PDA

View Full Version : How do you guys feel about Crit Fails in 5e



Dankus Memakus
2020-08-12, 03:48 AM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?

Amnestic
2020-08-12, 04:03 AM
Crit fails punish people for rolling lots of dice (usually martials, who are making more attack rolls, while spellcasters can be forcing enemy saves more consistently). This means that you're more likely to crit fail at 5th level on an attack action than at 4th level, which doesn't make sense (and gets worse for Fighters).

How would a spellcaster crit fail on casting Fireball? They should be able to, after all, but does your system account for that? And is it fun for the players?

I don't think you're 'wrong' for enjoying it but I do think they're bad for the game and I'd never run them myself.

Unoriginal
2020-08-12, 04:03 AM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?

In 5e as in past editions, outside of house rules crit fails only occur on attack rolls, and just result in the attack missing. They have their place here, as it keeps a chance of failure rather than turning combats into "and for this tun I hit automatically again". Same way as crit successes have their place for attack rolls.

Now, personal opinion: both as a player and as a DM I absolutely loath the typical crit house rules, for both crit fails and crit successes, due to their openly farcical results like "you rolled a 1 so you break the lock you were trying to steal" or "you rolled a 20 so you jump 100ft" (or even worse, when DMs rule that rolling a 20 means you "succeed too well" and make it backfire).

Rolling a 1 on an ability check isn't any more dramatic than rolling any other failing number (as there is no need to roll if you'd succeed even with a 1), and rolling a 20 just represents the best the character can do. Unlike for attacks, ability checks do benefits from having "you automatically succeed because you're just that good" and "it's just too hard for you, you won't succeed" as parts of the results.

For the house rules that make crit failing an attack have worse consequences than just failing, ex: it makes you drop your weapon, it's especially nonsensical as like Amnestic pointed out, it means martial characters get worse at fighting the more attack they get.

It's not my or anyone business to call you "wrong" for enjoying a certain way to play the game, though. Do as you enjoy the best, it's the goal of the game.

Wizard_Lizard
2020-08-12, 04:07 AM
I use crit (not fruit dammit autocorrect that one isn’t even close) fails always. Although I’ve never really played at higher levels and therefore haven’t noticed it affect martials so much. Mostly the players enforce it on themselves, and when an enemy rolls a crit fail, it’s always funny to say the skeleton accidentally bonks their comrade and it takes 1d6+3 damage.

Dankus Memakus
2020-08-12, 04:11 AM
Crit fails punish people for rolling lots of dice (usually martials, who are making more attack rolls, while spellcasters can be forcing enemy saves more consistently). This means that you're more likely to crit fail at 5th level on an attack action than at 4th level, which doesn't make sense (and gets worse for Fighters).

How would a spellcaster crit fail on casting Fireball? They should be able to, after all, but does your system account for that? And is it fun for the players?

I don't think you're 'wrong' for enjoying it but I do think they're bad for the game and I'd never run them myself.

Usually what we tend to do is count saves as crit fails or successes as well. That's what my table has always done because casters have an edge over martial characters in general. So if the dark mage gets a nat 20 on his Dex save he diverts a little bit of your fireball back at you.

On the idea of succeeding too well mentioned earlier, that's bad and I hate that mindset. I just think it's more interesting if something more happens than a ping pong game of damage all the time, if someone gets disarmed or fails spectacularly I think it adds to the chaos of battle. Plus I truly do hate that with modifiers, characters can just always succeed anything. There should always be a chance of failure. But I also prefer gritty low level lower magic stuff to fill this niche as well

Edit: I would also like to say that everything that applies to players with crit fails/saves that I do I also do this with monsters because I believe if the dark mage can divert some fireball so can the party wizard. I know it adds some clunkiness to combat but sometimes I just wish they didn't make 5e so simple (although it is my favorite edition so whatever)

Cizak
2020-08-12, 05:43 AM
I absolutely loathe non-RAW versions of both crit successes and failures.

No, you don't have a 5% chance to convince the king who has been waging war for 30 years to stop with a single speech.
No, you don't have a 5% chance to jump over a mountain.
No, it's not fun if the thief who has been breaking into houses their whole life accidentally destroys a whole room worth of furniture 5% of the time.

At the very least, ability check crits can be slightly entertaining if they aren't too over the top, and give the DM the chance to be a bit creative. Combat is where it really starts to grate.

Oh cool, my fighter accidentally threw his weapon across the room again? How very fun for me.
Darn, my Ice Knife missed. Well, the reason I like it is that even on a miss, I still get to do some da... no? It "flies too far away" for that? Hey, sincerely thank you for invalidating my choice of action this turn.
Both sides of the conflict are close to dead, this is tense! I make a last desperate attempt to bring the enemy down before it can finish us! Hm, what's that? I swing my attack so wide that I hit my teammate, thus downing them and putting us at an even greater disadvantage? What an interesting way to lose all dramatic tension and just create annoyance instead!

I won't say anyone who enjoys them is a bad person. To each their own. But I will never use non-RAW crits when I DM, and I expect to hear about them at session 0 if I'm a player so I can give some thought on if there're enough positives to the campaign to deal with them. I've yet to play a game where they enhance the experience.

Waazraath
2020-08-12, 05:57 AM
The critique on critical fails (like in the posts above is justified (hurts characters that make more attack rolls, hurts players more than monsters, etc. etc.).

Personally though, I really enjoyed a lot of critical failures (as a player and as a DM), as a comic relief, or something to induce some drama. Imo what is needed then is funny dramatic outcomes, that don't destroy the adventure or a persons character. Imo, its fine when somebody chops of his own leg when attacking a stirge attached to the leg, yelling "I'm gonna chop it in half" and then rolls a 1, and then a 1 (or 20, depending on the system) for severity. That's a chance of 1 in 400, and somebody doing something that's obvious dangerous. Just make sure that a regeneration is somewhere around the corner in this session, or at latest the next.

Depends on the group though, group dynamics, and type of game (and sometimes humor) people enjoy, so obviously ymmv, but it has its good parts, critical failures.

Zhorn
2020-08-12, 06:06 AM
Having played around with crit/fails on 20's and 1's for a a couple of campaigns, I'm now of the opinion 5e's not the game for adding too much weight onto those rolls.
5% for each is too common to put too large of an impact of each, and like said above it puts a greater occurrence on classes that roll more dice (particularly fighter).

BloodSnake'sCha
2020-08-12, 06:20 AM
I use crit fail as a miss on attack rolls and give it a funny discription.

Nothing more.

DeadMech
2020-08-12, 06:31 AM
As has been stated crit fails punish martial characters more than spellcasters. And punish higher level characters who should be more skilled than it does low level characters.

That should be enough to take whatever fumble table you are homebrewing and tear it in half.

Imagine a training hall full of soldiers armed with great swords training against training dummies. Like a 1000 of them. At level 1 50 of them are going to crit fail every six seconds and either fling their weapon across the room or worse lop off one of their own arms and bleed out on the floor after they deal 2d6+3or4ish damage to themselves. Does that strike you as a realistic situation?

I explained this to a DM I refuse to play with any more. His response was "In 5e you don't roll for a situation unless I tell you you roll for it." Which just sidesteps the point I was making rather than refuting it. It doesn't matter if it's a hall full of training dummies or its 1000 soldiers fighting another 1000 soldiers. Or orcs. Or kobolds. Or whatever. That is an absurd amount of damage this army of 1000 is going to deal to itself every turn. Even if the chaos of a battlefield who could possibly imagine 50 soldiers mutilating themselves with their own weapon every 6 seconds?

At Level 5 these 1000 fighters get a second attack thus a second chance to fumble. Going back to dropping weapons. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second. 97 or 98 soldiers disarmed themselves in one turn of combat. Almost 10% of an army just threw their swords on the ground.

At level 11 the get a third attack a round. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second and ~45 drop it on the third. 142ish soldiers disarm themselves EVERY ROUND. 14% of an army.

20th level. 1000 soldiers. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second and ~45 drop it on the third and ~43 drop it on the forth. 185 20th level fighters, 18 and a half percent of an army drop their weapons EVERY ROUND.

My old DM would probably tell me that we don't play DnD in a training hall against dummies or as armies of 1000 combatants against another 1000. We play it as a handful of adventurers against a handful of monsters. I would agree that this is true but it's again sidestepping the point rather than refuting it.

How many times in a campaign are you taking the attack action? how many times before level 2? The odds don't change.

Oh but the monsters roll crit fumbles too.

Still doesn't address the issue. Enemies are made to die. No one really cares Minions 176 kobold 6 drops his spear. He was going to die anyway without much fanfare. And is anyone really going to be satisfied when BBEGs make a mockery of themselves?

My ex DM had a crit fumble table you rolled on after you rolled a 1. You could hit yourself, crit hit yourself. Oh and Decapitate yourself. Presumably cut off any limb as well. So at level 20 you have nearly a 20% chance to hurt yourself each round. Probably even outright kill yourself 1-5% of the time when you do. Utter madness.

Lunali
2020-08-12, 06:38 AM
I use narrative crit fails for players and mechanical crit fails for npcs. For example: "Player B, Player A's attack was clearly aimed at you, not the enemy" For enemies, it's usually either just the dice from a single attack against an ally, or if they have large single attacks, then some fraction of a normal attack.

