PDA

View Full Version : Natural 1/Critical Failure rules



Lord Il Palazzo
2013-01-23, 10:58 AM
The D&D 3.5 group I DM has traditionally played using the house-rule that natural 1s on skill checks and the like represent automatic failure when there's some plausible way the check could fail and that natural 20s produce success in a similar manner.

Specifics and details spoilered for length:
Some of my players feel like it adds drama to the game to be able to fail even when using skills you're really good at and nobody besides me has expressed any strong opinion against this rule.

The natural 1 part has always bothered me as it just doesn't make sense that a person who has spent years studying magic can fail to identify even the most basic spell 1/20th of the time or that someone who is a "master of disguise" will totally fail to disguise himself 1/20th of the time.

In our most recent session when the party's swordsage tried to sneak past the party's wizard (in kind of a PvP sparring match). The swordsage rolled a nat 1 on Move Silently which came out to a modified 21 and the wizard rolled a modified 8 (I don't remember the natural roll, I would guess 6 or 7.) A discussion ensued over how much of a setback a nat 1 should represent, whether the wizard would have heard footsteps the whole way or possibly just a slight rattle of armor from the point where the swordsage started and on whether our nat 1 rule was reasonable at all. We also got to talking about what other systems or rules could be used to make a nat 1 a bad thing without necessarily being a complete failure.

I've got a discussion going by email with the players but I'm curious what other options are out there. Do you have any house rules or suggestions about how natural 1s are handled? While we play D&D 3.5, I'd be interested to hear your rules and suggestions regardless of the systems they come from.

yougi
2013-01-23, 11:19 AM
I personally do it that way:

On skill checks, I use the die result as is, for the reasons you said.

On saves, I rule that a nat 20 gives you a 30, and a nat 1 gives you a -10 before your bonuses (from an optional rule in the books). Sometimes, that -10 is not enough to make you miss your save, or the 30 is not enough to make it.

On attack rolls, I say that if you have to confirm your crits, well you also have to confirm your crit misses: if you roll a 1 on an attack, you reroll the attack: if your second roll would hit, you simply miss, but if your second roll also misses, then something bad happens to you (like rerolling your attack against an ally, or getting an attack of opportunity from the guy you're meleeing with, or being flatfooted for a round).

navar100
2013-01-23, 01:14 PM
Chance of failure is not necessary for fun. Characters can be just that good they can't fail. The fun is earning that expertise over time then enjoying the spoils.

Additionally - Rogue Hides. Rolls a 1. Wizard Spots. Rolls a 1. Both fail. Now what?

Kurald Galain
2013-01-23, 01:33 PM
I enjoy fumble rules on skill checks, but I find 5% is too large a chance. Furthermore, I have always ruled that if you're well trained, a fumble doesn't represent you botching the job, but that something unexpected happens from outside factors. For instance, fumbling a roll to forage for food might mean that you find a bear. Then it's up to you whether you'll run or fight or do something else; it's meant to be interesting, not crippling.

Lord Il Palazzo
2013-01-23, 01:56 PM
I enjoy fumble rules on skill checks, but I find 5% is too large a chance. Furthermore, I have always ruled that if you're well trained, a fumble doesn't represent you botching the job, but that something unexpected happens from outside factors. For instance, fumbling a roll to forage for food might mean that you find a bear. Then it's up to you whether you'll run or fight or do something else; it's meant to be interesting, not crippling.This is the direction I really hope I can steer my group in. In my opinion, having something go wrong and need to be dealt with (now or later) adds challenge and is fun and failing what should be an easy task and having the whole game/encounter/plan go belly up isn't.

TheOOB
2013-01-23, 02:53 PM
Personally, I loath critical failure and fumble rules. Remember in base D&D 3.5, the natural 1 only for sure fails on attack rolls and saving throws, and even then it's a normal failure(They also auto succeed on a natural 20). This is to always keep there some danger in combat, a weak foe can always hit, and a strong foe can always miss.

Now critical failures and fumbles on the other hand I find silly. Every D&D PC, even wizards and sorcerers are trained combatants. They are people who know how to fight and rely on their skills to survive the most dangerous job around: adventuring. There is no way that an adventurer has a 5% chance of dropping their sword or hitting their allies.

Now, if we where using a different dice system, say 3d6 instead of 1d20, I'd say maybe, as a "3" would only happen about 0.5% of the time, or less than 1 in every 200 attacks, but 5% is too high of a chance to make the rules something feasible to use unless you want your game to be completely silly.

Doug Lampert
2013-01-23, 03:03 PM
Chance of failure is not necessary for fun. Characters can be just that good they can't fail. The fun is earning that expertise over time then enjoying the spoils.

Additionally - Rogue Hides. Rolls a 1. Wizard Spots. Rolls a 1. Both fail. Now what?

This is (part) of why opposed checks especially should NEVER use a 1 autofail or 20 autosucceed rule.

Solve that and you hit the next problem: The chance of 1 or a 20 on one of the two characters is a 19% chance, basically 1 time in 5 SOMEONE will have a roll which renders skill TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The GOD of sneaking is caught by someone who's blind, deaf, and actually in another country 9% of the time because either he rolls a 1 (and the differently abled person doesn't) or the differently abled person rolls a 20 and the GOD doesn't.

Hey, blind and deaf is only -10 or -20 or something to the checks (blind people can tell the direction of the sun, deaf people can pick up very loud bass sounds). Distance is only -1 per 10', so it's just a set of big penalties, 1 and 20 don't care about skill or penalties or you don't need the autofail rule.

Both problems get far worse when one or both sides are groups. 4 adventurers and 4 orks all roll initiative (which is just a modified dex check and thus uses the same rules as skills which are also just modified ability checks). Congradulations, there is a whole 43% chance that you will NOT have a 1 or a 20 rolled, but don't worry, you'll get two or more 1s or 20s only about 19% of the time.

