Support NeoGAF

[DeadPhoenix]

You have created the magus' own personal hell... not only does he have to worry about stabbing himself with his sword, but his spells can blow up in his face at the same time, since he is the one(-half) caster making concentration checks all the time.

 

[KittenMaster]

If I wanted to introduce the hilarity of fumble cards, I would probably use them for like... goblin enemies but not the players, that way you get the satisfaction of watching something trip over a twig and behead itself without it screwing over your players.

 

[Bogus]

Reading most sites magic users are significantly more useful and powerful than melee users.

You still also don't address the fact that your melee classes now get worse and worse over time because more chances to attack means more fumbles.

Honestly this is why I avoid DnD and Pathfinder. Impossible to find a group that doesn't go even more out of the way to make melee and skill classes less relevant. Why even bother using climb checks when I can avoid the chance of a critical failure and cast fly.

So your fighter can fight, but gets worse at it over time. Meanwhile the wizard can summon monsters, polymorph, dimension door, grease,fly etc... all of which have in and out of combat utility.

DnD and Pathfinder are notorious for their atrocious balance between mundanes and magic users. I don't think your DM is as knowledgeable as you think.

Melee characters would still be at risk for fumble in pretty much every combat situation as opposed to the occasional harsh environment the wizard may endure (and I'm pretty sure there are spells to counter turbulent situations as well).

I hear you guys. Our group is Barbarian / Rogue / Alchemist / Time Mage, so if the power level starts getting lopsided in favor of the mage, we'll bring it to a discussion. I like the idea of rare fumbles (and I play the Barb, so I'm at arguably the greatest risk), but not at the expense of fairness. I agree that it would just be simpler to get rid of fumbles altogether. But at the end of the day, I'm a role-player and not a min-maxer, so any rule that adds more unexpected creative elements to a session is okay by me.

If I wanted to introduce the hilarity of fumble cards, I would probably use them for like... goblin enemies but not the players, that way you get the satisfaction of watching something trip over a twig and behead itself without it screwing over your players.

This would be awesome.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

It really has nothing to do with being a min-maxer... in fact a large part of it is not wanting your character to look like a buffoon, which is actually a role-playing thing.

Also, saying shit like that is good way to piss someone off. Just because someone happens to care about numbers, doesn't mean they don't care about role playing that character as well.

 

[Bogus]

It really has nothing to do with being a min-maxer... in fact a large part of it is not wanting your character to look like a buffoon, which is actually a role-playing thing.

Also, saying shit like that is good way to piss someone off. Just because someone happens to care about numbers, doesn't mean they don't care about role playing that character as well.

Sorry, I didn't mean "min-maxer" as a pejorative. If I didn't care about numbers, I wouldn't be playing the game. I meant that I tend to like rules that engender interesting role-playing scenarios that wouldn't otherwise have appeared, even if they're detrimental to my stats or character. I don't want my Barb to be perfect all the time, and some failures can, presumably, be worse than others.

Also, I think it's possible to narrate fumbles in more player-friendly ways than "You attack wildly and cut off your own hand". Maybe the character attempts a huge overhand swing, misses, and their blade gets lodged into the floor, giving them an AC penalty for the next round until they can dislodge it. I don't consider that sort of thing as buffoonery, taken on its own (disregarding for a moment the balance issues between magical and mundane characters, and the greater chance for a mundane character to fumble when they gain access to multiple attacks in a round).

 

[CornBurrito]

Sorry, I didn't mean "min-maxer" as a pejorative. If I didn't care about numbers, I wouldn't be playing the game. I meant that I tend to like rules that engender interesting role-playing scenarios that wouldn't otherwise have appeared, even if they're detrimental to my stats or character. I don't want my Barb to be perfect all the time, and some failures can, presumably, be worse than others.

Also, I think it's possible to narrate fumbles in more player-friendly ways than "You attack wildly and cut off your own hand". Maybe the character attempts a huge overhand swing, misses, and their blade gets lodged into the floor, giving them an AC penalty for the next round until they can dislodge it. I don't consider that sort of thing as buffoonery, taken on its own (disregarding for a moment the balance issues between magical and mundane characters, and the greater chance for a mundane character to fumble when they gain access to multiple attacks in a round).

