party was walking around maimed. And those were the ones who weren't just killed outright. But we had tons of fun playing.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 22, 2023, 08:25:19 PM
Whether PCs can get critical hits and whether NPCs can do it to PCs are two entirely separate things. There's no reason that monsters should have the ability to do critical damage to PCs even if PCs can do critical damage to monsters. Which is why EGG's conclusion is nonsense.
EGG believed that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and would think that allowing crits for players and not monsters was nonsense.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 22, 2023, 08:25:19 PM
Personally, I give each monsters a "Special Attack" which activates when that monster rolls a critical. So Zombies have a grab, Goblins have a Infiltrate (i.e. moving through the PC to attack from behind next round), etc. PCs can either do double damage (i.e. rolling twice as many damage dice) or they can activate any skill they have learned such as disarm, push, grapple throw, etc.
Speaking of nonsense why would a learned skill or ability only be useable when a crit is rolled? The idea of something cool and off the wall happening to make crits more interesting than just extra damage is a great idea but only getting to use learned abilities on a crit seems strange. Unless you mean these actions take place as a free bonus on a crit and would otherwise need to be declared as a main action.
I like crits and fumbles. They add a little more excitement and tension to the game, which is always a good thing. In my AD&D days, a natural 20 was double damage, and a natural 1 meant roll a d10 for a result on a table. I don't recall the details, but it was something like
1 hit self
2 hit friend
3 drop weapon
4 throw weapon
5-7 various other stuff
8-10 no effect
I didn't include break weapon on the chart because that's too harsh when magic weapons are involved.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 23, 2023, 12:45:54 PM
I like crits and fumbles. They add a little more excitement and tension to the game, which is always a good thing. In my AD&D days, a natural 20 was double damage, and a natural 1 meant roll a d10 for a result on a table. I don't recall the details, but it was something like
1 hit self
2 hit friend
3 drop weapon
4 throw weapon
5-7 various other stuff
8-10 no effect
The point is charts like this are beyond stupid. I never hit myself when fencing with a saber. Never dropped or threw the weapon either. If a friend weren't right in front of me standing next to my opponent I would have never hit him/her either. And I was only what the game rules would call a 0 level fighter.
Even if you did hit yourself with your own sword, it's not going to do any appreciable damage.....unless that sword is a lightsaber.
Quote from: ForgottenF on September 23, 2023, 02:00:32 PM
Even if you did hit yourself with your own sword, it's not going to do any appreciable damage.....unless that sword is a lightsaber.
Oh yes it could. I can tell you've never used a real sword. Real ones are razor sharp
Quote from: Scooter on September 23, 2023, 12:49:14 PM
The point is charts like this are beyond stupid. I never hit myself when fencing with a saber. Never dropped or threw the weapon either. If a friend weren't right in front of me standing next to my opponent I would have never hit him/her either. And I was only what the game rules would call a 0 level fighter.
Just to be devils advocate. Have you ever fought side by side in a confined space, on questionable ground, while wearing heavy gear, and lit only by torchlight?
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 23, 2023, 01:12:40 AMSpeaking of nonsense why would a learned skill or ability only be useable when a crit is rolled? The idea of something cool and off the wall happening to make crits more interesting than just extra damage is a great idea but only getting to use learned abilities on a crit seems strange. Unless you mean these actions take place as a free bonus on a crit and would otherwise need to be declared as a main action.
The critical hit is a resource that can be spend to perform certain tasks. It replaces the "called shot" type of rules. The primary reason I do it this way is that it speeds up combat resolution as the player don't have to pre-declare special actions but, instead, can choose from a list of special results that are most appropriate for the situation.
Quote from: Scooter on September 23, 2023, 12:49:14 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on September 23, 2023, 12:45:54 PM
I like crits and fumbles. They add a little more excitement and tension to the game, which is always a good thing. In my AD&D days, a natural 20 was double damage, and a natural 1 meant roll a d10 for a result on a table. I don't recall the details, but it was something like
1 hit self
2 hit friend
3 drop weapon
4 throw weapon
5-7 various other stuff
8-10 no effect
The point is charts like this are beyond stupid. I never hit myself when fencing with a saber. Never dropped or threw the weapon either. If a friend weren't right in front of me standing next to my opponent I would have never hit him/her either. And I was only what the game rules would call a 0 level fighter.
