Towards a Better Critical Fumble Paradigm

[CE2JRH]

Hypothesis: Our current failure paradigm is bizarre
1) Critical failures are interesting; lots of groups houserule some special penalty on natural ones. I sort of like this too. Add in the chaos of people losing their weapons, hitting allies. This image of fighting as brutal, chaotic, confusing, where people hurt themselves and their allies in the chaos is reasonable, and is well supported in our consumed media.

2) Using straight natural 1's as failures makes characters more likely to hurt themselves as they gain more attacks. Statistically, a 16th+ranger dualwielding master injures himself twice in every thirty seconds of fighting, where a first level warrior novice does so only once every couple of minutes. This is strange.

This can be explained away by some sort of paradigm of “new fighters are slow and foolish, but less likely to do daring and chaotic things. Expert fighters are fast, but more likely to fumble in their brash and aggressive movements.”

Either way, this paradigm is sub optimal.

3) This “swordsmasters fumble” issue can be mitigated by reflex saves. This is somewhat common; for example “Anytime a player or monster rolls a natural "1" on an attack roll, the character has fumbled the attack. Whenever a fumble results, the player must make a Reflex save against DC 14.”

This paradigm gives us strange errors as well. Math.

 

A relatively dextrous fighter (14 dex) who wields a greatsword, and gets boots of speed at 10, and Cloak of resistance +1 at 5, +2 at 10, +3 at 15 and +4 at 20.

Odds of critting and failing the save in any single round
Base rate (5% per attack) * odds of failing save.
Level 1: 5% --- 55% (+2) = 2.75% odds of critting failing per round
Level 2: 5% --- 55% (+2) = 2.75% odds of critting failing per round
Level 3: 5% --- 50% (+3) = 2.5% odds of critting failing per round
Level 4: 5% --- 50% (+3) = 2.5% odds of critting failing per round
Level 5: 5% --- 45% (+4) = 2.25% odds of critting failing per round
Level 6: 10% --- 40% (+5) = 4% odds of critting failing per round
Level 7: 10% --- 40% (+5) = 4% odds of critting failing per round
Level 8: 10% --- 40% (+5) = 3% odds of critting failing per round
Level 9: 10% --- 35% (+6) = 3.5% odds of critting failing per round
Level 10: 15% --- 30% (+7) = 4.5% odds of critting failing per round
Level 11: 20% --- 30% (+7) = 6% odds of critting failing per round
Level 12: 20% --- 25% (+8) = 5.% odds of critting failing per round
Level 13: 20% --- 25% (+8) = 5.% odds of critting failing per round
Level 14: 20% --- 25% (+8) = 5% odds of critting failing per round
Level 15: 20% --- 15% (+10) = 3% odds of critting failing per round
Level 16: 25% --- 15% (+10) = 3.75% odds of critting failing per round
Level 17: 25% --- 15% (+10) = 3.75% odds of critting failing per round
Level 18: 25% --- 10% (+11) = 2.5% odds of critting failing per round
Level 19: 25% --- 10% (+11) = 2.5% odds of critting failing per round
Level 20: 25% --- 5% (+12) = 1.25% odds of critting failing per round

Our relatively dextrous greatsword wielder is least likely to screw up and stab himself in the eye to most likely in this level ordering:

(Safer) -------------------------------------------------------------- (unsafe)
20 >>> 5 >>> 3, 4, 18, 19 >>> 1, 2 >>> 8, 15 >>> 9 >>> 16, 17 >>> 6, 7 >>> 10 >>> 12, 13, 14 >>> 11

As we can see hear, our greatsword fighter is safest in the low (1-5) or high (18-20) level ranges, and most likely to injure himself at the middle ranges (6-7, 10-14). Level 11 is particularly dangerous, where every minute of fighting, said fighter is likely (60%) to screw up and hurt himself, and basically guaranteed every 100 seconds (1 minute, 40 seconds) to injured himself. Contrast that with a novice of the blade, who in a minute is unlikely (27.5%) to injure himself, and is basically guaranteed to injure himself every 220 seconds (3 minutes, 40 seconds); a rate much less frequent than his expert acquaintance.

