House rule for Nat 1's what do y'all think.

[Sir cryosin]

Nobody likes Nat 1's where the DM tells you that you hit one of your party members or lost your weapon or dropped it. I'm thinking house ruling in my games at if a player rolls a Nat 1's on a attack. The weapon or spell focus takes some damage and after so many times it breaks. Now you can spend a rest to fix your equipment if you have tool Prof or use the mending cantrip or pay someone to fix. What do y'all think

[nickl_2000]

Sure, nothing wrong with that as long as players know it pre-level 1. It would adjust the gear that I select and the spells/tool proficiency I select as well.

Consider about magic weapons though. Can they take damage too?

[Millstone85]

Nobody likes Nat 1's where the DM tells you that you hit one of your party members or lost your weapon or dropped it.I think few people like fumble rules in general. Isn't the RAW auto-miss enough?


The weapon or spell focus takes some damage and after so many times it breaks.What about a monk who uses their fists or a spellcaster who uses components?

[Sir cryosin]

Sure, nothing wrong with that as long as players know it pre-level 1. It would adjust the gear that I select and the spells/tool proficiency I select as well.

Consider about magic weapons though. Can they take damage too?

Magic items just have a higher threshold. I like to keep things simple as much as possible.

[caden_varn]

Not really seeing what this adds to be honest. So long as someone has the mending cantrip, they can just fix up everyone's gear every rest. Otherwise you pretty much either take a crafting proficiency or pay a few gold when you are back in town. There is no real danger of the weapon breaking that I can see here - it doesn't add anything interesting to the game for me. Just more book-keeping.

And what if the item does break? It either encourages people to carry around multiple weapons just in case, or face being useless in combat until they can replace it. Meanwhile, the casters continue blasting away with cantrips completely unaffected.

I don't think it is terrible, and I would not refuse to play in such a game. I don't see it as a benefit though, and would vote against it if the DM put it up for vote.
The people you need to talk to are your players though. They are the ones that will be affected - ask them what they think about it.

[Sir cryosin]

I think few people like fumble rules in general. Isn't the RAW auto-miss enough?

What about a monk who uses their fists or a spellcaster who uses components?

Monk idk right now. But spell components I have thought about that. It gives players that are worryed about breaking there focus a reason to use a component pouch. I haven't seen anyone use a component pouch.

[ZorroGames]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

Off the top of my OD&D DM memory I believe it would suffice to give the next foe to attack you to have advantage.

Perhaps cracks appear in the weapon from a non-damaging blow but then you need to track that with a break on the next 1 if not repaired. :smallyuk:

[Lombra]

There are plenty of auto-critical failure tables on the internet, I like your houserule.

[Grey Watcher]

Nobody likes Nat 1's where the DM tells you that you hit one of your party members or lost your weapon or dropped it. I'm thinking house ruling in my games at if a player rolls a Nat 1's on a attack. The weapon or spell focus takes some damage and after so many times it breaks. Now you can spend a rest to fix your equipment if you have tool Prof or use the mending cantrip or pay someone to fix. What do y'all think

Thing is, I'd find this less annoying than "You accidentally shoot your friend," but more annoying than "You drop your sword." Dropping a weapon allows for a fun, cinematic bit of action where you have to dive to get your weapon back. Heck, if the villains decide that keeping you separated from your weapon is more important/useful than beating the HP out of you, it could swing the entire fight in a new and interesting direction!

A sword that breaks, on the other hand just leaves you sad and feeling SOL. That or, as others have said, you start going the golf bag route where you just keep half a dozen swords on hand. The frustration factor jumps a LOT if you're fighting something that is resistant or outright immune to non-magical weapons and the thing that just broke was your only magic sword.

Heck, even "I accidentally shoot my friend" is arguably less annoying than a broken sword; from a raw numbers perspective, she was probably taking damage anyway. The potential for friendly fire makes combat potentially more dangerous, but doesn't completely change the game; a PC going down to a friend's natural 1 or an enemy's natural 20 isn't too terribly different. A PC suddenly being rendered entirely useless in a fight until at least the next short rest just seems like you've reduced a PC to "the annoying NPC you have to keep safe during an escort mission, but who can't contribute anything useful," which doesn't seem like much fun when I sat down to do some Save the Day HeroicsTM.

[Millstone85]

Monk idk right now. But spell components I have thought about that. It gives players that are worryed about breaking there focus a reason to use a component pouch. I haven't seen anyone use a component pouch.Odd. Isn't the choice purely cosmetic?


It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.I would gladly give up on crits if it meant no fumbles.

Auto-hit on a natural 20, auto-miss on a natural 1, or treat both like any other result, I would be fine with that.


Off the top of my OD&D DM memory I believe it would suffice to give the next foe to attack you to have advantage.Alright, that one seems reasonable.

[Rhaegar]

It would certainly make halflings more powerful given that they can reroll all 1s, and virtually ignore this mechanic. If you want to have durability loss in your game, I don't think tying it to rolls of 1, is the best way to do it. In the end you have to ask yourself, does this make the game more fun. I really don't think it will for the majority of players. It'll just end up slowing down games as people keep track of their durability, and go to the blacksmith every town visit to mend their weapons.

And if you want to have durability in your game, you shouldn't just do it on weapons and ignore armor. Armor is going to be affected by durability as much if not worse than weapons will. Perhaps if your enemy crits you, your armor takes durability damage.

[Mikemical]

My DM uses a table and has us roll a d100 to determine how badly we mess up on an attack if the d20 says 1 and you can't "save yourself" in the next d20 roll. I once rolled a 1, then another 1, had to roll the d100 twice, ended up losing my weapon and almost killing another party member with it, tripped on an exposed root and provoked an AoO for the bad guy before landing prone in front of him.

A 1 in a saving throw is a failure unless your character has an ability or feat that says otherwise(Luck Reroll, Knight's Impetuous Endurance, etc).

No insta-failure on skill checks on a 1, no insta-success on skill checks on a 20.

[JNAProductions]

A good rule I've seen is that nat 1s provoke an opportunity attack. In order to avoid punishing Fighters more than anyone else, only the FIRST attack can provoke in this manner-the rest attacks just miss on a 1.

Alternatively, you drop your weapon, and can pick it up as an attack action. That way, the two-attack Paladin or Fighter is able to simply waste their next attack picking up their weapon, but the one attack Wizard who's desperate in melee can be actually hit hard by it.

[Sir cryosin]

A good rule I've seen is that nat 1s provoke an opportunity attack. In order to avoid punishing Fighters more than anyone else, only the FIRST attack can provoke in this manner-the rest attacks just miss on a 1.

Alternatively, you drop your weapon, and can pick it up as an attack action. That way, the two-attack Paladin or Fighter is able to simply waste their next attack picking up their weapon, but the one attack Wizard who's desperate in melee can be actually hit hard by it.

OA would be a nice thing if my enemy's wornt all ready using there reactions.

[JNAProductions]

OA would be a nice thing if my enemy's wornt all ready using there reactions.

What are they using it on?

[Dragonmuncher]

Seems like it'd be annoying to track, and especially annoying if you couldn't fix the damage.

[Zaq]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

Off the top of my OD&D DM memory I believe it would suffice to give the next foe to attack you to have advantage.

Perhaps cracks appear in the weapon from a non-damaging blow but then you need to track that with a break on the next 1 if not repaired. :smallyuk:

Crits BY PCs are balanced by crits AGAINST PCs. No need to add a fumble rule beyond the RAW automatic miss. I don't think fumble rules improve the game at all.

