Ok, player venting about his GM.
I know the catechism, "If you don't like it, don't play at their table."
The thing is, he's a good GM most of the time, but I think he doesn't realize how unfair he's being.
Ok, 5th Edition, in combat, a nat 20 gets you double damage dice. That's it.
Last night, our fighter types rolled a couple of nat 1's; one had his bowstring burst, ruining the weapon (I pointed out it would just need a new bowstring, the bow itself would be fine, but the GM ruled the entire weapon was ruined).
At another point, the Monk is going Flurry of Blows, gets a 1 on his first attack roll. GM rules his follow-up attacks are rolled with Disadvantage (which I wasn't really butthurt about); next round, the player is told ALL his attacks will have Disadvantage, as he broke his hand, and it won't go away till he's healed up.
OK, having the follow-up attacks being Disadvantaged didn't seem bad to me, but EVERY attack until he's healed up? Having to fish out a new bowstring and re-string the bow seems realistic, but having the weapon be destroyed?
Critical strikes are "nice", but critical fumbles are fucking disastrous.
I'm looking for some suggestions on how to approach him with this critique, where we can have a nice, adult conversation (I know I'm a little heated at the moment, since it happened last night.)
Imo, yes, that's fucking bullshit.
A 5% chance per Attack of gaining a long term disadvantage??
Might be helpful to run numbers on the chance of crit fail in a single encounter.
Yeah, that looks like he's being a dick about crit fails. "How not to break your hand while punching" should be like week 1, day 1 of unarmed combat training school, not a 1/20 chance for an experienced character. I can see something like "the bow snapped back too violently, and now the wood is too damaged to hold under stress", but again, seems excessive (Although much easier to solve).
As long as the DM is doing the same for monsters's critical fumbles it works out OK. Though personally I find them more trouble and annoyance than they are worth.
Yeah, it's excessive.
I'm actually in the other camp. I tend to use a critical hit chart (so double damage is the minimum effect), and impose disadvantage on the next attack following the critical fumble (essentially because the attacker has thrown their balance off, or whatever).
My players are actually PREPARED for something HORRIBLE happening on 1s...but I think Disadvantage is good enough.
Critical fumbles should have exploding dice so that your campaigns can occasionally be riddled with Pink Panther pratfalls.
Ok probably not but that's the only premise I accept for critical fumbles!
Those examples sound excessive to me... but on the other hand I really like botch tables for magic fumbles, like in DCC... and some of those can lead to less than desirable and permanent fallout.
And... having a guy who fights with his hands/feet damage his 'weapons' doesn't sound all that implausible.
It's especially bad for the monk or any other character who is rolling more attacks. Extra attacks should be a good thing especially when it's given as a compensation for doing less damage.
I've got rid of critical fumbles from my game about four years ago and no one has missed them.
As many have already said, imposing harsh penalties for something that will happen every 20 rolls (on the average) on a d20 is nuts.
It's worth remembering a 1 is always a miss and a 20 is always a hit. Plus a 20 gets double damage.
As it stands it works fine.
I sometimes add some RP effect for a natural 20 or natural 1 if appropriate, but I wouldn't make a 1 roll (which the player has no control over) be something that will screw up the character in the medium or long term.
We had a critical miss table that included dropping your weapon, breaking your weapon and hitting an ally. Breaking a weapon was the only inevitably ongoing result but it also got a saving throw, depending on the weapon. Bows generally only lost a bow string, and other weapons usually suffered some sort of damage that made them not usable for the rest of the adventure but still salvageable for magical weapons once you got home. Most rolls of one were just an ordinary miss; inapplicable results also had no effect (so dropping your natural weapon didn't do anything). Break weapon with a natural weapon would do damage to the attacker on a failed saving throw. And the critical hit table was significantly more dangerous; disabled limbs could result from the opponent's critical hit (although not very frequent at all).
Too severe of results changes the feel of the game; it becomes likely that your character will die as a result of attacking or being attacked a certain number of times and all of the strategy turns into avoiding risking that circumstance. How adventurous can you be if your career is built around avoiding attacking anyone? So, we eventually abandoned the more severe results on the critical hit table in favor of mildly exploding damage (which could still kill you), and made the more unpleasant fumbles much more unlikely.
So, briefly, I guess I agree that this is not good GMing, although I like the concept of fumbles in a more restrained way.
Quote from: Ladybird;815992I can see something like "the bow snapped back too violently, and now the wood is too damaged to hold under stress", but again, seems excessive (Although much easier to solve).
