negative ability checks

[Danielqueue1]

so in a campaign we roll for stats, but must keep our rolls no matter how much bad luck we have. (its a closed group and everyone agreed to it) as chance would have it, one character ended up with a -3 to one of their stats. now Normally I don't do anything on a natural 1 for ability checks, but when the final result of a check ends up less than zero, I feel like the end result should be a little more spectacular of a failure.

example idea
Dexterity (stealth) normal failure, you alert the guards. negative failure, you fall down the stairs directly into the guard house.

so, would this be fun, or more of a punishment for something the player had no direct control over? if fun, I could use a few more ideas.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I would have to ask: Why is it only possible for people with negative modifiers to fumble, or in other words, why is the chance of fumbling independent of DC?

[Puh Laden]

so in a campaign we roll for stats, but must keep our rolls no matter how much bad luck we have. (its a closed group and everyone agreed to it) as chance would have it, one character ended up with a -3 to one of their stats. now Normally I don't do anything on a natural 1 for ability checks, but when the final result of a check ends up less than zero, I feel like the end result should be a little more spectacular of a failure.

example idea
Dexterity (stealth) normal failure, you alert the guards. negative failure, you fall down the stairs directly into the guard house.

so, would this be fun, or more of a punishment for something the player had no direct control over? if fun, I could use a few more ideas.

How fun it is will depend on the players, there are at least eight different kinds of fun when it comes to games and everyone has different preferences. I say ask your players.

EDIT: when I saw the title I thought this thread was going to be about inverted ability checks where you might want to roll low (like checking for morale for enemies when they're fighting PCs who are slaughtering their comrades might be an inverted Wisdom check, roll low and the monster NPC doesn't realize they should run away).

[Danielqueue1]

I would have to ask: Why is it only possible for people with negative modifiers to fumble, or in other words, why is the chance of fumbling independent of DC?

In general there is no way to critically fail an ability check. (That's a common house rule, but a house rule none the less)

With standard array or point buy, the lowest possible role on an ability check is zero. To roll a negative 2 is to do so poorly at something that untrained commoners do better at their absolute worst.

Like if I end up doing it, I would play a 0 - DC as "you aren't sure what is causing this creature to behave erratically. " but a -2 (total, not just modifier) as, "the foaming mouth and 'smiling' teeth mean the animal is happy to see you and would like to be held!" Things that would be obvious/easy to just about everyone (DC 0) are now possible to fail.

[Lunali]

In general there is no way to critically fail an ability check. (That's a common house rule, but a house rule none the less)

That's not a house rule, by RAW there are no critical fails at all, the closest is an automatic miss and that only applies to attacks. Any form of critical fail is a house rule.

[DeTess]

so in a campaign we roll for stats, but must keep our rolls no matter how much bad luck we have. (its a closed group and everyone agreed to it) as chance would have it, one character ended up with a -3 to one of their stats. now Normally I don't do anything on a natural 1 for ability checks, but when the final result of a check ends up less than zero, I feel like the end result should be a little more spectacular of a failure.

example idea
Dexterity (stealth) normal failure, you alert the guards. negative failure, you fall down the stairs directly into the guard house.

so, would this be fun, or more of a punishment for something the player had no direct control over? if fun, I could use a few more ideas.

I'd say this is a bad rule, because it only affects one character, and only because of circumstances outside of the player's control. A more general fumble rule can be fun, if your campaign is less serious and more goofy, but if you're playing in a serious campaign, critical fumbles just really don't fit the tone in my opinion.

basically, if your campaign runs on a logic where the kind of critical fumble you just described would like result in character death or mission failure, rather than fun and goofy shenanigans, you shouldn't use it.

[Puh Laden]

That's not a house rule, by RAW there are no critical fails at all, the closest is an automatic miss and that only applies to attacks. Any form of critical fail is a house rule.

They're saying critical fails are a common house rule.

[Chronos]

Quoth Coffee_Dragon:

I would have to ask: Why is it only possible for people with negative modifiers to fumble, or in other words, why is the chance of fumbling independent of DC?

It's an egalitarian rule, in the sense that anyone who gets a negative total check result would get the especially-bad outcome. It's just that, since the lowest you can get on a d20 is a 1, only a character with a negative modifier can get that low.

And I don't think that it'd make too much difference, because a character with a modifier that low probably isn't going to be attempting very many things using that score, anyway.

[Danielqueue1]

I'd say this is a bad rule, because it only affects one character, and only because of circumstances outside of the player's control. A more general fumble rule can be fun, if your campaign is less serious and more goofy, but if you're playing in a serious campaign, critical fumbles just really don't fit the tone in my opinion.

basically, if your campaign runs on a logic where the kind of critical fumble you just described would like result in character death or mission failure, rather than fun and goofy shenanigans, you shouldn't use it.

that is a good point. the campaign is somewhere in between. I'd lean towards silly with patches of serious, so I think I won't end up doing it. perhaps just letting the player dictate how they think it would happen. that way the less serious parts can be played out in a fun manner, but the serious bits result in just a normal failure.


P.S. and as per other comment, I was trying to make it clear that fumbles were a house rule from the beginning. not sure what caused the confusion.

[Coffee_Dragon]

To roll a negative 2 is to do so poorly at something that untrained commoners do better at their absolute worst.

It doesn't really mean that, since D&D uses a pass/fail system: -2 is just a number that gets compared to another number. The spectrum of (modified) die roll outcomes doesn't simulate anything. With your proposed rule, a -2 modifier character attempts a DC 5 check, rolls 1, fails by 6, and fumbles. Meanwhile a 0 modifier character attempts a DC 20 check, rolls 1, fails by 19, and doesn't fumble. Is this the intended function of the rule?


Things that would be obvious/easy to just about everyone (DC 0) are now possible to fail.

This already follows from how the ability check rules are written though?


It's an egalitarian rule, in the sense that anyone who gets a negative total check result would get the especially-bad outcome. It's just that, since the lowest you can get on a d20 is a 1, only a character with a negative modifier can get that low.

If the intent of the rule is precisely that only characters with low modifiers should ever fumble, regardless of DCs and context, so everyone can laugh at how particularly bad they will be with a 5% or 10% regularity, then the rule works. But that seems to be somewhat not egalitarian.