Lesson: Don't use autofail rules for opposed checks. You don't need them anyway, even if you think the variation on a d20 is too small (and I have to go "HUH?" to that in a game where a +2 is considered a big deal), then you still have a much larger variance on 2d20 being compared. Instead of + or - 10 being enough to put you off the range of the roll now it can take up to + or -19 to put you off range. Seriously, if the difference is 19 then the better guy wins. An exceptionally strong man is at a whole +9 vs. a 90 year old 90 lb weakling, +19 ought to be impressive.

Codyage
2013-01-23, 03:11 PM
Attack Rolls
I rule that a 1 will cause you to fail despite bonuses, and a 20 will make the attack a success. I then make them roll to confirm a crit, and if that ends up as a 20 I let them get one more chance. If they roll three 20's in a row, I give them the kill on the creature. Unless it is immune to crits, then I just don't offer the third roll.

Saves
A 1 will always fail, and a 20 will always succeed. I give them the 20 in case they ever go against something that requires an astronomical save, they can still make it. The 1 failing is the trade off. But in most cases, a 1 or a 2 won't have enough with bonuses to match the DC anyways. But my players have agreed to that rule, because it gives them a slim chance of hope.

Skill Checks
The method I use is if they have the ranks for the skill maxed, when they roll the 20. It is a success. If they don't have ranks maxed, then it is a + 20 instead. If the person rolls a 1, it will always fail unless they have max ranks in the skill they rolled a 1 on. If they do, have max ranks it is just a +1 instead. If they can't get the DC with the +1 then they fail like everyone else. If the +1 does match the DC some how by favorable conditions whatever they were trying to do barely works. Such as a small gust of wind being enough to push you to the other side of the chasm as you barely grab the side. A natural 1 Jump check but with max ranks in jump.

If the situation occurs with two people rolling a 20 with max ranks in a skill, they need to just re-roll instead. Only if the they have the same amount of maxed ranks in a skill. If one of the characters has more ranks then the other person in their skill, they win. Example is the rogue with +11 to hide rolls a 20, but a wizard only has +10. They have maxed ranks, but the rogue still has one more then the wizard.

Lord Il Palazzo
2013-01-23, 03:30 PM
One suggestion I made was coming up with a rule that makes players confirm nat 1s. If you nat 1 a skill check but would succeed with your modifier, you roll again. Failing the confirmation roll would mean you fail the skill check; maiking the confirmation roll means you succeed, possibly with some other consequence for the nat 1.

Has anyone ever played like this? How do you handle the confirmation? (Do you use the same modifier, same DC and all, like confirming a critical or do something else?)

To be clear, we don't have any consequence of a nat 1 on an attack roll besides missing with that attack; you don't accidentally throw your sword or hit an ally or anything. Our only modification in combat is that we don't roll to confirm nat 20 critical hits (a simplification our first DM used that kind of stuck.)

1337 b4k4
2013-01-23, 03:48 PM
Additionally - Rogue Hides. Rolls a 1. Wizard Spots. Rolls a 1. Both fail. Now what?

Wouldn't this be resolved the same way you resolve any other opposed check where both opponents fail their skill check?

Lord Il Palazzo
2013-01-23, 04:31 PM
Wouldn't this be resolved the same way you resolve any other opposed check where both opponents fail their skill check?That's the problem; on an opposed check, nobody "fails" just for rolling low. They fail for rolling less than the other guy. In theory, a roll of 1 can win on an opposed check if the other person managed to get even lower (a low roll with no ranks and/or a penalty for a low ability score and/or some circumstance penalties, for example).

By the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#opposedChecks), a tie on an opposed check goes to the person with the higher modifier. If that's tied, you reroll. However, if you start house ruling certain rolls as automatically succeeding or failing, things aren't quite so clear.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-23, 05:45 PM
Additionally - Rogue Hides. Rolls a 1. Wizard Spots. Rolls a 1. Both fail. Now what?

If it were my game, I would have something unexpected happen that interferes with both their plans. Depends on the situation they're in, of course. My point is, if you treat fumbles like "on every attack you have a 5% chance of stabbing yourself", they're going to suck and players tend to strongly dislike this. If you treat fumbles as a slim chance of something interesting happen... well...

One of the more memorable scenes I've run was a fight on horseback; at some point a PC knight and an NPC orc lancer charge each other, and both manage to fumble their attack rolls. I ruled that they both leaned close while their horses veered away, so they both fall off and end up grappling each other on the ground.

Or, there was the elf with very high constitution and a maxed out "resist toxin" skill (not D&D, but the skill lets you avoid negative effects from poison and alcohol) always bragged about how he could outdrink any dwarf. And statistically, he could. Now after a few sessions he finally meets a dwarf and gets a chance to show this in practice... and rolls a fumble, spends a fate point on a reroll, and fumbles again. Yeah, that was funny :)

A Tad Insane
2013-01-23, 06:11 PM
I play with confirms. But I also narrirate the failures of those with maxed stats in a way to say it's not their fault, e.g. the sneak rogue rols a confirmed one when sneaking past a lazy guard, a crow screeches, causing the guard to look at see the rogue.

Khedrac
2013-01-24, 03:35 AM
A reasonable Nat1/Nat20 option for skill checks is Nat 1 is an extra -10 and Nat 20 an extra +10.

Erik Vale
2013-01-24, 04:00 AM
Chance of failure is not necessary for fun. Characters can be just that good they can't fail. The fun is earning that expertise over time then enjoying the spoils.

Additionally - Rogue Hides. Rolls a 1. Wizard Spots. Rolls a 1. Both fail. Now what?

"I think I heard something" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJg6Duzzf4)
[Right near the end.]

Deophaun
2013-01-24, 06:07 AM
Solve that and you hit the next problem: The chance of 1 or a 20 on one of the two characters is a 19% chance, basically 1 time in 5 SOMEONE will have a roll which renders skill TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
In truth, unless the person making the spot check is alerted to the presence of something unusual, they should be taking 10.

Characters should only roll while not threatened if they are trying to do something out of the ordinary. This solves a lot of the problems with critical fumbles/successes on skill checks. Not all, but a lot.

