Critical v. Fumble

[Lemnoc]

Love the combat rules, but they seem just a tad lethal.

As I read it, if a player fumbles versus an attacker's crit, the attacker gets to dish out 3 levels of CM *PLUS* the player also suffers effects from the fumble table, any one of which could be crippling depending on the battle and consequences. That seems not easily survivable. It seems a house rule of two levels of CM *AND* the applied fumble results still delivers a sufficiently dire situation in following combat rounds.

Thoughts?

 

[Dan True]

As I read it, if a player fumbles versus an attacker's crit, the attacker gets to dish out 3 levels of CM *PLUS* the player also suffers effects from the fumble table

You only get 3 CMs in a Crit vs. Fumble, as you stated. This happens very rarely indeed. Remember that a fumble is only 2% chance, and the chance of a crit is 10% of one's skill. So this situation is very rare indeed.
But yes, you can house rule it if you wan't - however I don't think it will make a difference. If you can't kill/incapacitate/overwhelm them outright with 2 CMs (Maximise damage & Bypass armour/trip), then the 3rd CMs don't do much difference.

- Dan

 

[Loz]

As Dan says, Crit v Fumble is very rare, but it happened to me in a recent Elric session.

I allowed the character who fumbled to use a Hero Point to negate either the Fumble result or the worst of the CMs. This worked very well, even though he still found himself at a severe disadvantage (not good with a soul-sucking vampiric goat-thing energy being from Kia), but he did avert imminent death.

 

[mwsasser]

Yes combat can be lethal but don't let that scare you. I am guessing you are coming from d20 or another system. To acquaint my players we ran a test mission for about 2 hours with throw-away characters. They learned the basic system mechanics, about lethality and why you can't fight everyone you see, and how certain skills are important (persistence, resilience).

Everybody came away from a desire to go play the system in a real campaign.

 

[Lemnoc]

Thanks for the clarifications. I generally don’t like to HR something until I know the intent of the original RAW.

Actually, I am an old skool gamer who played classic RQII (I still have a crumbling Chaosium rulebook around somewhere). Fumbles in that game were things of legend that players would talk about long afterward. Primarily, that was because fumbles were generally—but not always—survivable. And almost always hoomiliating.

That combat system itself was not especially survivable, particularly when you had masses of enemies arrayed against players. And I do compliment this system for providing mechanisms (CMs, mook rules) that can make massed combats a bit more survivable for players while still remaining challenging.

From the standpoint of game mechanics, I saw that three degrees of success from an attacker meant four levels of woe delivered on an opponent. I appreciate the observation that this is rare, but it struck me as an unfortunate imbalance from a roll of the dice that may happen independent of how resourcefully a character may be played.

My read of the fumble table is it is very likely to leave a player unable to attack in a following round, maybe even a couple of rounds, and having likely suffered grievous injuries from stacked CMs. That’s a steep hole to climb out of.

 

[Dan True]

My read of the fumble table is it is very likely to leave a player unable to attack in a following round, maybe even a couple of rounds, and having likely suffered grievous injuries from stacked CMs. That’s a steep hole to climb out of.

Well, that is why warriors often fight near each other. In a fight even a master can be tipped over (I once tripped my fighting teacher, and he has 8 years on my or so ) - then the comrades step in and watch out for you or you're dead. Adventurers need to look out for each other as well, and the lethality reaffirms that the characters should fight as a team, not as a group of individually strong fighters.

- Dan

 

[Titus]

If a character still has hero points left to spend when they roll that fumble versus the critical, its time to use a hero point for a re-roll. Hero points are there to help get a character out of this kind of situation.

If they roll another fumble, it might be time to take a hammer to that set of percentile dice. Or at least retire them for the evening.

 

[Mixster]

If they roll another fumble, it might be time to take a hammer to that set of percentile dice. Or at least retire them for the evening.