Your barb won't be perfect all the time, I don't get why you need fumble rolls for that. Skill checks will still fail, especially skills he hasn't invested in. Attacks will still miss. But now your Barbarian becomes more and more 3 stooge like as he levels up because now he has higher chances of fumbling on full attacks. Fumble rules hurt role playing.

My only option for playing a cool character that doesn't become one of the three stooges is essentially to use a caster.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

God... I'm currently playing a semi-dexterous, light armored paladin who is the tank of the group, despite that being a very bad idea mechanically(I seem to get knocked below 0 hp every other fight as is) and if I had to worry about losing more AC every time I swing, I'd actually be more worried about ending up dead then looking like a buffoon. Its already bad enough I have shit rolls(I swear, last session 60% of my attacks were 5 or less) so my full bab character(the only one on the team) hits as often as the 3/4 ones, I've got loads of rp potential based on my failures as is(like the awesome npc paladin that died helping me protect the rest of the party from a couple of mimics).

Funny thing is before this, I actually have considered using fumble rules for lulz in a one shot or something, now its sounding a lot less interesting.

 

[CornBurrito]

God... I'm currently playing a semi-dexterous, light armored paladin who is the tank of the group, despite that being a very bad idea mechanically(I seem to get knocked below 0 hp every other fight as is) and if I had to worry about losing more AC every time I swing, I'd actually be more worried about ending up dead then looking like a buffoon. Its already bad enough I have shit rolls(I swear, last session 60% of my attacks were 5 or less) so my full bab character(the only one on the team) hits as often as the 3/4 ones, I've got loads of rp potential based on my failures as is(like the awesome npc paladin that died helping me protect the rest of the party from a couple of mimics).

Funny thing is before this, I actually have considered using fumble rules for lulz in a one shot or something, now its sounding a lot less interesting.

"Lol isn't it funny how that character you worked so hard on died because of a fumble rule we added!" - apparently good role playing....

Also the only time you can ever fail to hit an enemy or fail a skill check is apparently on a fumble. Never got how people could say with a straight face "nobody is perfect" to justify fumble rules. My attacks didn't hit 100% of the time when my group wasn't using fumble rules.

 

[Bogus]

Your barb won't be perfect all the time, I don't get why you need fumble rolls for that. Skill checks will still fail, especially skills he hasn't invested in. Attacks will still miss. But now your Barbarian becomes more and more 3 stooge like as he levels up because now he has higher chances of fumbling on full attacks. Fumble rules hurt role playing.

My only option for playing a cool character that doesn't become one of the three stooges is essentially to use a caster.

I hear you. I guess I just like the idea of there being a (rare) level of failure worse than a "miss" -- conceptually, anyway.

God... I'm currently playing a semi-dexterous, light armored paladin who is the tank of the group, despite that being a very bad idea mechanically(I seem to get knocked below 0 hp every other fight as is) and if I had to worry about losing more AC every time I swing, I'd actually be more worried about ending up dead then looking like a buffoon. Its already bad enough I have shit rolls(I swear, last session 60% of my attacks were 5 or less) so my full bab character(the only one on the team) hits as often as the 3/4 ones, I've got loads of rp potential based on my failures as is(like the awesome npc paladin that died helping me protect the rest of the party from a couple of mimics).

Funny thing is before this, I actually have considered using fumble rules for lulz in a one shot or something, now its sounding a lot less interesting.

That's fine, whatever you feel like. I'm just thinking out loud about more creative ways to record a fumble. Maybe the character loses their attack of opportunity until their next round, as a result of their weapon being stuck in the floor. Who knows? The GM's creativity is the only limitation, really.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

"Lol isn't it funny how that character you worked so hard on died because of a fumble rule we added!" - apparently good role playing....

Also the only time you can ever fail to hit an enemy or fail a skill check is apparently on a fumble. Never got how people could say with a straight face "nobody is perfect" to justify fumble rules. My attacks didn't hit 100% of the time when my group wasn't using fumble rules.