[Sir cryosin]

What are they using it on?

Special attacks and other abilitys. I took the idea when I used a monster from volo's guide. It stats with a T I think it's some demon orc. But it has a reaction attack when it hit. So I give creatures small little things that make sense. Giving my creatures BA and reaction stuff adds to the combat. But if I'm using more creatures then the party I don't give them anything.

[Rhaegar]

Special attacks and other abilitys. I took the idea when I used a monster from volo's guide. It stats with a T I think it's some demon orc. But it has a reaction attack when it hit. So I give creatures small little things that make sense. Giving my creatures BA and reaction stuff adds to the combat. But if I'm using more creatures then the party I don't give them anything.

If you're giving creatures reaction abilities above and beyond what's naturally in their stat block, make sure you increase their challenge rating appropriately. Depending on what reactionary abilities you give them, it could easily increase their challenge rating by one, if not more.

[Unoriginal]

I prefer the RAW for crits, IMO.

Combat hazards might be a thing, but the whole "lol you rolled a 1" stuff is pretty meh.

[Laurefindel]

Nobody likes Nat 1's where the DM tells you that you hit one of your party members or lost your weapon or dropped it. I'm thinking house ruling in my games at if a player rolls a Nat 1's on a attack. The weapon or spell focus takes some damage and after so many times it breaks. Now you can spend a rest to fix your equipment if you have tool Prof or use the mending cantrip or pay someone to fix. What do y'all think

I don't think it will game breaking nor crippling the players too much. As a player I wouldn't object.

If anything it might never come out to be an issue, which leads me to ask, what is your design philosophy behind this rule, and what are you trying to achieve? (no sarcasm implied).

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I prefer the RAW for crits, IMO.

Combat hazards might be a thing, but the whole "lol you rolled a 1" stuff is pretty meh.I tend to agree with this. Nothing makes characters feel less like awesome heroes and more like inept schmucks than having them make a really, really stupid mistake every few battles. (The proposed weapon damage rule has the effect of also making every weaponsmith in your setting look bad at their job for making swords that are constantly cracking and breaking.) If you're going for more of a hijinks-y comedic tone, I guess it could work, but it doesn't really fit with the kinds of games I like to play and run.

[GPS]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.
Yeah, I've noticed that. People love those cool homebrew crit charts, but for some reason balk at the idea of special crit fails. I personally think the risk makes the reward that much sweeter.

Breaking weapons though, ehhhhh. Yeah, it's either too harsh if nobody in the party can mend it, as it cuts the party member out of combat, or too meh if the party has a dude with the mending cantrip.

[Vaz]

As a novel idea, why not just have a failure, fail? Why does it need crazy effects added to it?

[Beastrolami]

If you want to have durability loss in your game, I don't think tying it to rolls of 1, is the best way to do it. In the end you have to ask yourself, does this make the game more fun. I really don't think it will for the majority of players.

And if you want to have durability in your game, you shouldn't just do it on weapons and ignore armor. Armor is going to be affected by durability as much if not worse than weapons will. Perhaps if your enemy crits you, your armor takes durability damage.

My Co-Dm and I are planning a west marches game that wants to emphasize crafting and exploration. We came up with a similar rule (using the mechanics from rust monsters for degradation). That way a nat 1 will be an auto miss, and effect the rest of combat unless you waste an action on mending on your turn. The weapon probably won't permanently break unless you roll a lot of Nat 1s. Classes like monk and spellcasters would take 1 damage instead of having their "weapons" degrade. We also have a system of armor degradation, and are working on how that would affect spellcasters and monks because they don't wear armor. One issue is spells that force saving throws being immune to all these effects. Of course, it will bog down the rules, and make more bookkeeping for DM and players. And how will it make the game crafting focused, if someone just goes around and casts mending to auto fix everything.

[Squiddish]

I have to agree, breaking a weapon is too harsh if nobody has mending, and tedious even if they do.

I dislike critical fumbles in general, but I understand the appeal. I'm perfectly willing to play with them under a few conditions:

Should not harm you or your allies more than a critical hit harms your enemies.
Should be plausible (If you can't do something while trying, you shouldn't be able to do it by accident)
Enemies should be bound by the same rules
Should resolve quickly-no more than one round.
Should happen no more than once per turn, maybe even once per person per fight.


As for specific rules, I think it has to be based on the environment.

[NecessaryWeevil]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.


Given that crits are in the rulebook but fumbles are not, that seems entirely reasonable.

[Pex]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.



When a PC crits a monster for extra damage, the monster was supposed to die anyway. It will just happen roughly one round sooner. When a monster crits a PC for extra damage, the PC is going to get hit anyway and needs healing. He just needs healing a round earlier or a more resources expended to do so.

When a PC fumbles and suffers a harsh effect depending on the effect he loses playtime. Also depending on the effect different PCs of different classes will have a large disparity on how the rule affects them. When a monster fumbles and suffers a harsh effect, the monster was supposed to die anyway. It will just happen roughly one round sooner.

A monster is only on camera for that one combat. A PC is always on camera. He will suffer the harsh consequences more often than any particular monster. When a monster dies the DM has another one. He's only playing that monster for that one combat anyway. Even a recurring villain gets defeated eventually for the most part. When a PC dies it's not enough to say the player can just make a new one. The player spent real world time and effort on that character. A PC death can happen and is lamentable, but since the player rolls dice for that character more than the DM rolls dice for any one particular monster harsh conditions on a 1 have more an effect on the PC.

There's also a verisimilitude factor. A high level character rolls more attacks than a lower level character and will thus have more of a chance of a harsh condition fumble for the same attack action.

A critical fumble is not equal and opposite a critical hit.

[Snails]

Crits BY PCs are balanced by crits AGAINST PCs. No need to add a fumble rule beyond the RAW automatic miss. I don't think fumble rules improve the game at all.

Indeed.

I hate the proposed rule because it stinks to high heaven of phony symmetry.

Does the DM roll to see whether the BBEG has worn out equipment? Because it is possible that the BBEG finds himself helpless after round 1 by rolling a Nat 1.

No, that is the sort of thing that will be "forgotten" in order to keep the game "fun".

This kind of rule looks sort of fair at a superficial level. In reality it will only be used to punish PCs, and will not be enforced against NPCs, unlike, say, the Crit rules. In fact, it is only certain PC concepts that will end up punished, and the others will figure out simple workarounds.

If the rule does not end up applied too heavy-handedly, the net result is it will force PCs to avoid flavorful choices of tool proficiencies in order to maintain their equipment. While it may be logical for bad arsed adventurers to only have specific skills, it sucks at the fun level.

My dwarf picked brewer's supplies instead of smith's tools because it would bring a few laughs. Is that choice something that needs to be punished?

[Snails]

Enemies should be bound by the same rules


That will never ever happen. This rule may look like it is even-handed on paper. But since the PCs will have to track accumulated damage because their many combats are played out explicitly, they will be punished and the NPCs will always get off scot free. The DM will hand wave that the NPCs maintain their equipment well enough so that he does not have to track these things, thus negating the rule for NPCs.

[Sir cryosin]

If you're giving creatures reaction abilities above and beyond what's naturally in their stat block, make sure you increase their challenge rating appropriately. Depending on what reactionary abilities you give them, it could easily increase their challenge rating by one, if not more.