Ah, using Natural Selection to get the best rolls never fail!
Whenever a set of dice rolls a fumble, throw it into the Improvement rolls bin. Whenever anything from the improvement rolls bin rolls low, throw the dice out. Thus, through natural selection, you will end up with dice that roll only 100 on improvement rolls and 01 on criticals. Just through natural selection :lol:

I don't think Critical Vs. Fumble comes up often enough for it to be a big thing, but even critical vs regular failure is a big thing. Since that can easily mean you are either out in a few rounds (through bleeding), simply die (from Bypass armour + Maximise) or are tripped and stunned (which makes getting up pretty hard). Usually this takes you out of the fight.

 

[Lemnoc]

If a character still has hero points left to spend when they roll that fumble versus the critical, its time to use a hero point for a re-roll. Hero points are there to help get a character out of this kind of situation.

The problem with this is it requires the extraordinary to overcome the uncommon. If each uncommon instance a fumble occurs you get to re-roll to avoid it, why employ the fumble rule at all? I think that is what Mixster was getting at.

Each time a fumble v. success is rolled, however uncommon, it creates a potentially lethal situation for a player. The attacker gains the levels of CM and the player takes that damage plus the fumble consequences. If that combination invariably produces a situation not readily survivable, perhaps that condition should be reconsidered, rather than adding new conditions to soften its lethality.

My sense is you want fumbles to be something (counterintuitively perhaps) enjoyable for the player, a trap and a puzzle to overcome and battle out of and reminisce about in old age. Not the signal for a 20-minute session rolling up a new character.

All of that said, I don't think 2 levels of CM + fumble effects is inherently non-survivable, and seems balanced. Allowing THREE levels of CM + fumble effects seems almost cruel, really laying it on in a dicey situation. What purpose does it serve?

 

[Mixster]

The problem with this is it requires the extraordinary to overcome the uncommon. If each uncommon instance a fumble occurs you get to re-roll to avoid it, why employ the fumble rule at all? I think that is what Mixster was getting at.

It's a good point, but I didn't intend to suggest this, all I was getting at was that you can naturally select your dice. Hero points are pretty expensive after all.

All of that said, I don't think 2 levels of CM + fumble effects is inherently non-survivable, and seems balanced. Allowing THREE levels of CM + fumble effects seems almost cruel, really laying it on in a dicey situation. What purpose does it serve?

Reminding your players that if they run out of hero points they are screwed seems like the purpose they emit to me

 

[Lemnoc]

Reminding your players that if they run out of hero points they are screwed seems like the purpose they emit to me

Ha!

This is a good discussion. And I should add that my group doesn’t often include a lot of players/NPC lackeys to pick up the slack when things go sour in combat, and surrender/ransom is not always an option (though I do try to provide that potential by default). Battling injured from the ground does happen on occasion.

I guess my inclination is to rule fumbles occur as they occur, but their effects can be mitigated (selected from the table) through divine intervention (HP, et al). Players can strategize around the rest. Hasn’t happened yet, but it seems like an adequate rule.

 

[Mixster]

Reminding your players that if they run out of hero points they are screwed seems like the purpose they emit to me

Ha!

This is a good discussion. And I should add that my group doesn’t often include a lot of players/NPC lackeys to pick up the slack when things go sour in combat, and surrender/ransom is not always an option (though I do try to provide that potential by default). Battling injured from the ground does happen on occasion.

I guess my inclination is to rule fumbles occur as they occur, but their effects can be mitigated (selected from the table) through divine intervention (HP, et al). Players can strategize around the rest. Hasn’t happened yet, but it seems like an adequate rule.

Our group usually has someone run to the aid of anyone who seems cornered, often one of us gets in a bad position (except for the guy with 7 AP everywhere who just seems to keep on going). And the others help us out. I think I've stepped in this way to save the party "rogue" twice (or thrice?) and the party "face" once. I think both of them have stepped in for me once or twice as well when I were to low on MP or surrounded by too many CAs.

If people keep some of their movement back, and don't squander it on killing the threat farthest away all the time, they can most time use their remaining movement x5 to charge someone and save some bacon.

