Is it really that unrealistic for a trained warrior to accidentally hurt themselves on a Nat 1?
Is it really that unrealistic for a trained warrior to accidentally hurt themselves on a Nat 1?
Is it really that unrealistic for a trained warrior to accidentally hurt themselves on a Nat 1?
It just feels strange that a skilled warrior has a 1/20 chance every time they use their favored weapon to hurt themselves, the exact same as the untrained peasant who is holding a weapon for the first time in their life.
What about 1/20 chance to fumble, but with a fumble chart? I'm not the best at calculating statistics on the fly but how does 1/20 chance to fumble and 1/10 chance to deal a small bit of damage to yourself sound? Not that I'm particularly attached to fumbles, or even crits for that matter.
Better way to do it. Odds of rolling back to back failed attack and then catastrophic chop-off-your-own-head frick up on the fumble chart feels more fair, especially if most of the fumble chart is harmless or not especially inconvenient.
Not just that, if you're even better and have multiple attacks you will in fact crit fail more often than a lesser warrior.
It is also weird a 20 is a critical. If you don't want the chance to fail you don't get either a double success chance. If someone is gonna say "but it simulates hitting a weak point" so does a nat 1 simulates a fatal error.
>there are dms out there that will make it so enemies can't crit...
The best way to handle it is a fumble table. Lowest penalty being nothing; you just miss, increasing along the chart with stuff like bonuses for enemies to hit you, attacks of opportunity, damage or broken weapons/disarming, harming a nearby ally (if any), and rarely, but possible, harming yourself.
The problem is that the odds of a highly trained, specialized warrior meaningfully harming themselves 5% of the time they swing their weapon, and not just making a small misstep which can be represented by a simple missed attack, are too fricking high. The odds of slipping past someone's guard and burying a blade into their mortal flesh is totally fine. That's the fricking point of combat. That's what warriors train to do.
not really. 1 in 20 chance to hurt yourself is way more egregious then 1 in 20 chance that you hit particularly well.
> but it simulates hitting a weak point" so does a nat 1 simulates a fatal error.
op said hurt yourself specifically, not just blundering in general.
you are also thinking statically.
In a ttrpg, it is seen as turn based, is quite slow and methodical. But technically every turn is 6 seconds, so everyone is moving around and doing all these things they do on a turn in quick succession, so the chance that in someone's haste, they fail to do the simple things in the chaos can constitute a mistake that harms them negatively.
Anon, the seasoned and skilled warrior has the exact same chances of hitting himself in the middle of chaos as if he was just hitting a rabbit alone in empty fields.
If only she had been wearing some kind of titty protector
Only if you extend it to eating, tying your shoelaces, etc.
>eating in the middle of battle
Of course you're going to hurt yourself.
You don't (usually) roll for either of those. But if the circumstances were that you need to roll to eat, then absolutely I'd rule that nat 1 calls for fortitude save to not die of asphyxiation.
Have you tried not playing DnDogshit? Better games stopped having moronic problems like this over a decade ago. Holy frick the DnD Brainrot disease is real with you people.
DnD normally doesn't make you hurt yourself if you roll a 1.
the only game im aware of with fumble rules is wfrp
also Shadowrun
also World of Darkness systems (Vampire and so on)
also DSA/TDE
> Have you tried not playing DnDogshit?
Given that no edition of D&D has had critical fumbles as part of core gameplay, I don’t see how this fixes anything.
Once more with feeling:
A natural 1 on an attack roll is just an automatic miss
It is not a fumble
It is not instant death or damage
It does not give enemies a free attack
It is nothing more than the worst numerical result you could get, and an automatic miss even if you would otherwise hit, which is vanishingly unlikely anyway in 5e due to the way bonuses work (I.e., even if it wasn’t an automatic miss, you probably wouldn’t hit anyway because you rolled too low).
Stopping playing D&D won’t fix anything because the people who think that a natural 1 is a fumble/damage/whatever, don’t play D&D anyway.
And finally:
You are stupid.
Man Who Has Never Played A Tabletop Game Offers Advice On Why Popular Thing Is Bad, Episode 46882993
Love from Kazakhstan
That's hot
>Captcha: WANK
The way my Pathfinder group runs it is that you roll to confirm a fumble just like you do a critical hit. (PF1e doesn't normally have any consequences for rolling a 1 aside from an automatic miss.) That makes fumbles by trained fighters sufficiently uncommon.
Why would you hurt yourself on a natural 1? Natural 1's are critical successes, anon. It usually results in extra damage, criticals inflicted on the target, or a doubling of the degrees of success.
So yeah, I'd say that it's profoundly unrealistic that trained warriors would hurt themselves while absolutely acing their attempt on something - unless that attempt is to punch themselves in the face, in which case, alright, fair.
jerk off before posting
Once heard in a interview about an Indie TTRPG that was made and was arguing about the critical Failure and said.
>Imagine a gymnast, a really good one like gold medal levels, before the great game or contest he train and while he train he jump he rotate he do all those shit a gymnast do.