Actually, this kind of brings up an interesting idea... if you actually are min-maxing and making all battles completely trivial, then yeah, a fumble deck might actually bring some interesting situations to the table. Still kinda sucks that your character(who is actually built to be the ultimate badass...) will fuck himself over, but it might make a fight last a round or two longer.

 

[Bogus]

"Lol isn't it funny how that character you worked so hard on died because of a fumble rule we added!" - apparently good role playing....

I understand that you feel strongly about this topic, but that's not at all what I said.

Also the only time you can ever fail to hit an enemy or fail a skill check is apparently on a fumble. Never got how people could say with a straight face "nobody is perfect" to justify fumble rules. My attacks didn't hit 100% of the time when my group wasn't using fumble rules.

In my mind, a fumble is a natural extension of a character not being perfect. I think it's a little boring when a "miss" is the absolute worst thing that can happen with an attack. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, by the way -- I empathize with both views.

 

[embalm]

First off, if you like Fumble rules than power on. It's an optional rule for a reason, because some people love 'em.

We tried fumble rules years ago, and tossed them soon after. They were fun for a session or two, but missing was hard enough on the players. Most fumbles either resulted in losing a turn/attack somehow or more damage and missing with your attack is already a 'lost' turn, so who needs another one.

If a DM really wants some tension, he should spice up the encounter. Creating events that are tied to things the Player can do successfully is always better than piling on more punishment for their failures.
Here are some suggestions:

• An orc who keeps injecting himself with Magic Roids every round, growing stronger. The party needs to take him out quick or fail, each missed attack means he lives longer
• A shadow dancer monster thing that duplicates itself when it isn't damaged

As a DM, I will use a Fumble chart for real crappy monsters, or as a sort of break for when the party are getting just smashed by an encounter. So goblins getting panicky as their friends die around them, or maybe an Ogre's tree club snaps in 2 as he misses the fighter and it breaks across his shield and the ogre looks at the fighter and says, "Uh, Oh"

 

[Bogus]

Those are cool suggestions. Fighting is D&D / Pathfinder's bread and butter, so creative encounters are like dining on the finest baguette instead of dime-store dough. I wouldn't say that fumbles and fights that require player agency are mutually exclusive, but I get where you're coming from. Every group is different, and I think I could have fun in a campaign with or without fumbling -- though like you said, missing does suck enough to begin with, so the fumble shouldn't represent much extra punishment if it has to be there. Just a little bit of extra spice.

I really like the idea of more colorful fumbles for monsters, too.

 

[CornBurrito]

I hear you. I guess I just like the idea of there being a (rare) level of failure worse than a "miss" -- conceptually, anyway.



That's fine, whatever you feel like. I'm just thinking out loud about more creative ways to record a fumble. Maybe the character loses their attack of opportunity until their next round, as a result of their weapon being stuck in the floor. Who knows? The GM's creativity is the only limitation, really.

Then narrate it as more than a miss but don't reinforce it with a mechanic that further gives melee classes the short end of the stick?

First off, if you like Fumble rules than power on. It's an optional rule for a reason, because some people love 'em.

We tried fumble rules years ago, and tossed them soon after. They were fun for a session or two, but missing was hard enough on the players. Most fumbles either resulted in losing a turn/attack somehow or more damage and missing with your attack is already a 'lost' turn, so who needs another one.

If a DM really wants some tension, he should spice up the encounter. Creating events that are tied to things the Player can do successfully is always better than piling on more punishment for their failures.
Here are some suggestions:

• An orc who keeps injecting himself with Magic Roids every round, growing stronger. The party needs to take him out quick or fail, each missed attack means he lives longer
• A shadow dancer monster thing that duplicates itself when it isn't damaged

As a DM, I will use a Fumble chart for real crappy monsters, or as a sort of break for when the party are getting just smashed by an encounter. So goblins getting panicky as their friends die around them, or maybe an Ogre's tree club snaps in 2 as he misses the fighter and it breaks across his shield and the ogre looks at the fighter and says, "Uh, Oh"

Yeah I don't get how "lose two turns because you missed and now need to dislodge your weapon" is fun for anyone.

I understand that you feel strongly about this topic, but that's not at all what I said..

