Ack! The DM uses fumble rules!

[Solo]

I think EoF is suffering from a corollary to the Oberoni Fallacy.  "Rule X is not bad because we use it in my games and my games are fun!"

Just because you use Rule X in your game and your games are fun, does not mean that Rule X is not bad.

Indeed. Some people, I hear, enjoy FATAL. I guess that means that it's a fine game system due to moral relativism and other hippy bullshit.

[Vasja]

Well, that's pretty much my whole point there. Why would my experience overwrite yours? Why would yours overwrite mine?

It is perfectly possible to judge the effects of a rule in a vacuum.

Hell, there are games where a CW Samurai is the most powerful character in the game. That doesn't mean that when people say 'this is a bad class' that they are wrong.

[Eagle of Fire]

There are lots of houserules which lower peoples' mechanical ability in combat.  Here are 3 reasons people jump to the barricades for critical fumbles in particular:

1) It worsens mundane characters while not making any difference to spellcasters, who are already far superior than mundanes.
2) Because it's a flat 5% chance per die roll, characters who make more attacks (i.e., more powerful characters) will be more likely to fail than weaker characters.  If you create a god of combat who makes 20 attacks per round, that means that on average that character will be critically fumbling once per round, compared to a 1st-level warrior who will critically fumble once per 20 rounds (or every 5 combats per so), which breaks verisimilitude in half.
3) Less importantly, there are things one can do to mitigate crits; however, fumbles aren't supported in the rules, and the DMs who houserule them rarely create materials for PCs to mitigate fumbles.

Yeah... Well...

1) Casters are more powerful at high level than non casters, that is true. But I never agreed to the conclusion which abound on this forum that mundane can't have anything and that casters surpasses them in every possible way. It is true that melee get slightly hit with the fumble rules, however going as far as to say it cripple them is crazy talk. Considering the enemy have the same limitation, it doesn't change anything which is already in place in the system.
Funny how people who claim that mundane can't have anything always take for granted that the mage in question has all his spells or has time to prepare in advance. What if he doesn't? In game, players or chars rarely enter fight both at optimum capacity and prepared in advance specifically for that particular encounter. But that's never taken into consideration, isn't?
In a situation in which the caster has no relevant spells or is not able to prepare well enough, I think the melee guys have a higher chance to win. And if the caster is stuck with combat mechanics, the same rules fall on them too.

2)True in a pure mathematical sense. However, I've seen player makes 3 or more critical misses in a row (not back to back in the same action, but still). What % chance of doing that would that be? I could calculate it but I don't care... Because I know that statistics is one thing and reality is another one.
That said, you do want an answer why a more experienced melee would have more chance to fumble something than an inexperienced one? Simply because they do more. And that's exactly what your mathematic bring up. I don't know about you, but if someone is up to 4 attacks per round they still attack 4 times more or faster in the same 3 seconds of action then of course they are more likely to have something happen to them. They ought to take more steps, more chances, more of everything to squeeze that all in one round. However, does it change anything in the balance? Not really. A more experienced fighter (represented by levels in this sytem) still know way more feats, hit way easier and way harder than an unexperienced one. Plus, the HP difference make it so that even in an hypothetical fight with the experienced and the inexperienced fighter, the inexperienced fighter could probably score a little more hits but it would not chance the issue of the battle because he would only start to dent the experienced fighter HP.

3)Yes, there is a lot of material already wrote up for criticals... But why would you even need some to prevent fumbles? I guess it is because you consider it to be really bad, so I understand... But even simply droping your weapon mean what? That you need to bother using a move action to take it back? Possibly provocking attacks of opportunities?
What I am trying to say here is that what you are asking for already exist. If you are wary about getting hit while taking your weapon back, take a feat which help mitigate AoO. If it is because you fear getting stuck in the middle of a melee without a weapon, take feats or skills which help getting out without provocking those attacks or nullify them. Or simply take a step back and draw a secondary weapon. Etc.
Easy.