I don't use cr or exp. I haven't had any problems

[gkathellar]

Why? What will it add to the game? Do you find the game suffers from a lack of weapon breakage?

If you need a fumble system, that feels fine, but examine carefully whether you need a fumble system. Fumbles make sense for something like WHFRP where "how bizarrely can I die?" is almost the point of the exercise. If that's the tone you're going for, go for it.

[Mikal]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.


Actually most people are fine with the RAW auto-miss.

Plus, you know, the NPCs can crit as well.

Fumbles add nothing except frustration for the players, and this specific rule just adds extra book-keeping and unfairly targets martial characters.

[Sir cryosin]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

[JNAProductions]

Then have a nat 1 make you lose your next attack. That's about fair.

[Snails]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

Failure is already its own reward.

As already stated by others, equal consequences is already enforced by the fact that the NPCs roll Nat 20s, too. What more "fairness" is required? What do you mean by "equal"?

You are not looking at the full picture, which is exactly why most proposed rules such as this one are hopeless. They may make some sense in a very narrow way, but they will not work with any semblance of "fairness" at the table.

[Snails]

Then have a nat 1 make you lose your next attack. That's about fair.

If such is applied to all spells and similar effects, too, sure.

If.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.Even assuming that you really need perfect balance between the effects of a nat 1 and the effects of a nat 20, I don't think this argument works. With bounded accuracy and reasonably low ACs for most enemies, it's almost unheard of that a roll of 20 wouldn't hit even if you didn't treat nat 20s as automatic hits so the damage really is all that players get out of rolling a critical hit 99% of the time. (I mean, even if you're a level 1 character with only a +2 in your attack stat and a +2 proficiency bonus, rolling a 20 gives you a result of 24 vs. your opponent's AC; that hits almost anything in the Monster Manual besides maybe the Tarrasque, and even that's close.)

As for damage, for a character without any abilities relevant to critical hits, a nat 20 adds an extra die of damage, taking you from 1d8+dex or 1d10+str for example to 2d8+dex or 2d10+str since you only double the dice. If your attack misses, you don't just lose a die worth of damage, but also the ability modifier because you aren't dealing damage at all. If anything, characters already lose more from a nat 1 on average than they gain from a nat 20.

[Squiddish]

That will never ever happen. This rule may look like it is even-handed on paper. But since the PCs will have to track accumulated damage because their many combats for are played out explicitly, they will be punished and the NPCs will always get off scot free. The DM will hand wave that the NPCs maintain their equipment well enough so that he does not have to track these things, thus negating the rule for NPCs.

Read rule four.

[ZorroGames]

Seems like it'd be annoying to track, and especially annoying if you couldn't fix the damage.

I quite agree but it is an option i observed in the darkness of AD&D 1st...

[ZorroGames]

Why? What will it add to the game? Do you find the game suffers from a lack of weapon breakage?

If you need a fumble system, that feels fine, but examine carefully whether you need a fumble system. Fumbles make sense for something like WHFRP where "how bizarrely can I die?" is almost the point of the exercise. If that's the tone you're going for, go for it.

I agree that it is not without its foibles. And as a player I dislike it and try not to sigh as the DM looks for some event to add "flavor" to the game. There is such a thing as too much spice in food or game.

The expectation is for it to be there in many minds.

RAW from page 194, "...roll for an attack is a 1, the attack missesregardless of any modifiers or the target's AC."

Nothing more RAW and nothing less RAW.

That seems fair enough to me. Read the section "Rolling 1 or 20." Anything else is a DM house rule pure and simple.

[Mikal]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

Because of several reasons. Note I also don't like buffing nat 20 rolls either.

1) Comparing a nat 20 to a nat 1 is a false dichotomy. Nat 20's are balanced by the fact enemies get nat 20's. Nat 1's are balanced by the fact enemies get nat 1's.

2) Any buffing to either nat 20 or nat 1 unbalances the game, either for or against the PCs. The PCs will roll more d20s in their characters life than any single NPC. As such, anything that enhances the 20 or 1 rolls throws the balance out of whack.

3) It's needless accounting, and generally used for forced humor that's really not very funny.

4) It breaks verisimilitude, especially the nat 1 roll. Oh, here comes David, destroyer of worlds, the level 20 fighter. In 10 rounds of combat he's X% more likely to trip and throw his sword than Guardsman Bob, the level 1 fighter.

5) Most fumble rules are weighted unfairly against those with manufactured weapons, such as this one.

[Sir cryosin]

Even assuming that you really need perfect balance between the effects of a nat 1 and the effects of a nat 20, I don't think this argument works. With bounded accuracy and reasonably low ACs for most enemies, it's almost unheard of that a roll of 20 wouldn't hit even if you didn't treat nat 20s as automatic hits so the damage really is all that players get out of rolling a critical hit 99% of the time. (I mean, even if you're a level 1 character with only a +2 in your attack stat and a +2 proficiency bonus, rolling a 20 gives you a result of 24 vs. your opponent's AC; that hits almost anything in the Monster Manual besides maybe the Tarrasque, and even that's close.)

As for damage, for a character without any abilities relevant to critical hits, a nat 20 adds an extra die of damage, taking you from 1d8+dex or 1d10+str for example to 2d8+dex or 2d10+str since you only double the dice. If your attack misses, you don't just lose a die worth of damage, but also the ability modifier because you aren't dealing damage at all. If anything, characters already lose more from a nat 1 on average than they gain from a nat 20.

Are you kidding it is not a simple one extra weapon damage dice. You double any dice that are part of that attack example rogues sneak attack dice, Paladin's smite, hex, hurters mark, ect.... A crit adds way more then just missing. You can miss on a 2,3,4,5. The point being that a Nat 1 should mean something other then a miss. Just like a Nat 20 means something other a hit.

[Sir cryosin]

Because of several reasons. Note I also don't like buffing nat 20 rolls either.

1) Comparing a nat 20 to a nat 1 is a false dichotomy. Nat 20's are balanced by the fact enemies get nat 20's. Nat 1's are balanced by the fact enemies get nat 1's.

2) Any buffing to either nat 20 or nat 1 unbalances the game, either for or against the PCs. The PCs will roll more d20s in their characters life than any single NPC. As such, anything that enhances the 20 or 1 rolls throws the balance out of whack.

3) It's needless accounting, and generally used for forced humor that's really not very funny.

4) It breaks verisimilitude, especially the nat 1 roll. Oh, here comes David, destroyer of worlds, the level 20 fighter. In 10 rounds of combat he's X% more likely to trip and throw his sword than Guardsman Bob, the level 1 fighter.

5) Most fumble rules are weighted unfairly against those with manufactured weapons, such as this one.

This is not unfair to manufactured weapons I included spell focus as well. Also spell books can be burn. Lute cruched.

[Mikal]

The point being that a Nat 1 should mean something other then a miss. Just like a Nat 20 means something other a hit.

False dichotomy, as posted before.
Nat 20 and Nat 1 are balanced by the fact everyone has them. They aren't meant to balance each other.


This is not unfair to manufactured weapons I included spell focus as well. Also spell books can be burn. Lute cruched.


Even more unbalanced, in the case of spell books. "Oh, you spent thousand gold over the course of several levels building up this entire repository that represents your main class abilities? Well you rolled something you get 5% of the time so F-U LOLZ!".