No but it is the end result of fumble rules. Increased risk of dying as you get "stronger "

And an extension of not being perfect that only impacts melee and skill characters? I guess magic users are more equal than others.

 

[Bogus]

Then narrate it as more than a miss but don't reinforce it with a mechanic that further gives melee classes the short end of the stick?

Sure, that works too.

No but it is the end result of fumble rules. Increased risk of dying as you get "stronger "

And an extension of not being perfect that only impacts melee and skill characters? I guess magic users are more equal than others.

I agree that if the rule is there, it should impact everyone equally.

 

[CornBurrito]

I am gonna apologize for being so rude Bogus. Sorry.

 

[Bogus]

No worries Burrito, I get where you're coming from. It was a good discussion, I hadn't realized how much differently fumble rules affect casters (i.e. not at all) until you brought it up. So thanks!

 

[KittenMaster]

I think if you really want to play fumble rules it should be a per player opt-in if they feel it is a core component of their character, and not a DM forcing it onto players that aren't interested in turning their character into a Keystone Cops character.

 

[Bogus]

I think that would be a good compromise too.

A Keystone Cops-esque scenario would be legit, though. I would totally play that. Do you guys know of any good "comedy"-styled RPG systems / campaigns / settings? I found this PnP Pro Wrestling game on Kickstarter which seem like a riot: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ndpaoletta/world-wide-wrestling-rpg-pro-wrestling-action-dram. While not exactly comedy, it'd be fun to play something less serious than the usual high-fantasy fluff.

 

[krypt0nian]

Those are cool suggestions. Fighting is D&D / Pathfinder's bread and butter, so creative encounters are like dining on the finest baguette instead of dime-store dough. I wouldn't say that fumbles and fights that require player agency are mutually exclusive, but I get where you're coming from. Every group is different, and I think I could have fun in a campaign with or without fumbling -- though like you said, missing does suck enough to begin with, so the fumble shouldn't represent much extra punishment if it has to be there. Just a little bit of extra spice.

I really like the idea of more colorful fumbles for monsters, too.

Heads up since I love fumbles and crits too. Paizo has two excellent Fumble and Crit card decks that we use and love! They also have versions on the iPhone.

 

[embalm]

I need some suggestions for running a good old fashioned Dragon Encounter.

5e rules. A party of six adventurers at level 4.

• Wild Mage Sorcerer - lots of DPS from twinned spells
• Slayer Bow Ranger - lots of long range dps
• Sword and Board Fighter - High armor and health
• Storm Cleric - Loves blasting, not much for healing
• Assassin Rogue - Joins the fray quickly and fights in melee
• Arcane Trickster - Hides whenever possible, uses mostly short ranged attacks

Azorgorath, Young Green Dragon of the Misty Woods.

Lair - A small ruined keep atop a hill. Currently it has two entrances, the normal keep entrance and flying in through the top. Both entrances lead to a 50ft pit down to the actual lair, which is only 3 rooms since it's fairly new and freshly dug out.

The dragon has already been lured out of his lair. So at least the first part of combat is going to take place in the open.


Ideas for Combat:

Grapple and Drop - I plan to introduce the party to flight mechanics by attempting to grapple one of them fly up and drop them.

Strafing Breath - It's only a proper dragon encounter if you use your first breath weapon in a way that the party has no defense against.

Retreats back to Lair at half health - I imagine they will mow through his health very quickly even if half the party drops dead.



Possible Party Strategies:

Blinding - The party's new hotness is blinding stuff. Dragons have true sight, so I'm not that worried about it.

Massive Damage - If the party targets the dragon with everything they've got they might flat out end the fight. Twinned chromatic orbs, ranger shots and colossal slayer damage, two rogues+sneak attack, cleric buffs, and fighter bonus attacks, inflicts over 80 damage on average. Could make very short work of the deadly dragon.


So any tips or strategies for running a parties first Dragon battle?

 

[flyover]

I don't have any advice, but I'll be very interested to hear how that goes! You sound thoughtful and adaptable enough that I have a feeling it'll go well, whatever you do.

 

[TheWorthyEdge]

Sorry for bumping or being a nuisance, but is this thread for RPs on GAF or RP suggestions and help?