>Imagine now that he doesn't always make a perfect jump or landind, like he do 10 jumps, only 4 are good from start to end while other 5 are bad in some degree while 1 was a real catastrophe, he didnt do a good jump and landed so badly that he hurt his knee, that is a Critical faliure.
>Imagine it even at the olympics happens, look at those athletes and you'll notice that someguy will get it really wrong and other will make it perfect.
So for me seeing "THE MASTER OF THE SWORD" Drop a sword on his leg is possible for me.
Why is there always that one guy who takes it as a personal insult that their character does something poorly on a 1? Mathematics aside. They are only upset that their character temporarily looks incompetent, like it's an extension of their self-esteem.
This tracks for me. There's also the timeline to take into account, a full round in an RPG can be anywhere from 3 to 10 seconds, dnd is 6 seconds if I remember correctly. If you make 20 attacks with your sword in a minute I'd be surprised if anyone didn't make a single mistake; didn't need to change their balance, were too slow on the withdraw, messed up their footwork, etc. Combat is complicated stuff from a biomechancial perspective. Toss in the mentality of the warrior, and the uncertainty of maybe facing off against an entirely new threat, whether magical or mundane, and the intense adrenaline kick, and I'd be surprised if someone got through it without a big failure somewhere. I mean I consistently don't fold laundry correctly on the first try, and that is a low-effort, low-complexity, low-tension situation.
Because its always the smug c**t gm who didn't say he was going to be using custom fumble rules until someone rolls a 1 and the 'fumble' is always a physically impossible full damage attack on yourself. It never requires a confirmation roll the way critical successes do, never happens to enemies, never applies to critical spell failures and half the time comes with a custom mutilation table so anyone trying to play a martial class earns their character a self-inflicted permanent and crippling injury every other combat. It's the most asinine bullshit in the whole hobby and every time I've seen it tried the game ends after two or three sessions.
Systems that actually have fumbles, have the be you drop your weapon or you trip over, not "oh you tried to stab that orc but slashed your own sword arm off at the elbow"
Nechronica has the opportunity to hit yourself but you're not necessarily playing a super competent character, and certain skills make it impossible to happen without outside intervention.
You're answering the first part? Well let me tell you:
>Only play with friends, open about style of play and homebrew
>Play games with fumble rules
>Never full-damage attack on self
>Happens to enemies too
>Never mutilate
>Applies to magic as well
And that guy is still there!
The difference is that at the olympics, people are performing at their absolute limits, sometimes doing things no human has ever pulled off before.
A maste gymnast is not going to fall and frick up his knee doing something routine like swinging on monkey bars.
So a master swordsman shouldn't acidentally stab himself fighting some mooks.
Yeah, a better example would be a kickboxer falling over while throwing a kick. Not being swept by an opponent, just falling over. Pros don't do that once every 20 kicks, perhaps not even once every 200 kicks.
My homebrew autism brain is now considering some kind of dynamic critical fail / success system based on opposing roll checks that use the opponents' skill levels as input.
This.
How many catastrophic frick ups are there in the Olympics? How many times did Phelps almost drown, or Biles snap her ankle?
Not to mention no one has addressed
(WoD also had/hs this issue), where higher skill actually means more likely to do worse overall than a lower skilled practitioner.
It's silly, and why a lot of systems do not use it.
>and lets see the GMs who apply this to enemies as well as players
>be olympic athlete
>run like wind, never trip or weaver
>become overconfident believing I am infallible
>pick up a pistol once
Those failures still happen at a rate way lower than 5% of the time, which is what the actual problem is with critical failures in D20. If you had a machinist with a 5% chance to completely frick whatever piece he was working on, you would throw him out the window for wasting you massive amounts of money in ruined material.
You realize that rolling a 1 doesn't always have to be described that way right? You are attempting to at least be creative in describing nat 1 events instead of just saying "he drop shield on foot lol"
Nat1 should not automatically hurt the attacker, it should also have chance to hurt attacker's alllies.
This. I make them roll for who they hit/shoot/whatever. If there's no-one next to the fumbling character besides enemies, their weapon flies off in an arc and hits whichever ally the player rolled for.
Yeah it's not that realistic
>Is it really that unrealistic for a trained warrior to accidentally hurt themselves on a Nat 1?
most of the times if not always it would be a spectacular miss (hurting the ego and giving the enemy a morale boost if they check morale within the encounter) with something ridiculous happening and some bad luck to go with it but hurting himself would be once in a lifetime thing, if ever, and it would be a minor injury (1 hp). Which has happened of course and sometimes led to some infection and eventual death.
a trained warrior is not an accomplished swordsman of some great skill and above, he is just proficient at it. So assume an above average user of a weapon. It could happen, but above that simply no.
Weapons broke mid-combat all the time. This is why you often carried spare ones.
>woman
>trained warrior
>missing the point
You ever consider that women don't want to be around you because you're a dickhead and not because they're all heartless manipulators conspiring to deny you sex?
>implying kyudo is the exclusive domain of professional warriors
I could stop there, but
>her breasts are still growing
>implying she's a teenager
>heavily implying it's a modern woman doing it as a hobby
For it to happen? No.