Scripten
2020-08-12, 06:51 AM
I personally don't really care for crit fails, but my players swear by them. My compromise (which I borrowed from another DM in the group) is that I offer a crit fail d6, which can be used like a bardic inspiration die, in exchange for a "crit fail" situation. The last time I had a player accept, they missed and the enemy they were fighting dodged into an adjacent room, initiating another combat encounter before the current one was completed.

Draz74
2020-08-12, 07:16 AM
Crit fails beyond RAW (and maybe flavor-description) are dumb, at least in a system where making more attacks is supposed to be a major feature of some classes.

In a system where everyone makes only one attack per turn, I could be persuaded to critique a crit fail system. Maybe. Probably not. Not unless the system is also a goofy cartoonish comic system where the PCs are supposed to be bumbling rather than heroic.

Xervous
2020-08-12, 07:22 AM
The only good crit fail systems I can cheer for are those whose frequency scale with the inverse of character proficiency and have player engaging tradeoffs involved.

Take shadowrun for instance. As a target number based dicepool system a glitch is defined as half (rounded up) off your dice reading ones. A critical glitch is as a glitch, but you’ve also rolled zero successes (a 5 or a 6 for the more recent editions that don’t have moving target numbers). Rolling 4 dice to stabilize the decker without a medkit? Fumbles may result. Rolling 15 to snipe a ganger with your narcojet arrow? Maybe once or twice in the whole campaign. Shadowrun (4e at least) pays out a point of Edge if you suffer a dramatic Critical Glitch, or you can spend Edge to downgrade it to a normal glitch.

A vague parallel in 5e might be a flat DC8 roll where you only add your proficiency bonus (or half) as relevant to deny the fumble but even then that’s a tad too frequent. Players that suffer fumbles would be granted inspiration or similar.

BoutsofInsanity
2020-08-12, 07:24 AM
Typically I run it this way as the DM.

Natural 1's for the enemy creatures and NPC's are never confirmed. They just happen. Especially if they are low on HP or severely less powerful then the player characters. Typically results in an opportunity attack.

Natural 1's for players are always having to be confirmed, and they only apply on the first attack roll. Typically results in an opportunity attack from said target if in melee range.

Composer99
2020-08-12, 07:25 AM
The 5e critical fail rule is that 5% of the time, PCs and monsters miss no matter what. Going after a brute with AC 9 with your +8 attack modifier? Still have a 5% chance of missing.

If you and your players enjoy critical fumbles, well and good, it's your game. I don't see the need for them, as others have described in detail upthread.

sayaijin
2020-08-12, 07:29 AM
I'm going to echo what most everyone else is saying: crit fails break dramatic tension and break from reality. I will say if your group really likes them for the humor aspect, then I recommend the "confirm crit fail roll".

After rolling a 1, roll the d20 again to see if it's worse than just missing. If it's better than a 1, then they just miss. This way there's still a chance of failing miserably, but it drops from 1/20 times an expert fighter swings a sword to 1/400 times they swing their sword.

da newt
2020-08-12, 07:42 AM
I like crit fail and crit success on saves, ability checks, and attacks - but the outcomes / consequences are flavor / narrative only.

I simply describe how badly you missed slipping mid swing, flailing your arms to regain your balance like a drunk on ice, but you just manage to stay upright. A crit fail on a romantic persuasion check - she gives you a disgusted look and saunters away, it's only then that you notice an impressive booger in your mustache. Just silly stuff.

Keravath
2020-08-12, 07:48 AM
I've played with critical hit and fail tables in previous editions. Some of the DMs loved them. I generally loathed them.

Oooh ... you chop off your hand!
Oooh ... you broke your weapon!
Oooh ... you fall down and break your ankle!
Oooh ... you fall down and drop your weapon!

Honestly, most of them turn into pointless random narrative that accomplishes nothing except occasional comic relief, often mostly for the DM and occasionally for the players though that depends on how serious the failure rolled turns out to be.

Personally, I just go with the narrative critical hit and fail approach ... if the character rolls a 1 or 20, I can describe a particularly effective or feeble blow, the character slips on the mud almost dropping their sword while flapping their wings like a chicken. It evokes the humor without having to deal with "Umm, your hand is broken and you can't hold your weapon/shield at the moment".

As mentioned by others, these critical hits/fails apply mostly only to attack rolls and you need separate tables for spell attack rolls. What happens with a critical fail on a spell attack? Are they so incompetent as to hit themselves? 5% of the time? Do they hit one of their team mates somehow?

Basically, a 1 in 20 chance of an extreme failure in an attack is far too high .. the character would probably not survive training due to all the critical failures they have had to survive.

Finally, the more attack rolls made, the more the system negatively affects martial characters over spell casters.

So, if a DM wants to use a system like that and the players agree ... no problem ... have fun and enjoy :) ... but personally I don't use them and would probably choose not to play in a game using some extreme critical hit/fail system.

Tanarii
2020-08-12, 08:07 AM
They're as bad an idea in 5e as they are in any other edition or game.

Unless you're trying to run Keystone Kops The RPG.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-08-12, 08:28 AM
I like the idea but i feel like they exclude spell-casters too much. I've seen some people, including some podcasts, use critical saves for foes which somewhat balances things though.

OldTrees1
2020-08-12, 08:33 AM
Ask your players. They will be disadvantaged by the rules more than NPCs will be.
Ask your players. Crit fail rules are inherently badly designed. This is not edition specific. The crit fail homebrew was badly designed back in 1st edition too. Most of it comes down to the detail that "not every character rolls the same number of d20s". An orc might roll 3. An orc shaman might roll 0. An orc barbarian PC might roll 1000. An orc fighter PC might roll 2000. An orc fighter using 2 weapons might roll 3000. An orc shaman PC might roll 100.

I have found the following works well for the groups I have been with:
On a skill/ability check, if they fail the check, and rolled a nat 1, and mention they rolled a nat 1, then I try to come up with a crit fail result. The crit fail result is designed as a consolation prize to the failure. While it is usually a downside to the character, it needs to be something interesting to the player.

An example that worked in my group, it might not work in yours:
A NPC had a small feather in their hair. It could easily be overlooked. When character A was trying to discreetly show character B, I had character B make a perception check. They failed, and it was a nat 1, that they announced. So I ruled character B literally could not see the feather (for a secret duration of 1 hour). This was especially fun for the players when they got their hands on the feather but their Druid (character B) could not see it. 12 sessions later they got the feather back out because it was relevant, but this time the Druid could see it.

Why this design? (Buy-in, reduced rate, it's a reward, not in combat)
1) If they player gets a nat 1 but does not want a crit fail, they don't get a crit fail. This also decreases the rate to much less than 1/20.
2) Crit fails only happen if the check already failed. This also decreases the rate.
3) I won't always come up with a good crit fail, so I have the option to not use a bad one
4) The crit fails are designed to reward the player, even if not rewarding their character
5) They are rare. They can add a bit of humor but only if used sparingly.
6) It is not used in combat.
7) The downside is not extreme and is not the point. The downside is the means of adding an interesting consolation prize to the player.
8) Yes, this can mean a player might prefer a nat 1 over a nat 2.

Morty
2020-08-12, 09:40 AM
Consider this: any failure can be a critical failure if the stakes are high enough. The same result against the same DC can have dramatically different consequences depending on what you're trying to accomplish.

Missing an attack roll can be annoying if you're at full strength and fighting a weak enemy; it can be deadly if you're wounded and fighting a more dangerous one. A persuasion check to persuade a merchant to give you a lower price and a villain not to kill the hostages might have the same DC, but the effects are obviously different. And so on.

Critically failing on a relatively undramatic roll mostly just adds complications to what's already a setback. On a more dramatic roll, a simple failure is already enough to raise the stakes and introduce consequences. There are various systems that include complications and degrees of success, but I don't think tacking critical fumbles onto D&D's resolution method is necessary or beneficial.

Telwar
2020-08-12, 09:44 AM
Maybe I would be okay with critical fails if casters also had to always make attack rolls instead of having save spells; "oh, you rolled a 1 on the 15th kobold you targeted with the fireball? Your staff explodes, take your fireball damage."

Dienekes
2020-08-12, 09:56 AM
Am I running a comedy?

That’s a serious question for the record. Back in the 3e days I played a specifically comedic adventure we used critical fumbles and generally had a great time.

I would not use them in a game that’s trying to be dramatic. Maybe if I had a more complex fumble system that favored the players a bit. Where the fighter rolling a fumble means their next attack is made at disadvantage. But the enemy goblin fumbling against them slips and falls.

Actually, if I was going to make fumbling in a combat game, I kind of think the fighting system would need to be built the ground up with it. Something like a fumble means your defense is open so the opponent has a better than usual chance of performing their special move.

But that is several degrees more complex than 5e combat is.

Amnestic
2020-08-12, 10:02 AM
Am I running a comedy?

A fair point. If it's a silly premise or oneshot, or an explicitly hyper-lethal sort of game where it's expected people will die with ridiculous frequency and be replaced just as quickly, they could definitely have a place there in the 'comedy of errors' sort of way.

Most of my campaigns are more serious/dramatic though, with death being imminent-but-not-frequent.

heavyfuel
2020-08-12, 10:51 AM
Crit fails are amazing for making your characters suck harder and harder as they level up.

Who should fail more consistently? The level zero commoner with 1 attack, or the level 20 TWF Fighter with 5?

Clearly the commoner should fail less often than the hero of the realm!

No wait... That's not right, is it?

Abracadangit
2020-08-12, 11:06 AM
Am I running a comedy?