Ravens_cry
2013-01-24, 06:26 AM
Well, we just had a threads about this and similar ideas, like a -10, +10 rule.
I like neither to be frank. They don't add anything to the game in my opinion that needs to be added. Look at an acrobatic, the worlds greatest acrobat. Do they fail at walking across a balance beam 5% of the time? Could a paraplegic beat the world high jump record if they tried, on average, 20 times?
Another thing worth noting is that ,unlike attack rolls, some skill checks require multiple successes to be a full success. For example, balancing as one makes their way across a long ledge, or moving silently through a castle. The fact that every check has a 5% chance of failing, and, in the case of opposed checks like move silently, the guards a 5% chance of hearing them, no matter the skill level, turns these activities from being something risky but potentially rewarding, to downright suicidal.
This take away from the variance of the game as it makes players more reluctant to use their skills. it also takes away from the DM toolset as situations that call for these skills become much more potentially and, worse, arbitrarily, lethal.
In short, though the people I play with use the -10 +10 for skill checks, I hate it and I believe I have elucidated why.

Killer Angel
2013-01-24, 07:53 AM
The D&D 3.5 group I DM has traditionally played using the house-rule that natural 1s on skill checks and the like represent automatic failure

(snip)

I've got a discussion going by email with the players but I'm curious what other options are out there.

I suppose these climbers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrX0ohmu1zw) should fall once every minute... (no matter what's the effective difficulty of the cliff, mind you).

Jay R
2013-01-24, 10:31 AM
Chance of failure is not necessary for fun. Characters can be just that good they can't fail. The fun is earning that expertise over time then enjoying the spoils.

Makes sense. I could see losing the chance to fail one a roll of 1, only if the characters started off at first level. Otherwise, by your logic, they aren't trying to earn it; they want to be given a perfect ability to start.


Additionally - Rogue Hides. Rolls a 1. Wizard Spots. Rolls a 1. Both fail. Now what?

Easy. The rogue failed to conceal himself; his body is not completely behind the rock. The wizard failed to notice the thief's head sticking up over the rock.

(It makes more sense when you realize that the rogue's roll can affect more than one seeker. Assume there is also a fighter. The rogue fails to Hide; the wizard fails to Spot; the fighter successfully Spots. So the fighter sees the rogue and the wizard doesn't. In your scenario, the thief is protected from his failed attempt to Hide by the fact that there was no competent seeker.)

Krazzman
2013-01-24, 10:53 AM
Nat1/Nat20 for Saves and Attacks are Failures/Successes. Thus is mainly to balance the critical hit system dnd uses. 20 automatic hit(save) == 1 automatic miss(failed save). Critical Hits can actually be missed. If your threat range for crits is 15+, but you would need a 19 to hit you would still miss with your 15.
If you want to introduce a fumble system you should work it like crit's. If you actually confirm this fumble it should give you a minor disadvantage. Like roll on a table and in this table the worst thing is a "Your weapon's hilt loosens it's grippyness /you have a minor ache in your bones (for natural weapons) and as such can't give all your power into it. -2 to hit, -2 dmg and -2 against disarm checks." or "Your motions are such off that you provoke an attack of opportunity." or for ranged, your bowstring snaps/you misfire etc and now you need a fullround action to replace it.

You now, minor stuff like losing an action, having a situational negative modifier. Not something like you throw away your blade, no save.

If you want something similar for skillchecks let on a 1 confirm mishaps. For example while hiding a rogue sneezes. Happens quite often in media and while he still has a good hiding place he busted it by sneezing, IF the guards can pin-point where the sneezing came from. For Nat 20 a streak of luck could be while hiding successfully you find something or while hiding in a barrel the lid won't move from outside the barrel.

Deophaun
2013-01-24, 04:13 PM
I suppose these climbers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrX0ohmu1zw) should fall once every minute... (no matter what's the effective difficulty of the cliff, mind you).
Why aren't they taking 10?

Nat1/Nat20 for Saves and Attacks are Failures/Successes. Thus is mainly to balance the critical hit system dnd uses.
Critical success is not balanced by critical failure. Critical success is balanced by both teams being subjected to its effects. Eliminate critical failure, and you will have no effect on the impact of critical success to the game. Make one side, and one side only, exempt from critical failure, and you will affect game balance.

Lord Il Palazzo
2013-01-24, 04:19 PM
Why aren't they taking 10?

Critical success is not balanced by critical failure. Critical success is balanced by both teams being subjected to its effects. Eliminate critical failure, and you will have no effect on the impact of critical success to the game. Make one side, and one side only, exempt from critical failure, and you will affect game balance.I assmume he mean "balances" as in "mirrors" or "is equivalent to"; he didn't seem to be saying that critical success make the critical system more fair.

EarFall
2013-01-24, 05:32 PM
The D&D 3.5 group I DM has traditionally played using the house-rule that natural 1s on skill checks and the like represent automatic failure when there's some plausible way the check could fail and that natural 20s produce success in a similar manner.

Specifics and details spoilered for length:
Some of my players feel like it adds drama to the game to be able to fail even when using skills you're really good at and nobody besides me has expressed any strong opinion against this rule.

The natural 1 part has always bothered me as it just doesn't make sense that a person who has spent years studying magic can fail to identify even the most basic spell 1/20th of the time or that someone who is a "master of disguise" will totally fail to disguise himself 1/20th of the time.

In our most recent session when the party's swordsage tried to sneak past the party's wizard (in kind of a PvP sparring match). The swordsage rolled a nat 1 on Move Silently which came out to a modified 21 and the wizard rolled a modified 8 (I don't remember the natural roll, I would guess 6 or 7.) A discussion ensued over how much of a setback a nat 1 should represent, whether the wizard would have heard footsteps the whole way or possibly just a slight rattle of armor from the point where the swordsage started and on whether our nat 1 rule was reasonable at all. We also got to talking about what other systems or rules could be used to make a nat 1 a bad thing without necessarily being a complete failure.

I've got a discussion going by email with the players but I'm curious what other options are out there. Do you have any house rules or suggestions about how natural 1s are handled? While we play D&D 3.5, I'd be interested to hear your rules and suggestions regardless of the systems they come from.

