Topic: Evading fumbles for expert characters

[Dark Schneider]

One thing I think is incomplete are the UMR fumbles, because we can fumble, it is true, but, why an expert character should fumble the same count times than a novice one?.

I will propose how to manage this in 2 points:

1) NON-MAGIC (weapons, MA):

- We can reduce the UMR fumble with combat styles, with the method we use this is simply developing some ranks (maybe the POST is for somewhere yet).
- We can use swashbuckling skill (see SoHK).

So we have well covered this point.

2) MAGIC:

I don't like that the novice/amateur caster has the same chance to fumble than an expert one. In the case of arcane users and using statistic, we have that 1/25 spells will be a fumble one.
For novice caster I see it is good, but if we have a character with many ranks in spell lists, that has bought talents to improve the casting bonus, developed magical languages for the same purpose, etc. Why it can't use them?.
So I'd manage (the UMR spell fumbles) with this point:

- Character has the possibility to roll an SCSM with a modifier (-25, -50 we should discuss it), if the result is not FUMBLE, then PPs are spent but there is no fumble to roll. See that we can worsen the result (fumble adding SCSM mods x2, x3...), so amateur characters (low spell bonus) should not try this.
- I should mention that for results 'F', we don't apply it as a fumble, we apply lost PP but with no effect (no RR for BAR, no damage for elemental...). I don't see much sense in why my caster should fumble only because foe wear a piece of armor (for example a magic bolt, compare AT1 and AT16, fumble because armor? ummm...where is the relationship?).

Remember that we can increase the spell bonus by ranks, talents, items and magical language skill.

[Fornitus]

 Why not just subtract the casters/fighters level times 2 or 3?

That way it is consistant, and the level matters as far as the amount of disaster it causes.
So, a 20th lvl caster would subtract 40 or 60 from their fumble rolls. Ant result above zero would mean the caster stoped the spell and just lost the round.

[rafmeister]

     Arcane magic is supposed to be DANGEROUS even for the expert caster; thus the extended fumble range. Anyone with one rank in a weapon has an understanding of what they are doing, and anyone with ten ranks can be considered an expert...

[RandalThor]

I too, feel something like this is a good idea, but I do not understand exactly what you guys are saying. Maybe I need to go and check out the MAComp....

[yammahoper]

Reduce fumble ranges by 1 per 10 ranks in the skill, which could include spell list, down to a minimum of 01.

lynn

[Joshua24601]

In my games the spell casters are always overcasting, meaning they get negatives.  Isn't the Fumble roll modified inversely by the total NEGATIVE (and only negative) modifiers to the SCSM roll?  There a harder SCSM roll means a higher likelihood of failure and nastier results.
As they go up levels, the same level spell has less negatives ergo the results of a fumble are less nasty (and less likely).  Also, once the reach the level of casting the spell automatically the chance drops even further to 1/50.

From my perspective 1/50 is the minimum fumble rate for spells.  Overcasting, taking less time to prepare and being at lower then 75% PP's all increase the odds of fumble  For any given spell, the higher the level the character is, the lower the effects of all these things.  Go up a few character levels and overcasting and preparation won't be an issue, more PPs mean it'll take longer to drop below 75%.

Compare spell fumbles (which even when not automatic shouldn't be much higher then 5%) to weapon fumbles on the avarage weapons chart and you see the weapons are still worse off then spells.

(by the way we process fumbles on the directed spell attack tables differently.. Rather then rolling the fumble table, they're either misses (usually), deflections if the target has a shield, or possibly hitting a nearby ally by mistake... or other random and fun things the GM can come up with.)

[Joshua24601]

So far as reducing weapon fumbles for fighters....

Allow the PC's to spend XP's for talents (1000 per point works at lower levels but at higher that's probably too cheap).  There are talents that reduce fumbles.

[Marc R]

Why not spend DP for talents? (Would seem to work out better.)

[mocking bird]

In my games the spell casters are always overcasting, meaning they get negatives.  Isn't the Fumble roll modified inversely by the total NEGATIVE (and only negative) modifiers to the SCSM roll?  There a harder SCSM roll means a higher likelihood of failure and nastier results.

I recall you only apply the SCSM penalties on spell failures, not fumbles - although technically a fumble is a failure - for some strange reason.

[markc]

 IMO, if you do this I would increase the fumble range of all castings, then have a rule that you could reduce the fumble by 1 for every 25 points in spell mastery in the list. Also keep the base fumble number as it is now because when you think about it they are very low to begin with.

MDC

[Dark Schneider]

Compare spell fumbles (which even when not automatic shouldn't be much higher then 5%) to weapon fumbles on the avarage weapons chart and you see the weapons are still worse off then spells.