Fencing is nothing like an actual brawl, and hit points are abstract enough that damaging yourself can have a lot of interpretations besides striking off your own leg with a sword/
Honestly, I wouldn't care even if you were right. It was fun and that's the point
Quote from: Ruprecht on September 23, 2023, 02:17:14 PM
Quote from: Scooter on September 23, 2023, 12:49:14 PM
The point is charts like this are beyond stupid. I never hit myself when fencing with a saber. Never dropped or threw the weapon either. If a friend weren't right in front of me standing next to my opponent I would have never hit him/her either. And I was only what the game rules would call a 0 level fighter.
Just to be devils advocate. Have you ever fought side by side in a confined space, on questionable ground, while wearing heavy gear, and lit only by torchlight?
You can't bring the attack of most melee weapons close enough to the body for accidental self-harm to be plausible; the techniques just don't work that way. The cutting part of a sword is about two feet away from your fingertips and it needs to be moving quite fast to do anything besides nick the skin. If you are swinging, you need to extend your arm to get enough leverage to cut effectively. If you pull the sword close enough to plausibly injure yourself, the cutting blade will no longer be moving fast enough to cut. This means that if you are in a confined space you will either use vertical cuts (which are easily defended) or thrusts (which are always pointing away from you thanks to the biomechanics.)
The one possible exception is if you have an extreme novice (like, never held a sword before) using a shorter weapon and putting in a whole lot of overswing. If you have that combination, you might hit yourself in the foot or lower leg. The only sensible injury a seasoned soldier will ever give themselves is nicking their hand or fingers from carelessly drawing or sheathing a blade.
Friendly fire is a different matter, of course.
Arguing the biomechanics of fumbles is missing the point. Unless you are in the "hp are only meat" camp, you could easily describe any "damage" done by a fumble that is not fatal as the loss of position/tactical awareness/etc. that makes the killing blow more possible. Crits and fumbles have nothing to do with simulation.
The real effect of a crit or fumble is to add an additional level of randomness to combat results. It's a flavor/thematic thing (and a psychological thing). It's also a function (at least as far as D&D is concerned) of the changes in D&D over the years. I don't find critical hits or fumbles particularly impactful in 1e (or equivalent) games, primarily because death is a real possibility in a handful of rounds for most combats. When you start with 2 hp, you don't need critical hits or fumbles to feel danger. As the later editions have increased hps (one of the biggest criticisms of 5e is that monsters are just bags of hps), combat can slog along (while they still only take 4-8 rounds, much more tends to happen during each round to slow down combats). So something to speed up combats is welcome.
Additionally, with the added bloat of hp in the modern versions, crits against present the illusion of danger without the actual lethality of the earlier editions. Even if dropped to 0 hp, characters are much harder to kill, and there are so many additional healing resources, so a bad crit against seldom is catastrophic. So crits give a feeling of danger without changing the "medieval superheroes" that modern D&D has become.
What critical hits add to a game is psychological reinforcement via memorable events. If you have low hps for PCs and monsters, then individual hit/misses create memorable moments because each has an oversized effect on the outcome. When hps balloon, you end up with "spreadsheet combat" (enough combat rounds happen to generally smooth out the randomness, so you can pretty much predict the outcome before the first sword is drawn. It's by-the-numbers combat). Critical hits then provide that lost randomness, a moment where you should lose, but a crit turns the tide. It provides that memorable moment missing due to hp bloat.
So crits and fumbles really serve a purpose in modern D&D as a form of recapturing some of the randomness and deadliness of the earlier editions (not explicitly, but that's the effect).
Quote from: Fheredin on September 23, 2023, 06:19:27 PM
You can't bring the attack of most melee weapons close enough to the body for accidental self-harm to be plausible; the techniques just don't work that way. The cutting part of a sword is about two feet away from your fingertips and it needs to be moving quite fast to do anything besides nick the skin. If you are swinging, you need to extend your arm to get enough leverage to cut effectively. If you pull the sword close enough to plausibly injure yourself, the cutting blade will no longer be moving fast enough to cut. This means that if you are in a confined space you will either use vertical cuts (which are easily defended) or thrusts (which are always pointing away from you thanks to the biomechanics.)