Auto failures on skills aren't much fun - but it shouldn't be too trivial either. I find a nice compromise is to treat a 1 as a -5. YOu might still succeed - and it helps with stuff like hide vs spot and bluff vs sense motive where one side "failing" doesn't seem right.

Deophaun
2013-01-24, 05:59 PM
I assmume he mean "balances" as in "mirrors" or "is equivalent to"; he didn't seem to be saying that critical success make the critical system more fair.
"This is mainly to mirror..."
"This is mainly to make equivalent to..."

I'll let Krazzman speak for himself, but the above constructions are odd, and not what I'd expect "this is mainly to balance" to be referring to. If someone told me they were doing something "mainly to mirror x," I'd tell them to be more original. If something existed "mainly to be equivalent to x," I'd conclude it was pointless. ("This is mainly to offset" or "this mainly counteracts," however...)

Bogardan_Mage
2013-01-24, 08:12 PM
In truth, unless the person making the spot check is alerted to the presence of something unusual, they should be taking 10.

Characters should only roll while not threatened if they are trying to do something out of the ordinary. This solves a lot of the problems with critical fumbles/successes on skill checks. Not all, but a lot.
Not using critical fumbles and successes on skill checks solves all of the problems with critical fumbles and successes on skill checks. I see a lot of suggested mechanics in this thread but no explanation of why the rule needs to exist in the first place.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-25, 03:34 AM
Not using critical fumbles and successes on skill checks solves all of the problems with critical fumbles and successes on skill checks. I see a lot of suggested mechanics in this thread but no explanation of why the rule needs to exist in the first place.

Because they lead to interesting situations (assuming a competent DM, of course).

Krazzman
2013-01-25, 04:26 AM
"This is mainly to mirror..."
"This is mainly to make equivalent to..."

I'll let Krazzman speak for himself, but the above constructions are odd, and not what I'd expect "this is mainly to balance" to be referring to. If someone told me they were doing something "mainly to mirror x," I'd tell them to be more original. If something existed "mainly to be equivalent to x," I'd conclude it was pointless. ("This is mainly to offset" or "this mainly counteracts," however...)

I actually meant something like it resembles a mirror that both sides of the game are subject to an at least 5% chance of failure (to hit/to save) or at least a 5% to succeed (to hit/to save). Both having a chance to critically hit CAN be anticlimatic or awesome but is so in a "reasonable" way.

And yes I tend to use odd constructions quite often. Dunno why, just happens from time to time, when I'm not thinking my posts through enough.

PersonMan
2013-01-25, 04:30 AM
Why aren't they taking 10?

Because they can't. Unless they're on some micro-cliff where there is 0 danger, they can't. You can't take 10 in a stressful situation, and in my experience 'if you fall, you die' is stressful. Quite so, even.

Deophaun
2013-01-25, 04:54 AM
Because they can't. Unless they're on some micro-cliff where there is 0 danger, they can't. You can't take 10 in a stressful situation, and in my experience 'if you fall, you die' is stressful. Quite so, even.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume 3.5 or 4e rules in the generic Roleplaying section. Naturally, if you're playing in a system where stress precludes taking 10 such as... well... you tell me... that would be an issue. Of course, such a system probably wouldn't have a take 10 rule to begin with.

PersonMan
2013-01-25, 04:57 AM
I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume 3.5 or 4e rules in the generic Roleplaying section. Naturally, if you're playing in a system where stress precludes taking 10 such as... well... you tell me... that would be an issue. Of course, such a system probably wouldn't have a take 10 rule to begin with.


Taking 10

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.

Emphasis mine. I did mean 3.5. Now, perhaps I wasn't clear, but when I said "stressful" I meant "failing means you fall off a cliff and die". Which is, in my view, a threat.

Deophaun
2013-01-25, 05:07 AM
Emphasis mine. I did mean 3.5. Now, perhaps I wasn't clear, but when I said "stressful" I meant "failing means you fall off a cliff and die". Which is, in my view, a threat.
The chance of falling is neither being threatened nor a distraction.

Threatened is actually a game term. It means that someone is there to whack you with a melee attack.

As for distracted: dealing with heights is a part of climbing. In other words, it's part of the task. The task that you are performing cannot, by definition, distract you from the task that you are performing. It's like saying you can't take 10 on carpentry because the chance that you might slice your hand open with a saw distracts you from the saw. Makes no sense.

So yes, in 3.5 and 4e you can take 10 while climbing.

Vizzerdrix
2013-01-25, 05:34 AM
I've always loved critical fumble rules. Particularly when it auto breaks your weapon (a very common way of using crit fumble I have found), but I notice DMs seem to not like it when I then use the BBEG as an improvised club until I get a nat 1.


Honestly, if crit fumbles are in play, I'll always play a wizard and do my best to minimize my need to roll. And I've never tolerated the argument that crit fumbles effect the baddies as well. Even then it just makes the poor beat sticks suffer needlessly.

Killer Angel
2013-01-25, 06:38 AM
Why aren't they taking 10?


'cause
distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10
.
Combat is only one example of threatening conditions... if the price for failure is falling from a cliff to injury or death, you can't avoid the tension and you cannot take 10. Imo. it's a dangerous situation.

I believe it's similar to the skill concentration

Check

You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity. In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.

TypoNinja
2013-01-25, 07:10 AM
Since the climb skill is used for climbing a cliff, I'd judge that the simple act of climbing does not count as stressful even if falling could result in bad things.

Expanded critical failure rules, and especially critical fumbles are a bad thing for a host of reasons, but the most important one to me is that they are not applied evenly.

Compare a 20th level fighter to a 20th level wizard and a 20th rogue. In a typical round of combat our fighter makes 4 attacks and a saving throw vs a spell. 5 d20 rolls.

Our wizard might make a single 20 roll if his spell of choice required it, but equally likely not, he also makes a save vs a spell. Call it 1.5 d20 rolls.

Your TWF sneak attack rogue uses his belt of battle for an extra move action, tumbles opposite the fighter and lays into their mutual target, rolling 6 attacks, and just to even it out a save vs spell from him too. 8 d20 rolls.