 

[KittenMaster]

Yeah, this thread is being used for roleplaying help at times. It isn't used to actually roleplay in though, if that was what you were asking.

 

[krypt0nian]

Not versed enough in 5E yet to help. But watching. Ever watching...


Also holy shit is the Advanced Class Guide for Pathfinder a great read. I cannot wait to try some of these out.

 

[CornBurrito]

Heads up since I love fumbles and crits too. Paizo has two excellent Fumble and Crit card decks that we use and love! They also have versions on the iPhone.

So what sort of measure do you take to ensure melee characters don't get weaker as they level up because of the increased chances of fumbling on full attacks?

And do you have any system to give fumbles and crits to magic users, or do they remain "lol no roll needed I win" machines?

 

[Jackben]

CornBurrito I don't disagree with what you are saying but was there or was there not a campaign where a wizard killed your PC, your PC's dog, and then desecrated both of their corpses by weaving the skin of both into a furry cloak?

 

[KittenMaster]

CornBurrito I don't disagree with what you are saying but was there or was there not a campaign where a wizard killed your PC, your PC's dog, and then desecrated both of their corpses by weaving the skin of both into a furry cloak?

Now I'm curious to ask where you got *this* particular string of verbs from.

Spoiler

Wizard criticism is pretty common on the internet in general.

 

[krypt0nian]

So what sort of measure do you take to ensure melee characters don't get weaker as they level up because of the increased chances of fumbling on full attacks?

And do you have any system to give fumbles and crits to magic users, or do they remain "lol no roll needed I win" machines?

We don't worry about balance. I personally find it pointless and exactly what ruined 4E. I know this point is somesort of bizarre obsession for you by your language and overblown examples, but not all groups think a melee character "should" be the equal of a wizard. We're good, thanks. BTW I play rangers or barbarians and I never feel like I'm overshadowed. If our magic types can OMG win, then I win too. We're in this together, not to see what DPS we can do.

You basically told the poor guy that liked fumbles that he was playing wrong for post after post, so I thought I'd make him feel like he wasn't the issue here.

 

[CornBurrito]

We don't worry about balance. I personally find it pointless and exactly what ruined 4E. I know this point is somesort of bizarre obsession for you by your language and overblown examples, but not all groups think a melee character "should" be the equal of a wizard. We're good, thanks.

You basically told the poor guy that liked fumbles that he was playing wrong for post after post, so I thought I'd make him feel like he wasn't the issue here.

Balance doesn't mean having to make all the classes the same which was 4e problem. 3.5e was balanced if you ignored Core and used the Tome of Battle and more specialized casters like the Beguiler. Please tell me more how a Beguiler is the same as a Warblade though.

But yes I exactly said a wizard should be as good as a wizard at everything. Ok.

CornBurrito I don't disagree with what you are saying but was there or was there not a campaign where a wizard killed your PC, your PC's dog, and then desecrated both of their corpses by weaving the skin of both into a furry cloak?

No.

 

[krypt0nian]

Balance doesn't mean having to make all the classes the same which was 4e problem.

The thing is different groups play differently. Your fun is not the correct fun, nor is mine. But you tend to speak from some sort of place of authority here, and I'm pointing it out.

 

[CornBurrito]

The thing is different groups play differently. Your fun is not the correct fun, nor is mine. But you tend to speak from some sort of place of authority here, and I'm pointing it out.

Well I don't get how balance can be so unimportant that you don't even bother applying fumbles to magic classes. If you find fumbles so fun why do you leave a ton of classes out of it?

There is also "we don't care about balance" and then "we don't care that our rule makes some classes weaker as they level up". The latter is fucking ridiculous and I won't ever accept that as valid. But you didn't mention any countermeasure you have for dealing with that problem fumbles create.

 

[krypt0nian]

Well I don't get how balance can be so unimportant that you don't even bother applying fumbles to magic classes. If you find fumbles so fun why do you leave a ton of classes out of it?

We don't leave any classes out of it. When they roll to hit they are subject to the same exact rules.