I have no problems with people trying to find ways to lessen the problem as long as it is a legal way in the system. As a matter of fact, I do remember there is a feat in complete soundrel which turns your critical misses into critical hits. I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, might be interesting for people to check.

No, it only works on saving throws.

Ah. Too bad. Strange though, I remember someone mentioning this to me in the past. The guy wanted to take as many crit range boosting feats as possible as well as the feat I mentioned to try to maximize crit chances. Maybe I misunderstood or I'm not mentioning the right material.

On the other hand, I'm a DM who use fumble rules too. And the players like it instead of the opposite. Why? Well, first I don't use a single result for a fumble. The char dropping his/her weapon is indeed a classic, however I also use a plethora of other results which add up and spice up the game. For example, the char in question might loose footing and drop on the ground instead. Sometimes, rarely, I unstrung a bow for an archer (only requiring a complex action to restring)  but most of the time I ask the archer in question to roll a directional D8 and see if he/she hit a friendly instead. Otherwise the shot just go loose. Sometimes I simply use my imagination and write up an original reaction on the stop. Oftentime the current situation will scream out for a particular humoristic fumble and I'm always happy to oblige.

So you just make something up when a player fumbles?  That has a couple problems, namely (a) it depends on DM skill, so what works for you may not work for others, and (b) it's impossible for a player to predict what can happen, so they can't take steps to mitigate it, so your random effect could arbitrarily lead to PC death.

A) Possibly true but a good DM need to be able to improvise. Otherwise the DM in question will never be really 'good'. PCs never do what the DM think up, or do it differently. A DM should already be used to do that all the time.

Which is why it depends on DM skill.

I don't get where we are going with this. Ok, DMs don't have all their skills equal. But there is a minimum in every aspect you need to get before being able to make a good game, no? DMs who can't do that or have that should stick to player style until they get enough experience.

Or at worse make a table. I don't know. I can't see what it would change anyways.

B) Being impossible to predict is precisely the whole point. What would be the point of criticals if it wasn't to have a rare but unpredictable event possibly changing the whole battle? Can't an unlucky PC also already die from a lucky crit plus maxed damage dice from a strong monster? Isn't the whole point of going adventuring (as a whole, as in why the char in question has choosen to be an adventurer in the first place) not knowing what you will expect versus, I don't know... Staying home as the town blacksmith?

Anyways, my simple answer to point B is this: if we didn't want the game to be random in the first place, we would not be using dice. The whole point is not to know in advance what would happen. Otherwise it would be a story in which you participate on the side, not a real personal adventure.

This isn't really an argument... lots of things in a campaign are unknown.  And yes, an unlucky PC can die from a crit from a monster.  It's much more interesting and heroic if the hero dies that way than because he slipped and fell and broke his neck.  If that kind of thing works for you and your gaming group, then great!  I'm not telling you how to have fun.  But don't use that as proof that critical fumbles don't make the game worse for most people, particularly anyone who doesn't play a spellcaster.

Humm... Why would a PC die directly from a fumble? Even if you would slip and fall prone, you're still only prone and holding your weapons. A light circumstancial hit to your AC, that's all.

Maybe you should elaborate a little on your thoughts about this. I think we're not on the same page.

I am sorry, but I do not understand your comment about dying. Yes monsters die all the time, but PCs can die too? Or is it that PCs never die in your games? There is various ways to bring a character back to life. Once again, the game would not be as interesting without the risk involved and having nobody in life threatening danger (or at least having his interests threatened) during a whole campaing is a sure way to make it going dull.

Of course PCs should be able to die.  But again, they should die doing something important rather than from dropping their sword on their femoral artery.

The point of playing a PC is to be a hero in an epic story, usually one of taking on hordes of monsters.  If the monsters kill you, then you can't play.  Having a PC die should be a major event, not an everyday occurrence, because it changes the dynamics of the plot.[/quote]
Again about PCs killing themselves?