Have you seen the elemental and arcane elemental fumbles  ?

In my games the spell casters are always overcasting, meaning they get negatives.  Isn't the Fumble roll modified inversely by the total NEGATIVE (and only negative) modifiers to the SCSM roll?  There a harder SCSM roll means a higher likelihood of failure and nastier results.
As they go up levels, the same level spell has less negatives ergo the results of a fumble are less nasty (and less likely).  Also, once the reach the level of casting the spell automatically the chance drops even further to 1/50.

Yes, but I am talking about lower level spells (<=caster level), we see that a lvl 8 caster has the same probability to fumble casting a FIREBALL (4%) than a level 40 caster, that has developed skills and talents, imagine that 1st caster has only +18 in 'fire law' list (ranks + stats + prof) and the 2nd caster has +95 in 'fire law'; is this fair?.
If you are thinking about preparation time, then imagine that 1st caster is lvl 14. I think that it should be 'something' for this.

Arcane magic is supposed to be DANGEROUS even for the expert caster; thus the extended fumble range. Anyone with one rank in a weapon has an understanding of what they are doing, and anyone with ten ranks can be considered an expert...

Yes, but is the same 'extended range' for all casters, and that is exactly what I don't like.

Precisely the 'magical language' main purpose is gives us spell bonus (+3 per rank), because using it to increase spell effects is useless (spell mastery is very much better for that). And I see it well, it is usual that when you cast spells, more 'magical language' you know, better you cast them (something like 'magical formula').

After reading the replies, I think a good idea could be substract the SPELL BONUS for that list to fumble, after rolling (if not then never could be high-end roll).

So, if you have +30 to spell bonus in a list, and fumble, make ALL ROLLS, and then modify the result by that bonus (substract 30 in this case).
See that you need very much bonus (and it is not easy) to reduce some fumbles, for example when casting by SCSM, then you add the modifiers x2 or x3 (rememeber, substract negative is adding), and you roll a 96-100...
You can reach results of 200+.

For high-end rolls, usually results 96-100 are worse than 101-125, in this case obviously the better result is used, or, if after modifing the result you have 96-100, apply the 101+ one.

[mocking bird]

After reading the replies, I think a good idea could be substract the SPELL BONUS for that list to fumble, after rolling (if not then never could be high-end roll).

So, if you have +30 to spell bonus in a list, and fumble, make ALL ROLLS, and then modify the result by that bonus (substract 30 in this case).

This I am not a fan of as you are using the spell bonus twice - both for casting and then for reducing fumbles makind fumbles virtually non-existent.  Or are you separating fumbles (flat chance even when auto-casting) from failures (that you can don on your own overcasting for example)?  But I think the same mechanic for both should be used to keep things simpler.

I do like the idea of using spell mastery for it but I would prefer to see a different skill for it as spell mastery is too much of a catch-all do everything skill already.  You have a separate skill swashbuckling for weapon skills after all so you could have just a straight skill for all spell lists rather than a separate skill for each.

[Dark Schneider]

But spell skills are not as other skills, so don't be afraid of using its bonus.

It is not easy to increase the bonus for spells. While swashbuckling has a progression 5-3-1,5-0,5, spells have 1-1-0,5-0.

So, where is the problem of using the bonus multiple times?.

If you increase that bonus by talents and/or magical language, do you think that is a cheap method?, then I must insist that I think there is no problem for using the bonus more than once.

reducing fumbles makind fumbles virtually non-existent

You mean that the usual is reducing 80-100 to rolls (or more), look at your player characters and their spell lists bonuses. I don't think that fumbles are non-existent.

[mocking bird]

You are missing my 'using the bonus more than once'.  Talents modify the skill.  Magical languages is a separate skill used to modify spell casting.  They are skill modifiers.  What I was meaning is that you are using the spell casting skill to cast a spell, then using the exact same skill on the fumble result, i.e. using the same skill twice. 

I meant you would still fumble but any type of detrimental fumble result would be nullified, especially when your spell casting skill gets to 75+ which is not that unreasonable at mid level.

Consider eliminating the swashbuckling 'negate a fumble' use and just using the OB instead, or even OB/5 as it is a standard skill.  In effect this is what your are proposing for spell fumbles.

[Dark Schneider]

Basically, but remember that fumbles for weapons are not high-ended, and that increasing the skill bonus for spells is much harder than weapon type skills, you need more skills, adquiring talents (that can cost DPs or XPs depending on GM method).

Comparing the total cost for reducing fumble effects in non-magic and magic, it doesn't sound out of play for me really.