That’s a serious question for the record. Back in the 3e days I played a specifically comedic adventure we used critical fumbles and generally had a great time.

I would not use them in a game that’s trying to be dramatic. Maybe if I had a more complex fumble system that favored the players a bit. Where the fighter rolling a fumble means their next attack is made at disadvantage. But the enemy goblin fumbling against them slips and falls.

Actually, if I was going to make fumbling in a combat game, I kind of think the fighting system would need to be built the ground up with it. Something like a fumble means your defense is open so the opponent has a better than usual chance of performing their special move.

But that is several degrees more complex than 5e combat is.

Beat me to the punch.

Whether or not crit fails work in your game is directly related to the tone of your game, I would say. If you're running a wacky, Guardians-of-the-Galaxyesque romp with a ragtag team of unlikely heroes, crit fails add another layer of humor, accentuating the fallibility of the PCs and providing impromptu moments of levity in tense situations.

If you're running a more serious, more dramatic campaign like a Forgotten Realms novel or classic high fantasy, then crit fails aren't a thing that generally happens. Sure, characters don't always succeed at what they set out to do, but I don't think Conan's weapon ever accidentally flew out of his hands with a whooshing noise, and Aragorn never stepped on a comically loud branch while sneaking around. If those kinds of things DID happen in those stories, they would have a very different tone, and as a result, would be fundamentally different kinds of stories.

I could make the same argument for natural 20s being "critical successes," or whatever. Again - if the illiterate barbarian can nat 20 an Arcana check and suddenly understand the magical formulae scrawled in the missing wizard's journal, that's definitely funny - but it adds a kind of Mad Libsish, irreverent goofiness to ability checks and the campaign at large. If that's the tone you're after, it's perfect, but if you want to run a more serious game, I'd avoid both crit fails and successes. You could certainly tinker with it a bit - maybe 1 is autofail and 20 is autosucceed for certain characters that are proficient in the skill, etc. But like everything else, that gets situational.

LordCdrMilitant
2020-08-12, 11:12 AM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?

Critical fails never had a place.

They unduly harm martials, often severely, in a way far in excess of what a critical hit provides as a bonus. Remember, wizards mostly cannot crtitically fail to cast a spell, and Fighters make a bucket of attacks per round, giving them a 20% chance or more to drop their weapon, trip, or otherwise inflict themselves with a debilitating status effect.

langal
2020-08-12, 11:13 AM
Punishes high level fighters. They would break a leg or do something really stupid every day. It also drags down the game if you have some table with the fumble results.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-12, 11:23 AM
I am surprised at the push back against crit fails in combat.

I am also surprised that the complaints aren't "it's inconsistently played by the DM"

Yes, crit fails affect martials more often than mages.
crit successes affect martials more often than mages.

The affects don't have to be comical, and can positively influence how the character abilitis are used.
I often use weapon/focus does -1 damage until it is repaired.
so the fighter has a reason to switch to the maul... or the wizard uses the pouch.

this means Mending and smithing skills have a purpose and actually get used.

DeTess
2020-08-12, 11:34 AM
Am I running a comedy?

That’s a serious question for the record. Back in the 3e days I played a specifically comedic adventure we used critical fumbles and generally had a great time.

I would not use them in a game that’s trying to be dramatic. Maybe if I had a more complex fumble system that favored the players a bit. Where the fighter rolling a fumble means their next attack is made at disadvantage. But the enemy goblin fumbling against them slips and falls.


You cover about half my thoughts on fumbles. Classic fumbles (you roll a 1 and get a consequence) don't really have a place in a non-comedic game. However, there is one implementation I've seen from time to time which could work for a serious game, which is where the players get to choose whether to fumble on a 1 or just a general failed dice-roll in return for some boon. This could be rewarding players who accept a fumble with a free reroll to be used at a later point in the session, or something like a fumble-for-success, where you turn a failed roll into a successful one, but there are some additional consequences (for example, you roll a 1 to hit a goblin, decide to take a fumble, so you hit the goblin, but your weapon gets stuck in the goblin, disarming you).

Unoriginal
2020-08-12, 11:37 AM
Yes, crit fails affect martials more often than mages.
crit successes affect martials more often than mages.

I've never seen anyone make the crit successes worth the crit fails. Not that I like the crit successes either, personally.



The affects don't have to be comical, and can positively influence how the character abilitis are used.
I often use weapon/focus does -1 damage until it is repaired.
so the fighter has a reason to switch to the maul... or the wizard uses the pouch.

this means Mending and smithing skills have a purpose and actually get used.

What do you do for crit successes?

Willie the Duck
2020-08-12, 11:41 AM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?

First of all, people should not tear you to shreds over differences in playstyle or play preference, so boo on them for that. However, they are relatively accurate. Crit fails usually aren't great for the game. I will note that, in those previous editions, crit fails are rarely in the ruleset (and then almost never core). Critical hits weren't even a core rule during the TSR era.

Regarding 5th edition specifically, there isn't much that makes 5e specifically less hospitable to crit fails other than:

Unlike, say, Moldvay-Cook/BX D&D, fighters get more than one attack as they level up, meaning that the more competent a fighter is, the more likely they will screw up.
Unlike 4e, wizards do not (exclusively) make attack rolls against spell defense DCs, but instead have the subject of their spells make saving throws. Thus, who makes the roll switches between attacker and defender depending on whether the attack is a spell or a weapon (there are spells that act as attacks, so this is definitely muddy water here, but still, there is a high martial-caster discrepancy).
Unlike some earlier editions, characters are relatively difficult/time-consuming to roll up/create, and the background mechanics and such tend towards more investment in individual characters. If you are running the early-level meat-grinder in Holmes basic or AD&D 1e, and you lop off your own hand in a clutch moment and end up having to roll up a new character, it is probably more hilarious than if you are playing epic adventure 3e or 5e and end up killing yourself with a character you spent 20-40 minutes building and 30-300 minutes integrating into the campaign.

rumplepum
2020-08-12, 11:47 AM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?I hate, hate, hate, hate them. I once joined a game and left after the first session when I realized they were being used and the DM wouldn't budge on that (which is their perogative of course). I'm sure everyone else has already pointed out the logical and mechanical flaws with these systems so I'll largely just keep this to my opinion.

People are always like "oh but they're so much fun" and like, you do you but I don't understand. It sucks enough to miss an attack and that's your turn, it's even worse when my highly trained combatant character somehow manages to stab themself. That's not fun to me. Nor is constantly dropping my weapon. Nor is the anticlimax of an enemy killing them self in a "lol so randum" way rather than by the actual hard work done by the party.

I find them highly disruptive, unbalanced, and generally awful to use when in actual play.

So yes, I have strong feelings about them lol

heavyfuel
2020-08-12, 11:48 AM
I am also surprised that the complaints aren't "it's inconsistently played by the DM"

Yes, crit fails affect martials more often than mages.
crit successes affect martials more often than mages.

The affects don't have to be comical, and can positively influence how the character abilitis are used.
I often use weapon/focus does -1 damage until it is repaired.
so the fighter has a reason to switch to the maul... or the wizard uses the pouch.

this means Mending and smithing skills have a purpose and actually get used.

Crit success = I deal a whole extra 5 damage!
Crit failure = I now have to stop the game and fix my weapon lest I endanger the group by allowing enemies to survive my mitigated blows. (And this is the best case scenraio where no crippling effect occurs)

Not really equivalent these two things.

Also, not sure what you mean by "inconsistently played by the DM"

Dankus Memakus
2020-08-12, 12:19 PM
I see alot of people specifically complaining about a weapon being disarmed and now I have a second question. Do people who play fighters and such not carry a second weapon? Disarms are a frequent way I use a crit fail when the party is weak or close to death because I know player A is going to be disarmed by the orc but then he's going to use his free action to whip out a shortsword and stab him anyway. Maybe not and if so I understand but I am curious.

Edit: it also seems a lot of people in this thread have had DMs kill them with crit fails which is absolutely lame and I abhor that kind of playing. I do tend to agree more with the people who use the comic relief argument so I'm not too into the whole "you fall chest first on your spear and die"

Morty
2020-08-12, 12:27 PM
I see alot of people specifically complaining about a weapon being disarmed and now I have a second question. Do people who play fighters and such not carry a second weapon? Disarms are a frequent way I use a crit fail when the party is weak or close to death because I know player A is going to be disarmed by the orc but then he's going to use his free action to whip out a shortsword and stab him anyway. Maybe not and if so I understand but I am curious.


If a warrior who loses a weapon due to a critical failure just pulls out another one and hits the enemy anyway, what practical effect does it have other than looking ridiculous?

Xervous
2020-08-12, 12:31 PM
“Drop your weapon” crit fails are the sort of thing I’d go out of my way to avoid interacting with. Generally speaking most/all bad crit fail rules lack means of mitigation. I can’t interact with it, just respond to this randomness layered on top randomness I have a degree of control over. Attacking is a basic, default option for progressing combat. Why should the die have one face that says “lose your turn(or more)”?

Dankus Memakus
2020-08-12, 12:39 PM
If a warrior who loses a weapon due to a critical failure just pulls out another one and hits the enemy anyway, what practical effect does it have other than looking ridiculous?

Well it at the very least uses up a free action and sometimes it is worth it for the player to do something like, mage hand the weapon back or something along the lines depending on the weapon and what they want to do. This is d&d so it's their choice. My point was I know it's not going to kill them like knocking someone prone could (giving the enemies advantage to beat them to death) plus, the ridiculousness is fun for some of us. I mean it's a game and every group I have ever played or ran wanted that comic bit. It's just nice to sit and laugh with everyone at the table.