While I agree that having a PC die sucks, it is the second side of a coin. You can't have fear without the direct consequence. So you can't fear dying without knowing you can actually die. I have several players who thought, for a very long time, that I would never allow a PC to die. After a while they lost touch with fear of dying and they all been shocked when one of them finally died after doing something which was critically dangerous (and somewhat stupid. ). It led to great RP though. What been gained in the end was far more interesting and important than what would have happened without, that is for sure. But telling you that story would take a few pages which would not be directly relevant to this discussion.

To get back on track, it didn't deter from the epic story or fun. It was only a slight delay in the order of events the players thought had established. And it doesn't happen often at all, I might add.

As for your edit... I don't have my books here, but from memory a critical miss in combat also mean that monsters in range get an attack of oportunity and that you lose the rest of your turn. As far as I know, those are already inside the normal rules. Adding fumble rules only add a small event to all this which force you to react. I see it more like a drop of water in a vase. Yes, that one drop can tip the water off... But again, what can't? In the end it is all a sum which determine the end result and the players can affect the vast majority of those drops already.

No, that's not a rule at all.  A critical miss means you automatically miss with your attack.  That's it.  What you're describing is a critical fumble houserule.  If you thought that was in the base rules, than I can understand why you're confused that other people are getting up in arms about critical fumbles, because as you said it's a much smaller step from that viewpoint.  But that's not an actual rule, and it really is even worse than just dropping your weapon.  I would be hard-pressed to EVER play a melee character in those circumstances.

Well... You got me there. I don't even have my books to check but anyways, there is one thing I can tell you: I have never met nor talked with a player or DM who didn't use the attack of oportunity plus end of turn when a critical miss happen in combat. That's with what? Roughly a decade of experience. So yes, it might be local... But that would be huge, thus my surprise.

I can't understand why someone would want to play with critical misses which does nothing at all. What's the point? Why have critical hits which do something at the other extreme and which can be readily improved with feats without having its counterpart? Luck is always a two sided coin. It is only logical for me to have it there too.

As for the other questions... Those are already covered in the base rules.

Yes, which speaks to my points above.  Enemy crits can kill you, but there are things you can do to mitigate them.  If your own fumbles can kill you too, there should be things you can do to mitigate them, but no one ever includes those.[/quote]
I already answered this above and the reason for this is there.

[CaptRory]

The amount of bad faith and ignorance in this thread is astounding. Somehow I didn't expect much more from this board though. So I won't even bother with that.

On the other hand, I'm a DM who use fumble rules too. And the players like it instead of the opposite. Why? Well, first I don't use a single result for a fumble. The char dropping his/her weapon is indeed a classic, however I also use a plethora of other results which add up and spice up the game. For example, the char in question might loose footing and drop on the ground instead. Sometimes, rarely, I unstrung a bow for an archer (only requiring a complex action to restring)  but most of the time I ask the archer in question to roll a directional D8 and see if he/she hit a friendly instead. Otherwise the shot just go loose. Sometimes I simply use my imagination and write up an original reaction on the stop. Oftentime the current situation will scream out for a particular humoristic fumble and I'm always happy to oblige.

It is always fun when players start remembering encounters by memorable dire moment they managed to get out of.

And of course, what balance everything back in the end: the monsters fumbles too. Players stop whining when they realize that the monsters fumble more than them simply because they are more numerous in a swarm or when a big, strong monster fumbles and open strike possibilities they would not have otherwise.

My GM uses "fumbles" too. But we're using BESM2e so you need to roll a 11 or 12 on 2d6. It makes the game more dynamic, but again, doesn't come up that often. 1/36 chance of a 12. 2/36 for an 11. And the penalties aren't as severe as having to spend 5 minutes restringing your bow. And it applies equally to every character not just non-spellcasters.

[sirpercival]

There are lots of houserules which lower peoples' mechanical ability in combat.  Here are 3 reasons people jump to the barricades for critical fumbles in particular:

1) It worsens mundane characters while not making any difference to spellcasters, who are already far superior than mundanes.
2) Because it's a flat 5% chance per die roll, characters who make more attacks (i.e., more powerful characters) will be more likely to fail than weaker characters.  If you create a god of combat who makes 20 attacks per round, that means that on average that character will be critically fumbling once per round, compared to a 1st-level warrior who will critically fumble once per 20 rounds (or every 5 combats per so), which breaks verisimilitude in half.
3) Less importantly, there are things one can do to mitigate crits; however, fumbles aren't supported in the rules, and the DMs who houserule them rarely create materials for PCs to mitigate fumbles.