I'm not so sure, I can see someone cutting they hand while half-swording, missing bad and the follow through hits a foot or leg. Then you have possible injuries that aren't directly caused by your own weapon. Perhaps an enemy parry hits your arm instead of your weapon, or you strain a muscle or sprain an ankle slipping on blood and entrails. Maybe you lose track of your position and hand basically smashing the wall mid swing. A fight in a poorly lit dungeon would not be the same as fencing with specific rules.
I also don't like self-injury but don't think it would be impossible.
How do you guys who like fumbles deal with the fact martials make tons of attacks and could fumble a lot more the better they get?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on September 24, 2023, 02:38:44 AM
How do you guys who like fumbles deal with the fact martials make tons of attacks and could fumble a lot more the better they get?
As hinted in my first answer, I only have fumbles happen when the player is deliberately trying something risky, not for routine stuff. I also don't allow a 20 to have special meaning on every routine skill check (beyond the fact that it is already a high roll, and thus likely to succeed).
This gets back to GM as adjudicator of the game with the rules as tool, instead of the GM as trained monkey to referee the (strict) rules. Envision the situation, decide if it is possible to fail and succeed. If so, call for a roll. If it is possible for the success or failure to be wild, then allow for critical hit and/or fumble as well.
Example, character tries to climb a ladder in a hurry during a fight. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't even require a roll outside of combat. Player rolls a 1. They don't make it up the ladder, which is already serious enough without tacking on a fumble. They are notably inept at the attempt but suffer no additional consequences. Later, the character tries to scale a 30 foot cliff. Player rolls a 1. The fumble is a critical hit from the falling damage (which for me is more likely to lead to an injury more serious than "hit point" loss).
I think where people get into trouble is trying to make both cases parallel, which is not always what you want. I've got critical success and fumble built into my initiative system. A critical success (natural 20 or high enough roll even without a natural 20) is a bonus action in the round. Fairly significant. A critical failure (natural 1 or adjusted to less than 1 on another roll) is that the character moves absolutely last in the round, after all other characters and monsters. Only significant in some rounds, and occasionally even helpful (player getting to see what everyone else did before acting). And note this only works because it is part and parcel of how initiative works. You couldn't tack that kind of thing onto 3E or 5E initiative and get the same results, given that their initiative systems are cyclic.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on September 24, 2023, 02:38:44 AM
How do you guys who like fumbles deal with the fact martials make tons of attacks and could fumble a lot more the better they get?
If a fumble happens on a natural 20 how do you get more the better you get? Is that because you attack more?
Ideally a fumble table would go from more "hurt yourself" to "slip on bloody, miss" and then have martial classes add their level to the role and thus more experienced fighters get non-damaging results. Or martial classes roll at Advantage to push them away from the dangerous results.
Crits are fun.
Fumbles suck. It's penalizing an already bad roll. My ruling is usually a fumble means you fail no matter the target number, and that's it.
I don't mind crits/fumbles in systems which were designed with them from the ground up. I don't like them in D&D. I've tried many approaches to crits in D&D, over the years, because players always seem to want them (even though it's a net loss for the players if monsters/NPCs use the same rules), but I'm firm in my opinion, these days.
The last critical/fumble system that I used (again, before abandoning such things completely) was simply "On a natural 20 which hits the enemy you gain an additional attack roll in the current round. On a natural 1 one enemy -- randomly selected if necessary -- receives an additional attack roll against you in the current round. If such additional attacks are not applicable to the situation/circumstances then there is no special effect from the natural 20 or natural 1."
That approach wasn't too disruptive, but it just seemed unnecessary, and having these random additional attacks happen 10% of the time wasn't something that I found useful for the game. That goes for other critical systems, too: having "special" stuff happen 10% of the time injected too much additional random swingy-ness into combat, in my opinion.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on September 24, 2023, 02:38:44 AM
How do you guys who like fumbles deal with the fact martials make tons of attacks and could fumble a lot more the better they get?
