User talk:Silver Tongue/Fumble Chart (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

Tarkisflux dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

If you think that variety of plights means "things are substantially worse in a variety of ways", then I guess this does that. It's a very specific type of variety, and not one that I think works well on the already action punishing fumble. And since it comes up only on 1:20 fumbles, the bit of "variety" that it adds is extremely small. If you're looking for a brutal but rare fumbles table, it's passable, I guess. But it's not good, and doesn't really succeed at what it says it's trying to do.

	Sulacu opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	I dislike any and all variant rules that inflate the economics of dice rolling, and I greatly dislike any and all variant rules that inject needless complexity in core gameplay mechanics like attacking. Opposed.

Are there any variant fumble mechanics that inject additional variance in attacks, as the author is clearly trying for, that would meet the bar you indicate above? If not, you're opposing a fumble chart based on it being a fumble chart, and that's not a helpful rating at all rather than a playstyle preference. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I was cautious enough not to use the phrase fumble chart in my reasoning. If you wanna use a fumble chart, a basic 1d6 one is good enough. If this monstrosity were to be used on every natural 1, it'd be a chore, and if it's to be used in the case of the 400 to 1 chance indicated in the article, then it's just needlessly complex for its rarity of occurrence. Not only that, but a lot of the options have even more dice rolling. What really drives the nails in, though, is that nothing about this list is fun, especially not the chance to incapacitate yourself for multiple rounds or even minutes just for missing an attack. I hate giving opposes, but this deserves one. If fumbling would be hilarious and let you become a danger both to yourself and the people around you in a variety of fun ways, only then would I be willing to consider a list this big. --Sulacu (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. Would have been nice if that was in the oppose at the start. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

	Undead Knave opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	You're right; the Fighter really shouldn't have nice things.

Can you please clarify why, or at least point to something that has already made the same point you want to make? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think he was being sarcastic... --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

	Leziad opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	I wouldn't even pick a single weapon off the ground in a game with this variant rule. This fumble chart is sloggy and is so harsh even rolling a single natural 1 in an encounter is a severe threat of death, at the very least rolling even a single natural 1 puts you right out of the encounter.

Can you please clarify why, or at least point to something that has already made the same point you want to make? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Note, you have to back your fumble with a second nat 1 for this table to trigger. I'm with you on the severity though. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

Oh my. I will say I dislike fumble charts in general because of the various issues involving them. Those arguments have gone into depth elsewhere, but as it is, I'd probably just Dislike it or even Neutral or not vote, cause it's not really something intended for me. However, looking at the results of the fumble, I find them intensely horrifying both on a mechanical simplicity issue and on the intensity of the effect. Dazed, ally crits, slowed, good lord. How do any fighters survive past level 1? Let me put it this way. I play in a game with fumbles. In this game the DM just uses it to do something appropriate for the scene, usually throwing one's weapon into a wall or dropping it. It's rough there, but usually no more inconvenient than action economy lost. This? This chart kills PC en masse. Any game which involves this one is a holocaust of melee. No person would ever pick up a sword, nevermind swing a butter knife in their kitchen, lest they sever off their own arms and detonate the nearby orphanage when they rolled a 1 against the butter stick they were cutting for some toast.

You did notice that you have to back your fumble for these to trigger, right? It's unclear from your butter hyperbole. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I did. It IS pretty rare, but I found it no excuse due to severity. 1 in 400 people just doing day to day tasks is still going to be a bloodbath by the end of the day. Say what you want about how silly it is for the professional chef missing his plate 5% of the time, at least when he does it he loses 6 seconds with all limbs intact. It brings up a hilarious and terrifying image of what this campaign setting is: A land cursed, all ye who carry the blade shall die. Whoever can break this curse, before the magic immune (but not sword immune) BBEG kills everyone? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

	Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Creates unnecessary additional rolls. Punishes people who use attack rolls, and punishes people who attack more often harsher. This is a nerf to fighters, without hurting spellcasters.

You're seemingly opposing a fumble chart on the grounds that it is a fumble chart... that's not a helpful rating for people who actually want a fumble chart and a violation of the merit guidelines. Please clarify, update, or remove this rating. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think ghostwheel said all that needs to be said here:

1. Fumble rules always hurt PCs more than they hurt monsters. This is because a PC makes thousands of attack rolls over the course of a campaign, whereas a monster that lasts 10 rounds and full attacks each time with 3 attacks (total of 30 attacks in his lifetime) is considered an exceptionally lucky beast.

2. Further, fumbles also hurt PCs more than monsters statistically. D&D combat favors the PCs. This is because, if the monsters were always equal in power to the PCs, the average campaign would last no more than two combats, since each combat would have about a 50% chance of ending in a wipe. Anything that increases randomness favors the underdogs; thus, fumbles favor the monsters.

3. Fumbles render mass combat entirely unrealistic. If 5% of attacks end in Something Awful happening, a battle between armies of more than 500 degenerates into a flurry of dropped weapons, snapped bowstrings, and people flinging their greatswords into their friends' backs. How does one fight a war in a situation like that? And, if that situation's not there, then how come the PC Thog, the Master Barbarian of the Crescent Serpent, with the skill at arms to defeat 90% of the world's blademasters, is flinging HIS sword into his friend's backs 5% of the time?

4. Fumbles hurt warriors more than mages. This is actually my sticking point on them - melee characters in D&D, aside from a few exploitative builds (infinite-damage hulking hurler, invincible frenzied berserker), are already struggling to keep up with the mages in terms of effectiveness. Why saddle them with even more trouble?

5. More skilled warriors fumble more often than less-skilled warriors. This one is entirely counter-intuitive and counter-realistic. If a natural 1 either fumbles or threatens a fumble, then a character with +20 BAB (4 attacks, not counting any extras from two weapon fighting, Haste, a speed weapon, or other such abilities) is going to, round by round, roll four times as many fumbles as a level 1 commoner with a stick. He's swinging four times as many times; he's going to fumble four times as many times. In games that used particularly brutal fumble systems, I've found myself voluntarily forgoing my lower iterative attacks - a choice that costs a melee character a lot of his power.

6. Critical hits already have a counterbalance. Further, that counterbalance already occurs, automatically, on a natural 1 attack roll. That counterbalance is called "missing." A critical hit, unless you have an additional ability to make it better, deals, in most cases, less than twice the damage a normal hit does - bonus dice, which nearly everyone who makes attack rolls regularly accumulates over their career from class abilities, feats, and weapon special abilities, are not multiplied in a critical hit. Thus, a fighter who rolls a critical hit and later in the combat rolls a miss has effectively dealt damage as if he was constantly rolling normal hits.

And that's why fumbles suck. --Fluffykittens (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I already read that where it was linked. How is that an argument about why this version of a fumble chart is bad and should be removed instead of an argument about why you shouldn't be using fumble charts in the first place? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Revised --Fluffykittens (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And the revision still basically reads like "Fumbles Suck, The Greatest Hits". With the exception of the first sentence, there isn't even anything in it that doesn't apply to every fumbles rule ever. And the first basically applies to all fumbles tables ever, and is actually invalid because a fumbles table requires additional rolls to even exist. So how is that a helpful rating at all, outside of its attempt to convince people not to use fumbles tables in the first place? There's plenty about this implementation to complain about IMO, but you're not doing it. If there is no implementation of an attack roll fumble chart that would be acceptable, you shouldn't be rating this, just like no one should oppose a new dragon because they hate dragons. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

There are some ranges missing, such as the range 68 is in. Is this supposed to be so?

Bad Idea

Here's why --Fluffykittens (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)