Yeah... Well...

1) Casters are more powerful at high level than non casters, that is true. But I never agreed to the conclusion which abound on this forum that mundane can't have anything and that casters surpasses them in every possible way. It is true that melee get slightly hit with the fumble rules, however going as far as to say it cripple them is crazy talk. Considering the enemy have the same limitation, it doesn't change anything which is already in place in the system.

In what ways are casters inferior or equal to mundanes at high levels?
 

Funny how people who claim that mundane can't have anything always take for granted that the mage in question has all his spells or has time to prepare in advance. What if he doesn't? In game, players or chars rarely enter fight both at optimum capacity and prepared in advance specifically for that particular encounter. But that's never taken into consideration, isn't?
In a situation in which the caster has no relevant spells or is not able to prepare well enough, I think the melee guys have a higher chance to win. And if the caster is stuck with combat mechanics, the same rules fall on them too.

Oh, well if you want to compare a poorly-played caster to a competently-played mundane, that's one thing.  I was assuming similar levels of competence.  In your games, how often does a caster of 3rd level or higher have to resort to his crossbow?

2)True in a pure mathematical sense. However, I've seen player makes 3 or more critical misses in a row (not back to back in the same action, but still). What % chance of doing that would that be? I could calculate it but I don't care... Because I know that statistics is one thing and reality is another one.

...what?  So what if a character makes 3 critical misses in a row?  And how does that do anything except reinforce my point?

That said, you do want an answer why a more experienced melee would have more chance to fumble something than an inexperienced one? Simply because they do more. And that's exactly what your mathematic bring up. I don't know about you, but if someone is up to 4 attacks per round they still attack 4 times more or faster in the same 3 seconds of action then of course they are more likely to have something happen to them. They ought to take more steps, more chances, more of everything to squeeze that all in one round. However, does it change anything in the balance? Not really. A more experienced fighter (represented by levels in this sytem) still know way more feats, hit way easier and way harder than an unexperienced one. Plus, the HP difference make it so that even in an hypothetical fight with the experienced and the inexperienced fighter, the inexperienced fighter could probably score a little more hits but it would not chance the issue of the battle because he would only start to dent the experienced fighter HP.

I think after this post I'm probably going to bow out of this conversation, since it's unlikely to go anywhere.  You're speaking from a completely different base of comparison to pretty much every optimizer of any skill.  If I go much farther, I think I'll end up yelling and banging my head against the wall.

3)Yes, there is a lot of material already wrote up for criticals... But why would you even need some to prevent fumbles? I guess it is because you consider it to be really bad, so I understand... But even simply droping your weapon mean what? That you need to bother using a move action to take it back? Possibly provocking attacks of opportunities?

So... when you're fighting a big monster that can kill you with one hit, how is it not a bad thing to provoke AoOs?

What I am trying to say here is that what you are asking for already exist. If you are wary about getting hit while taking your weapon back, take a feat which help mitigate AoO. If it is because you fear getting stuck in the middle of a melee without a weapon, take feats or skills which help getting out without provocking those attacks or nullify them. Or simply take a step back and draw a secondary weapon. Etc.
Easy.

So rather than spend your character building resources on being awesome, spend them on not sucking.  Got it.

I have no problems with people trying to find ways to lessen the problem as long as it is a legal way in the system. As a matter of fact, I do remember there is a feat in complete soundrel which turns your critical misses into critical hits. I don't know if it was mentioned in this thread, might be interesting for people to check.

No, it only works on saving throws.

Ah. Too bad. Strange though, I remember someone mentioning this to me in the past. The guy wanted to take as many crit range boosting feats as possible as well as the feat I mentioned to try to maximize crit chances. Maybe I misunderstood or I'm not mentioning the right material.

