How do you like to handle fumbles? Not at all? Disaster? Situational?
I used to use the rule that a fumbler missed their next turn, but eventually came around to not really liking that. Missing a turn on top of a failed attack roll felt like rubbing salt in the wound. I rather just consider a "1" an automatic failure and leave it at that.
For me, 1 is a failure, unless it's dramatic or cinematic, like falling off of a bridge.
Although in my homebrew, 1 for spell casting is extra bad.
Fumbles are great! I like them dramatic. I like quick and swingy combat, too, and interesting fumbles run with that. They are a great way to inject strange and unpredictable events into combat.
I try to have the fumble relevant. Axe-wielding attacker against a guy with a wooden shield? Maybe the axe gets stuck in the shield instead of sundering it. Oh, look, now we might get to do an opposed strength roll. I might ask the affected player for an idea.
Lots of games have very tight combat systems. An open fumble rule is the system admitting that it can't cover all the weird things that could happen.
Tables are fine too (hello DCC), but I find them a little hit and miss. Sometimes the result just isn't relevant.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 25, 2021, 06:01:36 PMI rather just consider a "1" an automatic failure and leave it at that.
This is what I do as well.
I keep the fumbles rather mild but let them happen on the natural 1 in a d20-based system. So mild that some of them are only color text. Fumble your initiative roll? You go absolutely last, after everyone else. Which really isn't all that different than going very late in the order. You not only missed, it was embarrassing how it happened. Frequently, your opponents laugh at you. It can have some teeth if the circumstances fit, but even then I keep it a rather mild gnawing instead of a T-Rex taking your head off.
I kind of think that the fumbles should be set at the level where the players can laugh and enjoy it when it happens. The mild ones work for my current players. I've played with groups that thought that rolling on a chart where most of the results finished off your character in spectacular ways was funny. With such a group, I'm fine with those more deadly outcomes. If it's just slowing down play and no one finds it amusing, by all means drop 'em.
I'm good with some crazy unexpected things happening in combat - but I prefer to handle those as random events rather than as skill rolls.
I really hate having fumbles - especially in non-combat, at least as they are often implemented. The idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.
My homebrew system doesn't have Fumbles for combat; if you roll a 1, it's no different from rolling any other number (save 20, which is a crit). The idea is that if you can roll high enough to hit someone on a 1, you've earned it.
I've got skills on a Roll Under d20 basis. 20 is an automatic failure, representing some error or some outside force messing up your skill check. Say there's a power surge when you're hacking into something or a spontaneous drive by shooting that makes you fumble when you're parkouring over a roof. Your skill modifiers can go up past 20, however, and I have a rule (inspired by the Roguelike ADOM) that if you have at least 16 Skill Ranks in a skill, you get to roll thrice to see if you succeed. So the minimum failure chance is 1 in 8000.
Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 07:07:16 PM
I'm good with some crazy unexpected things happening in combat - but I prefer to handle those as random events rather than as skill rolls.
I really hate having fumbles - especially in non-combat, at least as they are often implemented. The idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.
Indeed an expert will not totally botch it 5% of the time. I do fumbles on skill rolls, but I attribute them to narrative or just bad luck. Fumble a tracking test? Looks like the lord's men just happen to stomp around here as they were looking for you destroying even the most obvious tracks. Also, I don't call for rolls unless failure is serious or at least interesting, so fumbles are less than 5% of skill use.
I hate fumbles because they tend to punish only martial characters, and higher level ones more than low level.
1 as an autofail, yes.
I chance in 20 is too high for fumbles. One of the reasons I like Runequest is that higher skills give lower chances to fumble. And I like the Runequest combat table. That said, I completely agree with jhkim below.
Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 07:07:16 PMThe idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.
Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 07:07:16 PM
I'm good with some crazy unexpected things happening in combat - but I prefer to handle those as random events rather than as skill rolls.
I really hate having fumbles - especially in non-combat, at least as they are often implemented. The idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.
Agreed. The proper % to make PCs look like laughable clowns is 0%.
With d20 a 1 is a crit fail and I let the player describe it because their version tends to be more forgiving than what I had in mind allowing them to recover from it quickly.
The problem with additional bad consequences on 1 (except usual auto-miss) — is fighters' multiple attacks. It's kinda weird when skilled soldier have a greater chance of breaking his weapon, injuring himself (or whatever else a fumble table dictates) due to his 2-3 attacks/round, than an unskilled peasant with one attack/round.