 

[Titus]

If a character still has hero points left to spend when they roll that fumble versus the critical, its time to use a hero point for a re-roll. Hero points are there to help get a character out of this kind of situation.

The problem with this is it requires the extraordinary to overcome the uncommon. If each uncommon instance a fumble occurs you get to re-roll to avoid it, why employ the fumble rule at all? I think that is what Mixster was getting at.

A player might not choose to burn a hero point to reroll a fumble if the opponent failed to hit. They could reroll the fumble result if they got a really hideous result.
But if the opponent hits and the PC fumbles, it would be unwise not to use the "luck of heroes" to try to mitigate the results. If the PC hasn't run out of "luck" already.

We have used Fate Points in other games and they have almost always been used by a player to undo or prevent serious/critical damage to their character. It is part of what sets the PCs/heroes apart. But they are a finite resource. I like it, but I understand where you are coming from.

 

[DamonJynx]

One of my players has 4 CA and an attack skill nearing 100%, another has an evade skill of 96% or something equally ridiculous. When a creature actually manages to hit the buggers, let alone all the other stuff, you'll be glad for those layers of lethality, they don't happen anywhere near often enough.

We had a fight against a demon the other week, and the bloody thing barely got to attack before it was hacked to bits.

Don't forget, the same rules apply to NPC's as well so it's not all bad!

 

[Dan True]

One of my players has 4 CA and an attack skill nearing 100%, another has an evade skill of 96% or something equally ridiculous. When a creature actually manages to hit the buggers, let alone all the other stuff, you'll be glad for those layers of lethality, they don't happen anywhere near often enough.

You should see mine Mixster transforms into a Lizardman with Shapechange, and combines with Enhance(INT) & (DEX). He gets 6 CA, a skill of 110% and a damage modifier of +1D8 I believe...
*sigh*

- Dan

 

[Mixster]

One of my players has 4 CA and an attack skill nearing 100%, another has an evade skill of 96% or something equally ridiculous. When a creature actually manages to hit the buggers, let alone all the other stuff, you'll be glad for those layers of lethality, they don't happen anywhere near often enough.

You should see mine Mixster transforms into a Lizardman with Shapechange, and combines with Enhance(INT) & (DEX). He gets 6 CA, a skill of 110% and a damage modifier of +1D8 I believe...
*sigh*

- Dan

+1d10

It does cost 3 MP though, so I can only do it like 48 minutes out of each day.

 

[DamonJynx]

One of my players has 4 CA and an attack skill nearing 100%, another has an evade skill of 96% or something equally ridiculous. When a creature actually manages to hit the buggers, let alone all the other stuff, you'll be glad for those layers of lethality, they don't happen anywhere near often enough.

You should see mine Mixster transforms into a Lizardman with Shapechange, and combines with Enhance(INT) & (DEX). He gets 6 CA, a skill of 110% and a damage modifier of +1D8 I believe...
*sigh*

- Dan

+1d10

It does cost 3 MP though, so I can only do it like 48 minutes out of each day.

Is that consecutive or so many times a day for a total of 48mins?

Considering that most of the combats we've had have barely gone more than 3 rounds, 48 mins is impressive!

 

[Dan True]

Considering that most of the combats we've had have barely gone more than 3 rounds, 48 mins is impressive!

¨

Fair is fair, when he goes into combat as that lizardman, it only takes one dude with a Wand of Dispel and he can't even lift his shield

- Dan

 

[Mixster]

Considering that most of the combats we've had have barely gone more than 3 rounds, 48 mins is impressive!

¨

Fair is fair, when he goes into combat as that lizardman, it only takes one dude with a Wand of Dispel and he can't even lift his shield

- Dan

Which Is why I can cast Spell Resistance (with enhanced magnitude) as a reactionary action.
But then I've spend 5 MP on staying viable in a single fight, that's probably not a good idea.

Grumble Grumble, I'm gonna need some wands.