I would take most of the rules you remember with a grain of salt, from what I'm reading here.

On the other hand, I'm a DM who use fumble rules too. And the players like it instead of the opposite. Why? Well, first I don't use a single result for a fumble. The char dropping his/her weapon is indeed a classic, however I also use a plethora of other results which add up and spice up the game. For example, the char in question might loose footing and drop on the ground instead. Sometimes, rarely, I unstrung a bow for an archer (only requiring a complex action to restring)  but most of the time I ask the archer in question to roll a directional D8 and see if he/she hit a friendly instead. Otherwise the shot just go loose. Sometimes I simply use my imagination and write up an original reaction on the stop. Oftentime the current situation will scream out for a particular humoristic fumble and I'm always happy to oblige.

So you just make something up when a player fumbles?  That has a couple problems, namely (a) it depends on DM skill, so what works for you may not work for others, and (b) it's impossible for a player to predict what can happen, so they can't take steps to mitigate it, so your random effect could arbitrarily lead to PC death.

A) Possibly true but a good DM need to be able to improvise. Otherwise the DM in question will never be really 'good'. PCs never do what the DM think up, or do it differently. A DM should already be used to do that all the time.

Which is why it depends on DM skill.

I don't get where we are going with this. Ok, DMs don't have all their skills equal. But there is a minimum in every aspect you need to get before being able to make a good game, no? DMs who can't do that or have that should stick to player style until they get enough experience.

Or at worse make a table. I don't know. I can't see what it would change anyways.

B) Being impossible to predict is precisely the whole point. What would be the point of criticals if it wasn't to have a rare but unpredictable event possibly changing the whole battle? Can't an unlucky PC also already die from a lucky crit plus maxed damage dice from a strong monster? Isn't the whole point of going adventuring (as a whole, as in why the char in question has choosen to be an adventurer in the first place) not knowing what you will expect versus, I don't know... Staying home as the town blacksmith?

Anyways, my simple answer to point B is this: if we didn't want the game to be random in the first place, we would not be using dice. The whole point is not to know in advance what would happen. Otherwise it would be a story in which you participate on the side, not a real personal adventure.

This isn't really an argument... lots of things in a campaign are unknown.  And yes, an unlucky PC can die from a crit from a monster.  It's much more interesting and heroic if the hero dies that way than because he slipped and fell and broke his neck.  If that kind of thing works for you and your gaming group, then great!  I'm not telling you how to have fun.  But don't use that as proof that critical fumbles don't make the game worse for most people, particularly anyone who doesn't play a spellcaster.

Humm... Why would a PC die directly from a fumble? Even if you would slip and fall prone, you're still only prone and holding your weapons. A light circumstancial hit to your AC, that's all.

Maybe you should elaborate a little on your thoughts about this. I think we're not on the same page.

It seems the monsters your players fight are either severely nerfed or not played particularly competently either, so I guess it's not surprising that they would suck just as much.

I am sorry, but I do not understand your comment about dying. Yes monsters die all the time, but PCs can die too? Or is it that PCs never die in your games? There is various ways to bring a character back to life. Once again, the game would not be as interesting without the risk involved and having nobody in life threatening danger (or at least having his interests threatened) during a whole campaing is a sure way to make it going dull.

Of course PCs should be able to die.  But again, they should die doing something important rather than from dropping their sword on their femoral artery.

The point of playing a PC is to be a hero in an epic story, usually one of taking on hordes of monsters.  If the monsters kill you, then you can't play.  Having a PC die should be a major event, not an everyday occurrence, because it changes the dynamics of the plot.

Again about PCs killing themselves?

While I agree that having a PC die sucks, it is the second side of a coin. You can't have fear without the direct consequence. So you can't fear dying without knowing you can actually die. I have several players who thought, for a very long time, that I would never allow a PC to die. After a while they lost touch with fear of dying and they all been shocked when one of them finally died after doing something which was critically dangerous (and somewhat stupid. ). It led to great RP though. What been gained in the end was far more interesting and important than what would have happened without, that is for sure. But telling you that story would take a few pages which would not be directly relevant to this discussion.