"I won't ever accept that as valid?" Who the hell do you think you are? HAHAHAHA

Out group has maintained a regular schedule for 5 years membership mainly intact. We have fun and never bicker. We also have crit rules for melee atk, and don't play with anyone who min/maxes to a ridiculous level.

You don't get a vote or a meaningful opinion on it.

 

[CornBurrito]

We don't leave any classes out of it. When they roll to hit they are subject to the same exact rules.

Ah like how gays aren't left out of marriage because they can marry someone of the opposite gender just like straight people can.

Well I sure hope you can see that magic classes usually never need to roll to hit, especially at higher levels.

 

[krypt0nian]

Ah like how gays aren't left out of marriage because they can marry someone of the opposite gender just like straight people can.

Well I sure hope you can see that magic classes usually never need to roll to hit, especially at higher levels.

We see it and it doesn't matter to us.


This is why I say you are the fun police. That gay marriage thing was whoooo out there.

 

[CornBurrito]

We see it and it doesn't matter to us.


This is why I say you are the fun police. That gay marriage thing was whoooo out there.

I am not anti fun. I find fumble rules anti fun.

The comparison is valid anyway. You do leave classes out of it because you know damn well a large set of classes never needs to make a roll to hit, or only needs to do so maybe once a session.

Anyway I am glad there are people online who see fumble rules for the load of shit they are. Have fun with them I guess. Some people love Nickelback after all.

 

[krypt0nian]

I am not anti fun. I find fumble rules anti fun.

That has nothing to do with my group. Then YOU don't use them.

We don't leave anyone exempt from it. It just doesn't matter to us that melee characters have to roll on it more.

And again with the aggression. Our way of playing that we all agree on = Nickleback.

You don't get to claim superiority. This is a real issue with you. Seriously think of how you tell others how to have fun.

 

[KittenMaster]

Well I sure hope you can see that magic classes usually never need to roll to hit, especially at higher levels.

On the flip-side targets do roll saves which act as a sort of "accuracy" check even if it is not the Wizard participating in the gameplay.

Fumble rules are house rules though, they should just be further house ruled to include spellcasting if you feel it is necessary.

 

[CornBurrito]

That has nothing to do with my group. Then YOU don't use them.

We don't leave anyone exempt from it. It just doesn't matter to us that melee characters have to roll on it more.

And again with the aggression.

You don't get to claim superiority. This is a real issue with you. Seriously think of how you tell others how to have fun.

By the nature of the game, magic classes never or rarely have to roll to hit. You know damn well that in effect leaves them out of the dumb fumble/crit game. But keep ignoring that I guess.

And I can and do claim superiority. I haven't found a good defense for fumbles, ever. Even the subjective fun based arguments don't tell me why the fumble can't simply be narrative. Or why they are ok with the magic classes being able to take advantage of the fun wayyyyy less often.

On the flip-side targets do roll saves which act as a sort of "accuracy" check even if it is not the Wizard participating in the gameplay.

Fumble rules are house rules though, they should just be further house ruled to include spellcasting if you feel it is necessary.

I would be shocked if people using fumble rules make the wizard fumble if his enemy rolls a 20 on their save.

 

[krypt0nian]

By the nature of the game, magic classes never or rarely have to roll to hit. You know damn well that in effect leaves them out of the dumb fumble/crit game. But keep ignoring that I guess.

And I can and do claim superiority. I haven't found a good defense for fumbles, ever. Even the subjective fun based arguments don't tell me why the fumble can't simply be narrative. Or why they are ok with the magic classes being able to take advantage of the fun wayyyyy less often.

Oh piss the fuck off.

 

[KittenMaster]

I would be shocked if people using fumble rules make the wizard fumble if his enemy rolls a 20 on their save.

It might actually help even out with the disadvantage of martial classes actually gaining chances to fumble as they level, because wizards now have to worry about the increased chances of a "crit save" if they, say, target like five or six opponents with a fireball spell.

 

[CornBurrito]

It might actually help even out with the disadvantage of martial classes actually gaining chances to fumble as they level, because wizards now have to worry about the increased chances of a "crit save" if they, say, target like five or six opponents with a fireball spell.