 

Let's instead consider a dual wielding elven ranger friend:
Dex 20, +1 at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20. +2 at 5, 10, 15, and +1 saves at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20. Boots of speed at 10 again.

Base rate (5% per attack) * odds of failing save.
Level 1: 10% * 30% (+7) = 3% odds of critical failure per round
Level 2: 10% * 25% (+8) = 2.5% odds of critical failure per round
Level 3: 10% * 25% (+8) = 2.5% odds of critical failure per round
Level 4: 10% * 20% (+9) = 2% odds of critical failure per round
Level 5: 10% * 10% (+11) = 1% odds of critical failure per round
Level 6: 20% * 5% (+12) = 1% odds of critical failure per round
Level 7: 20% * 5% (+12) = 1% odds of critical failure per round
Level 8: 20% * 5% (+15) = 1% odds of critical failure per round
Level 9: 20% * 5% (+15) = 1% odds of critical failure per round
Level 10: 25% * 5% (+18) = 1.25% odds of critical failure per round
Level 11: 30% * 5% (+18) = 1.5% odds of critical failure per round
Level 12: 35% * 5% (+20) = 1.75% odds of critical failure per round
Level 13: 35% * 5% (+20) = 1.75% odds of critical failure per round
Level 14: 35% * 5% (+21) = 1.75% odds of critical failure per round
Level 15: 35% * 5% (+22) = 1.75% odds of critical failure per round
Level 16: 40% * 5% (+25) = 2% odds of critical failure per round
Level 17: 40% * 5% (+25) = 2% odds of critical failure per round
Level 18: 40% * 5% (+26) = 2% odds of critical failure per round
Level 19: 40% * 5% (+26) = 2% odds of critical failure per round
Level 20: 40% * 5% (+28) = 2% odds of critical failure per round

Breaking down this saves chart:
Dexterity: +5 at 1, +6 at 5, +7 at 8, +9 at 10, +10 at 15, +11 at 16. (+2 item at 5/10/15, +2 at 8/16 from levelling up). Item at 4/8/12/16/20.
Safer ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsafe

5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ---> 10 ----> 11 >>>>>>> 12, 13, 14, 15 >>>>>> 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 >>> 2, 3 >>> 1

For this character, their best levels for avoiding crits are early-middle (5-11) At their peak (5-9), they only screw up every 10 minutes of fighting, which is exactly what I'd expect from a swords expert...though that goes down to every 5 minutes at their true expertise. At their first level they are indeed least able to successfully fight, with some sort of accident every 200 seconds (3 minutes, 20 seconds).

As we can see with this paradigm, characters with low reflex saves are at greatest danger of self-injury in the middle of their career. Characters with high reflex saves, however, are at least danger of self-injury in the middle of career; and most at risk at start or end. This could acceptably be explained by “combat is fast and furious; those with agility are always best able to avoid the errors, though even they tend to be reckless and aggressive as their expertise becomes great”

This result is still a little strange.

I would like an absolutely linear critical fumble paradigm, however.

4) Option 1: You can only crit fail on your first attack of an attack sequence.
(Make sure your players don't roll 4d20 at the same time, have them declare a “first attack”). This would make the critical failure fixed at 5%.

5) Option 2: You can only crit fail on your first attack of an attack sequence, and if you also fail a reflex save DC 14 (see above): This would make a descending 5% chance as reflex save increases.

6) Option 3: Putting the reflex save DC high enough that it doesn't go off the RNG at mid levels would function, (DC 30 reflex save to avoid crits), but that would also prevent the fighter from ever getting on the RNG, resulting in something that closely resembled the fixed 5% per attack; this would disadvantage non-dexterity based fighters.

I think option 2 here most accurately fits goals.

7) Option 4: No critical fumbles for melees; let trips, bull rushes, grapples, disarms, represent all those moments from consumed media that involve some sort of user failure.
This seems to not perfectly capture the desire for critical failures.

Balance note: Casters do not critical fail, and are generally advantaged in this system (note; this statement is sometimes disputed, but not worth disputing here.) Idea: Make every caster start a spell with a d20 roll; if 1, they make a will save to avoid critical fumbling as per Option 2. When casting multiple spells per round, casters only roll the fumble d20 once. On Rays or other attack-roll-requiring spells, the d20 is the attack roll.