Also, that's answers only part of one point. Out of five.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Are you kidding it is not a simple one extra weapon damage dice. You double any dice that are part of that attack example rogues sneak attack dice, Paladin's smite, hex, hurters mark, ect.... A crit adds way more then just missing. You can miss on a 2,3,4,5. The point being that a Nat 1 should mean something other then a miss. Just like a Nat 20 means something other a hit.I'm not remotely kidding and I'm not sure why you'd think I was. Yes, there might be dice besides the base weapon dice and you still you lose those same dice if you miss. If a rogue would deal 10d6 sneak attack damage, then they both gain an extra 10d6 sneak attack damage on a critical hit and lose all of those 10d6 plus their ability score modifier on a miss. 10d6+weapon die isn't "way more" than 10d6+weapon die+ability score; it's pretty clearly slightly less.

The only cases where you gain more from upgrading a hit to a critical hit than you lose from downgrading a hit to a miss are those when something happens on a critical hit beyond just doubling the dice that were already involved. The only abilities I can think of like that come with very small and specific subsets of characters with the half-orc or barbarian abilities that grant extra dice on critical hits. You could argue this also applies to abilities like Battle Masters' combat superiority and Paladins' smites where you can chose to add damage dice after seeing your roll, but in those cases (which only apply to a small subset of characters) there's a cost to pay for the extra damage rather than just being built into the critical hit so it isn't completely free extra damage.

[Battlebooze]

I understand the surface attraction, "This would be fun! Shenanigans! It will hurt the monsters as well!"

I've played campaigns with nasty critical miss house rules. We also played with a house rule that critical saving throw failures doubled either damage or duration of the saved effect.

Honestly I hated it and it is unfair to the player. Heaven forbid you're playing a fighter and have multiple attacks a round. The 5% chance to screw yourself every time you swing your sword hurts the players far more than the monsters. Here's the thing, the monsters don't care if they die. They don't have to fight over and over. If Bob the hobgoblin dies because his sword breaks in the middle of a fight, nobody gets frustrated because they are having a bad dice night.

Now if you want to add a little whimsy to combat, try something slightly different.

On a roll of one, call it a "fluke" roll. The make a second chart with a wide variety of possible effects, ranging from really good to bad. Rolling a one and then a twenty might give you an auto crit against your enemy, in a funny way. Maybe the character falls prone. Maybe they trip themselves and their enemy as well. On a roll of one and another one, maybe they drop their weapon or strike a friend.

That would be far more entertaining and fun that a 1 is a critical failure.

[Sir cryosin]

Rolling a 1 is supposed to be a upsetting thing. That's why it a auto miss. A Nat 20 is a positive thing that's why it's a auto hit plus extra dice. There is no different if I roll a 2 or a 1 for the most part. But there is a different between a 19 and 20.

[Beastrolami]

On a roll of one, call it a "fluke" roll. The make a second chart with a wide variety of possible effects, ranging from really good to bad. Rolling a one and then a twenty might give you an auto crit against your enemy, in a funny way. Maybe the character falls prone. Maybe they trip themselves and their enemy as well. On a roll of one and another one, maybe they drop their weapon or strike a friend.

That would be far more entertaining and fun that a 1 is a critical failure.

Halflings already have this without the "funny" descriptions. Obviously each dm has their own ideas of what could "add" to the game or not. I do think that there should be a reason to add degradation to weapons other than "make nat 1s interesting." If you give a good world reason for degrading weapons/armor (i.e. you want your players to participate in the economy) then tell them up front why you have the custom rule, and the cool rp bonuses they can gain by participating in the economy of the world. If they don't do that, and decide to be murdurhobos, their weapons will degrade.... very slowly.

[Mikal]

Rolling a 1 is supposed to be a upsetting thing. That's why it a auto miss. A Nat 20 is a positive thing that's why it's a auto hit plus extra dice. There is no different if I roll a 2 or a 1 for the most part. But there is a different between a 19 and 20.

Where does it say that rolling a 1 is supposed to be an upsetting thing?

Historically in D&D, the natural 1 was meant to show that even the greatest of fighters can sometimes have misses or flukes. It wasn't meant to have the greatest of fighters trip over their own feet, throw their weapons away, or accidentally skewer their teammates more often than the lame, one eyed, one armed farm boy who picked up a longsword and started swinging wildly.

Regardless, missing does upset me, so the natural 1 effects work in that regard.

And there is a difference between a 2 and 1. I can potentially hit something on a 2. I can't with a 1. Period, end of discussion.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Rolling a 1 is supposed to be a upsetting thing. That's why it a auto miss. A Nat 20 is a positive thing that's why it's a auto hit plus extra dice. There is no different if I roll a 2 or a 1 for the most part. But there is a different between a 19 and 20.And I think that this right here is the problem with this thread. "Rolling a 1 is supposed to be a upsetting thing" isn't a fact, it's an opinion or a preference and as this thread has demonstrated, it isn't a universal one. You want a nat 1 to be more upsetting than a 2. It seems like most people don't. You made this thread asking what people think of your house rule. It seems like you've gotten an answer. If you're DMing, you're free to use whatever house rules you want, but you should probably be ready for your players to have reactions to this one similar to the ones you've seen here.

[RustyArmor]

As long as Nat 1's are not "Oh you hit yourself or friend" I think they are fine. One of the DMs we have does that is it royally sucks.

How I do them is if you roll a 1 you roll a d20 again. If you roll 9 or lower something bad happens. The bad thing is based on fight or terrain. On hill? You are forced to move 5' down or might fall. Near rocks? You hit your weapon off of them and it chips the blade (give no mechanical pro or con but it will sure make them nervous and they might actually repair their weapon in town). In mud? You are stuck in mud, your speed is 0 unless you pass a Str check 10 but you can opt to just lose your boot. Sometimes it is given the enemy(or pc if foe rolled 1) advantage on next attack. It adds flavor that makes sense, even the most legendary warrior can be forced down a hill, or stuck in mud. But hitting yourself with your own weapon is down right stupid.

[Sir cryosin]

Where does it say that rolling a 1 is supposed to be an upsetting thing?

Historically in D&D, the natural 1 was meant to show that even the greatest of fighters can sometimes have misses or flukes. It wasn't meant to have the greatest of fighters trip over their own feet, throw their weapons away, or accidentally skewer their teammates more often than the lame, one eyed, one armed farm boy who picked up a longsword and started swinging wildly.

Regardless, missing does upset me, so the natural 1 effects work in that regard.

And there is a difference between a 2 and 1. I can potentially hit something on a 2. I can't with a 1. Period, end of discussion.

Ya you can hit on a 2 if you pass level ten and still fighting that chicken on the farm. A 20th lv pc has a to attack of +11 with out any magic items. Now there are abilitys to boost that like archery fighting style or bless. So unless you fighting things as powerful or weaker then a goblin's your not hitting on a 2. And why is a lv 20 pc fighting things that weak.

[Mellack]

Anything that has a long term effect based on the dice roll will matter more to PC than their opponents. If you had the PCs lose a finger if they roll a 1, pretty soon they would all retire and be named lefty. If you gave them a bonus to their strength score for every 20 made when doing an athletics check they would rival Hercules. Since the monsters only exist for one combat, this will have little change for them.
The proposed fumble will do nothing to the baddies, as they can all be expected to have recently rested and repaired. All it does is add book-keeping and hassle for the players. It is not terrible, but I don't see that it adds more to the game than it detracts.