Not a fan of crits or fumbles in abstract combat systems such as D&D. An attack roll is supposed to represent the potential damage done in the round, it is NOT one swing of a weapon. Therefore spectacular hits and misses are too granular for the system. I have also come to dislike iterative attacks for PCs. I prefer to leave attack routines for monsters and instead use class and level based damage for PCs. This cuts down on die rolls and makes rounds go faster. Also, combat dominance (the mook effect) is built in. Instead of a 6th level fighter having to roll 6 attacks against 6 kobolds, the player instead rolls a single attack roll and 3d6 damage. If the attack hits one mook then apply damage to each mook until it is used up. One and done. The only time I would consider using a crit or fumble is to the apply the Fighter Hiyabusa rule. If you attempt a very risky maneuver and get a great roll or a really crappy one then the move could be devastating or catastrophic.
The thing we do, cribbed from DCC, is have martial types get higher crit ranges as they advance in levels. So they're doing criticals more often as they gain experience. But the monsters don't get that benefit. And our fumble table is not especially punishing, plus it includes a 25% chance of no fumble at all; just a loose grip and recovery.
Also, if you're worried about fighter types being too penalized at higher levels, you can have some kind of spell failure system for casters. We have this and it works okay but you can of course allow for the caster to make a save or attribute check to avoid it. This works well in Castles & Crusades where the built-in Siege Engine lets you do pretty such anything seamlessly. So if the foes rolls a nat 20 on the save or spell resistance negates a spell, the caster makes a siege check and if they fail that, the spell failure roll applies.
Quote from: ForgottenF on September 23, 2023, 02:00:32 PM
Even if you did hit yourself with your own sword, it's not going to do any appreciable damage.....unless that sword is a lightsaber.
The associated critical table in Spacemaster Privateers is down right nasty.
Quote from: Ruprecht on September 24, 2023, 08:57:22 AM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on September 24, 2023, 02:38:44 AM
How do you guys who like fumbles deal with the fact martials make tons of attacks and could fumble a lot more the better they get?
If a fumble happens on a natural 20 how do you get more the better you get? Is that because you attack more?
Ideally a fumble table would go from more "hurt yourself" to "slip on bloody, miss" and then have martial classes add their level to the role and thus more experienced fighters get non-damaging results. Or martial classes roll at Advantage to push them away from the dangerous results.
Yes, a level 1 fighter making 1 attack a turn will fumble 4 times less often than a fighter with 4 attacks a turn.
I don't play any games that allow 4 attacks a turn so forgive my ignorance.
Seems the same logic would apply to two attacks around though so the point is taken.
Quote from: Ruprecht on September 23, 2023, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 23, 2023, 06:19:27 PM
You can't bring the attack of most melee weapons close enough to the body for accidental self-harm to be plausible; the techniques just don't work that way. The cutting part of a sword is about two feet away from your fingertips and it needs to be moving quite fast to do anything besides nick the skin. If you are swinging, you need to extend your arm to get enough leverage to cut effectively. If you pull the sword close enough to plausibly injure yourself, the cutting blade will no longer be moving fast enough to cut. This means that if you are in a confined space you will either use vertical cuts (which are easily defended) or thrusts (which are always pointing away from you thanks to the biomechanics.)
I'm not so sure, I can see someone cutting they hand while half-swording, missing bad and the follow through hits a foot or leg. Then you have possible injuries that aren't directly caused by your own weapon. Perhaps an enemy parry hits your arm instead of your weapon, or you strain a muscle or sprain an ankle slipping on blood and entrails. Maybe you lose track of your position and hand basically smashing the wall mid swing. A fight in a poorly lit dungeon would not be the same as fencing with specific rules.
I also don't like self-injury but don't think it would be impossible.
If you have the skill to half-sword, it won't damage; the trick is to grip tightly so the blade doesn't slip.
There's always a chance of self-injury in the sense of a pulled hamstring any athletic proposition, adventuring included, but to harken back to my original comment, the problem is that a microscopic chance of that is universal to practically every adventuring activity, so you either have to increase the odds enough to break your immersion or waste time and effort with a mechanic which is almost never relevant. Hence my conclusion; unless you are going for slapstick, it never makes sense to implement fumbles.
Half of my problem is this thread is filled with copium. Hit points are a bookkeeping device which savvier GMs interpret as a mix of endurance and meat points, perhaps. But the idea that an "attack" in any of these games is an exchange of several blows and parries goes out the window as soon fighters get multi-attacks.
So what, they're attacking several times...several times?