To get back on track, it didn't deter from the epic story or fun. It was only a slight delay in the order of events the players thought had established. And it doesn't happen often at all, I might add.

See above about the quality of opponents.

As for your edit... I don't have my books here, but from memory a critical miss in combat also mean that monsters in range get an attack of oportunity and that you lose the rest of your turn. As far as I know, those are already inside the normal rules. Adding fumble rules only add a small event to all this which force you to react. I see it more like a drop of water in a vase. Yes, that one drop can tip the water off... But again, what can't? In the end it is all a sum which determine the end result and the players can affect the vast majority of those drops already.

No, that's not a rule at all.  A critical miss means you automatically miss with your attack.  That's it.  What you're describing is a critical fumble houserule.  If you thought that was in the base rules, than I can understand why you're confused that other people are getting up in arms about critical fumbles, because as you said it's a much smaller step from that viewpoint.  But that's not an actual rule, and it really is even worse than just dropping your weapon.  I would be hard-pressed to EVER play a melee character in those circumstances.

Well... You got me there. I don't even have my books to check but anyways, there is one thing I can tell you: I have never met nor talked with a player or DM who didn't use the attack of oportunity plus end of turn when a critical miss happen in combat. That's with what? Roughly a decade of experience. So yes, it might be local... But that would be huge, thus my surprise.

This is the most baffling thing in this entire post.  I've been playing D&D for 20 years, with many different people, and I've never heard this before.  Not once.  I bet you would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people on this board who have ever heard of it either.

I can't understand why someone would want to play with critical misses which does nothing at all. What's the point? Why have critical hits which do something at the other extreme and which can be readily improved with feats without having its counterpart? Luck is always a two sided coin. It is only logical for me to have it there too.

As for the other questions... Those are already covered in the base rules.

Yes, which speaks to my points above.  Enemy crits can kill you, but there are things you can do to mitigate them.  If your own fumbles can kill you too, there should be things you can do to mitigate them, but no one ever includes those.

I already answered this above and the reason for this is there.

Sigh.  I think I'm done with this conversation.

[Vasja]

Because I know that statistics is one thing and reality is another one.

Seriously?

Funny how people who claim that mundane can't have anything always take for granted that the mage in question has all his spells or has time to prepare in advance. What if he doesn't?

They (usually) do not make that assumption.

I have never met nor talked with a player or DM who didn't use the attack of oportunity plus end of turn when a critical miss happen in combat. That's with what? Roughly a decade of experience.

So in 10 years every player and DM you've met have used the same exact house rule, despite the fact that the variant rule in the DMG is different? Right...

As to your talk about a more experienced melee 'doing it more'. Ignoring the fact that combat is an abstraction, if you believe that Bruce Lee should have a higher chance of dropping his Nunchaku than a dairy farmer or a child, the discussion has been over for a while.

[Chemus]

EoF, you are correct that as characters are able to attack more frequently in a round, the Crit Fumbles will happen faster but not more frequently. The big problem folks in this thread are talking about was not fumbles in particular, but the OP's DM's archer bane bowstrings.

I see that you seem not to have known that critical fumble rules do not exist in RAW. Critical failures do. On a roll of 1, Attack Rolls and Saving Throws automatically fail, barring special rules (Not houserules, but Feats, spells etc.) that would say otherwise.

Critical hits are NOT automatic even on a 20 (barring special rules again). First, your attack must be able to hit normally on 20 or less, or else the effect is just that you hit. Then you must confirm the crit by hitting the AC again on another attack roll. So that luck is balanced against the effect of the nat. 1 being: "You miss the goblin. Shut up and roll your next attack.". Additionally, Crit Hits are less likely on iterative attacks, but crit failures are equally likely on all attacks.