Different class choices from your players will hurt them more or less, the rogue and fighter can both expect a critical failure every third round or so, while our wizard should expect one around every 14 rounds. Considering melee already gets the short end of the stick compared to casters this is kind of insult to injury to anyone in your games not playing a caster.

Worse in my opinion it completely undermines the heroicness of your Heros. A 20th level fighter attacking a sparring dummy can expect to hurt himself once every 30 seconds, while a 1st level commoner can only expect to hurt himself once every 2 minutes. Wait what? Our fighter rolls more dice per turn than the commoner so a better trained fighter becomes more likely to do himself harm. That's just not right.

Skill checks end up with similar holes in them, the fact is a 5% failure rate is simply far, far too frequent on lots of tasks, forcing a confirm on the failure mitigates the problem somewhat, but still undermines the fact that if you are good enough at something you make it even on a one*, and still leaves you with punishing some classes (usually melee) more than others based on how often they roll d20s'.

*Whens the last time you failed to tie your shoes? I bet you don't even think about the task anymore, your fingers just do it on their own. Sure its a really simplistic example, but it stands, when you get good enough at something you really can't fail.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-25, 07:43 AM
Emphasis mine. I did mean 3.5. Now, perhaps I wasn't clear, but when I said "stressful" I meant "failing means you fall off a cliff and die". Which is, in my view, a threat.

4E has the same rule, with the added restriction that you cannot take 10 during an encounter. PHB page 179.

Killer Angel
2013-01-25, 10:38 AM
*Whens the last time you failed to tie your shoes? I bet you don't even think about the task anymore, your fingers just do it on their own. Sure its a really simplistic example, but it stands, when you get good enough at something you really can't fail.

Well, that falls in the "For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful"... but yeah, I see your point. :smallwink:

Ravens_cry
2013-01-25, 11:16 AM
I've always loved critical fumble rules. Particularly when it auto breaks your weapon (a very common way of using crit fumble I have found), but I notice DMs seem to not like it when I then use the BBEG as an improvised club until I get a nat 1.


Honestly, if crit fumbles are in play, I'll always play a wizard and do my best to minimize my need to roll. And I've never tolerated the argument that crit fumbles effect the baddies as well. Even then it just makes the poor beat sticks suffer needlessly.
That feels terribly hypocritical.:smallannoyed:

Doug Lampert
2013-01-25, 11:36 AM
Since the climb skill is used for climbing a cliff, I'd judge that the simple act of climbing does not count as stressful even if falling could result in bad things.

I'm pretty sure that in either 3.0 or 3.5 PHB or DMG they gave an example of taking 10 and not being allowed to take 10, which was SPECIFICALLY that you could take 10 while climbing a cliff, but not if orks were shooting at you or dropping boulders on you while you climbed.

I'm pretty sure they used the word threat in describing the orc's attacks, even though the climber was not threatened (as a game term) by the orcs. Which implies threatened isn't actually intended to refer to the game term.

But the example is clear enough that you can take 10 to climb, even if falling would be dangerous. And hence the nature of the task you are attempting does not ITSELF stop you from taking 10.

My explanation: If you'll succeed on a 10, then there is no chance of failing if you take 10. No chance of failing implies no danger from the task. Thus I can take 10 if a 10 will predictably be a routine success.

razark
2013-01-25, 12:13 PM
Whens the last time you failed to tie your shoes?
Wednesday morning. I attempted to tie my shoe, and was completely unable to do so.


...when you get good enough at something you really can't fail.
Sometimes, when you try to do something, something other than your skill prevents you from succeeding. Such as a shoelace breaking.

Joe the Rat
2013-01-25, 12:39 PM
Sometimes, when you try to do something, something other than your skill prevents you from succeeding. Such as a shoelace breaking.

If you are using some sort of Epic Failure rule, this is what should be happening. You've had Bad Luck, and in spite of your best efforts, things don't work out. Bad luck on the roll = bad luck for the character has a nice synergy. Using the 1 = -10 option, they might succeed - possibly even in spite of bad luck, but if they fail, something happened that made them fail.

That's your narrative justification. It should also color your results - bad luck has to be plausible. A broken shoelace, an outside source of distraction, an unexpected patch of wet moss on the stone floor - this stuff happens. Unbreakable weapons breaking, heretofore unannounced imps materializing and shouting a warning, being crushed by frozen turkeys falling from the sky - these things shouldn't happen from a bad roll (though depending on your genre...). If you're using someone as a weapon and hoping for a fumble to "break" them, that's not a Bad Luck result. Bad Luck is them getting rescued, or grabbing something else and using the momentum to swing you into a wall or one of your allies.


Just keep in mind that regardless of the narrative behind your fumble scheme, the higher the probability of "critical" failure, the more the characters will look like the Three Stooges. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Synovia
2013-01-25, 12:57 PM
*Whens the last time you failed to tie your shoes? I bet you don't even think about the task anymore, your fingers just do it on their own. Sure its a really simplistic example, but it stands, when you get good enough at something you really can't fail.


If you're tying your shoes, sitting in your home, your DM shouldn't make you make a skill check. If you're tying your shoes while someone is trying to stab you to death, I don't think a 5% fail chance is too low.

TypoNinja
2013-01-25, 05:46 PM
If you're tying your shoes, sitting in your home, your DM shouldn't make you make a skill check. If you're tying your shoes while someone is trying to stab you to death, I don't think a 5% fail chance is too low.

Me personally? I'd abandon the shoes and GTFO barefoot.

On the other hand as a PC, I've made a career out of breaking people and hitting things (or was that hitting people?). Somebody stabbing at me happens all the time, call it an occupational hazard. Its a typical occurrence to a PC.

Deophaun
2013-01-25, 05:55 PM
I'm pretty sure that in either 3.0 or 3.5 PHB or DMG they gave an example of taking 10 and not being allowed to take 10, which was SPECIFICALLY that you could take 10 while climbing a cliff, but not if orks were shooting at you or dropping boulders on you while you climbed.
PHB pg. 65. You are correct: taking 10 while climbing is specifically called out as within the rules.