These mechanics exist because the D20 and hit die mechanics that D&D in particular is built on do not scale well and they do weird things when you push them, not because they represent anything in particular.
Well, you could always remove multiple attacks existing and compress them all into one big attack.
My preferred baked in crit/fumble system comes from Twilight:2013. Every roll has them baked in because you add your margin of success (how much you exceed a successful roll) or margin of failure to the outcome. Additional successes (issa dice pool system) add 2 per additional success to the margin. A margin of more than 5 is an obvious success and a margin of failure of more than 5 is catastrophic.
So - for example when you roll to hit ( let's say your skill level gives you 3 d20s) and you need to roll under 12 to hit against a certain opponent, and you roll 14, 8, 6, 18. You have two successes. The lowest (6) gives you a margin of 6 and the 2nd adds 2 more. Let's say your weapon does damage of 4 - so your damage is 4 plus the 8 from your margin of success. There is no 2x damage from crits likes in D&D, but the fact that your margin was more than 5 effectively results in 2x damage and additional successes bumps it up further.
Likewise, let's say you're trying to bribe a guildmaster and you need a 7 or lower but your roll is a 15. You effectively fumble so not only is your bribe not accepted, but they report you to the city watch.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 24, 2023, 09:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on September 23, 2023, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 23, 2023, 06:19:27 PM
You can't bring the attack of most melee weapons close enough to the body for accidental self-harm to be plausible; the techniques just don't work that way. The cutting part of a sword is about two feet away from your fingertips and it needs to be moving quite fast to do anything besides nick the skin. If you are swinging, you need to extend your arm to get enough leverage to cut effectively. If you pull the sword close enough to plausibly injure yourself, the cutting blade will no longer be moving fast enough to cut. This means that if you are in a confined space you will either use vertical cuts (which are easily defended) or thrusts (which are always pointing away from you thanks to the biomechanics.)
I'm not so sure, I can see someone cutting they hand while half-swording, missing bad and the follow through hits a foot or leg. Then you have possible injuries that aren't directly caused by your own weapon. Perhaps an enemy parry hits your arm instead of your weapon, or you strain a muscle or sprain an ankle slipping on blood and entrails. Maybe you lose track of your position and hand basically smashing the wall mid swing. A fight in a poorly lit dungeon would not be the same as fencing with specific rules.
I also don't like self-injury but don't think it would be impossible.
If you have the skill to half-sword, it won't damage; the trick is to grip tightly so the blade doesn't slip.
In a controlled sparring situation, where neither person is trying to kill the other, sure.
But what about a situation where the other guy is actively trying to kill you? Where you might trip on a rut and fall on your sword? Where you're pumped full of adrenaline and afraid for your life?
I'm not into fencing or martial recreations, but I can easily believe that an earnest fight to the death is a very different environment than a friendly spar. One with far more opportunities for "fumbles" that can harm the attacker.
Quote from: Persimmon on September 24, 2023, 10:13:56 AM
Also, if you're worried about fighter types being too penalized at higher levels, you can have some kind of spell failure system for casters. We have this and it works okay but you can of course allow for the caster to make a save or attribute check to avoid it. This works well in Castles & Crusades where the built-in Siege Engine lets you do pretty such anything seamlessly. So if the foes rolls a nat 20 on the save or spell resistance negates a spell, the caster makes a siege check and if they fail that, the spell failure roll applies.
Alternatively, I could not punish anyone for playing the game and using their character's abilities.
Quote from: Ruprecht on September 22, 2023, 09:21:44 PM
Criticals and Fumbles area a chance to add spice to combat, so its not just two guys beating on each other.
I have Criticals give the player a free stunt in addition to their damage. Player Fumbles give enemy a free stunt.
No part of this is a problem that crits / fumbles are needed to solve, nor are they a particularly good solution in the first place.
I don't agree with Domina, but that actually sparked a thought. What problem do crits/fumbles fix? The problem is that, especially in 1E, combat is boring as a martial class. Hit, damage, hit, damage, all day long forever. Nothings else every happens. (yes, I know that's an exaggeration, but not a big one) Crits and fumbles at least give variety to the experience.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 26, 2023, 12:47:43 PM
I don't agree with Domina, but that actually sparked a thought. What problem do crits/fumbles fix? The problem is that, especially in 1E, combat is boring as a martial class. Hit, damage, hit, damage, all day long forever. Nothings else every happens. (yes, I know that's an exaggeration, but not a big one) Crits and fumbles at least give variety to the experience.