Unoriginal
2020-08-12, 12:46 PM
I see alot of people specifically complaining about a weapon being disarmed and now I have a second question. Do people who play fighters and such not carry a second weapon? Disarms are a frequent way I use a crit fail when the party is weak or close to death because I know player A is going to be disarmed by the orc but then he's going to use his free action to whip out a shortsword and stab him anyway. Maybe not and if so I understand but I am curious.

Even without a secondary weapon a PC can just use their free item interaction to pick up the weapon on the ground. Assuming it only happens once in the turn.

The Disarm action is powerful because it's done on the enemy turn and they can then prevent the PC from picking the weapon as easily with their own free item interaction (ex: pressing their foot on it, kicking it away, etc).

Point is, it's ridiculous to have swords made of soap and banana peels to the point it's easier to get disarmed by your own attack than by the enemy's strike.

Dankus Memakus
2020-08-12, 12:50 PM
Even without a secondary weapon a PC can just use their free item interaction to pick up the weapon on the ground. Assuming it only happens once in the turn.

The Disarm action is powerful because it's done on the enemy turn and they can then prevent the PC from picking the weapon as easily with their own free item interaction (ex: pressing their foot on it, kicking it away, etc).

Point is, it's ridiculous to have swords made of soap and banana peels to the point it's easier to get disarmed by your own attack than by the enemy's strike.

While that's fair again the ridiculousness is kinda what my group enjoys. I assume that my group is much less serious than a lot of groups here. Which is totally fine and I understand

rumplepum
2020-08-12, 12:54 PM
Well it at the very least uses up a free action and sometimes it is worth it for the player to do something like, mage hand the weapon back or something along the lines depending on the weapon and what they want to do. This is d&d so it's their choice. My point was I know it's not going to kill them like knocking someone prone could (giving the enemies advantage to beat them to death) plus, the ridiculousness is fun for some of us. I mean it's a game and every group I have ever played or ran wanted that comic bit. It's just nice to sit and laugh with everyone at the table.


I see alot of people specifically complaining about a weapon being disarmed and now I have a second question. Do people who play fighters and such not carry a second weapon? Disarms are a frequent way I use a crit fail when the party is weak or close to death because I know player A is going to be disarmed by the orc but then he's going to use his free action to whip out a shortsword and stab him anyway. Maybe not and if so I understand but I am curious.

Edit: it also seems a lot of people in this thread have had DMs kill them with crit fails which is absolutely lame and I abhor that kind of playing. I do tend to agree more with the people who use the comic relief argument so I'm not too into the whole "you fall chest first on your spear and die"My opponent takes their action/attack to disarm me? All good, valid strategy.

A crit fail is not a disarm however. My opponent had nothing to do it, my seasoned warrior just dropped her family's ancestral blade during an epic confrontation, looks at the camera, shrugs and says "whoops, butterfingers" before getting cut down in the most anticlimactic way possibly. That's stupid and would leave me with a sour taste in my mouth.

You seem to enjoy them. That's fine and if your group enjoys it too, that's all that matters. But your post was looking for opinions so I provided mine. If you're looking to change people's opinion on this (which in my experience, folks have very strong feelings on), you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

Dankus Memakus
2020-08-12, 12:56 PM
My opponent takes their action/attack to disarm me? All good, valid strategy.

A crit fail is not a disarm however. My opponent had nothing to do it, my seasoned warrior just dropped her family's ancestral blade during an epic confrontation, looks at the camera, shrugs and says "whoops, butterfingers" before getting cut down in the most anticlimactic way possibly. That's stupid and would leave me with a sour taste in my mouth.

You seem to enjoy them. That's fine and if your group enjoys it too, that's all that matters. But your post was looking for opinions so I provided mine. If you're looking to change people's opinion on this (which in my experience, folks have very strong feelings on), you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

Nah I was just curious and trying to kinda ask follow-ups and discuss. I was more curious how the thoughts of people here compared to the other forum more than anything

KorvinStarmast
2020-08-12, 12:58 PM
How do you guys feel about Crit Fails in 5e Hate 'em. Need to be consigned to the dustbin of history, and I've had the chance to use fumble tables since before the fumble tables were in Dragon magazine.

However I've been at gaming tables where a crit fail is a chance for the whole table to get involved in an over-the-top, hilatiry inducing moment. But it really depends on the players and what they are looking for in the game.

ProsecutorGodot
2020-08-12, 01:12 PM
Thought the idea was interesting in our first campaign, tried, never using them again. The table was awful and all on its own managed to derail the campaign and kill off two characters.

Obviously this was high variance but there's no way to make the options on the table meaningful (in that they feel like a penalty but aren't straight up bull****) without making it inconsequential and pointless. There's no winning, you're either screwed arbitrarily every now and then or something pointless and inconvenient happens.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-12, 01:38 PM
I've never seen anyone make the crit successes worth the crit fails. Not that I like the crit successes either, personally.
What do you do for crit successes?

Double damage, isn't that what most people do for crits in combat?



Crit success = I deal a whole extra 5 damage!
Crit failure = I now have to stop the game and fix my weapon lest I endanger the group by allowing enemies to survive my mitigated blows. (And this is the best case scenraio where no crippling effect occurs)

Not really equivalent these two things.

Also, not sure what you mean by "inconsistently played by the DM"

Crit success = double the damage dice... so rogue, pally, BM, warlock, cleric, most named weapons ... should do more than 5 damage.
Crit fail = nope. the game keeps going. maybe the PC should use a free object interaction to swap weapons. that said, if you think +5 damage doesn't matter, then -2 damage doesn't matter either.


"inconsistently played by the DM" refers to... how every DM treats crit fails different, even changing mid-game. This is especially apparent when DMs apply crit succ/fail to ability checks and throws

GlenSmash!
2020-08-12, 01:45 PM
I largely find playing with crit fails creates one of two outcomes.

Crit Failing becomes extra annoying

or

Crit Failing becomes more interesting than Success.

I don't particularly like either of those outcomes

heavyfuel
2020-08-12, 01:50 PM
Double damage?

Not really double, though.

Unoriginal
2020-08-12, 01:58 PM
Double damage, isn't that what most people do for crits in combat?

So just so I'm sure I get it, a nat 20 gets double damage once, and a nat 1 gets a slightly broken weapon which needs to be repaired to function without penalty, at your table?

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-12, 02:11 PM
So just so I'm sure I get it, a nat 20 gets double damage once, and a nat 1 gets a slightly broken weapon which needs to be repaired to function without penalty, at your table?

Yes. (plus character padding)

Waterdeep Merch
2020-08-12, 02:29 PM
I use something vaguely similar to what Naughty Tiger's describing.

A critical attack, in addition to increased dice for damage, also sunders the armor of the target, natural or otherwise. They suffer from -1 AC until they spend a short rest with the right proficiency and tools to fix it or just resting if it was natural. Armor is destroyed and needs to be rebuilt it if takes it's full AC-10 in damage (so full plate takes 8 crits to destroy while studded leather takes 2). This applies to both players and monsters.

A critical fumble on an attack harms the weapon used (but does not apply to natural attacks) by -1. These can also be repaired with a short rest and the right proficiency and tools. Otherwise, a weapon that hits -3 breaks and becomes an improvised weapon until it's been reforged.

Part of the reason for this is that I've made + gear much cheaper and easier to get ahold of. Players often take abilities that let them reroll bad attacks or avoid crits, while adamantine is the material of choice and indestructible is considered one of the best random properties an item can have. Carrying a good sidearm is common, and a few players even have backup armor kept in safe locations.

I'd never recommend this in any game where there isn't plentiful access to gear. This is part of a theme where every part of the world is gritty and disposable, up to and including characters. That's not for everyone.

Wizard_Lizard
2020-08-12, 02:31 PM
Just to kinda elaborate, my games are always rather light hearted, and crit fails help that. Also Crit fails are purely narrative. No dropping weapons, no breaking weapons, no falling over. (Of course NPCs and monsters can have this happen to them), just a light desription of a miss.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-12, 02:36 PM
snip

what about magic weapons/armor

Unoriginal
2020-08-12, 02:38 PM
Yes. (plus character padding)

So in other words, in a turn where the PC has two attacks, they get 10% chances of having double damage once, or to get -5% chances to hit on all subsequent attacks with that weapon until at minimum the end of the fight, and more likely until the next rest?

Which means that in a combat of three rounds, the 2-attacks character has 30% chances of getting their damage doubled once, and 30% chances of getting hindered for all following attacks with that weapon until time is taken to solve it.


To reformulate again: past lvl 5, most martials have to get their weapon fixed every 10 rounds (aproximatively) if they want to play without hinderance, or change the weapon altogether, and in return they get double damage once.

Not exactly a Beowulf-style "you're so strong your sword can't handle it" trade off, IMO.

Which confirm what I said: never seen a DM that made their crit successes worth their custom crit fails

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-12, 02:42 PM
So in other words, in a turn where the PC has two attacks, they get 10% chances of having double damage once, or to get -5% chances to hit on all subsequent attacks with that weapon until at minimum the end of the fight, and more likely until the next rest? <snip the rest because it is a faulty premise>

no. the weapon damage is -1. not the toHit. specifically to prevent that scenario you described.