Except that it doesn't happen. Many years of experience in archery (both regular bows and crossbows), and I've never seen or heard of a bowstring break damaging the bow itself. Maybe a snap could cause an inexperienced archer to stumble, jam the bow against something unyielding and break it that way, but the bow is
supposed to snap back violently; that's how it works in the first place. For an experienced archer, an every-rare-once-in-a-while bowstring break is worth cursing, and it's dangerous, but it sure as hell isn't a 1:20 deal, or no one would ever pick up a bow.
I agree the GM's being a tool, although a polite way to say so is a good idea. If worst comes to worst, try offering him to forgo critical hits in return for critical failures going away.
I used to use a fumble check.
Roll a "1" then you have to your level or under on a d20 to avoid a random crit fumble.
This way 15th level fighters rarely crit fumbled. (1 in 80 chance)
However, now I don't bother even with that.
If i reintroduced it I would make it a save vs appropriate stat based on the circumstance defaulting to dex and apply it to all checks.
It would be a damn sight strange if a critical fumble was *better* than a critical hit, no?
Somebody had to say it... :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;816026It would be a damn sight strange if a critical fumble was *better* than a critical hit, no?
Somebody had to say it... :D
-clash
You win the thread.
Some suggestions to suggest to the DM.
Fumbles are just that, fumbles, not catastrophic fails. You swing and miss, maybee embedding your sword in a pillar or wall. Needs an action to dislodge or just imposes penalty next attack as you rip it loose and have at it again.
The arrow wiffles and lands at your feet, or the feathers strip off in flight because they were badly set and the thing goes swerving off course. Possibly narrowly missing someone else. IE: Embarassing things rather than debilitating. Roll again to see if it was a fumble. 1=yes and apply something bad THEN as the RNG God is really gunning for you today.
Or make it the players choice. Accept a minor flub, or opt to roll again and if its a 1 then you get the worse result and its your own fault thin for tempting the RNG God.
Alternatively do as others suggested. Just impose disadvantage next attack.
Now personally what I do is when theres a roll of 1 in combat and theres someone else in the line of fire. I or the player rolls again to-hit vs that other target at disadvantage. Friend or foe.
So you're roleplaying in Lemony Snicket: A Series of Unfortunate Events world...
You could passively respond by playing up the comedy and hunt for extra rolls so as to cascade into an exponential explosion of disaster. Haste and double wield and OA everything! Keep rolling d20s to nova misfortune!
Or you could passively counter by playing Halflings, with Great Weapon Style.
Or you could passively build casters that only choose Spell Save spells, not use Spell Attack spells.
Or you could have the nice, friendly chat of: "you've been around a lot of games where Critical Fumbles used the same old overly disastrous results, huh? Let's sit and generate a better Crit Fail table together, one where failure is as temporary as Crit Success."
I kinda want to say not have the talk, because a PC that never has to roll a d20 in combat (read: Clerics) have an enormous advantage. But yeah, we need to have The Talk with him. Have you talked about what sort of degree of failure he wants to pair up with critical hits? Knowing where he's from helps to get him where he needs to go.
Some, if not most of the most memorable combat scenes in RPGs I can remember were the result of well timed fumbles or critical misses. I don't consider any combet system to be complete with this extra layer of excitement provided by the chance of utterly humiliating oneself.
And yes, fumbles should occasionally have a debilitating effect, because that is a very simple and quick way to introduce uncertainty and drama to a fight - a fight should, after all, be a chaotic and often serious situation with high pressure - exactly the environment where people do make stupid mistakes. However, I think it helps to have a simple(!) table of random events for these mistakes to streamline the outcomes, because it adds even more randomness to the putcome while also makes them a bit more predictable. I would recommend doing the same for critical hits intead of just increasing the damage, for mostly the same reasons.
I often use a critical fumble as an opportunity to introduce new environmental or situational complications, sometimes unrelated to the character who messed up. Like "a lamp falls and the barn is now on fire", "the demonic idol begins to flow ominously", "a monster appears" or "wave of lava comes crashing down the hall".
Dungeon World called those GM Moves or Dungeon Moves. Works for me: as another poster (Beagle) suggested, I will pre-write a list of bad events for such occasions.
EDIT: Critical Injuries are awesome, and I'd let a player flip-flop the percentile result at the expenditure of a Fate/Hero/Inspiration point.
Quote from: Beagle;816048Some, if not most of the most memorable combat scenes in RPGs I can remember were the result of well timed fumbles or critical misses.
Unfortunately for me, as the DM, they all seem to happen to my monsters.