[Mikal]

Ya you can hit on a 2 if you pass level ten and still fighting that chicken on the farm. A 20th lv pc has a to attack of +11 with out any magic items. Now there are abilitys to boost that like archery fighting style or bless. So unless you fighting things as powerful or weaker then a goblin's your not hitting on a 2. And why is a lv 20 pc fighting things that weak.

Negatives to the enemies AC.
Positives to your to-hit.
Environmental factors.

All of those can be factors in letting a roll of 2 land a hit.

None of those can be factors in letting a roll of 1 land a hit, because a 1 can never hit.

One example that can be used is a Kensei with sharpen the blade, 20 dex, and a powerful magic weapon. Said Kensei can get Proficiency+3+5+3 to their roll.

Without the proficiency bonus that's a 13, assuming a 2 on the roll. With proficiency it's up to 17 (starting at level 11 for Sharpen the Blade) to 19. And that's before any other effects such as bless.

Enemies with an AC of 17 are not impossible to imagine at or around 11th level.

[JNAProductions]

Ya you can hit on a 2 if you pass level ten and still fighting that chicken on the farm. A 20th lv pc has a to attack of +11 with out any magic items. Now there are abilitys to boost that like archery fighting style or bless. So unless you fighting things as powerful or weaker then a goblin's your not hitting on a 2. And why is a lv 20 pc fighting things that weak.

+5 (Ability Mod) +6 (Proficiency) +3 (Magic Item) +2 (Archery Style) gives me +16. I hit an enemy in Full Plate, but without a shield, on a 2, or an enemy in chain mail with a shield.

Such as the numerous guards surrounding the evil king's castle.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Advantage on your rolls.
Negatives to the enemies AC.
Positives to your to-hit.
Environmental factors.

All of those can be factors in letting a roll of 2 land a hit.

None of those can be factors in letting a roll of 1 land a hit, because a 1 can never hit.

One example that can be used is a Kensei with sharpen the blade, 20 dex, and a powerful magic weapon can get Proficiency+3+5+3 to their roll, and, depending on level, have an additional re-roll of an attack die.
Without the proficiency bonus that's a 13. With proficiency it's up to 17 (starting at level 11 for Sharpen the Blade) to 19. And that's before any other effects such as bless.

Enemies with an AC of 17 are not impossible to imagine at or around 11th level.Agreed. Also, one of the biggest effects on DMing and adventure planning styles that 5e has had is that the lower scaling of bonuses has made more types of monsters viable for longer, especially if you use them in groups. Pair that with the fact that some monsters do have really low ACs for their CRs (Flesh Golems have 8 or 9 and are CR 5 or 6, if I'm remembering right and oozes have pretty universally low ACs). It isn't unheard of for a 2 to hit in this edition. (Heck, I ran a campaign with a lot of undead, and a number of my players did score hits on 2s and 3s as late as level 6 or 7. Zombies, including Ogre Zombies, have an AC of about 8 but make up for it with the Undead Fortitude feature.)

[Gryndle]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

the consequence for auto hit and extra damage on a NAT20 is that is also happens TO you when the monsters roll a NAT 20. Crit fumbles are NOT the balance for Crit hits. there have been a ton of posts upthread that explained that much more eloquently than I can.

this just seems like adding another rule just for the sake of adding another rule. A rule that in practice will only ever really effect the players and serves only to punish them.

Back in the day we experimented with all sorts of critical hit and fumble tables. and all they ever did was break the flow of the game, and more often than not make the players and their characters feel like clueless idiots.

IF, and that is a very strong IF I were to ever use a Crit fumble rule again (or even play under one to be honest) it would have to be something simple, balanced, effect everyone equally and be resolved quickly. It should not be something npcs or monsters can ignore, it should result in additional book keeping and it should break the flow of combat.

stealing some ideas from above: When you roll a Natural 1 on an attack roll, the next attack against you has Advantage. This can only happen once per round.

Like someone said up above I would rather give up critical hits than suffer another ill-implemented critical fumble rule. And I don't think I would play at all in a game that used Crit Fumble (or even Crit Hit) tables simply because of how much they slow down gameplay.

[Snails]

Rolling a 1 is supposed to be a upsetting thing. That's why it a auto miss. A Nat 20 is a positive thing that's why it's a auto hit plus extra dice. There is no different if I roll a 2 or a 1 for the most part. But there is a different between a 19 and 20.

And when the dragon rolls a Nat 1, what penalty are you going to impose?

[MeeposFire]

KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!

But in all seriousness there is a reason why in the the decades that D&D has been around there have been MANY attempts at critical failure tables and they have all remained overall so unpopular that none of have been kept (including ones similar to the posted to this thread). Critical hits was originally a house rule that did become an actual rule so they have over the years changed to dd things like this but they have not added in these types of critical fumbles because on the whole they tend to go over poorly with many players.

I am especially not a fan of a rule that harms weapon users and does little against non-weapon users and in addition one that hurts players more than NPCs and monsters. A well done rule should hit all in a similar fashion.

[Lance Tankmen]

I'd say you do you DM. I have a critical fumble chart and a enhanced critical hit chart. Maybe it helps that some of the things on the fumble chart are positive or aren't stupid in that you can't harm yourself or friends with melee attacks . Ranged can hit someone randomly maybe a different enemy. magic fumbles can hurt you... also I've never had god hero mentality players at my table. The kind that get upset when things don't go their way even with out a fumble chart, who play d&d as though it's Skyrim. Heroes are forged on the anvils of suffering.

[Theodoxus]

This is why Halfings are my spirit animal. I will only play them from now on - gotten burnt too many times by silly DMs and their silly fumble rules. An auto-miss is harsh enough, wasting the players turn (at some tables, there can be upward of 10 minutes between turns) - adding insult to injury just isn't cool.

[Laserlight]

The concept of "extra pain for the players on a Nat 1" needs to die.

[Tinkermancer]

If you want to use a critical fumble chart (one that has been preapproved by your players, preferably) I highly recommend adopting the optional 'Inspiration' rules in the Player's Handbook. Then, on a natural one, offer the player the option of rolling on the fumble chart in exchange for an Inspiration point. This accomplishes a few things:

1. It eliminates 'Gotcha Dming'. The players know exactly what they are getting themselves into.

2. It promotes player involvement. It's up to THEM what they want to wager, leaving their fate in their hands rather than the DM's.

3. It adds a new element of surprise to the game. With a properly built fumble chart, it allows for normally impossible situations to unfold that can change the dynamics of a battle in very interesting ways.

4. It rewards them for taking chances, and increases their ability to be heroic at the times of their choosing.

Now, building a proper fumble chart is a different story, but I would recommend doing so WITH your players' help...

[Cespenar]

Whatever you do, the following addendum helps a lot:

-A natural 1 isn't a fumble unless the majority of that person's attacks this round are misses.

This helps with the "level 20 fighter making more fumbles" silliness.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

And when the dragon rolls a Nat 1, what penalty are you going to impose?

This raises a very good point, actually. We've discussed how the effects of fumbles are problematic with regards to the PCs, but another thing to consider is the problems they pose when dealing with significant enemies as well. Nothing takes the fear out of fighting a hydra than seeing it roll a 1 and tie all it's heads in knots or something. There's also the mechanical aspect to consider - one of the reasons that fumble penalties are generally worse for the PCs than the enemy is that, generally speaking, a PC's action is more important than the average enemy's one and thus a comparable interference hurts more - Alice the Fighter losing an action* probably is worse for her team than Bob the Kobold losing his action is for his team. However, for single, powerful enemies, that is turned around. And given that boss types tend to have more attacks anyway...