Yes. However, if done well (I know, a big "IF"), then they can serve another purpose: They can bridge the gap between escalating hit point protection and fear of death in the system. They aren't the only way to do that, but they do provide another lever.
In a system, I typically do not want either the "death at any moment from almost anything" vibe (no matter how realistic, nor the "jump off a 50 foot high bridge onto rocks because I've got the hit points to survive" vibe (no matter how much it hits the big damn heroes thing). I want something in between, with "good enough" simulation of the world, some emulation of the fantastical heroes--where death is rare but it can still happen unexpectedly. Which is why, like a lot of people, I enjoyed AD&D the most in that level 5-7 range, with some forays a bit lower or higher depending on which way I wanted to tip the scales. I also want relatively simply handling in the mechanics, so that casual players can enjoy the game, with some appreciation of the odds, and thus have a bit of that fear that they could die, and act accordingly.
If you are running fantasy Vietnam with low-level B/X or AD&D in a dungeon, then adding critical hits are piling on. The system doesn't need it. The players are already expecting to die. If you tack them on to a game with 3 get out of death free cards and hit points out the wazoo, then they are just fake death sugar--pretending the game is more deadly than it is, but none of the participants believe it. A happy balance somewhere in the middle is where critical hits can shine.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 26, 2023, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on September 26, 2023, 12:47:43 PM
I don't agree with Domina, but that actually sparked a thought. What problem do crits/fumbles fix? The problem is that, especially in 1E, combat is boring as a martial class. Hit, damage, hit, damage, all day long forever. Nothings else every happens. (yes, I know that's an exaggeration, but not a big one) Crits and fumbles at least give variety to the experience.
Yes. However, if done well (I know, a big "IF"), then they can serve another purpose: They can bridge the gap between escalating hit point protection and fear of death in the system. They aren't the only way to do that, but they do provide another lever.
In a system, I typically do not want either the "death at any moment from almost anything" vibe (no matter how realistic, nor the "jump off a 50 foot high bridge onto rocks because I've got the hit points to survive" vibe (no matter how much it hits the big damn heroes thing). I want something in between, with "good enough" simulation of the world, some emulation of the fantastical heroes--where death is rare but it can still happen unexpectedly. Which is why, like a lot of people, I enjoyed AD&D the most in that level 5-7 range, with some forays a bit lower or higher depending on which way I wanted to tip the scales. I also want relatively simply handling in the mechanics, so that casual players can enjoy the game, with some appreciation of the odds, and thus have a bit of that fear that they could die, and act accordingly.
If you are running fantasy Vietnam with low-level B/X or AD&D in a dungeon, then adding critical hits are piling on. The system doesn't need it. The players are already expecting to die. If you tack them on to a game with 3 get out of death free cards and hit points out the wazoo, then they are just fake death sugar--pretending the game is more deadly than it is, but none of the participants believe it. A happy balance somewhere in the middle is where critical hits can shine.
Yeah; this is pretty much my position. I like them to keep things interesting and dangerous. As an example, last year we were playing Castles & Crusades and all the PCs were 6th-7th level. They were pretty much cruising through the adventure until a 2nd level foe got lucky and inflicted a pretty vicious critical. It didn't kill the PC, but it was definitely a wake-up call. Additionally, crits can greatly speed up combat, especially against higher level foes, where, at least in old school D&D, it can just become a long drudgery of hit point attrition as your fighter is doing d8+4 or whatever against foes with over 100 HP.
Along these lines I also like save or die mechanics and Con checks after resurrection magic. It's nice to have real stakes. I also dislike meta-currencies like fate points, luck points, etc., as I think most games already have that stuff baked into the mechanics.
Finally, this discussion has persuaded me to go ahead and pull the trigger on Rolemaster Unified. While I don't think it will be our main game, I do love those crit, fumble and failure tables...