[chaosaccountant]

I think part of the problem is the assumption that a fumble is generally an all-or-nothing affair. There are lots of ways to fumble, and it's clearly a less serious fumble to overswing and have to take a move action getting your weapon back in place than it is to loose your sword on the upswing and have it hit the wizard two squares behind you. I generally request another roll, and depending on how bad that is assign the fumble. I've never been able to come up with a good paradigm for what that roll should be, though. I generally make it a straight d20 roll, but that clearly isn't a great option.

[CE2JRH]

I had those "d100" charts in mind where some of them are minor and some of them are major, but even if they are all minor, or predominantly minor, that still represents the statistical strangeness above; if 100 is "hit yourself for quadruple damage." a fighter is still more likely to suicide in a non-linear level progression as above. If it's all minor, a fighter is still more likely to slip, stub toe, overswing, lose move actions, etcetera, at weird levels as above.

[WoLT]

While house rules are great, I agree the paradigm of 5% crit fumble rate is far too high for someone who is supposed to be the hero of a story, and as I like to run more cinematic games I just arbitrate any such rolls for my games, keeping the result dramatically appropriate for the situation at hand.

This style is best used by players that trust their GMs and campaigns that are more cinematicly oriented.

I do feel 5) Option 2: You can only crit fail on your first attack of an attack sequence, and if you also fail a reflex save DC 14 (see above): This would make a descending 5% chance as reflex save increases. offers a great solution to the issue of multiple attacks by more skilled fighters causing a higher fumble rate.

Something just doesn't sit right with me about this idea that a high level character is just going to be screwing up much more often... it's even less incentive to play a muggle class to begin with, and given their position in the tier structure I almost feel single class warrior types are owed reparations come level 13 as during the first 12 levels they play party protector (a selfless and needed role) and slowly morph into party gimp. As such, the last thing we need to do is disincentivise playing them by punishing them for doing the one and only trick the melee monkey is good at: Hitting stuff.

All in all I'm for altering that paradigm and stamp my seal of approval on the notions put forth in this thread

[jj_wolven]

For fumbles I have charts, most of which allow saves. You can find the charts in any of the game I run.

-me

[CE2JRH]

The point is that allowing saving throws doesn't actually solve the more attacks = more expertise = increased frequent self-injury issue that I'm having.

I actually was presented with "Flat Base Attack Bonus check, DC 20" using your highest modifier, only on first attack; this makes it fighting skill related, and solves the more attacks = more expertise = increased frequency of self-injury, while at the same time solving the RNG issue of using saving throws (where keeping characters with a good save and bad save on the same RNG is hard).

[jj_wolven]

I figure that crit fumbles are just as likely for anyone...the lower levels will just miss more. At higher levels, they are more adept at recovering from and avoiding the worst of the crit fumble - more likely to make the save.

-me

[CE2JRH]

I figure that crit fumbles are just as likely for anyone...

Iterative attacks means that this is simply statistically false, if you allow critical fumbles on iterative attacks.

[GrazztTheDark]

Why not just make a avoidance check for the fumbles, like the confirmation check with criticals? Higher level characters will still "threaten" to fumble more then, but will actually fumble less since they can make the avoidance check. Sure, that may eventually eliminate fumbles for higher level characters, but that seems appropriate once you remember that they're supposed to be the most amazing warriors in the land by that point.

As for what the avoidance check would be, why not simply use the AC of whatever the original attack was attempting to beat? That makes sense: the character is more likely to fumble against a hard to hit opponent (who is either dexterous enough to turn the attack back on the character, or have armour that will turn blows similarly [if only by accident]). It also makes the fumbles less about character clumsiness and more about clever opponents exploiting temporary weakness, which makes them easier to swallow for players. And it gives more value to players who want to boost AC, as it means that opponents are more likely to fumble against them.

Actually, that gives me an idea for expanding the fumble rules: why not give weapons a character is not proficient with an increased "fumble" range? So they threaten a fumble on a one or a two instead of just a one. After all, someone wielding a two bladed sword without training should be at greater risk of cutting off their own hands. Plus you could provide characters with feats, abilities, and enhancements that increase the number of opponent fumbles. If weapons can be enchanted to increase the number of criticals, after all, why can't armour be enchanted to increase the number of enemy fumbles?