*Or having to spend an attack picking up her weapon, or getting disadvantage on her attacks, or whatever.

[Laserlight]

Whatever you do, the following addendum helps a lot:

-A natural 1 isn't a fumble unless the majority of that person's attacks this round are misses.

This helps with the "level 20 fighter making more fumbles" silliness.

I thought about "only if all your attacks this turn roll 1s, then it's a fumble", but then casters who make one big attack roll per turn still get screwed.

[Snails]

...one of the reasons that fumble penalties are generally worse for the PCs than the enemy is that, generally speaking, a PC's action is more important than the average enemy's one and thus a comparable interference hurts more - Alice the Fighter losing an action* probably is worse for her team than Bob the Kobold losing his action is for his team. However, for single, powerful enemies, that is turned around. And given that boss types tend to have more attacks anyway...

Exactly. Action economy potentially cuts in both directions, and we need to think this through or these house rules are destined to suck rocks.

It hardly matters if a mook fumbles, because their actions only matter in the aggregate or when swings of luck so happen to favor them enough to make the PCs sweat. Mook bad luck turning into very bad luck is practically a round off error, because a mook action is not valuable compared to a PC action.

But a BBEG's action is more precious than an individual PC's action, because of their limited life expectancy and the likelihood of the conflict boiling down to a battle of many heroes versus one antagonist. So self-inflicted bad luck that steals away the effectiveness of a future BBEG action can be a big change to the entire encounter.

When I hear "rolling a 1 is supposed to be a upsetting thing" I want to know whether it is supposed to be upsetting to the characters or upsetting to the players.

If there is a genuine even-handed penalty that affects all characters quite similarly -- all PCs and all NPCs of all kinds of builds, such is something that could be workable. But I am going to argue relentlessly against penalties that really only matter to the players.

The rub here is these kinds of rules tend to be a trap, that trip DMs into bad behavior. For the most part, DMs adopt these kinds of rules with good intentions, as a means to add uncertainty to encounters so that they are "more interesting". But the PCs paying a premium for their fumbles when fighting nothing NPCs is only fair if the important NPCs can suffer the same kind of consequences.

When push comes to shove, it is so very tempting to fudge the dice to save the BBEG's neck if bad luck strikes early in the encounter, because it seems "less interesting" for the grand finale to be a walkover due to a bad roll or two. After all, "more interesting" is the goal, right? What is a DM to do? The net result is that NPCs pay a token penalty that will never be allowed to genuinely affect the battle in the players' favor, so the fumble rules end up being a real penalty only against the players.

[MeeposFire]

I know earlier I said that fumbles are terrible but there is an exception which is when you roll a one the DM (any way you like) decides on how the miss occurs but mechanically it does nothing more than just a miss. SO if you want the fighter to stumble because it would be funny that is cool just make sure he is back ready for action with no discernible loss of ability and you get your flavor but do not unduly punish someone for having more attacks.

Adding fun is fine I would just avoid the punishment. It really is not needed.

[Laurefindel]

I've often seen fumble rules triggered on the first attack of the round only. Thus it doesn't penalize those with multiple attacks per round.

Also, one could rule that a 20 rolled on a saving throw is a fumble for the caster. Again, only the first saving throw would trigger the fumble in case of AoO with multiple defenders.

[Mellack]

I've often seen fumble rules triggered on the first attack of the round only. Thus it doesn't penalize those with multiple attacks per round.
.

This would depend on what the possible consequences of rolling a 1 are. If it could be dropping a weapon (after having used your free interaction to say draw it) that would end your attacks. That would actually hurt those with multiple attacks more. Same with if they fall down, now all subsequent attacks are at disadvantage unless they still have half movement left.

[Pex]

The best use I've experienced for rolling a 1 in combat is the DM giving a flavor text explanation as to why your miss was more noteworthy for that attack than other misses that happened rolling not-a-1 which hadn't gotten commentary. Same is true for the monsters. No extra penalties needed.

[ko_sct]

One thing i often do is make a nat1 on an attack affect the environnement. Often creating difficult terrain and sometime actual hazards. It's mostly fiat but it add a little imprivisibility to combats without being unfair.

Exemples include smashing a table to pieces, smashing down an already crumbling wall (allowing people to pass through but creating a small zone of difficult terrain because of the loose stones), starting a small fire (a cantrip that does fire dmg in a place with lot of flammable things).

So far I've never had a player complain about these. I've also sometime made more catastrophic consequences for nat 1, but I reserve those for weaker mobs or incompetent fighter (like, in a fight against a milicia composed mostly of farmers with no weapon training, I've had nat 1 result in dropped weapon or falling prone).

The important thing is to avoid making it unfair to the players and to avoid slowing down play. For those reasons I'm really not a fan of fumble tables.

A simple test I've seen for testing a fumble table is to have 20 lvl 1 fighters train for 20 min against 20 dummies, each making an attack each turn. After this short training you check to see if there is anyone who is dead or seriously hurt, and you scrap the fumble rules if there is.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think this ruling is still in favor of casters.

Firstly, they could in fact do the whole spell component pouch and seem to suffer no losses other then a blow to their dignity when throwing bat poop at an ogre. A lot of spells just don't have attack rolls, so controlling/buffing spells become a lot more desirable because there's no chance of backlash.

Also, if the campaign has ample access to natural wilds, bards and druids are pretty much unaffected as druids can just forage for a new focus and bards probably could make a new instrument such as panpipes.

It would also lead to the odd idea that a cleric's god is very upset with how badly they are casting magic and causing that magic to destroy their own holy symbol. That just seems weird.

[Beelzebubba]

Our game has fumbles, but the consequences are adjustable.

If the party is kicking ass, it does something like 'bow string broke, fix it after combat' or 'the Orc interposed his wooden shield in front of the Fire Bolt, the impact blasted some hot cinders into your robe and hair, spend your action round putting it out or there is a chance it may catch on fire'.

If it has a chance of seriously endangering or killing a character, then it becomes silly like 'your Thorn Whip just destroyed a beer stein, spraying awful Orc lager all over the Halfling'.

[FreddyNoNose]

Thing is, I'd find this less annoying than "You accidentally shoot your friend," but more annoying than "You drop your sword." Dropping a weapon allows for a fun, cinematic bit of action where you have to dive to get your weapon back. Heck, if the villains decide that keeping you separated from your weapon is more important/useful than beating the HP out of you, it could swing the entire fight in a new and interesting direction!

A sword that breaks, on the other hand just leaves you sad and feeling SOL. That or, as others have said, you start going the golf bag route where you just keep half a dozen swords on hand. The frustration factor jumps a LOT if you're fighting something that is resistant or outright immune to non-magical weapons and the thing that just broke was your only magic sword.

Heck, even "I accidentally shoot my friend" is arguably less annoying than a broken sword; from a raw numbers perspective, she was probably taking damage anyway. The potential for friendly fire makes combat potentially more dangerous, but doesn't completely change the game; a PC going down to a friend's natural 1 or an enemy's natural 20 isn't too terribly different. A PC suddenly being rendered entirely useless in a fight until at least the next short rest just seems like you've reduced a PC to "the annoying NPC you have to keep safe during an escort mission, but who can't contribute anything useful," which doesn't seem like much fun when I sat down to do some Save the Day HeroicsTM.