So, while automatic miss on 1 might be OK, I wouldn't use anything else on top of it.
I do use the 1= automatic fail in my games, and reserve the right to narrate a fumble. Most times its a simple save or drop your weapon, or you lose your footing, lose your dex bonus on next initiative. Something minor, but with enough impact to make a player gasp when a NAT 1 comes up.
I use it for skill checks as well. Last time a NAT 1 happened was on a DEX check as a player was attempting to jump onto a moving hovercraft. He failed and face planted into the water. Funnily enough, the next player on her initiative asked if she could use the other player as a stepping stone to launch herself onto the hovercraft. I of course granted it, and she made the check with ease. It's created a story that is growing legs, and creating an interesting character dynamic.
Quote from: Vladar on October 26, 2021, 06:32:04 AM
It's kinda weird when skilled soldier have a greater chance of breaking his weapon, injuring himself (or whatever else a fumble table dictates) due to his 2-3 attacks/round, than an unskilled peasant with one attack/round.
Good point.
Love that responses in this thread are specifying "D20" ... obviously critical failures 1 out of 10 for example would be onerous.
I like systems where a "failure" is separated from "critical failure" by a specified margin of failure, rather than whenever a specific number shows up on the die. Ditto for "success" vs. "great success".
As for punishing only martials: that's true in D&D, or in systems where there is no attack roll for casters. However, it could be emulated in D&D easily: if the target rolls a 20 for their save, magical backlash occurs!
Quote from: Bren on October 26, 2021, 10:38:22 AM
Quote from: Vladar on October 26, 2021, 06:32:04 AM
It's kinda weird when skilled soldier have a greater chance of breaking his weapon, injuring himself (or whatever else a fumble table dictates) due to his 2-3 attacks/round, than an unskilled peasant with one attack/round.
Good point.
How would this compare to MVCs? Do people that drive all the time--like delivery drivers and rideshare operators--get in more MVCs just by virtue of being on the road more than the average person?
Quote from: Zalman on October 26, 2021, 10:45:34 AM
Love that responses in this thread are specifying "D20" ... obviously critical failures 1 out of 10 for example would be onerous.
Yeah, a lot of assumptions in this thread! I like creative fumbles, but I mainly play BRP-related systems where casting also requires a skill roll (so no bias in favor of them) and where the fumble range scales with skill, so that those with elite skill have a 1% chance.
You can run it with d6:
- 1 = No and a Problem
- 2 = No
- 3 = No but an Advantage
- 4 = Yes but a Problem
- 5 = Yes
- 6 = Yes and an Advantage
You can place critical failure or critical success or marginal either with any die. If you want to. Regarding the punishment of Martials, just make Wizards roll for their spells adding their INT or WIS modifier. Any easy Advantage could be a Charisma bonus to intimidate the enemy.
Be creative. Sheesh.
As a general rule I dislike fumbles.
They can work fine for specific mechanics though, like CoC style magic, where it fits the vibe/setting for a chance of something really bad happening.
Quote from: Zalman on October 26, 2021, 10:45:34 AM
Love that responses in this thread are specifying "D20" ... obviously critical failures 1 out of 10 for example would be onerous.
I like systems where a "failure" is separated from "critical failure" by a specified margin of failure, rather than whenever a specific number shows up on the die. Ditto for "success" vs. "great success".
As for punishing only martials: that's true in D&D, or in systems where there is no attack roll for casters. However, it could be emulated in D&D easily: if the target rolls a 20 for their save, magical backlash occurs!
For me,
nasty fumble result is too much even on a 1% chance. So it's less about the die/system and more about the nature of the failure. Don't care for scaling fumbles in something like RQ or Dragon Quest, because that's usually a chart lookup. Whereas in a relatively simple system, I'm fine with no fumbles and also no critical hits. After all, rolling at the upper end of the "effect" range, whether damage or something else, is already a "critical" success.
I haven't seen it done with fumbles (at least not that I can remember), but I rather like one aspect of the Dragon Quest take (despite the chart lookup of the sliding d% take, similar to RQ): If you get a critical hit with a weapon, you roll on the critical hit chart. Some of the results are nothing happens! Then the other results are varied, with only a few being the nastiest. The outcome is that most chances of a nasty critical are well below 0.1%, and only really start to edge up into a higher range when the situational modifiers have driven the numbers to extremes (e.g. attacking a stunned target from behind with a high weapon skill).