[CE2JRH]

So, fumbles = confirm against AC of target; if miss again, then fumble? Off the top of my head, any build based around numerous attacks at lower bonus (TWFing builds, combat expertise builds) become vastly more likely to fumble.

I think that iterative attacks means that fumbles have to be primary attack only, or you end up with inconsistent math somewhere.

[GrazztTheDark]

Ah, but that's a feature, not a bug. After all, if you're fighting on the basis of quantity as opposed to quality of attacks, of course you're going to fumble more. That only makes sense. While this hurts the TWF Fighter, the Combat Expertise fighter gets the bonus of causing more fumbles (improved AC from Combat Expertise means you're more likely to fail your avoidance check), and indeed I would think that if you introduce improved fumble feats they would be part of the Combat Expertise chain. For instance, how about "Counter" which would allow you an AoO whenever an opponent fumbles while within range of your weapon?

Another idea: someone mentioned upthread that it penalizes fighters as opposed to casters. Well, beyond ray and touch attacks (which should be subject to fumbles normally), why not make special fumbles for when a caster rolls a natural one on either a Spell Resistance or a Concentration check? Not only does that penalize casters a bit, but it actually brings them down lower than the fighters (since they have up to three areas where a spell can fumble, albeit probably not all three at once) and only one area where it can critical (and again, not even all the time).

One final idea: fumble strengths. Criticals are divided into x2, x3, and x4. Why not make separate fumble tables, and apply them in appropriate situations. The basic table would include inconvenience effects that would simply cause you to lose a turn or two (tripping, dropping the weapon), and would apply to weapons wield while proficient in optimal circumstance. The stronger table would include effects that damage you or your weapon and would only come into play while wielding a non-proficient weapon, fighting while under the effect of certain debuffs, or when fighting an opponent who has special abilities that cause that (fighters with appropriate feats or monsters that are particularly hard to hit like displacer beasts). You could expand Bane to cause a character to use the "Bad" fumble table, or anyone attacking a character under the effect of an entropic shield.

Really, what I dislike about fumbles is that they're so often an afterthought, and not really integrated into combat the way criticals are. Why not be creative and include them in your spells, enchantments, and feats?

[CE2JRH]

I'm not sure that makes sense, especially when you start to compare out builds that get more than 20 attacks per round (like Arcane Duelists); you end up with 20th level expert bladesmen fumbling more infinite numbers of time more frequently than 5th level novices even against the same enemy.

Fleshing out fumbles into an entire system would be interesting, however, once I was certain I'd developed them in a way that I found statistically reasonable (especially for characters making >20 attacks per round).

[jj_wolven]

My charts have a feature that is basically fumble confirmation...most of the entries allow a saving throw.

For me, multiple attacks mean multiple possibilities that something unexpected happens. Most of the entries that are on my chart are less related to skill: pull a muscle, step in a hold, mental shock, etc.
To me, the initial fumble is not as skill related. The skill part comes in the saving throw to avoid the circumstances: you toe catches in a hole, but you quickly (Reflex) rotate yourself to not damage your knee.

-me

[GrazztTheDark]

Out of curiousity, wolven, how do you set the saves?

@CE2JRH Against the same enemy when he has a high AC. Which makes sense: the character has reduced the quality of his slashes until some of them are at the same accuracy as the lower level character, anyway, and he's offering up more opportunity to the opponent by using many of these low quality slashes. If the opponent has a lower AC, on the other hand, the 20th level build may never fumble no matter how many attacks he uses, compared to the 5th level build which may still fumble on occasion (unless the AC is really low).

Remember, I'm trying to shift the fumble paradigm from "attacker's error" to "defender's critical". Multi-hit builds will still suffer more fumbles (the way they also deal more criticals), I'm merely trying to shift the reason from "arbitrary fate" to "more defensively skilled opponent".

[CE2JRH]

Ooooh, now I follow! I didnt' in your last post.

That's interesting. Maybe even using the term "Critical Defense" instead of "Critical Fumble." That would also streamline really well into "Critical Failures" result in Attacks of Opportunity sort of rulesets.