Requirements for a Fair Fumble System

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

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

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

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

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

CH

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

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

DougL wrote:
> Clawhound wrote:

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

funny you should mention that... I actually had a high level cambion
do this to himself in an old 2e game, totally different fumble rules,
and he was using a vorpal weapon...

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

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

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

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

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

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

that seems to take care of issues 1-5.

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

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

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

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

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

saddly, this is hte part that makes me hate fumble rules. I think
working out the theory behind them occuring is all well and good, but I
can't come up with a reasonable consequence for them. Sorry.

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

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

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

Anivair wrote:
> DougL wrote:

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

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

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

DougL

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

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

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

Judean Peoples' Front Suicide Squad Attack!!!

--
Billy Yank

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

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/

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

tussock wrote:

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

I consider point two to be slightly more valid and you're absoloutly
right. I hadn't thought of that. Bummer.

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

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

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

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

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

Gerald Katz

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

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

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



Ed Chauvin IV

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

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

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

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

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



Ed Chauvin IV

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

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

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

Hadsil wrote:

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

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

No that it isn't the best solution I've seen yet.

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

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

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

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

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

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

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

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

Combat Reflexes prevents flat-footedness.

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

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

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

In article <kud721lq924qb1uv3uimbrs92spflvtjnq@4ax.com>,
Mouse <mail141023@pop.net.invalid> wrote:
>First requirement: You cannot Fumble with a weapon with which you
>have Proficiency.

The folks who want a fumble system will not accept that, and those who don't
want a fumble system don't need it.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

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

Shadow Wolf wrote:

> Combat Reflexes prevents flat-footedness.

What the hell combat reflexes are you reading?

Combat reflexes lets you make additrional attacks of opportunity up to
your dex modifier and lets you make attacks of opportunity even IF you
are flat-footed, but it doesn't prevent you from being flat footed.
Uncanny dodge prevents you from being flat footed. And it's not a
feat.

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

Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>Shadow Wolf wrote:
>>
>>
>> Combat Reflexes prevents flat-footedness.
>
>It does *what* now?

It's a dessert topping!



Ed Chauvin IV

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

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

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

In article <9b_Ud.2721$Ny6.4708@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>
>> In article <kud721lq924qb1uv3uimbrs92spflvtjnq@4ax.com>,
>> Mouse <mail141023@pop.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>First requirement: You cannot Fumble with a weapon with which you
>>>have Proficiency.
>>
>>
>> The folks who want a fumble system will not accept that, and those who don't
>> want a fumble system don't need it.
>
>I've reached the conclusion that D&D is a POSITIVE system, not a
>negative system. All these argument have really swayed me away from
>fumbles, which are, in the end, too problematic.
>
>In this case, in the core rules, you don't fumble, but your opponent CAN
>critical. Crits provide the unpredictability in this system.

So if someone wants a fumble system, perhaps they should come up with an
"alternative resolutions for critical hits".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

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

Lorenz Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:28:36 +0000, David Alex Lamb wrote:
>
>
>>In article <9b_Ud.2721$Ny6.4708@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
>>Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <kud721lq924qb1uv3uimbrs92spflvtjnq@4ax.com>,
>>>>Mouse <mail141023@pop.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>First requirement: You cannot Fumble with a weapon with which you
>>>>>have Proficiency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The folks who want a fumble system will not accept that, and those who don't
>>>>want a fumble system don't need it.
>>>
>>>I've reached the conclusion that D&D is a POSITIVE system, not a
>>>negative system. All these argument have really swayed me away from
>>>fumbles, which are, in the end, too problematic.
>>>
>>>In this case, in the core rules, you don't fumble, but your opponent CAN
>>>critical. Crits provide the unpredictability in this system.
>>
>>So if someone wants a fumble system, perhaps they should come up with an
>>"alternative resolutions for critical hits".
>
>
> I proposed the same in another post:
>
> "What if fumbles happen to the target when a critical hit is rolled,
> instead of extra damage?
>
> Maybe let the attacker choose between extra-damage and the roll on
> a fumble table. The effects must be balanced somehow to be worth it,
> of course."
>
> Would it make sense? Is it worth thinking about?
>
> LL

I think it's worth talking about. Given a critical, you can auto-disarm,
knockdown, or sunder in place of a damage, but only if you melee. In
many situations, that would be far more useful than damage. The players
only need to know that this will be used against them.