Sounds like you are trying to balance things and actually make wizards included (actually included, not "oh they are included if they ever decide to attack which happens once a session at most"). No good. Wizards MUST be more powerful and useful than melee classes because that is super fun for anyone playing a melee character. I know I love being second fiddle in a party.

Personally I don't see why fumbles on spells would be unfun. I wonder if that's because the unbalanced nature if the fame is the only thing some people (ie. my old GM) find fun. Such people would hate 5e. Or they would have to go out of their way to nerf classes they dislike.

 

[krypt0nian]

Good to see 5E getting 3rd party support. I'm not familiar with their gaming license, but it's heads and hooves over 4E already.

I'm loving the rules so far, and can't wait for the next classes to hit playtest (hope, hope)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1939-Unofficial-D-D-5th-Edition-Products#.VCDb6RZvCTY

 

[CornBurrito]

yes the rules in 5e are great. They did a good job balancing things without going too far like 4e. The gap between melee and magic was made a lot narrower than core 3.5e.

 

[Keasar]

In Swedish Drakar & Demoner there are some truly spectacular fumbles in place for magic users. You role a %-die, add the used magic points for your spell, and then from a big table get an effect. Like the effect being opposite of the intended one, target being wrong or some of the most gruesome ones being for instance your magic user accidentally opening a gateway to nordic hell and get his soul taken. Another being that the magic user can't stop gathering vitner (the worlds type of magic resource) until he turns into a singularity of magic, a small black ball that after a few turns explode in a gigantic magic explosion, dealing a few dozen dices of damage to everything within a couple hundred meters.

There is one mechanic I saw in a game that I think was brilliant related to spellcasting. In Warhammer Online there was a class called Bright Wizards who had a resource called "Combustion", when casting most of their spells they built up this resource up to a maximum and the higher the resource got, the higher the chance of getting a critical strike with the spell got as well. However, on the flip side the higher Combustion was, the higher the risk would be that the spells you cast would also backfire and deal damage to your own character unless you casted spells that lowered Combustion. I would love to see this system related to spellcasting classes to give them a certain risk vs. reward feel for flinging their (usually) powerful spells around.

 

[embalm]

@CornBurrito
Seriously, telling others how to play at their tables is a load of crap. Don't do that. If it's my table, my firends, and we decide that it's more fun to play without pants on and covered in Cheetos dust, then that's on us. It would be silly for you to preach to me about how cheetos dust isn't good for my bare thighs, or how all the dust on my fingers will get on the table.

On Caster Fumbles:
If a caster can fumble fail, then they need to be able to Crit also. To me this is the natural balance of Melee vs Caster, melee can crit/fumble, casters get niether, if you want casters to have one then give them the other.

Casters can roll too. Instead of taking a flat DC = 10+spell casting, roll. DC = d20 + spellcasting.
Now your casters have a chance to critical fail, but you need to come up with a rule for their natural 20s. Add extra dice to damage? Make the target auto-fail a save? I don't know, it's a can of worms.

We let casters roll for spell DC in 3.5, but never included crits/fumbles.


On Save Criticals & Fumbles:
Instead of changing the rules, play within them. Give Criticals & Fumbles to saves that affect the Caster of the spell. Some examples of this:

• I save vs Charm with nat20, a force of willpower so strong that I'm able to charm the caster. He now makes a saving throw or becomes charmed by ME!
• Nat 20 on dex save vs fireball, no damage.
• Nat1 on fireball save, bonus damage!
• Nat1 on Charm save, double duration.
• Nat20 against Lightning, I'm able to decide if it changes direction
• Nat20 against single target spells, the explode right as they are cast causing 1/2 normal damage to the caster.

Fumbles for everyone!

 

[KittenMaster]

A lot of spells are already stronger than what a crit can do without actually having crits.

 

[CornBurrito]

@CornBurrito
Seriously, telling others how to play at their tables is a load of crap. Don't do that. If it's my table, my firends, and we decide that it's more fun to play without pants on and covered in Cheetos dust, then that's on us. It would be silly for you to preach to me about how cheetos dust isn't good for my bare thighs, or how all the dust on my fingers will get on the table.