The OP's DM's houserule is not terribly harsh on melee beatsticks, but it is totally utterly and completely crippling to archers and crossbowmen on the 1/20 attacks that it comes into effect. That is because the DM says that the bowstring breaks, and it's a 5 minute action to restring a bow according to that DM. If the DM said that the Archer had to take a move action to get a bowstring, and a standard action that provokes AoO to restring, the complaining would be much more restrained.

Crit fumbles favor monsters in that DM's game very strongly because many monsters have no weapons to drop. Your fumble rules and your previous DM's fumble rules are not really the OP's point. I disagree with you that fumble rules like those are good for play in general, but I'm glad that they've been fun for you.

[Eagle of Fire]

I don't know if I should continue this thread either. It is turning into a flame fest again.

Beside, I can't keep up with everybody at once. I just realized that there is someone on the last page I completely missed who made a nice post with good points, but at this point replying to him would be me repeating what I already said all over again.

There is so many things me and other people disagree with that it make for an impossible conversation. For example, the fact that you drop your weapon don't destroy your capacity to do anything. That's crazy talk.

Sounds more like a difference in perception than anything really.

One thing is sure for me: fumble rules certainly enhanced the gameplay of my games but I don't use those mentioned by the thread starter. In the end I guess it's all which is important for me to say (and which I said in the first post I made in this thread).

[snakeman830]

For example, the fact that you drop your weapon don't destroy your capacity to do anything. That's crazy talk.

Except for destroy your ability to even make iteratives after that and AoO's until your next turn.  You know, things that melee characters are all about?

[Eagle of Fire]

That's only for one turn. Hardly game breaking. You only have one AoO per turn y'know.

Plus, your enemies would do it too.

[Solo]

That's only for one turn. Hardly game breaking. You only have one AoO per turn y'know.

Combat Reflexes.

Plus, your enemies would do it too.

What weapons does a Hydra drop?

Because I know that statistics is one thing and reality is another one.

Have you considered spending your life's savings on the lottery?

[Bozwevial]

That's only for one turn. Hardly game breaking. You only have one AoO per turn y'know.

Plus, your enemies would do it too.

So...you're okay with a 20th level fighter having an 18.5% chance per full attack of

• Spoiling the rest of his attacks.
• Spoiling his chance to make AoOs.
• Having to spend an action next turn picking up his weapon, unless
• Something took the opportunity to steal or destroy it.

And nothing about that strikes you as particularly game breaking? Especially given that many of your enemies, as Solo pointed out, are creatures with natural weapons that they can't actually drop?

[Eagle of Fire]

Well, you know... When mentioning bad faith, this really is a prime example.

As I said, you could do 6 battles and not even hit a critical or a fumble.

Also, it could be on your last attack on your full round. Big deal.

Also, nobody ever said you didn't have an AoO for the rest of your turn. You don't have an AoO with your weapon for the rest of your turn. Not the same thing.

Another worthy note is that fighters who will supposedly be hit the worse with this are those fighting with two weapons combat. Have anybody said you drop the two weapons at the same time when you fumble? I sure did not in any case.

People, just stop looking at the worse which can happen. That's only the extreme case. Yes, it can happen... But just like hitting 3 1's in a row, that will only 0,000125% of the time...(0.05*0.05*0.05=0.000125%) But it can still happen.

[snakeman830]

Rolling 3 1's in a row is completely different than rolling a single one out of three rolls.  Yet if you're using fumbles, both can easily have the same effect (5% chance on the first roll to have the same effect on the enemy, but worse on the one wielding the weapon)

[Garryl]

Also, nobody ever said you didn't have an AoO for the rest of your turn. You don't have an AoO with your weapon for the rest of your turn. Not the same thing.

You don't threaten while unarmed, and thus can't take AoOs.

[Solo]

People, just stop looking at the worse which can happen. That's only the extreme case. Yes, it can happen... But just like hitting 3 1's in a row, that will only 0,000125% of the time...(0.05*0.05*0.05=0.000125%) But it can still happen.

Please. You know as well as I that statistics are one thing and reality is another one.

[Bozwevial]

Well, you know... When mentioning bad faith, this really is a prime example.