As note, I must say that the swashbuckling we develop for categories, not for single weapons (I don't remember how the skill is originally developed). So, with a single skill with 'combat maneuver' cost, you reduce fumble risk for an entire group of weapons, it is not bad.

So, the magical fumble reduction is clearly more expensive and, in both cases there is no risk 0%, because in weapons you can't negate the fumbles that are not losing the weapon control with swashbuckling, and for magical you have the high-ended rolls, that are really impossible to reduce them to 0.

There is a point that disturb me, I say:

For high-end rolls, usually results 96-100 are worse than 101-125, in this case obviously the better result is used, or, if after modifing the result you have 96-100, apply the 101+ one.

But if you have a roll result of 96-100 maybe it could be considered as UMR too, but for fumble table, and then not modify it.

We have the curious case that, if we cast with a SCSM and fumble, if we roll a 96-100, then adding the SCSM modifiers we change it to 101+, that is better result for the caster, is that not curious?.

[markc]

 DS,
 Is the 96-100 a natural roll or a modified roll? If it is natural it should be open ended and if you roll a 1 to your 96 you should get the 97 result which IMO is worse then a 96+4=101

MDC

[Dark Schneider]

That is the case, you can have a natural roll of 96-100, but when modified with the SCSM modifiers it can be changed to 101+, so in this case the penalty for SCSM is a good thing.

[yammahoper]

You can also use swashbuckling skill as a work around fumbles.  Assign a dificulty, or perhaps the fumble roll IS the dificulty, etc.

lynn

[Kalu]

I like the idea of having the fumble rate depend on skills, and I see it as a fine, so-far unexplored area to investigate with the objective of finding new house rules. Ultimately, these house rules can be used to show the "danger level" of certain parts of a setting.

My thoughts on this area are that the relation between fumble rate and skill proficiency should be stronger and more varied than it is now. The above suggestions only discuss the lowering of fumble rates, but if the current rates are average rates for everyone in the setting, such approaches will unbalance the system. What I think would be useful instead is to assign a minimum (lower than current value), a maximum fumble rate (higher than current value), and an algorithm for decreasing the fumble rate for each attack table.

Assigning the limit values should be reasonably easy, whereas the algorithm is a bit more difficult. It could well be argued that for unlearned skills - in addition to the skill penalty suffered - the fumble rate must be quite high. I think it would be reasonable to merely double the maximum fumble rate value.
Regarding the algorithm, I think that the decrease in fumble rate should be diminishing, requiring more and more ranks for a decrease. Something like requiring the same amount of ranks again for the rate to decrease (1, 2, 4, 8, ...). I'm sure somebody can come up with the right mathematical formula for calculating the decrease in the fumble rate...

For weapons, a Dagger (normal FR: 01) could have a range like 1 to 4 (denoted [01, 04]). This would mean that a person with 0 ranks would have an FR of 08, with 1 rank the FR would be 04, with 2 ranks it would be 03, with 3 or 4 ranks it would be 02, and with 5 ranks or more it would be 01. For a Broadsword (normally FR: 03) the range could be [02, 07], which would give the currently "normal" FR at 9 ranks.

For spells, fumble rates should only be applicable to spell with attack tables; the casting of the spell should be handled differently. To the attack spells, this approach offers the opportunity of graduating the difficulty for different kinds of spells, for example by letting Arcane spells have a wider span of fumble rates. This also has the potential of making the casting of spells much more dangerous for an untrained caster.

In fact, lots of opportunities for adjusting fumble rates could be introduced, for example a spell focus that decreases the FR by some number or magical herbs that do the same. And similarly for weapons, a sword with a better balance or a lighter mace could decrease the FR, while more complex weapons could decrease it.

In any case, relating fumble rates to number of skill ranks could also be an incitement to develop skills that gain only a small bonus increase per rank. And I think it expresses the difference in proficiency between characters of lower levels compared to those of higher levels.

A final thought is about category ranks. While I think that it would make sense to add these to the number of ranks in a certain weapon skill, the same can not be done for spells, as their categories cannot be developed. Therefore, I think they should be left out of the equation so as not to get two different algorithms. Another option is to rework the rank bonus system of spells (from "special" to "standard" progression), but that's an entirely different matter!

//K

[markc]

 Kalu,
 I agree and like the idea of increasing the fumble range for less skilled users and reducing it for advanced users. In the past I ahve generally done this with the hand/weapon arts from the MAC. But I think I will add it to the list of things to think about modifing for my game.

 BTW Kalu, did not you are someone else say abut the same thing in the past?

MDC