Most memorable was the now legendary "Thieves Guild" encounter. PCs walk into a nicely laid trap where the guild is armed with crossbows on the upper floor of an open chamber and firing through arrow slits down on the PCs. I have never rolled so many 1s before, nearly all promptly followed by an accidental hit on a comrade. (Id roll to see where the flubbed shot went.) The adventurers had no idea what was going on as they could not see them. All they heard were eeks and ooks and oops and ows! And an occasional bold actually by some miracle coming their way. They first thought some NPC was up there helping. Several criticals later and the last thief, yep, rolls a 1. Then rolls a 20. Criticals self. Dead. As the players guessed what must be happening they were laughing and laughing.
Thereafter, anytime a group of monsters or NPCs lands a hit on eachother the players joke that they must have trained at "The Thieves Guild"!
In a movie it would look way cooler as the PCs nimbly dodge and weave through a hail of bolts pausing just long enough to trick one thief into lining his crossbow up opposite another thief and pulling the trigger just as the player darts out of the way and lines up the next victim. At the end there should be a dramatic pause before all the thieves fall dead.
I like fumbles. Some of the most entertaining play in Honor+Intrigue occurs when the players have a Calamitous Failure. However Calamitous Failures are parallel the effects of Mighty Successes. Unless the player chooses to make it so, a getting a Calamitous failure of your own is not worse than getting hit by an opponent's Mighty Success.
One Calamitous Failure that the players remember is the assassin who was hunting one of the PCs. The players figured out who the assassin was and they set a trap for him. It went like this...
The Trap
The party lays a trap for the would-be assassin, Abalardi. They put out the word that Gaston is celebrating his survival at an inn, then set up a dummy with Gaston's hat and clothes that can be seen from the opposite roof. Norbert sits by the dummy and pretends to interact with it to try to make it look real. He barely avoids knocking the dummies head clean off when he companionably slaps 'Gaston' on the back.
Meanwhile Gaston (mostly recovered from his wounds) and Father Signoret hide on the nearby roofs to lie in wait for the assassin. Guy, in disguise as a chimney sweep, keeps watch as well. The three fail to spot Abalardi's arrival only being alerted to his presence by the sound of the inn window breaking . The assassin shoots the pumpkin head off the dummy. Realizing from the falling head that this was a trap, Abalardi instantly flees, but in his hurry he slips on the roof and falls to his death before he can be caught or questioned. Guy, in disguise below, tells the people who rush out of the inn, "This is the assassin! I saw him shooting from the roof. He fell...Looks like he's dead."
The gathering crowd spots a second figure on the roof and points as that figure begins climbing down the side of the building. "Who is that?" "Is it another assassin?" the crowd asks.
Guy scratches at his scraggly beard, "It's a priest. Come to give the Last Rites." The climber is Father Signoret, who indeed begins administering the Last Rites.
Norbert looks for his cousin Gaston as the watch is summoned. Guy and Gaston slip away in the confusion. Meanwhile, Signoret and Norbert are taken into custody by the Paris Archers. Signoret uses his social rank to be released, but Norbert must stay in the jail overnight. Fortunately the Giant has money to pay for a meal and later his cousin Gaston has a second meal sent in to the always hungry Norbert.
Guy and Gaston hurry to Abalardi's apartment and search it. They find letters in Italian from Abalardi's father in Florence. They find money. They find pots, herbs, and other apothecary's apparatus including a book about herbs in Latin. But they find nothing indicating who employed Abalardi.
The really funny part is this is the second assassin who has stumbled while fleeing and fallen off a roof to his death. Apparently the roofs in Paris are slippery in the fall.
You can really tell the difference between those whose formative role-playing years were spent with D&D or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay by topics like this.
That being said, I am interested to see where this is going.
One of my DMs was excessively fond of RoleMaster and plugged the critical/fumble system into his 2e sessions. It was... messy.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;816073You can really tell the difference between those whose formative role-playing years were spent with D&D or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay by topics like this.
That being said, I am interested to see where this is going.
How so?
I started with OD&D and I've never played Warhammer. Which group do I fit into?
Assume an average encounter lasts 3 rounds, and the player gets to roll 6 times (total).
That's a 27% chance of a fumble. If the fumble's effects are long-term, that means in any given fight, there's almost a 1/3 chance of being significantly set back for a long time before you even consider damage.
Assuming roughly 3 encounters in a session, that means you have a 61% chance of getting some long-term impairment or loss per session. Again, not accounting for actual injury.
That's fucking stupid.
Agreed Will.
I use a lingering injury mechanic in 5e of my own design. When one of the bad guys scores a critical, they can (save vs. Con) sustain a long term injury. If they are reduced to 0 HP, they can (save vs. Con) sustain a long term injury. This is all the critical drama I need. Keeps them on their toes, combat is deadly but not adventure-ending, and they don't spend a lot of time looking like clowns. Unless the purposefully make bad decisions. But I leave that to the player's imaginations and choices. Not to a dice roll. :-)
I think players are accustomed to critical hits and would find the use fair for both sides. Critical fumbles just add too much suck to the game to be worth it.