Unoriginal
2020-08-12, 02:45 PM
no. the weapon damage is -1. not the toHit. specifically to prevent that scenario you described.

Then I misread what you wrote, and I apologize.

Waterdeep Merch
2020-08-12, 02:47 PM
what about magic weapons/armor
They aren't given any special treatment outside of the possibility of becoming indestructible as a random property. Another standard tactic I allow is for a player to use the Wish spell to choose random upgrades like that on purpose, to avoid, say, enchanting tons of the same weapon/armor in the hope of getting that. This has been done a half dozen times so far, usually after getting a Wish from a powerful entity like a djinn. It's also part of a package deal where I let them do things like switch or add enchantments or even the material of the item, so long as it's all within a 50k gp budget.

I have a dozen-ish page pamphlet of options for creating custom arms and armor that all plays into this. The options admittedly get very overpowered for normal D&D. I did it to put martials on more equal footing with casters and to add levels of customization.

J-H
2020-08-12, 02:54 PM
My feelings are:
"No. Just no."

micahaphone
2020-08-12, 03:03 PM
Keep 'em as a funny variant rule, like a thing for comedic campaigns where winning/losing or saving the day isn't a focus. If my clown barbarian keeps chopping off his own fingers while the wizard keeps triggering traps by looking at bookshelves and the bard just tried to seduce a mimic via woobly voice acting, then okay.

But they shouldn't be a default thing in a more "standard" (whatever that means) campaign of being heroes killing monsters in dungeons. Like, I wouldn't want to use crit fumbles in a published WotC campaign book.

Hecuba
2020-08-12, 03:04 PM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?

Not generally, though I have used them when they were useful for a particular type of campaign.

Assuming that you're not introducing a house-rule explicitly to experiment with it (if you are, make sure everyone playing is on board with that), I generally recommend being able to answer the following questions (if only in very broad terms):
What is my goal for introducing this rule?
How does this affect the interaction of PCs with NPCs?
How does this affect the interaction of PCs with each other?
How does this affect the interaction of PCs with the broader world/environment?
Summarize the prior 3 from the 100000-foot view: in one sentence, what is the effect of the rule on gameplay as a whole?
Does the impact of the change support the goal?
Are the ancillary impacts of the change worth the goal?
Do the players you're DMing for agree with the goal in question and your assessment of the impacts?

If people are disagreeing with you, using a tool like this can frame the specifics of the disagreement so that the discussion stays productive and civil.

So, working through that from my perspective for critical failures:
What is my goal for introducing this rule?
The reason you've given here is, largely, nostalgia for past gameplay. That's a valid goal - it was to a certain extent an explicit design goal for 5e, since 4e seemed to many to be too large a departure.
it's worth noting however, that crit failures were a house rule even for earlier editions: presuming that your past gameplay experiences are universal is not a good idea in general, and it is even less so here.

Other goals I've seen given for crit failures are increasing lethality, increasing randomness, and thematically offsetting critical successes.

How does this affect the interaction of PCs with NPCs?
Because PCs tend to roll more over the course of the game than a given NPC, they will see greater impact from such a change.

For combat encounters, the change will - on balance - make it more dangerous for the PCs: NPC enemies don't win most combats - a critical failure by the NPC may change how they loose, but likely not whether they loose.
In contrast, the impact of a critical failure for PCs can make a combat more lethal or more costly. The exact effect will depend on the failure rules you implement, but it's not going to be lost in the wash as it is for NPCs.

For non-combat encounters, the disparity in how often PCs & NPCs roll is even more extreme. NPCs do not generally need to roll investigation or persuasion: in most situations, if an NPC is making a skill check it's because there is a contested roll against a PC involved. That means that, on net, we can expect this change to make non-combat rolls harder for PCs without as severe an impact on NPCs.

How does this affect the interaction of PCs with each other?
The change, fundamentally, is about rolling. That means that PCs that roll more d20s will be impacted more.
In practice, this means that the change will be more impactful for martial and skill-based characters and less impactful for spell-casters.

How does this affect the interaction of PCs with the broader world/environment?
Impact of failures for rolled situations increase. This can potentially increase lethality or divert the plot.
The precise effects will depend heavily on how often you roll and for what kind of interactions.

Summarize the prior 3 from the 100000-foot view: in one sentence, what is the effect of the rule on gameplay as a whole?
The game likely becomes more lethal and more randomized.

Does the impact of the change support the goal?
If looking at the nostalgia goal broadly, then the answer might well be yes. Earlier versions of the game, especially 2nd edition and prior were notably more lethal and more random.
Depending on what editions and what aspects thereof you are nostalgic for, this may not hold.
Or, if you are specifically nostalgic for critical rolls in particular it may hold as a simple tautology.

If you are aiming for increased lethality and/or randomness, then it will certainly have the desired effect.

Are the ancillary impacts of the change worth the goal?
You'll have to decide that yourself. I probably wouldn't do it for an undefined nostalgia, but if lethality & randomness are what you're aiming for then it's not a bad change.

That said, if those are your goals then it might not be enough - on its own - to meaningfully accomplish them.
5e can do a quasi-AD&D meat-grinder, but you need to make several non-default choices to support it.
That kind of game assumes far more disposable PCs than most people presume for 5e. I would probably recommenced enforcing rolled characters - and even enforcing them being rolled at table under a time-limit.
You also probably need to aim at more lethal encounters than 5e (or, really, any edition after 2nd) presumes by default, or presume a significantly larger number of them between rests.

Do the players you're DMing for agree with the goal in question and your assessment of the impacts?
That's between you and your players.

Meat-grinders can be fun, if you know what you're getting into. Especially as one-shots.
Or a recurring side thing that you use as a break from narrative campaigns when you need them.

But they're also not going to go over well if the expectation is a long, narrative-driven heroic story arc.

What is my goal for introducing this rule?
The reason you've given here is, largely, nostalgia for past gameplay. That's a valid goal - it was to a certain extent an explicit design goal for 5e, since 4e seemed to many to be too large a departure.
it's worth noting however, that crit failures were a house rule even for earlier editions: presuming that your past gameplay experiences are universal is not a good idea in general, and it is even less so here.

Other goals I've seen given for crit failures are increasing lethality, increasing randomness, and thematically offsetting critical successes.

How does this affect the interaction of PCs with NPCs?
Because PCs tend to roll more over the course of the game than a given NPC, they will see greater impact from such a change.

For combat encounters, the change will - on balance - make it more dangerous for the PCs: NPC enemies don't win most combats - a critical failure by the NPC may change how they loose, but likely not whether they loose.
In contrast, the impact of a critical failure for PCs can make a combat more lethal or more costly. The exact effect will depend on the failure rules you implement, but it's not going to be lost in the wash as it is for NPCs.

For non-combat encounters, the disparity in how often PCs & NPCs roll is even more extreme. NPCs do not generally need to roll investigation or persuasion: in most situations, if an NPC is making a skill check it's because there is a contested roll against a PC involved. That means that, on net, we can expect this change to make non-combat rolls harder for PCs without as severe an impact on NPCs.

How does this affect the interaction of PCs with each other?
The change, fundamentally, is about rolling. That means that PCs that roll more d20s will be impacted more.
In practice, this means that the change will be more impactful for martial and skill-based characters and less impactful for spell-casters.

How does this affect the interaction of PCs with the broader world/environment?
Impact of failures for rolled situations increase. This can potentially increase lethality or divert the plot.
The precise effects will depend heavily on how often you roll and for what kind of interactions.

Summarize the prior 3 from the 100000-foot view: in one sentence, what is the effect of the rule on gameplay as a whole?
The game likely becomes more lethal and more randomized.

Does the impact of the change support the goal?
If looking at the nostalgia goal broadly, then the answer might well be yes. Earlier versions of the game, especially 2nd edition and prior were notably more lethal and more random.
Depending on what editions and what aspects thereof you are nostalgic for, this may not hold.
Or, if you are specifically nostalgic for critical rolls in particular it may hold as a simple tautology.

If you are aiming for increased lethality and/or randomness, then it will certainly have the desired effect.

Are the ancillary impacts of the change worth the goal?
You'll have to decide that yourself. I probably wouldn't do it for an undefined nostalgia, but if lethality & randomness are what you're aiming for then it's not a bad change.

That said, if those are your goals then it might not be enough - on its own - to meaningfully accomplish them.
5e can do a quasi-AD&D meat-grinder, but you need to make several non-default choices to support it.
That kind of game assumes far more disposable PCs than most people presume for 5e. I would probably recommenced enforcing rolled characters - and even enforcing them being rolled at table under a time-limit.
You also probably need to aim at more lethal encounters than 5e (or, really, any edition after 2nd) presumes by default, or presume a significantly larger number of them between rests.

In particular, it's worth noting that it's probably not worth doing this if caster-martial power disparity is an issue for your table.

Do the players you're DMing for agree with the goal in question and your assessment of the impacts?
That's between you and your players.

Meat-grinders can be fun, if you know what you're getting into. Especially as one-shots.
Or a recurring side thing that you use as a break from narrative campaigns when you need them.

But they're also not going to go over well if the expectation is a long, narrative-driven heroic story arc.

Since I let my self run away a bit...
TL;DR? Critical failure rules can have a place if you're aiming for a high-lethality, high-randomness meat grinder.
But that's not what most people assume of a 5e game in the abstract, and critical failure rules alone are not enough to push most 5e games into that play-space.

langal
2020-08-12, 04:29 PM
High level fighters will fumble every 5 rounds of combat. More if they action surge or are hasted.