For it to happen consistently and (relatively) often? Definitely.
Even two kids flailing at each other with sticks can swing dozens, if not hundreds, of times without twisting an ankle, poking themselves in the eye, or even dropping the stick.
Unless you reduce a nat 1 to little more than "you missed and you feel slightly embarrassed about it" instead of a regular "you missed", it shouldn't happen that regularly. But if you do so, the nat 1 is meaningless because a bruised - no, not even that - a slightly jostled ego is nothing when your life (or at least the success of the mission) is on the line. Hardly enough to be considered a "critical fumble" or anything like that.
Maybe if the nat 1 has a second roll similar to D&D's "confirm the critical" after the nat 20 automatic hit. A nat 1 puts you at risk of accidentally hurting yourself, but unless you "confirm the fumble" with a second fumble, you just recover from a slightly awkward attempt with no repercussions (other than probably failing normally because you rolled like ass, and a slight deflation of your ego).
And even that is probably too often for a notable failure by a trained professional.(Aince your character is probably doing this for a living, or at least the things they do are applicable to the task they're attempting, or someone else with more relevant skills would be doing it).
I always house ruled a nat 1 on an attack roll being the player overextended, bad footing or falling into a rhythm the enemy can follow. I typically allowed the enemy to do something small like pushing/tripping/disarming the player when that happens.
Only skilled/intelligent opponents could do it.
My players could also do those things back to any enemy that rolled a nat 1.
a 5% chance of failure on every meaningful action? yes
One in twenty is two high. Imagine your character is doing a seven samuri game and trying to train peasants to fight. You would have one in twenty killing themselves every round they practiced. If you had 200 hundred peasants, they would be dying off at around ten a round. How does anyone ever learn how to fight if that was the case?
Another problem with the 'one in twenty' is when your warrior has multiple atacks a round, the chance to injure themself multiplies. Two attacks a round mean they will injure themselves every ten round, three attacks mean you should expect them to stick themself every seven rounds or so, four attacks around mean every five, etc. One in twenty is just to high and advanced training (multiple attacks, gaining levels) should reduce the chance, not increase it. This critical role shit is usually pushed by brainlets who can't do basic math.
>You would have one in twenty killing themselves every round they practiced. If you had 200 hundred peasants, they would be dying off at around ten a round. How does anyone ever learn how to fight if that was the case?
What people absolutely need to drill into their skulls is that game mechanics are not an diegetic phenomenon, they are an abstract representation of a (specifically defined) diegetic phenomenon. Not every time somewhere in the RPG world a blade is moved, a d20 gets triggered. No sane GM would represent training 200 peasants by rolling 200 dices multiple times. There is no actual connection between a guy swinging a sword and a dice being rolled. The d20 is just a tool for the player to interact with the world. It is not how the world fundamentally works.
That being said, a 1 in 20 chance to straight up have a nice day is really fricking moronic, so I hope DnD doesn't actually do that. I like The Dark Eye's approach, where every crit or fumble needs to be confirmed by another attack roll: if you fumble, and your confirmation roll misses, it is a fumble. If you fumble and your confirmation roll hits, you just miss. (Same logic applies to crits.) That way, not only are crits and fumbles less likely to happen, fumbles become less likely and crits become more likely the more your character progresses. Also, a fumble is never a self-decapitation, at worst it is 2d6 damage to yourself (usually it is something like dropping your weapon or getting caught off-guard).
Also please ignore my horrendous grammar errors.
If your combat system has a trained warrior killing themselves against a dummy, it's a bad combat system.
Yes, the comic is real. But this woman is also a moron.
There should be circumstances beyond that 5% chance, such as the warrior also being blinded/dazed/confused/panicking
Yes. Stop using D20 systems.
When my combatants land a 1 on an attack, it's not them striking themselves; The enemy strikes them instead. You took a bad attack and the enemy took advantage of it. For players it means sure, there is a bit of risk when attacking, as there should be, but it gives them far more pleasure when the same happens to enemies, which it does far more often by sheer mathematics.
I don't see a problem.
Because your heart is full of fun, and your spirit soars on joy.
Thanks anon you brightened up my day 🙂
Not hurting yourself with your weapon is covered under weapon proficiency or similar.
On a 1, you might get a temp debuff (minus to AC or something) from leaving yourself open, but it should relate back to your skill rather than a flat 1/20 chance.
I know this isn't quite equivalent but if you changed fumble to just giving advantage to an enemy it would make sense to me.
In Mordhau or Hunt Showdown, someone with thousands of hours will usually beat me in a duel but around once out of every dozen deaths I catch them on one of their own flukes. Maybe if a character is a true supercomputer god of combat, just disable whatever fumble system you have in your system anyways.
Orobouros has a great way to stimulate that. You have a % of success, your chance of critical failure is 10% of your chance of failure - 50% with spear means 5% of critical failure, 80 % with Sword means 2% of failure. Now where it is great is that you can choose a greater difficulty (making parry/dodge more difficult) but it rises your % of critical failure. High risk, high reward.