Just going back to the good old first edition dmg page 63:

MISSILE DISCHARGE
This is the usual loosing of arrows and bolts, hurling of axes, hommers,
javelins, darts, etc. It also includes the hurling of rocks by giants, manticore
tail spike throwing, and so on. It can occur simultaneously with magical
device ottacks, spell casting, or turning of undead. Mogicol device and
spell attacks can negate the effects of or damage some missiles, i.e.,
arrows fired off simultoneously with the dischorge of o fireball spell, or a
iavelin hurled into on ice storm, or a dworven hammer tossed at on
opponent struck by o fireball or lightning bolt. As referee you will have to
determine the final results according to circumstances. This is not difficult
using the ITEMSAVING THROW table.
Likewise, discharge of missiles into on existing melee is easily hondled. It
is permissible, of course, and the results might not be too incompatible
with the desires of the discharging party. Assign probabilities to each porticipant
in the melee or target group according to sheer numbers. In the
case of participants of varying size use half volue for size "S', normal
volue for size "M", and one and one-holf value for size "L" creatures
which ore not too much larger thon man-size. Total the calues for each
group and rotio one over the other. If side A has 4 man-sized participants,
and side B hos 3 smaller than mon-sized participants and 1 size "L" bugbear,
the ratio is 4:3. Then, according to the direction of the missile discharge,
determine hits by using the same ratio. If 7 missiles were loosed, 4
would have o chance to hit side A, 3 side B. In coses where the rotio does
not match the number of missiles, convert it to a percentage chance: 117
= 14% or IS%, depending on whether the missiles ore coming from oheod
of side A (14%) or from behind (15%). Thus 4/7 = 56% or 60% chonce per
missile thot it will hit side A. The minor difference represents the fact that
there will be considerable shifting and maneuvering during combat which
will tend to expose both opponents to fire on o near equal basis. Such
missiles must then be assigned (by situation or by random determinotion)
to target creatures, o "to hit" determinotion mode, and domage assessed
for those which do hit.
Large missiles will be treated in the some foshion
If one opponent group is significantly larger than the other, accurate
missiles which have o small area of effect con be directed ot the larger
opponent group with great hope of success. You moy assign a minor
chonce of the missile striking o friend if you wish, but this writer, for
instance, olwoys allows archery hits to hit a gaint or a similar creature
engaged ogoinst a human or smalle opponent.

[HidesHisEyes]

Nobody likes Nat 1's where the DM tells you that you hit one of your party members or lost your weapon or dropped it. I'm thinking house ruling in my games at if a player rolls a Nat 1's on a attack. The weapon or spell focus takes some damage and after so many times it breaks. Now you can spend a rest to fix your equipment if you have tool Prof or use the mending cantrip or pay someone to fix. What do y'all think

I quite like this idea. In answer to those wondering what it adds, I think it adds more value to crafting proficiency and the mending cantrip, thereby increasing the number of meaningful choices in character creation. And if you're using any form of encumbrance rules then the golf bag approach won't necessarily be a good solution.

I might prefer a dice roll to see if it breaks each time you roll a 1, so there's no bookkeeping of weapon HP. Masterwork and magic weapons would have a smaller chance to break.

Monks could maybe have a chance to take like 1d4 HP damage themselves (for not making a proper fist and crunching their fingers or something!) Not so sure about that though.

I think the "tyranny of fun" idea is relevant here:

https://youtu.be/Mx4d3_76scg

As others have pointed out, it really depends on the players. If your players subscribe to the notion that everything that happens in the game should be fun in an immediate sense, then you probably shouldn't implement anything like this. But if they like the idea of a sort of longer term fun that unfolds throughout the session (or even the campaign) in which things that are frustrating or annoying in the short term (like a weapon getting broken) have a part to play, then try it out. Usual disclaimer: neither approach is correct, both are valid, subjectivity etc etc.

[90sMusic]

I dislike anything beyond the auto-miss for natural 1's.

So you rolled a nat 1 a couple times, welp, your weapon is broke. But don't worry, you can fix it!
Rolled nat 1 a couple times on repairing the weapon, welp, your hammer/tools broke. Too bad.

I don't think players should ever be penalized for trying things unless they're doing something obviously stupid or incredibly dangerous. Breaking weapons and tools and whatever else is kind of awful because it makes players not want to even try to do things.

"Hey rogue, pick this lock on this treasure chest."
"Ooooooh... yeaahhhhhh... About that... I've already failed a couple of times and my lockpick is damaged, I don't want to risk it breaking, sorry"

As a DM, I always ask myself whenever I make a decision "what will this add to the story or to gameplay".
Breakable weapons and tools isn't going to add anything. It's going to get handwaved and ignored mechanically very quickly because players will just repair every short rest if they're allowed to do so, and if the requirements are too stringent they'll just carry spare weapons and tools around and toss the old ones on the ground when they break and completely ignore the mechanic. Only thing they won't chuck is something like a magical weapon which should not be taking "wear and tear" damage in the first place, but they'll just hold on to it and pull out a spare when they have to and do the tedious "repair" whenever they get the chance.

The only scenario where this kind of thing would actually matter is in some kind of super resource-starved world where things like metal weaponry is hard to come by and even metal to repair them is expensive. Like a post apocalyptic sort of deal. In a standard game, it's just a tedious addendum to their statement every time they take a short rest.

It's just not worth it. It isn't going to add anything positive or meaningful to the gameplay experience. If it is strictly enforced it'll get tedious real quick but if it isn't, it's going to get handwaved majority of the time.


I quite like this idea. In answer to those wondering what it adds, I think it adds more value to crafting proficiency and the mending cantrip, thereby increasing the number of meaningful choices in character creation.

It isn't really much of a choice though. If you can get mending, you're GOING to take it because otherwise you know your focus will break. Likewise with crafting proficiency.

So you go from virtually never having a means of repairing things, like most parties, to rules that practically enforce everyone have a way to repair their own equipment only it costs them one of their proficiencies or a cantrip known.

It still isn't really "meaningful", it's just sort of forcing a profession on you.

I played a campaign in pathfinder once where we were forced to spend skill points every level on a chosen profession. The idea being we weren't always adventurers and came from other walks of life before, and also the place we were going needed craftsmen and artisans and other "useful" people.

But 5e already has backgrounds which include proficiencies related to whatever you did prior and the game is sort of balanced around having X amount of chosen proficiencies, taking one away because of a mandatory homebrew rule is just kinda... I don't like it.

It isn't adding anything meaningful to gameplay or the story, it's just arbitrarily penalizing the players.

[djreynolds]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

On a natural 1, if you are shooting a bow/cantrip and your buddy is within 5ft, you now reroll to see if you hit him instead.

And melee you may have to roll to see if you hit your teammate depending on everyone's position and 5ft, 10ft for reach weapons.

[Beelzebubba]

I'd say you do you DM. I have a critical fumble chart and a enhanced critical hit chart. Maybe it helps that some of the things on the fumble chart are positive or aren't stupid in that you can't harm yourself or friends with melee attacks . Ranged can hit someone randomly maybe a different enemy. magic fumbles can hurt you... also I've never had god hero mentality players at my table. The kind that get upset when things don't go their way even with out a fumble chart, who play d&d as though it's Skyrim. Heroes are forged on the anvils of suffering.