The most skilled warriors in the land dropping their weapon, stabbing themselves, breaking their sword, killing their friend, etc. every 30 seconds is not "fumbling". It being "gimped" and just playing sucking at combat.

JackPhoenix
2020-08-12, 05:10 PM
Hate 'em in 5e, hated 'em in previous edition.

That being said, in the current game I'm running, every spell cast requires a d20 check to see if miscast happens. But that's because it's a Warhammer game using 5e D&D rules, and magic being dangerous is a part of the setting.

JNAProductions
2020-08-12, 05:14 PM
So in other words, in a turn where the PC has two attacks, they get 10% chances of having double damage once, or to get -5% chances to hit on all subsequent attacks with that weapon until at minimum the end of the fight, and more likely until the next rest?

Which means that in a combat of three rounds, the 2-attacks character has 30% chances of getting their damage doubled once, and 30% chances of getting hindered for all following attacks with that weapon until time is taken to solve it.


To reformulate again: past lvl 5, most martials have to get their weapon fixed every 10 rounds (aproximatively) if they want to play without hinderance, or change the weapon altogether, and in return they get double damage once.

Not exactly a Beowulf-style "you're so strong your sword can't handle it" trade off, IMO.

Which confirm what I said: never seen a DM that made their crit successes worth their custom crit fails

That's not quite how the math works.

Any given attack has a 5% chance of degrading your weapon.

Which means, in a three-round combat, at two attacks per round, you have a...

Just over one in four chance of degrading at least once, just over 3% of degrading twice, and about a fifth of a percent of losing the weapon entirely.

Now, move up to level 11 (for Fighters, attack number three), add in one Action Surge, and assume two combats of three rounds each...

That's 21 attacks.
A 66% chance of degrading once during that time.
A 28% chance of degrading twice.
And an 8.5% chance of losing the weapon entirely.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-12, 05:35 PM
Hate 'em in 5e, hated 'em in previous edition.

That being said, in the current game I'm running, every spell cast requires a d20 check to see if miscast happens. But that's because it's a Warhammer game using 5e D&D rules, and magic being dangerous is a part of the setting.

how often does it feel like a the bad thing happens (by perception, not math)?
frankly, i am a fan of magic should have risks or costs...

Zevox
2020-08-12, 06:12 PM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?
Eh, I'm not a big fan of it myself, due to the previously much-mention issue that it causes characters who roll more dice to be more prone to having bad things happen to them than those who roll less, thus penalizing higher-level characters and martials, but I'm not adamantly opposed to it or anything, as long as what happens isn't too bad.

My group does use them, because everyone else (players and DM) like them for comedic and occasionally dramatic effect, and I'm pretty okay with how they work with us. None of the extreme examples I've seen elsewhere in this thread (self-harm, mostly) happen; at worst you might accidentally hit an ally or open yourself up to an attack of opportunity. More often you'll drop your weapon or get it stuck in a wall or the like. And it applies to enemies, too, and usually worse than it does to players - they're the ones that usually hurt themselves or their allies. In trade-off, natural 20s also often lead to better results, such as negating damage when success normally halves it (though that too applies to enemies), or getting an extra attack or some kind of cleaving damage to another enemy when you crit (don't think we've ever given that one to enemies).

Besides, I'm currently playing a Halfling, so I'm all but immune to it in our current group thanks to their lucky trait. My favorite perk of the race by far, that one. Since starting playing him a year and a half ago I've only once managed to roll an actual 1 past it, and I was still able to negate that by using Inspiration to gain advantage on the roll afterward (which I know isn't necessarily RAW, but our DM chose to allow it).

langal
2020-08-12, 06:28 PM
That's not quite how the math works.

Any given attack has a 5% chance of degrading your weapon.

Which means, in a three-round combat, at two attacks per round, you have a...

Just over one in four chance of degrading at least once, just over 3% of degrading twice, and about a fifth of a percent of losing the weapon entirely.

Now, move up to level 11 (for Fighters, attack number three), add in one Action Surge, and assume two combats of three rounds each...

That's 21 attacks.
A 66% chance of degrading once during that time.
A 28% chance of degrading twice.
And an 8.5% chance of losing the weapon entirely.

The fighter will invariably be gimped the better he or she .. well ... fights.

Fighters will be reliant on Wizards with the Mending cantrip to get them through the day. With enough martials, the Wizard could conceivably lead the pack in damage contributed via that cantrip alone. I suppose bows just become unusable because the string breaks...

JackPhoenix
2020-08-13, 05:25 AM
how often does it feel like a the bad thing happens (by perception, not math)?
frankly, i am a fan of magic should have risks or costs...

Not often enough, as far as I'm concerned, but that's because the group's mage is very lucky with his rolls. IIRC, the miscast was legitimaley rolled (instead of being in a tainted location where every spell was automatically a miscast) once, with the result being a random field nearby being blighted. Considering they were in a ruined, cursed city of Mordheim at the time, it didn't achieve much.

rlc
2020-08-13, 05:41 AM
They can be fun, but they're usually not.

Unoriginal
2020-08-13, 06:55 AM
While that's fair again the ridiculousness is kinda what my group enjoys. I assume that my group is much less serious than a lot of groups here. Which is totally fine and I understand

Tastes are tastes, nothing wrong with liking it.

Personally I muuuch prefer "silly but competent" (ex: a goofy NPC who is still very dangerous, like a ton of D&D villains) than "silly because incompetent"

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 06:56 AM
The fighter will invariably be gimped the better he or she .. well ... fights.

Fighters will be reliant on Wizards with the Mending cantrip to get them through the day. With enough martials, the Wizard could conceivably lead the pack in damage contributed via that cantrip alone. I suppose bows just become unusable because the string breaks...

I am not seeing this argument.
Rolling a 1 is literally "the better he fights"
The fighter is equally likely to roll a 20, which is literally "the better he fights"

If a fighter or wizard is too stubborn to swap a damaged weapon/focus (free action during combat) or repair it throughout the entire adventuring day, then yes they will be gimped.
But would someone not take the short rest to repair their equipment if it is an option?

Do you also complaint that Fighters will be reliant on Clerics with healing spells to get therm through the day?

I get that people don't like crit fails , but your weapon degrading is not the end of the world.
(actually I don't, I see everyone react as loudly on a nat 1 as a nat 20... because they know it should mean something)

lastly, I am not sure JNA's math is right...

stoutstien
2020-08-13, 07:06 AM
I am not seeing this argument.
Rolling a 1 is literally "the better he fights"
The fighter is equally likely to roll a 20, which is literally "the better he fights"

If a fighter or wizard is too stubborn to swap a damaged weapon/focus (free action during combat) or repair it throughout the entire adventuring day, then yes they will be gimped.
But would someone not take the short rest to repair their equipment if it is an option?

Do you also complaint that Fighters will be reliant on Clerics with healing spells to get therm through the day?

I get that people don't like crit fails , but your weapon degrading is not the end of the world.
(actually I don't, I see everyone react as loudly on a nat 1 as a nat 20... because they know it should mean something)

lastly, I am not sure JNA's math is right...
the problem is you're getting way more weight to critical fails now then critical success. Critical Hits are mostly pointless being a very minor bump in damage outside of a few select builds. If you're going to make 1s more damaging than 20 is need equal treatment.

why would a fighter be relying on a cleric for healing throughout an adventuring day?

I don't have a problem with weapon degrading but it should be based on player decision not random number generation.

Amnestic
2020-08-13, 07:11 AM
I am not seeing this argument.
Rolling a 1 is literally "the better he fights"
The fighter is equally likely to roll a 20, which is literally "the better he fights"

If a fighter or wizard is too stubborn to swap a damaged weapon/focus (free action during combat) or repair it throughout the entire adventuring day, then yes they will be gimped.
But would someone not take the short rest to repair their equipment if it is an option?
.

Are all the fighter's theoretical weapons equal in strength? Nothing magical? All identical in strength and type? How much is he dropping on silvering multiple blades to fight these lycanthropes? Are the casters similarly penalised with gold for such an upgrade being damaged?

And swapping a weapon isn't a free action - dropping the weapon is not the same as *stowing* a weapon. You drop a shiny, albeit damaged, +2 longsword at the foot of these goblins and they're going to nab it and run. It's theirs now.

And lord forbid you damage your weapon more than once in a single round. Unlikely, but definitely possible.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-13, 08:00 AM
I personally enjoy crit fails, though my players don't and so I don't use them. Heck, one of my fondest , and most entertaining, DnD experiences was a crit fail back in 3.5.

We were playing a high power, high magic campaign, we were high level, and my Ranger had gotten his hands on an Icy/Firey Burst Greatbow. For those not in the know, basically its a 1d10 Longbow that did ×3 damage on a crit. The Icy and Firey Burst added 2d10 for each element. So if I crit I basically did 5d10×3 damage.

Well, I rolled a crit 1, rolled to see what happened and ended up shooting myself. I had to make an attack roll against myself, crit, and did the confirmation roll and succeeded. So I ended up shooting myself for about an average of 81 damage before mods, and it was hilarious. We roleplayed it with the arrow bouncing off my target, then off the Fighter's shield, and hitting me square in the throat as I took nearly 100 damage. It was amazing!! And properly funny.

Xervous
2020-08-13, 08:07 AM
The fumble distribution is a simple (1-X)^(A-B) * X^B * combin(A,B) where
X is fumble chance
A is number of attacks
B is how many fumbles are observed
This outputs a percent that represents how likely it is you see the chosen B number of fumbles in the period of attacks A.