I'm pretty sure they used the word threat in describing the orc's attacks, even though the climber was not threatened (as a game term) by the orcs.
Here, you would be wrong. The word "threat" does not appear. But, getting stones lobbed at you sure is distracting, isn't it?

But it's nice to know there's a more noxious house rule designed to nerf mundanes than auto-fail on a 1.

Reltzik
2013-01-25, 10:36 PM
We use a rule system similar to critical hits for attack rolls. A natural 1 isn't a fumble, it's a fumble THREAT. We then roll a second time to confirm, with anything that would normally count as a miss confirming the fumble.

For effects, we draw from a "critical fumble" deck, which is essentially a novelty item. It's amusing in a way, but I wouldn't recommend it.

What I WOULD recommend is the random selection of some combat maneuver (in pathfinder vernacular) such as a trip, grapple, disarm, sunder, et cetera. This maneuver is applied to the character or a piece of equipment (the weapon being an obvious choice), with damage for sunder being the normal damage roll. The fumbling character may, upon learning what condition will afflict them, may instead opt to take the attack's damage.

I do not recommend this for skill checks. There's no auto-pass or critical success for skill rolls, and to balance this there is no auto-fail and should be no critical-fail.

For spells that don't involve attack rolls.... I dunno. You could take nat 20s and 1s on saving throws and make them threats for critical fumbles and critical hits, respectively, but I don't recommend it. That becomes almost a spell-reflecting thing. I'd recommend using attack roll fumble rules for spells with attack rolls, and leaving the others as-is.

Assuming you WANT fumbles. This is very group dependent. Some groups find them entertaining. Some do not.

VanIsleKnight
2013-01-26, 01:37 AM
I personally enjoy how people seem to assume that D&D must perfectly reflect real life at all times, when the system is clearly imperfect when it comes to replicating real world everything. Trying to bring only logic into D&D rules is absolutely silly. It's much simpler to take it slightly less seriously than super serious, and try to view the game through a cinematic lens. Or at least allow a GM handwave or three.

Personally Nat 1's and 20's treated as a varying combination of Character Failure and Fate/Chance/Gods/Magic Being Unexplainably Weird has worked out rather well, as long as everyone continues to have fun. If the GM is too harsh with penalties or too freehanded with their rewards then that is a problem that ought to be discussed after a session amongst the group so that a general consensus can be agreed upon. Diplomacy yo.

Otherwise, change groups.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-01-26, 02:57 AM
Because they lead to interesting situations (assuming a competent DM, of course).
The problem is "interesting" is far too vague to be meaningful. All the "problems" with critical skill failure could easily be described as "interesting". At what point does an "interesting" outcome become a "problem"? Such a definition needs to be known before the problems can be fixed.

Talakeal
2013-01-26, 03:03 PM
It is odd to me that so many people have such a strong dislike for auto failure or fumble rules. I assume it is because there is such a strong player majority and most players don't like to think of themselves as fallible, and that the possibility of failure is akin to "losing" the game.

In my experience fumbles add both realism and a great deal of enjoyment to the game. Look at the statistics for athletes being injured, friendly fire in combat (or hunting), automobile accidents, medical malpractice lawsuits, scandals caused by corporate or government incompetence, the number of people arrested or convicted for crimes they didn't commit, product recalls, or simple death by misadventure or needing to replace a broken tool. Clearly setting out to do something and instead making the situation worse is a common occurrence in the real world, even by professionals.

Also, many of my best gaming stories are the result of fumbles, both on the part of PCs and NPCs, stories which we still crack up over to this day. A creative GM can really use a fumble to change the mood of the table, either to lighten it up with a comical result or make it more serious with a tragic result, and they are an opportunity to take the story in a new direction that was previously unimagined.

As for auto failure on a one, do you really find the game more fun when you there is no chance for success or failure? That seems really boring to me, like playing a video game with god mode on, how can there be any tension? And if the task is so mundane that failure is irrelevant and unlikely, such as the above mentioned tying ones shoes, why even make the roll in the first place?

I remember the last D&D game I ran the party rogue was your typical CN sociopath. He had bluff, hide, move silently, and several other skills so high that he could never fail, and he constantly victimized every NPC and PC he came across, because there was literally nothing they could do to stop him. He would assassinate entire armies and loot entire villages single handedly because according to the rules he simply could not fail a skill check unless confronted with Deus Ex Machina style magic or NPCs twice his level.

That game was horrible for everyone involved (except possibly said rogue), and some auto fail on a 1 or auto succeed on a 20 could have really helped.

Now, I do agree that D&D might not be the best system for introducing auto fail on 1 or fumble rules, with its demi god strength PCs and quirky rule set, but that doesn't mean they are conceptually bad.

In my home brew system for example, the players are all more or less human and situations where a 1 auto succeeds or a 20 auto fails are rare simply on account of smaller numbers. Also I use one mechanic across the board for attacks, spell casting, saving throws, skill tests, attribute tests, and virtually everything else. I also don't use iterative attacks because they are a huge pain even without fumble rules, instead I just make the single attack stronger as the character is more experienced.

Roll a d20 and add your modifier, try and exceed the difficulty of the task, usually 15.
If you succeed by more than 20 you get a critical success, if you fail by more than 20 you get a fumble.
If you roll a natural 20 it "explodes", roll another dice and add the result together, keep going as long as you keep rolling 20s.
If you roll a natural 1 do the same, but subtract the result of the dice instead of adding it.

This is, imo, an elegant solution which handles both extremes in a more or less fair and realistic manner.

The biggest problem, I think, is with how DMs describe fumbles and auto failures. Chalking most auto failures to outside circumstances rather than PC incompetence goes a long way towards not hurting egos, and varying the nature of fumbles based on the situation to avoid predictable or ludicrous results. A character, for example, doesn't have to stab themselves in the chest with a spear, they could have simply over extended on the thrust and dislocated their shoulder, same effect, but one is far more sensible than the other.