As I said, you could do 6 battles and not even hit a critical or a fumble.

Oh, I'm so glad you said this.

Let's be optimistic and assume that each battle lasts, oh, five rounds, and that you make a full attack on four out of five of those rounds through various means, which I think isn't an unreasonable assumption. That's a total of 24 full attacks across six fights.

Now, at 1st level you only get one attack in a full attack, for 24 attacks total. The chance that you don't roll a 1 on any of those is 0.95^24 = 0.292, or 29%.

If you increase that to two attacks, the chance you don't fumble any is 0.085, or 8.5%. Three attacks drops that chance to 2.48%, less than half the chance of fumbling in the first place, and four attacks leaves you sitting pretty at 0.7%.

So no, it's not impossible. It's just overwhelmingly likely, even if you're not getting any extra attacks at all.

Also, it could be on your last attack on your full round. Big deal.

This is not a compelling argument. You are being screwed out of AoOs and your weapon either way. This is like being served a plate of garbage for lunch, and then being told that at least you're not like the guy at the next table, who had it for both breakfast and lunch. It's certainly true that your situation could be worse, but given that you are eating garbage, it could be a hell of a lot better.

Also, nobody ever said you didn't have an AoO for the rest of your turn. You don't have an AoO with your weapon for the rest of your turn. Not the same thing.

As Garryl pointed out, you can't actually take an AoO at all in that case.

Another worthy note is that fighters who will supposedly be hit the worse with this are those fighting with two weapons combat. Have anybody said you drop the two weapons at the same time when you fumble? I sure did not in any case.

Where are you getting this? TWFers have it worse because they make more attack rolls and have a higher chance of fumbling. It doesn't have anything to do with dropping both weapons on a fumble. Maybe that does happen, maybe it doesn't. I don't know, because that is a houserule and not actually in the rules.

[Unbeliever]

I don't know if I should continue this thread either. It is turning into a flame fest again.
....

Only b/c you made it into one with your arrogant, ridiculous post.  And, by the way, you are entirely full of shit.  These boards have myriad posts about house rules, tweaks, etc. some of which weaken characters and some of which strengthen them. 

A particular fumble rule was discussed in the OP.  This rule was, essentially, "when you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll something arbitrarily bad happens to you."  The specific example was that a bowstring snapped, leading the character to spend like 6 months restringing it. 

It is a bad rule for a number of reasons stated.  Just to recap:

(1)  It runs counter to verisimilitude:  b/c the probability to fumble is flat and unmodifiable, people who make more attacks are more likely to fumble.  One of the chief indications that someone is a skilled warrior in D&D is making multiple attacks.  So, Legolas is more likely to fumble than a dairy farmer.  Drizzt is more likely to drop his magicky blades than I am.  That makes little sense.

(2)  It punishes particular character concepts.  The archer or the twf duelist is disproportionately hit by this.  As I stated earlier, anything that picks and chooses among character concepts is automatically suspect.

(3)  It's arbitrary.  Crits have a very predictable, not all that extreme result:  double damage.  The fumble rule presented has "whatever the DM feels like."  That's, again, inherently bad.  The archer can have his bowstring snap, removing him from the encounter, another character might trip or fall or whatever. 

Until you can answer (1)-(3) there is no other conclusion than this is a bad rule.  That's not to say that fumble rules are inherently bad.  If they had some sort of confirmation mechanic like crits do, and their effects were relatively predictable, then they might be fine.  That is not what the OP is referring to, nor any proposal that I have detected in this thread so far.

[Eagle of Fire]

Yeah, sure. Whatever.

It is only a bad rule because you say so.

How could I fight against mathematics? I mean, how could I not notice in the last few years that each of my players got mangled every two hits because it is obvious that they should roll 1's all the time? Or how can I fight against the argument that it is inherently bad that a DM should do his job?

In reality, using those rules never get even close to what you are saying.

I'm out of here. There is no point in arguing... You guys are obviously right and I'm obviously wrong.

[Bozwevial]

When you go, could you pick up all the straw you brought in?