So my answer to the OP: No, they shouldn't.
Yup. Why I added a second roll to see what happened of anything.
I think I'll be talking with the other players on Thursday (making sure we're in agreement, and smoothing out ruffled feathers of one in particular; he and the GM have clashed before), and bring it up early on Sunday (I typically am the first to arrive) to talk with the GM.
I'd like to joke, "If I can lose a 50gp bow on a critical fumble, in fairness, I should receive 50gp out of nowhere as well, just like a video game, with a critical hit..."
But that probably wouldn't go over well... :p
Another issue:
Having any attack possibly result in long-term problems, weirdly, puts pressure on strategies to minimize it. Like 'I'm going to get in the fight but do nothing but block, because chances are someone else can do more damage and I'm pretty safe from attacks, so I don't risk handicapping MYSELF.'
Quote from: Will;816089Assume an average encounter lasts 3 rounds, and the player gets to roll 6 times (total).
That's a 27% chance of a fumble. If the fumble's effects are long-term, that means in any given fight, there's almost a 1/3 chance of being significantly set back for a long time before you even consider damage.
Assuming roughly 3 encounters in a session, that means you have a 61% chance of getting some long-term impairment or loss per session. Again, not accounting for actual injury.
That's fucking stupid.
Agreed. Which is why, IMO, D&D (and the d20 system as a whole) makes a poor marriage with critical fumble mechanics. Too large of a percentage, compounded with flat die probability results. Unless you don't mind these 'fucking stupid' results.
Contrast that with many d100 systems that use either a 99 or 00 result as a fumble. Or with Gurps, that uses a bell curve and results in fumbles in less than 2% of task rolls. The risk is there, but it's less pronounced than with a d20 system.
Quote from: Will;816108Another issue:
Having any attack possibly result in long-term problems, weirdly, puts pressure on strategies to minimize it.
Oh, no doubt. It will likely result in a serious reevaluation of strategies and tactics used in combat, discouraging 'heroic abandon' and possibly emphasizing avoiding combat situations - when they can be avoided. Or just result in a bunch of maimed and disabled PCs for those that don't reevaluate.
Whether that's an 'issue' or a 'weird' result depends on playstyle, I think.
Quote from: K Peterson;816114Or just result in a bunch of maimed and disabled PCs for those that don't reevaluate.
Cough...Gimpy's...cough, cough. ;)
Quote from: Novastar;816105I'd like to joke, "If I can lose a 50gp bow on a critical fumble, in fairness, I should receive 50gp out of nowhere as well, just like a video game, with a critical hit..."
But that probably wouldn't go over well... :p
Gambler class. Every time you score a critical you gain 10gp/level. Every time you fumble you lose 10gp/level. And you can throw gold to deal damage. But dont get that back after. Sorry.
Quote from: Omega;816174Gambler class. Every time you score a critical you gain 10gp/level. Every time you fumble you lose 10gp/level. And you can throw gold to deal damage. But dont get that back after. Sorry.
Coins are notorious for disappearing when thrown or dropped. Happens like all the time.
Quote from: Will;816108Having any attack possibly result in long-term problems, weirdly, puts pressure on strategies to minimize it.
Holy shit I would love that, honestly.
My biggest gripe is usually how "Combat must happen, for it is written such in the module! No surprise, no mere
guile will allow you to avoid the encounter, and
certainly never get XP from such tomfoolery!"
To me, you "defeat" the guard at the door, whether you knock him out, sneak in thru another door or window, or get him to leave by setting the barn on fire.
He'd give you the XP for the first, nothing for the second, and a pittance for the third (with it likely that the guard will return before you are finished inside, decide to open the door he's supposed to guard, and a fight ensues).
fumbles should definitely be much less worse than successes.
First, remember that, properly done, crits and fumbles should happen to opponents as much as to players, more or less. So you want to be careful to make neither TOO deadly, as players will more often be victims than providers of these.
Second, if the fumbles are too extreme or easy to happen, you end up with games that look like bloodbath versions of the Keystone Cops, with everyone humiliating themselves in painful and violent ways. Not really good dramatic effect, unless you're going for goofball dark comedy.
Quote from: RPGPundit;817347Second, if the fumbles are too extreme or easy to happen, you end up with games that look like bloodbath versions of the Keystone Cops, with everyone humiliating themselves in painful and violent ways. Not really good dramatic effect, unless you're going for goofball dark comedy.
