I never really liked having fumbles in combat. I know some DMs like to have players drop weapons, potentially hit other players, fall down, and all sorts of unfortunate things happen when PCs roll a 1 on their attack. I just don't like it. It's sort of kicking a player when they are down. Worse of all, it's not because of a bad choice or poor decision, they just bumbled a die roll.
I think as a game philosophy, 4E has moved away from this idea. I like that the save or die concept has been dropped. Players have a few chances to turn things around. So the idea of having fumbles in combat seems to go against the grain of 4E.
I do like the idea of critical failures for skill checks. Even with a PC that has spectacular diplomacy training, you could have some noble zoning out and thinking about what wine they should drink with the evening meal, completely ignoring the pleas from that character. I don't mind that players completely blow skill checks. I usually set them up with a -4 penalty to their following check (and conversely give them bonus if they roll a 20).
I avoid fumbles in combat though. You get a lot of dice being thrown around. Get a group of 5 folks rolling D20s, after a few rounds you can expect that one of them will roll a 1. Another reason I never liked it is that you tend to penalize the player that has multiple attacks. That chance of having a single fumble for the wizard that plops down a burst hitting 4 monsters is going to find it mushrooming from 1 in 20 to nearly 20%.
Still I'm wrestling with doing something with fumbles in combat. It does add a small aspect of chaos in how a combat develops and makes things a little more unpredictable for players. I don't want some major mishap like a player falling prone, but I am wondering about having some small penalty.
So I've settled on taking a cue from the DMG. If a player rolls a natural 1 on their attack, they complete their turn as normal but grant combat advantage until the beginning of their next turn. If a player makes multiple attacks, only the attack roll for the first target is subject to being a fumble, with the rest of the attack rolls ignored if a 1 is rolled (just counts as a miss). That way there is a slight chance a player can get a fumble and it is the same regardless of how many attacks you make.
I see this as a player overswinging, losing their footing, or something else happening that makes them distracted and not able to effectively keep their guard up. Possibly that wizard had a surge of energy that landed a bit too close, distracting them, or they summoned too much energy temporarily making them a bit dizzy.
I'm going to try this out a bit and see how my players feel about it. I think they might welcome a little more randomness in fights, and hopefully not get too worked up about granting combat advantage. So if you have critical fumbles in combat, how do you work them out?
Your post just gave me an idea:
ReplyDeletePowers that trigger off of rolling a '1'. They would be encounter or daily powers, and have a response triggered something like: "When an adjacent enemy rolls a natural 1."
Been doin' this for years ;)
ReplyDelete@deadgod - Heh, that would be an interesting way to handle it. If there were nearby enemies, they would get an opportunity to do something.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you folks have something similar in your games. Looks like I will definitely have to give this a spin with my group.
I've been thinking about doing something similar in 3e, in which rolling a 1 either provokes an AoO or renders you flatfooted.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with fumbles and multiple attacks has plagued me for a while. Your solution of having only the first attack able to provoke is very neat and tidy. My own internal sense of balance screams that those other attacks can still be critical hits, and therefore the system is out of whack. But, I think I can actually live with it.
So what I do. When they roll a 1 their turn ends. if it is part of a burst or blast or multiple targets they all get a chance to still hit but the turn is over after that point. If they had not moved yet their turn is over.
ReplyDeleteI get some of the vets waxing poetically about the fumble and throw the weapon or hit a friendly. Nah not me. I do think 4e took some of the edge off the game a bit. But that is just me.
@marshall - I still like my idea of the first attack roll for multiple attacks being able to fumble (the rest are just treated like misses).
ReplyDelete@frank - I've leaned away from a PC's turn ending. I still think it is a little harsh, as I don't like stripping actions away from them. However, granting combat advantage can be a real pain in the ass too. Hrmm, might have to see how my group handles this for a few games.
I used to love critical fumbles when I DMed 2e back in the day (days full of friendly fire that is). I dropped them in 3e thanks to the prevailing design wisdom that was in Dragon around that time. I'm still not crazy about them for D&D, but I think I'm going to adopt your strategy (granting combat advantage isn't overly punishing) for Gamma World - where the idea of critical fumbles feels much more at home.
ReplyDeleteI have a list of different options for what a '1' represents (falling prone, grant free attack to enemy, disarmed, etc) and let the player decide. I don't see it as "kicking when down" so much as "forcing to change gears".
ReplyDelete@Zzarchov - Hee, that is a very positive way to put it to the PCs when they trip over their own sword.
ReplyDelete