Yes, the more that I think about it, the more that I like having the
outcome a consequence of action rather than a fluke of die rolling.

CH

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

Mouse wrote:

> First requirement: You cannot Fumble with a weapon with which you
> have Proficiency.

That's really silly. Proficiency means that you understand the
principals of using a weapon. It doesn't nessisarily mean that you
have spent years studying it and are therefore immune to screwing up.
A fumble doesn't mean you forgot how to use the thing, it means you
just screwed up. I fall down sometimes. It doesn't mean I lack
proficiency in walking. If we were using 2ed I'd be inclined to agree
with that, but then again, when did anyone ever use a nonproficient
weapon then (or not for that matter)? Rules that don't impact the game
might as well not exist.

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

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:46:51 +0000, Billy Yank wrote:

> Suddenly, Clawhound, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness and
> exclaimed:
>
>> I think it's worth talking about. Given a critical, you can auto-disarm,
>> knockdown, or sunder in place of a damage, but only if you melee. In
>> many situations, that would be far more useful than damage. The players
>> only need to know that this will be used against them.
>>
>
> I think if you do go with this, you should make up a ranged crit table to
> allow archers to get in on the fun. That way they can occasionally shoot
> the sword out of someone's hand or slice an opponents bowstring from across
> the room.

I think different lists are not needed.

I've got other questions:

Should the attacker choose the effect?
I would prefer the victim to choose, if he'll take the damage or suffer
another effect (from a 'fumble' table) for cinematic reasons:
The hero (or villain) is about to get severely hit,
but desperatly holds his weapon in the way / hurls himself backwards to
the ground.

He can't choose the effect, because it's an instinct or reflex
that isn't under his control.

Which effects are possibly on the list?
So far auto-disarm, -trip, -sunder were proposed.

How about:
- unable to make AoO and loose Dex bonus to AC until your next round
- blinded for 1 round (until before attacker's next round)
- deafened ... (too weak? instead blind and deaf as one effect?)

Unsolved is the impact of greater crit. multipliers (x3, x4).

LL

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

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 05:17:38 -0800, Anivair wrote:

>
> Symbol wrote:
>
>> > So combat reflexes prevents you from taking sneak attack damage
> at
>> the
>> > start of conflict?
>>
>> I think he's saying that they are both equally true which is "not
> true at
>> all". It's Ed remember.
>
> Agreed, he could not be more wrong.

Ed was right from the proposition-logic point of view.

The statement "Both of these statements are equally true."
is true, if both statements are wrong (or true).

LL

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

Mere moments before death, Symbol hastily scrawled:
>
>"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1109769458.398689.187220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Symbol wrote:
>> > MSB wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So combat reflexes prevents you from taking sneak attack damage
>> > > at the start of conflict?
>> >
>> > I think he's saying that they are both equally true which is "not true at
>> > all". It's Ed remember.
>>
>> Agreed, he could not be more wrong.
>
>No he's right. He's just being deliberately obscure.

And of course the usual suspects jump all over it.



Ed Chauvin IV

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

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> And of course the usual suspects jump all over it.

.. . you are including yourself in that lineup, right? You'd be in MY
usual suspects lineup for this group . . .

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

Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:zh1Vd.2724$Ny6.4734
@mencken.net.nih.gov:

> Yes, the more that I think about it, the more that I like having the
> outcome a consequence of action rather than a fluke of die rolling.
>
>

How does this even come close to a fair fumble system? You can
only fumble if your opponent scores a crit on you?

--
Marc

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

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in
news:4225c8a1$0$5553$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:

> No he's right. He's just being deliberately obscure.
>
> If both statements are wrong than they are both equally true (not
> true at all).
>

I didn't find it obscure, once I rememberd the "truth" about
Uncanny Dodge.

--
Marc