On Caster Fumbles:
If a caster can fumble fail, then they need to be able to Crit also. To me this is the natural balance of Melee vs Caster, melee can crit/fumble, casters get niether, if you want casters to have one then give them the other.

Casters can roll too. Instead of taking a flat DC = 10+spell casting, roll. DC = d20 + spellcasting.
Now your casters have a chance to critical fail, but you need to come up with a rule for their natural 20s. Add extra dice to damage? Make the target auto-fail a save? I don't know, it's a can of worms.

We let casters roll for spell DC in 3.5, but never included crits/fumbles.


On Save Criticals & Fumbles:
Instead of changing the rules, play within them. Give Criticals & Fumbles to saves that affect the Caster of the spell. Some examples of this:

• I save vs Charm with nat20, a force of willpower so strong that I'm able to charm the caster. He now makes a saving throw or becomes charmed by ME!
• Nat 20 on dex save vs fireball, no damage.
• Nat1 on fireball save, bonus damage!
• Nat1 on Charm save, double duration.
• Nat20 against Lightning, I'm able to decide if it changes direction
• Nat20 against single target spells, the explode right as they are cast causing 1/2 normal damage to the caster.

Fumbles for everyone!

Except you call it "natural balance" when it further ruins balance which is laughable. I have no problem if someone wants to play with certain rules but don't throw around words like balance to justify it. Wizards can warp reality. A fighter can hit stuff with a sword, and fumbles means he becomes more of a liability as he levels up because full attacks. Balance.... really? The reason fumbles probably don't exist in the first place was for balance.

Casters already have crits. If an enemy rolls a one I am pretty sure they auto fail the save. But I guess because the game didn't explicitly call it a critical you simply didn't notice.

@KittenMaster: nah dude, double damage is obviously far more powerful than color spray, grease, divine power, wish, miracle, etc...

I mean with color spray I can effextively take 3 enemies out of the fight in one go. Double damage might kill 1 enemy or at least make it lower in health. Scary.

 

[embalm]

Note on the broken characters you seem so concerned about. I've played with two crazy broken characters.

A 3.5 Minotaur Barbarian - If I could have seen into the future I wouldn't have allowed the minotaur. No prestige classes, just high STR and rage. He cut everything to ribbons using weapons that were one size larger than everyone else's. He was almost impossible to kill with a huge pool of HP, crazy fast speed, and the wizard loved pumping him up for big encounters.
Try to plan an encounter around a Bull Strength, Invisible, Flying, Raging Minotaur.
You can't extend the work day to weaken him like spell casters, he is always ready to fight and works well even without rage. You can't create battles for other characters to shine, the minotaur did as much damage as the wizard and took more damage than our fighter. It was a pain.

3.5 Wand Wizard - Took feats to be able to unload multiple wands, using several charges at once and casting from two wands in a single turn. The ultimate glass cannon, this character could unleash just about unlimited damage, but had crap CON and wizard HD. So when things got rough I let him unleash hell, but then a few stray arrows would drop him. He could always come back, but the cost of resurrections got high and limited the number of Wands he was able to purchase.


I've never thought of a normal wizard as broken in any way. My group has always found our warriors with ample treasure to close the gap, and we usually come up with nutty tactics to help balance things out.
Like the Fighter with a Feather Fall ring, Fire Resist, pots of oil, and alchemical fire who let himself be dropped into a castle and pretty much single handedly won the day.


We don't often play selfish games though, which I think is what concerns most people who really care about balance. My Wizards are more likely to use the haste on a warrior class, invisibility on the rogue, and fireball on everyone else.

 

[embalm]

Wizards can warp reality.

Save to restore reality. No effect.

I'm pretty sure you didn't even read that post you quoted, your reply pretty much completely ignores it. It opens the door for Mages to fumble WAY WORSE than a fighter ever could. All I ask is that you read before you quote.

I gave you multiple ways to make critical/fumble rules work for mages, which can be tweaked to nerf mages all you want... House rules are house rules, use or don't, I don't care.

I'm just giving you some ways you might enjoy fumble rules. Hell try those fumble rules with Mages only! On a nat20 save the spell backfires in a way determined by the DM. That seems like something you would love and might help bring the Wizards back down to reality at your table. Cheers!