Gavinfoxx
2013-01-26, 04:35 PM
Climbing with a chance of falling to your death is used as the main Take 10 rules example, where you are expected to Take 10, in the Rules Compendium. The chance of falling to your death does not count as a threat.

lsfreak
2013-01-26, 05:07 PM
A character, for example, doesn't have to stab themselves in the chest with a spear, they could have simply over extended on the thrust and dislocated their shoulder, same effect, but one is far more sensible than the other.

The big problem with applying it to mundanes is a) mundanes are already worse than spellcasters and spellcasters suffer no similar drawback, and b) the better a warrior you are, the more likely you are to fumble. A 1st level fighter with a greatsword has a 5% chance of a fumble in a given turn. A 20th level dual-wielding rogue, on the other chance, has nearly a 50% chance of fumbling in the same period of time. Any fumbling beyond "this one attack misses" (which is, incidentally, exactly how the rules treat attack roll "fumbles") punishes you for being a good fighter. Fumbling rules for attacks that require confirmation are little better than auto-fumbling thanks to having huge negatives beyond the initial one or two attacks a turn.
EDIT: Well, this applies to 3.5e at least. I forgot this was in the general RPG forum.

Kurald Galain
2013-01-26, 05:37 PM
The big problem with applying it to mundanes is a) mundanes are already worse than spellcasters and spellcasters suffer no similar drawback, and b) the better a warrior you are, the more likely you are to fumble.
But that is not a problem with the principle of fumble rules, but rather with one particular implementation of fumble rules. For example, in numerous RPGs spellcasting requires a skill check (which can fumble). And most RPGs don't have iterative attacks either, and they tend to have lower fumble chances than D&D does.

PersonMan
2013-01-26, 05:50 PM
In my experience fumbles add both realism and a great deal of enjoyment to the game. Look at the statistics for athletes being injured, friendly fire in combat (or hunting), automobile accidents, medical malpractice lawsuits, scandals caused by corporate or government incompetence, the number of people arrested or convicted for crimes they didn't commit, product recalls, or simple death by misadventure or needing to replace a broken tool. Clearly setting out to do something and instead making the situation worse is a common occurrence in the real world, even by professionals.

I believe one of the often mentioned points here is "yes, but not a full 5% of the time". You hear stories about workers dropping a tool and losing a hand because it's rare - of a hundred days of stressful, precision-based work, that happens maybe 0.15 times, but not 5.


Also, many of my best gaming stories are the result of fumbles, both on the part of PCs and NPCs, stories which we still crack up over to this day. A creative GM can really use a fumble to change the mood of the table, either to lighten it up with a comical result or make it more serious with a tragic result, and they are an opportunity to take the story in a new direction that was previously unimagined.

To be honest, I don't see how "5% of the time you fail in a huge way" can let a creative DM change the mood more than, you know, everything else they can change the mood with.


As for auto failure on a one, do you really find the game more fun when you there is no chance for success or failure? That seems really boring to me, like playing a video game with god mode on, how can there be any tension? And if the task is so mundane that failure is irrelevant and unlikely, such as the above mentioned tying ones shoes, why even make the roll in the first place?

This is a strawman, actually - nobody here is arguing against failure. What they are arguing against is auto-failing something you could otherwise accomplish because you rolled a 1.


I remember the last D&D game I ran the party rogue was your typical CN sociopath. He had bluff, hide, move silently, and several other skills so high that he could never fail, and he constantly victimized every NPC and PC he came across, because there was literally nothing they could do to stop him. He would assassinate entire armies and loot entire villages single handedly because according to the rules he simply could not fail a skill check unless confronted with Deus Ex Machina style magic or NPCs twice his level.

That game was horrible for everyone involved (except possibly said rogue), and some auto fail on a 1 or auto succeed on a 20 could have really helped.

I don't think you'll find the occasional "you auto fail" or "you auto succeed" a better option here, than, you know, saying "hey man this is messing up our fun" or otherwise trying to solve the problem. Sure, maybe you auto-succeed to declog your stuffy nose, but you're still sick, and it's a good idea to take care of that rather than think "well I got the stuffy nose, it's all good now".

Scow2
2013-01-26, 06:03 PM
Because they can't. Unless they're on some micro-cliff where there is 0 danger, they can't. You can't take 10 in a stressful situation, and in my experience 'if you fall, you die' is stressful. Quite so, even. You'd be wrong, though. A lot of people are unstressed and comfortable with doing things that are 'potentially' dangerous. Unless the cliff is actually moving, or some external force is making you have to think on-the-fly when climbing, you can take 10. If you have the skill to take 10 on a check and succeed, the situation is not inherently stressful enough to negate taking 10. You'd only want to roll if pressing your abilities (Something that requires a greater than taking 10 to succeed), or something's changing the playing field (Cliff is moving, you're under fire, you're in a hurry, etc.) Otherwise... why are you worried? The cliff's not going anywhere, so you can climb it at your leisure.

You can't take 20 in a situation where there's a risk of failure.

Talakeal
2013-01-26, 06:17 PM
This is a strawman, actually - nobody here is arguing against failure. What they are arguing against is auto-failing something you could otherwise accomplish because you rolled a 1.


If it is a straw man it wasn't intentionally. That is the impression I got from several posters, starting with the third post by Navar.


Chance of failure is not necessary for fun. Characters can be just that good they can't fail. The fun is earning that expertise over time then enjoying the spoils.

PersonMan
2013-01-26, 06:28 PM
If it is a straw man it wasn't intentionally. That is the impression I got from several posters, starting with the third post by Navar.

We're reading it differently then - I see a strongly implied 'in certain situations, failure is not possible' rather than 'you don't need failure'. Now, in my opinion the second is a fine way of doing things, as long as that's what you know you're doing (sort of like the whole 'yes, I that in the end the hero will beat the bad guy and everything will be alright in the end, but I want to watch the movie even though I know that') - in a no-failure game it's less about the result [win/lose] and more about what happens on the way - how do you solve problems? What do you do during the whole quest? Etc.