For A= 21, X = 0.05 the results on various inputs of B are
34.1% of zero
37.6% of one
19.8% two
6.6% three
1.5% four
0.28% five
And numbers just get smaller after that.

Frankly it’s tedium and fiddly numbers in a system that was trying to get away from such. And surprise, it is to the detriment of martials as usual.

If I was ever to feel the need to model wear and tear on weapons my experience with the kludge known as Bethesda’s Fallout titles has made it clear that tacking a penalty on a “never fired only scratched once” weapon is a disservice to players. They always feel suboptimal. FONV addressed this by adjusting item durability to have the upper 20% be a grace period of maximum performance. Swiftly broken easily repaired is just tedium. Slowly creeping towards penalties and a bit harder to repair can get a better response. The players won’t be pulling out three spare weapons per skirmish, the fighter will decide it’s not worth dulling his flametongue on the twenty goblins since this dungeon could go on for days and he’d like to have the extra durability just in case.

rumplepum
2020-08-13, 08:46 AM
Well, I rolled a crit 1, rolled to see what happened and ended up shooting myself. I had to make an attack roll against myself, crit, and did the confirmation roll and succeeded. So I ended up shooting myself for about an average of 81 damage before mods, and it was hilarious. We roleplayed it with the arrow bouncing off my target, then off the Fighter's shield, and hitting me square in the throat as I took nearly 100 damage. It was amazing!! And properly funny....That sounds like the exact anthesis of "fun" to me but there's no accounting for taste. You like them, then you like them.

I will admit that I'm curious of the ramifications of that in a world where shooting a bow is not unlikely to result in your own arrow piercing your throat.

KorvinStarmast
2020-08-13, 08:54 AM
Which confirm what I said: never seen a DM that made their crit successes worth their custom crit fails Only saw one who was ever good at that, but he used the fumble tables as a guideline, not as a hard and fast rule. His improvisational technique was awesome in a lot of ways.
High level fighters will fumble every 5 rounds of combat. More if they action surge or are hasted.

The most skilled warriors in the land dropping their weapon Like Roy Greenhilt? :smallbiggrin:

That being said, in the current game I'm running, every spell cast requires a d20 check to see if miscast happens. But that's because it's a Warhammer game using 5e D&D rules, and magic being dangerous is a part of the setting. We did that a long time ago in a D&D campaign, AD&D 1e, with magical castings from wands/staves/etc. 1/20 chance for a misfire. (Everything was a little bit 'wand of wonder' in that regard). The DM was a good one, and usually the misfire got turned into something hilarious, so the table's 'tone' probably makes a big difference in such a case.

Hail Tempus
2020-08-13, 09:09 AM
One of my biggest issues with the concept of critical fails is their complete randomness. I don't have a problem with players failing because they make foolish choices. But, a critical fail is simply a 1 in 20 chance of something bad happening to a PC. A fighter swinging his weapon isn't making a poor choice. A rogue trying to pick a lock isn't making a poor choice. They're simply using the dice to calculate their in-game changes of succeeding with their character's abilities.

I'm okay with the idea that, 1 in 20 times, a warrior might miss an attack, no matter how skilled he is. That reflects some of the chaos of battle, where even the most highly trained swordsman might get his elbow jostled, or have sweat run into his eyes right before making an attack. For a high level fighter, that's not a big deal, given how many attacks they have. But, as others have pointed out on this thread, if you use critical fails in such a situation, the 20th level Champion Fighter (who is perfects the pinnacle of swordsmen in a particular gaming world), who decides to action surge on a given turn, has a significantly higher chance of some drastically bad effect that turn than a first level wizard swinging a greatsword.

Call of Cthulhu has a concept of "pushing your roll." Normally, if you fail on a skill check, that just means you don't succeed in your goal. For example, failing a Climb roll just means you don't advance up the cliff. However, the player can then decide to push his roll and take another crack at the cliff. If he fails the second roll, however, that will result in a negative consequence (such as falling). That approach gives players much more agency than rolling on a failure table 1 out of 20 times.

Historically, I think critical fails have typically been a tool of sadistic DM's, and not much more.

JNAProductions
2020-08-13, 09:27 AM
I am not seeing this argument.
Rolling a 1 is literally "the better he fights"
The fighter is equally likely to roll a 20, which is literally "the better he fights"

If a fighter or wizard is too stubborn to swap a damaged weapon/focus (free action during combat) or repair it throughout the entire adventuring day, then yes they will be gimped.
But would someone not take the short rest to repair their equipment if it is an option?

Do you also complaint that Fighters will be reliant on Clerics with healing spells to get therm through the day?

I get that people don't like crit fails , but your weapon degrading is not the end of the world.
(actually I don't, I see everyone react as loudly on a nat 1 as a nat 20... because they know it should mean something)

lastly, I am not sure JNA's math is right...

What do you see is wrong with the math? I used Anydice (https://anydice.com/) to make it easier on myself, but that's a pretty reliable site.

Hail Tempus
2020-08-13, 09:36 AM
I am surprised at the push back against crit fails in combat.

I am also surprised that the complaints aren't "it's inconsistently played by the DM"

Yes, crit fails affect martials more often than mages.
crit successes affect martials more often than mages.

The affects don't have to be comical, and can positively influence how the character abilitis are used.
I often use weapon/focus does -1 damage until it is repaired.
so the fighter has a reason to switch to the maul... or the wizard uses the pouch.

this means Mending and smithing skills have a purpose and actually get used. Do you start every combat with the NPC monsters' weapons being in a range of disrepair? If the players have a chance of having negatives on their attack or damage rolls or whatever due to recent combat, the NPCs should be in the same boat.

If you don't do this, then the rule only impacts the players. If you do, it seems like a painful bit of fiddly record-keeping for the DM. Who really wants to keep track of goblin #47's specific damage bonus?

Willie the Duck
2020-08-13, 10:03 AM
High level fighters will fumble every 5 rounds of combat. More if they action surge or are hasted.

This is a fundamental problem -- how often you roll a dice is very character-dependent.

Were I to make a fumble system (perhaps because I wanted a goofy campaign) I would do something like this:
At the end of a round, everyone rolls a d20 (or maybe D100, if we want it rare). On a 1, you get a '-'; on the maximum roll (20 or 100), you get a '+'.
In the next couple of rounds, you the player get to decide to spend that + or -. It is mostly narrative, and you describe some way that you do something really well or really poorly. Possibly some mechanical benefit for the + side, and mostly self-imposed negative for the - side. If, however, you roll another - before you have spent the first one, then the DM gets to enforce the - on you, and then and only then will you get some real suckitude like dropping or chipping your weapon, slipping and falling in front of your enemy, or similar.

That seems 1) more fair (based on differences in how frequently one rolls dice), 2) still flavorful, and 3) not making combat be a farce where characters die through no poor decisions on their part (more than the game does in general).

Personally I think it would be a lot of extra rolling and bookkeeping in what is already a semi-lengthy combat system, so I likely wouldn't use it, but the above setup seems a lot better than the roll-1-on-attack-rolls setup often used.

Waterdeep Merch
2020-08-13, 10:35 AM
Critical fumbles and gear degradation only *really* work if you design them around dynamic subsystems. It doesn't have to be anything major, but when I designed my own, I realized there were a few parts of RAW 5e that had to be changed to go with it. Namely gear expectations and crafting, the nature and timing of magic item attunement, and the action economy regarding weapon and shield swapping.

Simulationism is the usual reason these things are even made, but that's not a good enough excuse in and of itself. It has to have interplay and feel good for the players to interact with, perhaps as a balancing move on top of another system they enjoy. And it absolutely should apply to enemies as well, if for no other reason than to make the players believe you're being fair.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 11:41 AM
What do you see is wrong with the math?.
First thing that jumped out was 21 attacks =/= 2 combats * 3 rounds/combat * 3 attacks/round


the problem is you're getting way more weight to critical fails now then critical success. Critical Hits are mostly pointless being a very minor bump in damage outside of a few select builds. If you're going to make 1s more damaging than 20 is need equal treatment.
How are 1s more damaging than 20s?

i see that in a crit fail in first round of 3 rounds of combat, 2 attacks is 6 points (assuming no weapon swap)
i see that 1 crit success is 6 points (plus procs)


why would a fighter be relying on a cleric for healing throughout an adventuring day?
same reason she is relying on wizard for mending throughout an adventuring day.


Do you start every combat with the NPC monsters' weapons being in a range of disrepair?
If you don't do this, then the rule only impacts the players.
I don't assume the NPC monsters start with poison, disease, damage, spent slots either.

JNAProductions
2020-08-13, 11:43 AM
First thing that jumped out was 21 attacks =/= 2 combats * 3 rounds/combat * 3 attacks/round

And one Action Surge.

Xervous
2020-08-13, 11:50 AM
And one Action Surge.

Can you link the anydice code you used?

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 11:50 AM
Do you/your players react to a Nat 1 differently from a normal fail, even if crit fail rules aren't in play?

JNAProductions
2020-08-13, 11:51 AM
Can you link the anydice code you used?

Here it is. (https://anydice.com/program/1d406) It's dead simple.

To find the odds I used, to the right of data, hit "At Least" instead of "Normal".

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 11:54 AM
Here it is. (https://anydice.com/program/1d406) It's dead simple.