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 25, 2023, 11:20:52 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 24, 2023, 09:39:17 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on September 23, 2023, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 23, 2023, 06:19:27 PM
You can't bring the attack of most melee weapons close enough to the body for accidental self-harm to be plausible; the techniques just don't work that way. The cutting part of a sword is about two feet away from your fingertips and it needs to be moving quite fast to do anything besides nick the skin. If you are swinging, you need to extend your arm to get enough leverage to cut effectively. If you pull the sword close enough to plausibly injure yourself, the cutting blade will no longer be moving fast enough to cut. This means that if you are in a confined space you will either use vertical cuts (which are easily defended) or thrusts (which are always pointing away from you thanks to the biomechanics.)
I'm not so sure, I can see someone cutting they hand while half-swording, missing bad and the follow through hits a foot or leg. Then you have possible injuries that aren't directly caused by your own weapon. Perhaps an enemy parry hits your arm instead of your weapon, or you strain a muscle or sprain an ankle slipping on blood and entrails. Maybe you lose track of your position and hand basically smashing the wall mid swing. A fight in a poorly lit dungeon would not be the same as fencing with specific rules.
I also don't like self-injury but don't think it would be impossible.
If you have the skill to half-sword, it won't damage; the trick is to grip tightly so the blade doesn't slip.
In a controlled sparring situation, where neither person is trying to kill the other, sure.
But what about a situation where the other guy is actively trying to kill you? Where you might trip on a rut and fall on your sword? Where you're pumped full of adrenaline and afraid for your life?
I'm not into fencing or martial recreations, but I can easily believe that an earnest fight to the death is a very different environment than a friendly spar. One with far more opportunities for "fumbles" that can harm the attacker.
No, that makes no difference.
A bit of terminology. Half-swording is a technique where you grab your own sword blade and use it to gain precision when thrusting. There are also variants where you grab the blade with both hands and use the pommel and guard as a blunt impact instrument, so you can actually put a significant amount of force into a half-swording grip. Because you are the one holding your own sword, combat and non-combat makes no difference with this technique; you're either gripping the sword tightly enough or you aren't. It's possible the opponent will strike your sword and it will slide down into your hand, but that's not a fumble; that's the opponent landing a hit.
Commanding a sword is a technique where you grab the other guy's sword by the blade. I am absolutely sure that commanding the sword in live combat can result in significant injury, even if executed perfectly...but the entire point is to trade a cut to the hand (if you grabbed it after a solid parry, the cut is probably not that large) for a potentially fatal strike. Again, this isn't a fumble injury; it's a strategic trade.
The last thing to mention here is the chance of falling over. That's possible, especially on uneven terrain with branches and stuff on it, but fencing stances are more stable than walking positions because the feet have to be further apart. This is especially true for cutting swords; modern thrusting foils put you in aggressively oblique angles because that decreases your target area and increases your lunging potential. However, foil fencing is literally in a straight line; this isn't very realistic. Cutting swords need your feet to be at a shallower angle to develop power in a swing and to move in two dimensions.
In so many words, a saber fencing stance is more stable than a foil fencing stance, which is more stable than a walking stance.
I like crits both against players and when players do them. I've never been happy with critical fumbles. If you're playing a game where a critical hit means strict double damage, then a critical miss should logically erase your next hit. Since this means you'll spend the next round doing something else, you could instead assign something like, -5 to hit until the end of the next turn.
But this never seems to be what critical misses turn into. Frequently they turn into points to shit on the player characters, turning them into comedic points as they (5% of the time, mind you) stab themselves, cut their suspenders, become maimed permanently, etc. If the game needs that mechanic, it needs two other things-
1- A critical hit table. This is so that 80% of the time you roll a 1, you get an effect substantially less than "you miss your next attack", stacking all the crazy stuff into that 20%. You can modify this by several things, but if your goal is to make it so that every character on the field takes a small chance of wrecking themselves every time they attack, it needs to be much smaller than 5%.
2- Something that doesn't raw proc on attacks. A wizard running an attack cycle for 1000 rounds should have the same or more critical failures as a fighter running an attack cycle for 1000 rounds. If your fighter is dual wield short sword specialist with high base attack or however your game models that, his 8 attacks or whatever still need to generates the same or fewer bad results as the wizard over those 1000 attacks. Because he's better with a sword, and most critical hit tables just almost guarantee that he tears himself several new assholes per round as he becomes supernaturally adept at rapid attacks. So basically, the table needs to incorporate competency however that happens.
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.