To return to the original point, I read that post as saying "if a character reaches a certain level of skill, they can do certain things and those of lesser skill level cannot match them". An example would be a deity of hunting going after an ordinary deer - there is no way the deer is going to escape, it simply can't match the deity's abilities.

It's less "god mode on" and more "being able to ignore mooks after getting 10 times as strong as they are".

Scow2
2013-01-26, 06:43 PM
We're reading it differently then - I see a strongly implied 'in certain situations, failure is not possible' rather than 'you don't need failure'. Now, in my opinion the second is a fine way of doing things, as long as that's what you know you're doing (sort of like the whole 'yes, I that in the end the hero will beat the bad guy and everything will be alright in the end, but I want to watch the movie even though I know that') - in a no-failure game it's less about the result [win/lose] and more about what happens on the way - how do you solve problems? What do you do during the whole quest? Etc.

To return to the original point, I read that post as saying "if a character reaches a certain level of skill, they can do certain things and those of lesser skill level cannot match them". An example would be a deity of hunting going after an ordinary deer - there is no way the deer is going to escape, it simply can't match the deity's abilities.

It's less "god mode on" and more "being able to ignore mooks after getting 10 times as strong as they are".

How odd... you have to invoke a God to say it's not "God Mode On". Even a god of the hunt could screw up trying to hunt even a basic deer. It would still be a tale worth telling. Not 5% of the time, no, but D&D exaggerates the chance of something of failing to keep the threat up.

And D&D is a system deliberately designed to allow for the mighty to fall and punks to get lucky. After all... anyone remember that time a legendary giant got his ass handed to him by a common shepherdboy?

razorback
2013-01-26, 06:58 PM
I've got a discussion going by email with the players but I'm curious what other options are out there. Do you have any house rules or suggestions about how natural 1s are handled? While we play D&D 3.5, I'd be interested to hear your rules and suggestions regardless of the systems they come from.
Emphasis mine, since this is what you seem to be asking.

The group I play with came over from Role Master/MERP more so than 1st/2nd Edition before 3.0/3.5, so we played the whole critical and fumble thing and enjoyed it.
For 3.5 we use - subtract your BAB from 20 and roll 1d100. If your roll is equal to or lower than your target, then you roll on a fumble chart. A 1 on the d100 is always a failure.


Because they lead to interesting situations (assuming a competent DM, of course).
My emphasis. We use an agreed upon (modified RM charts) we don't run into the arbitrary 'you rolled a 1... you stab Bifthor and do maximum critical damage while breaking your adamantine sword in Bifthor, then tripping 35 feet in a zig zag pattern so you provoke an attack of opportunity against every enemy, who also do maximum critical damage, before being magically transported to the 19th century and landing in front of a locomotive that does 30d6 damage, maximized, before transporting you back to combat." Or something similar I've read here about DM's using critical failures because they are in a competition to see who 'wins' or whatever motivates them to carry on in such fashion. If we were playing Toon or something similar, then I could see that last bit being funny.

PersonMan
2013-01-26, 07:00 PM
How odd... you have to invoke a God to say it's not "God Mode On".

Ok, are you using the term without knowing what it means, or just responding in a way that does nothing but fill up space without addressing any points?

"God Mode", in the way I'm using it, means "invincible, cannot possibly fail at anything, nothing is a challenge". Not, you know, "not a random farmer guy".

If you are a god, you aren't playing with God Mode on, you're playing a different game with different rules and different enemies. It's like saying Risk is God Mode because you never run out of money. Sure, if you're playing Monopoly, but you're playing Risk.


And D&D is a system deliberately designed to allow for the mighty to fall and punks to get lucky.

Cool, do you have the designer quotes to back up your statement?

If not, then: "D&D is a system deliberately designed to not allow for the mighty to fall and punks to get lucky."


After all... anyone remember that time a legendary giant got his ass handed to him by a common shepherdboy?

To be honest, I've always wondered how one could go around being a huge warrior and never get an arrow to the face in that situation. This is less "nat 20 makes good story" and more "entire enemy force forgets how to use arrows".

TuggyNE
2013-01-26, 08:22 PM
To be honest, I've always wondered how one could go around being a huge warrior and never get an arrow to the face in that situation. This is less "nat 20 makes good story" and more "entire enemy force forgets how to use arrows".

Houseruled Frightful Presence on a Giant with some kind of weird aura to force rerolls if they'd otherwise succeed; the only natural 20 worth counting is David's, against the fear (twice in a row?). :smalltongue:

navar100
2013-01-26, 10:36 PM
If it is a straw man it wasn't intentionally. That is the impression I got from several posters, starting with the third post by Navar.

Then you were impressed wrongly. I was responding to a comment that says the only way to have fun is to have a chance of failure. I was showing how that was not necessarily the case.

PersonMan
2013-01-27, 04:12 AM
Houseruled Frightful Presence on a Giant with some kind of weird aura to force rerolls if they'd otherwise succeed; the only natural 20 worth counting is David's, against the fear (twice in a row?). :smalltongue:

Or maybe the DM was fairly new and the player snuck some absurd quasi-legal damage combo past him to get 100+ damage with a single sling shot. The DM was so stunned he told everyone about it and it spread, with people forgetting the partial illegality of the combo and focusing on "wow, level 1 Fighter beat CR 12 giant!".

Tetsubo 57
2013-01-27, 04:41 AM
I can justify having a fumble rule for skill checks or even saves. Though a failed save is often punishment enough. But combat fumbles are a no-no. It punishes high level fighters over low level fighters. The more attacks you get the more chances you have of hitting that 5% target and rolling a 1. High level fighters should be *less* likely to fumble rather than *more* likely to fumble. And confirmation rolls (of either a critical success or fumble) are just another roll that gets in the way.

PersonMan
2013-01-27, 09:39 AM
It punishes high level fighters over low level fighters. The more attacks you get the more chances you have of hitting that 5% target and rolling a 1. High level fighters should be *less* likely to fumble rather than *more* likely to fumble. And confirmation rolls (of either a critical success or fumble) are just another roll that gets in the way.

This was addressed by someone last page. Not all RPGs give better fights more attacks, so this is DnD-specific rather than general.