I can't stand them.

Martials are unfairly targeted because they roll a LOT more d20's than spellcasters. Get a Battlemaster with a few maneuvers with bonus actions and reactions and you will fumble almost every combat.

Spellcasters force others to roll d20's. Not nearly as affected, and when they are, it's almost 100% of the time on cantrips and other things that have no possible way of 'breaking' or becoming taken away, like a sword can be dropped or a bowstring breaking.

Either get rid of 'em or force spellcasters to do arcana checks any time they try to do any spell and make a 1 a fumble there.

[Sigreid]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

I would say it's fair because it applies evenly to party members and npc's and monsters.

If you want a extra impact that is felt from rolling a 1, might I suggest that your next attack is at disadvantage as you recover from whatever went wrong?

[Klorox]

I'll be completely honest: if a DM wants to make up special rules for natural 1's, the first thing I do is think up builds that work with halflings.

[Pex]

I'll be completely honest: if a DM wants to make up special rules for natural 1's, the first thing I do is think up builds that work with halflings.

Halfling Diviner Wizard with Lucky feat.

[robbie374]

As many others have pointed out, natural 1 fumbles harm players far more than their enemies. 1s for minions are mostly meaningless, and otherwise there are usually noticeably more PC rolls than BBEG rolls, and so the PCs will roll many more 1s on average.

Here is a better way that is fun. A natural 1 is an auto-miss, and along with it, something funny or unexpected happens. This something must be neutral in effect or good for the PCs, no matter who rolls the 1.

For example, at first level in one campaign my PC rolled a 1 when trying to attack some wolves at range. The DM ruled that the attack was horribly off and struck a tree. The tree fell onto the wolves, and one of them failed its saving throw, getting squished. This was funny and unexpected, but didn't have a major impact on the encounter, and best of all, it let me have fun as a player.

Boosting natural 20s is nice but doesn't undo the stolen fun from the natural 1s.

DMs remember: D&D is about fun. Misses are not fun. Adding painful fumble rules makes them even less fun. If your DM-instituted rules make the least fun parts of the game worse, then you are doing it wrong.

[Sir cryosin]

As many others have pointed out, natural 1 fumbles harm players far more than their enemies. 1s for minions are mostly meaningless, and otherwise there are usually noticeably more PC rolls than BBEG rolls, and so the PCs will roll many more 1s on average.

Here is a better way that is fun. A natural 1 is an auto-miss, and along with it, something funny or unexpected happens. This something must be neutral in effect or good for the PCs, no matter who rolls the 1.

For example, at first level in one campaign my PC rolled a 1 when trying to attack some wolves at range. The DM ruled that the attack was horribly off and struck a tree. The tree fell onto the wolves, and one of them failed its saving throw, getting squished. This was funny and unexpected, but didn't have a major impact on the encounter, and best of all, it let me have fun as a player.

Boosting natural 20s is nice but doesn't undo the stolen fun from the natural 1s.

DMs remember: D&D is about fun. Misses are not fun. Adding painful fumble rules makes them even less fun. If your DM-instituted rules make the least fun parts of the game worse, then you are doing it wrong.
A Nat 1 fumble is way more harmful to the DM then the players. First of all DM rolls more dice then a player. And two monsters only have so many turns before the players kill them.

[JNAProductions]

A Nat 1 fumble is way more harmful to the DM then the players. First of all DM rolls more dice then a player. And two monsters only have so many turns before the players kill them.

Except monsters are, usually, intended to die/be defeated. So them dying/losing one round early, due to some nat 1s, or doing less damage than expected isn't a big deal.

[robbie374]

A Nat 1 fumble is way more harmful to the DM then the players.

This is your problem. You are thinking about it as the DM against the players. The DM is running the game, not playing the game. The DM has the fun of creating a story and narrating NPCs, creating a whole world of adventures, and seeing his players enjoy his creation. That's what DMing is about. There is no such thing as "harmful to the DM" unless the harm is destroying his creation at large. The DM is playing the monsters, yes, but the story is about the players, not the monsters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Crits BY PCs are balanced by crits AGAINST PCs. No need to add a fumble rule beyond the RAW automatic miss. I don't think fumble rules improve the game at all. +1
As a novel idea, why not just have a failure, fail? Why does it need crazy effects added to it? Some people can't leave well enough alone. We went through this whole "every neat idea in the world phase" with Dragon Magazine. Eventually, we realized we'd made things too complicated.
Given that crits are in the rulebook but fumbles are not, There's that.
Failure is already its own reward.
Never seen it put that way, but nicely said.

Where does it say that rolling a 1 is supposed to be an upsetting thing? That's a good question. It turned into a meme one day, I guess. I first saw critical fumbles in a dragon magazine article over 30 years ago.

The concept of "extra pain for the players on a Nat 1" needs to die. Yeah. (If you have ever been critted by a frost giant during combat, that's pain enough).
On a natural 1, if you are shooting a bow/cantrip and your buddy is within 5ft, you now reroll to see if you hit him instead. Shooting into melee is a whole different deal, and this one I can almost live with.

This is your problem. You are thinking about it as the DM against the players. The DM is running the game, not playing the game. Yeah, there's that.

[Rowan Wolf]

I never liked the "oooh a 1, how bad do we make this suck" I've had DM's have perception/spot/etc, and my trained character's modified one was less effective that higher natural roll from another (with a lower total)

Doesn't add any meaning to the game.

[Sir cryosin]

This is your problem. You are thinking about it as the DM against the players. The DM is running the game, not playing the game. The DM has the fun of creating a story and narrating NPCs, creating a whole world of adventures, and seeing his players enjoy his creation. That's what DMing is about. There is no such thing as "harmful to the DM" unless the harm is destroying his creation at large. The DM is playing the monsters, yes, but the story is about the players, not the monsters.

That is not all DM's. The DM is not just running the game. They are playing npc's and monsters. A DM is playing as the antagonist. A DM should play monsters to win the combat. Because the monsters are living things as much as pc's. If you as a DM is only getting your joy from the story then write a book.

Also to DM's not every combat that ends with the party hitting 0hp is not a tpk. They can be captured or just left to be bleeding out and they make all there death saving throws to stabilized and wake up hours later with no enemies around.

As a DM my self I roll really poorly when I'm DMing. And my players find it more challenging and fun were I have combats were I don't roll for attacks. Meaning using saving throws and grappling, shoving. And sents I switch to this type of combats I did away with this rule because. When I was using it my monsters were not challenging and my player got bored and were complaining about them. It fun to be a badass and killing everything. It starts feeling like
DM OK ya'll see a group of orc's you cast a few fireballs and turn into a bear and swing your sword at then and end up killing them you all lose a few hp.

[robbie374]

As a DM my self I roll really poorly when I'm DMing. And my players find it more challenging and fun were I have combats were I don't roll for attacks. Meaning using saving throws and grappling, shoving. And sents I switch to this type of combats I did away with this rule because. When I was using it my monsters were not challenging and my player got bored and were complaining about them. It fun to be a badass and killing everything. It starts feeling like
DM OK ya'll see a group of orc's you cast a few fireballs and turn into a bear and swing your sword at then and end up killing them you all lose a few hp.

See, this sounds fun! Natural 1 flops, not so much. But creative combat that's not about the luck of the dice but instead replaces them with great storytelling? That's a win all day long. Way to be an awesome DM! :)