Love the idea of a natural 20 on a save causing magical backlash. Like it even more if the backlash is on such a chart, where some of the results are "nothing" or just some color, driving the effective chances of a significant backlash down into the sub 1% range.
Quote from: Theory of Games on October 26, 2021, 11:47:20 AM
You can place critical failure or critical success or marginal either with any die. If you want to. Regarding the punishment of Martials, just make Wizards roll for their spells adding their INT or WIS modifier. Any easy Advantage could be a Charisma bonus to intimidate the enemy.
Be creative. Sheesh.
Be creative? In a game played with the imagination?! LOL. There must be some risk to delving into the arcane arts! I love DCC's take in it. Botch a spell, and maybe your head turns into a snake's or you grow a beak. We had one wizard who needed a full hooded cloak to go out in public.
If you worry about penalizing fighters with multiple attacks, just declare that fumbles can only happen on the first attack roll each round.
I like fumbles as long as they don't slow the game or feel too silly (which depends on the genre).
In my games a natural 1 is a fumble. I make a call on what that means without using dice or tables. In a melee attack it usually means dropping your weapon. It takes a round to recover it. If you switch to a backup weapon that does less damage, you can continue fighting without delay. If, however, you are fighting a more powerful enemy (more HD) that also has hard armor or weapons, then your weapon breaks. With missile weapons, a fumble usually means a broken bowstring or something else that can be replaced in one round. If you were firing into a melee, however, it means that arrow hits your friend.
Quote from: Vidgrip on October 26, 2021, 12:48:25 PM
In my games a natural 1 is a fumble. I make a call on what that means without using dice or tables. In a melee attack it usually means dropping your weapon. It takes a round to recover it. If you switch to a backup weapon that does less damage, you can continue fighting without delay. If, however, you are fighting a more powerful enemy (more HD) that also has hard armor or weapons, then your weapon breaks. With missile weapons, a fumble usually means a broken bowstring or something else that can be replaced in one round. If you were firing into a melee, however, it means that arrow hits your friend.
For a trained fighter (especially someone trained from birth like a knight), dropping their weapon once every 20 swings breaks my believability. If it happened that often to trained professional warriors, then having lanyards tying one's weapon to one's wrist would be a standard thing. Likewise, bowstrings breaking every 20 shots doesn't match my understanding.
There are some cases of unreliable weapons. Historical firearms would frequently misfire, for example. But that's very dependent on the specific case. Likewise, a weapon breaking depends highly on the type of weapon. A well-built axe is not going to break once in 20 chops, even if it is struck against something quite hard.
Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2021, 02:53:01 PM
Quote from: Vidgrip on October 26, 2021, 12:48:25 PM
In my games a natural 1 is a fumble. I make a call on what that means without using dice or tables. In a melee attack it usually means dropping your weapon. It takes a round to recover it. If you switch to a backup weapon that does less damage, you can continue fighting without delay. If, however, you are fighting a more powerful enemy (more HD) that also has hard armor or weapons, then your weapon breaks. With missile weapons, a fumble usually means a broken bowstring or something else that can be replaced in one round. If you were firing into a melee, however, it means that arrow hits your friend.
For a trained fighter (especially someone trained from birth like a knight), dropping their weapon once every 20 swings breaks my believability. If it happened that often to trained professional warriors, then having lanyards tying one's weapon to one's wrist would be a standard thing. Likewise, bowstrings breaking every 20 shots doesn't match my understanding.
There are some cases of unreliable weapons. Historical firearms would frequently misfire, for example. But that's very dependent on the specific case. Likewise, a weapon breaking depends highly on the type of weapon. A well-built axe is not going to break once in 20 chops, even if it is struck against something quite hard.
Don't confuse 20 swings with 20 rounds of combat, unless your game has a 1-second combat round. In most games 20 rounds of combat is about five separate battles. Knights would not count on getting through even a single battle with one weapon. They carried several. RPG fighters should too.
Axes can chop trees all day long, but trees aren't wrapped in steel and don't parry with steel weapons.
Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2021, 02:53:01 PM
Quote from: Vidgrip on October 26, 2021, 12:48:25 PM
In my games a natural 1 is a fumble. I make a call on what that means without using dice or tables. In a melee attack it usually means dropping your weapon. It takes a round to recover it. If you switch to a backup weapon that does less damage, you can continue fighting without delay. If, however, you are fighting a more powerful enemy (more HD) that also has hard armor or weapons, then your weapon breaks. With missile weapons, a fumble usually means a broken bowstring or something else that can be replaced in one round. If you were firing into a melee, however, it means that arrow hits your friend.
For a trained fighter (especially someone trained from birth like a knight), dropping their weapon once every 20 swings breaks my believability. If it happened that often to trained professional warriors, then having lanyards tying one's weapon to one's wrist would be a standard thing. Likewise, bowstrings breaking every 20 shots doesn't match my understanding.
There are some cases of unreliable weapons. Historical firearms would frequently misfire, for example. But that's very dependent on the specific case. Likewise, a weapon breaking depends highly on the type of weapon. A well-built axe is not going to break once in 20 chops, even if it is struck against something quite hard.
You're taking "fumble" too literally. A knight spending a round of 6 or 10 seconds hacking at another knight, bashing armor, kicking at the other guy, getting kicked or hit with effective or ineffective blows, etc. Dropping your weapon makes sense in that environment. It's not like the knight is just standing there contemplating life and suddenly "Doh, me drop swordy again. Duh."
A "fumble" includes dropping your weapon because the other combatant whacked it really really hard with their weapon, stuff like that. It's not butterfingers crap. You're trained not to drop it, but you did anyway in the heat of combat. Damn, guess that's why I have a squire who carries a spare.
For archers, yeah the bow string isn't going to break every 20 shots. However, that's just one type of fumble. Lots of other things can go wrong assuming the archer is not just at the range on a Sunday afternoon.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 26, 2021, 12:10:14 PMDon't care for scaling fumbles in something like RQ or Dragon Quest, because that's usually a chart lookup.
My degree of dislike of charts scales with the number of times I'm likely to need to consult the chart in play. For RQ fumbles (and specials and criticals), I use a formula instead of a chart. So no lookup is necessary.
In d20 I always have 1 as a simple auto-fail. When a 1 is rolled in combat I have the player roll again to hit, miss means a fumble - generally a dropped weapon. It adds the possibility of catastrophic failure to every roll, without turning the characters into incompetent clowns. It adds some reasons to carry backup weapons, other than overcoming typed damage resistance. It also adds some value to quick draw and similar combat tricks or perks.
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 26, 2021, 11:15:49 AM
Quote from: Zalman on October 26, 2021, 10:45:34 AM
Love that responses in this thread are specifying "D20" ... obviously critical failures 1 out of 10 for example would be onerous.
Yeah, a lot of assumptions in this thread! I like creative fumbles, but I mainly play BRP-related systems where casting also requires a skill roll (so no bias in favor of them) and where the fumble range scales with skill, so that those with elite skill have a 1% chance.
I love the BRP system for its ease of understanding and the way fumbles become less likely as you scale up. (Not to mention crits and impales in RuneQuest) In King Arthur Pendragon (a D20 version of BRP) if you have a skill over a 20, you can't fumble.
Another system I like is Mongoose Travellers Effect roll. For example, every number higher adds to the effect, and every point under subtracts from it, with 6 or more below effectively being a fumble. This allows a scalability to the roll that I like.
as for assumptions, I tihnk it's mostly because D&D (or around these parts OSR) games are the most common.
I play DCC, so I use the DCC fumble rules.
Here's our table: On a natural 1, you roll on this table.
Fumble Table
1: Damage self for 1-8 hp
2: Damage self for 1-4 hp
3: Hit nearest ally for regular damage
4-6: Break weapon; magic weapons get save
7-15: Drop weapon; lose next round's action
16-20: No fumble; weapon slips but grip is regained
For spell failure, we've cribbed from DCC as follows:
¬ Always check for spell resistance/misfire with d20 roll or more if multiple actions in play
¬ If a spell fails due to the caster rolling a 1 or due to a creature's spell resistance, there are potential repercussions
¬ Divine casters must make a Charisma check or incur deity disfavor as per DCC
¬ For arcane casters, they must roll on DCC spell misfire table & they must make Charisma check with DC at spell level and if
that fails they incur corruption as per DCC
¬ Spell levels 1-3: Minor Corruption; 4-6: Major Corruption; 7-9: Greater Corruption