The first 3rd ed Game I played in. The DM used the critical tables from Rule Master. "Bloodbath version of the Keystone Cops" was about how I described the aftermath.
Quote from: RPGPundit;817347fumbles should definitely be much less worse than successes.
First, remember that, properly done, crits and fumbles should happen to opponents as much as to players, more or less. So you want to be careful to make neither TOO deadly, as players will more often be victims than providers of these.
Second, if the fumbles are too extreme or easy to happen, you end up with games that look like bloodbath versions of the Keystone Cops, with everyone humiliating themselves in painful and violent ways. Not really good dramatic effect, unless you're going for goofball dark comedy.
The critical failure doesn't necessarily have to be represented as the PC tripping all over himself though. Things could just not go his way because of other factors conspiring against him.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;816073You can really tell the difference between those whose formative role-playing years were spent with D&D or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay by topics like this.
That being said, I am interested to see where this is going.
Pretty much this.
Sometimes they should be worse, sometimes they should be better. Outside of combat, both critical success and critical failure should lead to new developments (yes, I'm using the P word), if possible.
Quote from: Omega;817363The first 3rd ed Game I played in. The DM used the critical tables from Rule Master. "Bloodbath version of the Keystone Cops" was about how I described the aftermath.
I'm envisioning a Monty Python skit... ha.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;817387The critical failure doesn't necessarily have to be represented as the PC tripping all over himself though. Things could just not go his way because of other factors conspiring against him.
Most of the time I'd have a fumble leave the fumbler off balance or out of stance... maybe giving his opponent an advantage/opening... maybe putting the fumbler's next attack/parry at a disadvantage. If he were to fumble again next round... that's where I might use a harsher consequence, failing to regain balance/stance turns him into a pinata for a round.
Quote from: Will;817397I'm envisioning a Monty Python skit... ha.
As it was happening I was thinking of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1-NpyaOWV0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1-NpyaOWV0)
Having a brief disadvantage seems fair. Maybe give the next attack on the character an Advantage to reflect being off-balance or whatever.
It's just the bizarre 'double damage vs. being kinda fucked for a long time'
Quote from: Simlasa;817417Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;817387The critical failure doesn't necessarily have to be represented as the PC tripping all over himself though. Things could just not go his way because of other factors conspiring against him.
Most of the time I'd have a fumble leave the fumbler off balance or out of stance... maybe giving his opponent an advantage/opening... maybe putting the fumbler's next attack/parry at a disadvantage. If he were to fumble again next round... that's where I might use a harsher consequence, failing to regain balance/stance turns him into a pinata for a round.
I agree that a little bit of slapstick in combat goes a really long way so minimizing the slapstick is a good thing.
Quote from: Will;817433Having a brief disadvantage seems fair. Maybe give the next attack on the character an Advantage to reflect being off-balance or whatever.
It's just the bizarre 'double damage vs. being kinda fucked for a long time'
Like many things that is system dependent.
In a static hit point system, double damage may be fatal which is really fucked up for a really long time or maybe even for ever. Dead is a lot worse than your helmet got twisted sideways so you are at -20% for attacks and parries until you fix that.
In a hit points per level system, double damage for the Level 6 fighter may mean he is at 4/6 hit points instead of at 5/6 hit points. In that case the -20% to attacks and parries may be more severe than taking an extra hit die of damage.
Yeah, the Keystone Cops Bloodbath just doesn't match up very well with the Hero's Journey; or even with Grim And Gritty...
I don't quite understand why there are critical hits/fumbles in a game where a combat round is an abstract representation of a full minute of fighting.
Quote from: Matt;818424I don't quite understand why there are critical hits/fumbles in a game where a combat round is an abstract representation of a full minute of fighting.
I'm not aware of any games that have 60 second combat rounds and critical hits and fumbles as part of the rules.
Quote from: Bren;818427I'm not aware of any games that have 60 second combat rounds and critical hits and fumbles as part of the rules.
I thought the OP was playing Dungeons & Dragons and talking about critical hits and fumbles.
Quote from: Matt;818429I thought the OP was playing Dungeons & Dragons and talking about critical hits and fumbles.
He's playing 5th edition. OD&D had 60 second combat rounds. I believe that at some point between Editions 0 and 5 the combat round was shortened.
Also OD&D didn't include include criticals or fumbles though some people added them in as house rules.
60 second combat rounds was the norm until D&D 3e. Then it switched to 6 second rounds and has thus remained.
Quote from: Opaopajr;81844260 second combat rounds was the norm until D&D 3e. Then it switched to 6 second rounds and has thus remained.
Only in AD&D. BECMI was always six-second rounds.