To find the odds I used, to the right of data, hit "At Least" instead of "Normal".

ah, thanks, that was pretty simple.

stoutstien
2020-08-13, 11:57 AM
Nothing like making Martials even more back seat PCs needing casters to make sure the poor little weapons are fixed when they break them.....

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 12:08 PM
Nothing like making Martials even more back seat PCs needing casters to make sure the poor little weapons are fixed when they break them.....
Nothing like making Martials even more back seat PCs needing casters to make sure the poor little HP are fixed when the enemy hits them...

of course, we know that,
Martials can switch weapons in combat, just like they can use abilities/items to cure their own damage.
Martials can use skills to repair during short rest, just like they can use abilities/items/dice to cure their own damage.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 12:18 PM
Call of Cthulhu has a concept of "pushing your roll." Normally, if you fail on a skill check, that just means you don't succeed in your goal. For example, failing a Climb roll just means you don't advance up the cliff. However, the player can then decide to push his roll and take another crack at the cliff. If he fails the second roll, however, that will result in a negative consequence (such as falling). That approach gives players much more agency than rolling on a failure table 1 out of 20 times.

It also has the concept of "fumble" (rolling 96-100, or about 1 out of 20 times). A fumble adds negative consequence.

JNAProductions
2020-08-13, 12:18 PM
Nothing like making Martials even more back seat PCs needing casters to make sure the poor little HP are fixed when the enemy hits them...

of course, we know that,
Martials can switch weapons in combat, just like they can use abilities/items to cure their own damage.
Martials can use skills to repair during short rest, just like they can use abilities/items/dice to cure their own damage.

Two points.

1) Do you also give every martial class proficiency in an artisan tool, so that they can do that?

2) What penalty do caster see? Because "It's a manageable penalty," doesn't mean that the penalty ceases to exist.

langal
2020-08-13, 12:21 PM
Nothing like making Martials even more back seat PCs needing casters to make sure the poor little HP are fixed when the enemy hits them...

of course, we know that,
Martials can switch weapons in combat, just like they can use abilities/items to cure their own damage.
Martials can use skills to repair during short rest, just like they can use abilities/items/dice to cure their own damage.

How about fumbles for spellcasters? Broken spell components. Sore throats. Spilling ink on a spellbook.

If you're after "realism", I also don't see how someone can repair a broken sword in an hour without magical help. I suppose Heat Metal could have blacksmithing applications. Then you need to let it cool and harden and stuff. Could take a while and you would need tools obviously to pound the blade back into shape.

langal
2020-08-13, 12:24 PM
It also has the concept of "fumble" (rolling 96-100, or about 1 out of 20 times). A fumble adds negative consequence.

That's the basic problem. 5 percent is way too much for a skilled warrior. And it doesn't scale well obviously.

Amnestic
2020-08-13, 12:27 PM
Nothing like making Martials even more back seat PCs needing casters to make sure the poor little HP are fixed when the enemy hits them...

of course, we know that,
Martials can switch weapons in combat, just like they can use abilities/items to cure their own damage.
Martials can use skills to repair during short rest, just like they can use abilities/items/dice to cure their own damage.


I'm not sure "Martials are reliant on casters for health so lets *also* make them reliant on casters for their weapons" is a winning argument. You've not addressed the very real concern that not all weapons are equal, the verisimilitude breaking somewhat if you're lugging around three identical greataxes because they are near guaranteed to need replacing during the adventuring day.

If I, as a DM, end up dropping a +1 Longsword for a player am I now obligated to provide an additional two or more +1 Longswords so they can effortlessly swap between them? Or does damaging their +1 Longsword (or Silver Longsword, or whatever) suddenly cause a loss in power that *cannot be overcome* during combat because their extra weapons aren't magical or silvered or whatever.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 12:34 PM
1) Do you also give every martial class proficiency in an artisan tool, so that they can do that?
they can select it during character creation per PHB.


2) What penalty do caster see? Because "It's a manageable penalty," doesn't mean that the penalty ceases to exist.

How about fumbles for spellcasters? Broken spell components. Sore throats. Spilling ink on a spellbook.

neat, if only i mentioned damaging the focus or the component pouch.... oh wait.


If you're after "realism",
never said realism, i discussed making their choices matter.


I also don't see how someone can repair a broken sword in an hour without magical help.
I also don't see how someone can remove fatal wounds in an hour without magical help, and yet here are are...

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 12:42 PM
I'm not sure "Martials are reliant on casters for health so lets *also* make them reliant on casters for their weapons" is a winning argument.
Neat, if that's what I was arguing.


You've not addressed the very real concern that not all weapons are equal, the verisimilitude breaking somewhat if you're lugging around three identical greataxes because they are near guaranteed to need replacing during the adventuring day.
yeah, sorry, yours got swallowed amount the 5 or so other response.

It isn't a bad thing to have unequal choices. It isn't a bad thing to have to make choices.


If I, as a DM, end up dropping a +1 Longsword for a player am I now obligated to provide an additional two or more +1 Longswords so they can effortlessly swap between them? Or does damaging their +1 Longsword (or Silver Longsword, or whatever) suddenly cause a loss in power that *cannot be overcome* during combat because their extra weapons aren't magical or silvered or whatever.
if your choice of success or failure comes down to: use a non-magical weapon against a creature immune to non-magical damage OR use a magical weapon with -1 penalty... and you choose the non-magical weapon... that ain't the fault of a Nat 1.

OvisCaedo
2020-08-13, 12:46 PM
It isn't a bad thing to have unequal choices. It isn't a bad thing to have to make choices.


if your choice of success or failure comes down to: use a non-magical weapon against a creature immune to non-magical damage OR use a magical weapon with -1 penalty... and you choose the non-magical weapon... that ain't the fault of a Nat 1.

Sure, that's not the nat 1's fault. It's also not really a choice "mattering" so much as creating choices that can only be wrong, and the players likely being penalized either way! "Choose to spend one of your proficiencies on repair kits or have your gear regularly penalized by mechanically enforced character incompetence" also doesn't sound like a great choice to me.

Kyutaru
2020-08-13, 12:47 PM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?

Okay, so, you're not wrong as a DM for enjoying crit fails.

In fact, there are RPGs specifically built to include these crit fails in them. The newest version of Star Wars is a perfect example. Lots of negative effects are built into the dice and it takes positive luck to cancel out the bad luck. The nature of that game is less mechanical and more theatrics. The crit fails add a dynamic to the storytelling by signalling to the gamemaster that this is the moment to describe some horrible stroke of bad luck that could amount to just about anything in the heat of battle. Fate and Destiny itself play a part in the adventure and sometimes things just don't go your way, depicting the struggle between the dark and the light.

That said 5E is really not the place for crit fails. They unfairly punish a small subset of the players who rely more heavily on rolling and result in hazards that cause players to gravitate towards dice-less options. When you hate RNG you become a Wizard and avoid evocation and enchantment like the plague.

If it were a game like Vampire or Mage where even the casters had to roll just to cast then it'd make more sense to allow for theatrical failure now and then. Instead, 5E runs a tight ship and expects everything to go exactly as so and minor setbacks can result in terrifying consequences for PCs who have a mere fraction of the power and reliability they had in previous editions. Stat stacking is gone so terrible things happening are already common (like missing) whereas in past editions the crit failure was the ONLY WAY something bad ever happened because fighters never missed otherwise.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 12:49 PM
To all. I am bowing out.

My goal isn't to convince you it's a good idea.
It was to answer the OP.

I was surprised at the push back against him, I am still surprised at the push back against me.

Frankly, every response i give generates 4 posts demanding I answer their corner cases all at once, it isn't worth it.
And in general, I am not impressed by the arguments against them, because they work really hard to sidestep the reality at the table

JNAProductions
2020-08-13, 12:50 PM
1 they can select it during character creation per PHB.

2 neat, if only i mentioned damaging the focus or the component pouch.... oh wait.

3) never said realism, i discussed making their choices matter.

4) I also don't see how someone can remove fatal wounds in an hour without magical help, and yet here are are...

1) So they're down a language or tool from background, relative to casters, if they want to be self-sufficient. That's a nerf.

2) I've gone through this whole thread, using ctrl-F for your name. I didn't see anything about damaging caster's gear. If I missed it, please quote yourself.

Moreover, even if enemies target caster's gear, that's not the same as breaking your own gear on your own attacks.

3) What choice is there? You repair it on a short rest, but practically have to have the right artisan tool proficiency, or rely on friends to do it for you. In combat, you drop a damaged weapon to replace it with a new one (if you have spares). That's not adding meaningful choices.

4) Okay, that's perfectly fair.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 12:55 PM
2) I've gone through this whole thread, using ctrl-F for your name. I didn't see anything about damaging caster's gear. If I missed it, please quote yourself.
post 31, my first post. " or the wizard uses the pouch."

this is what i meant by not worth it.

JNAProductions
2020-08-13, 01:02 PM
post 31, my first post. " or the wizard uses the pouch."

this is what i meant by not worth it.

Okay. This seems to ignore that casters just plain roll less attacks than martials do.

Many of their abilities force saves, which wouldn't inflict any penalties on them.

Additionally, multiple component pouches are easier to manage than multiple greatswords.

It really shafts martials more than casters, without adding meaningful or fun decision making.

In the end, it nerfs players (some more than others) and doesn't, as far as I can see, add anything fun to the table.

Hecuba
2020-08-13, 01:25 PM
Only saw one who was ever good at that, but he used the fumble tables as a guideline, not as a hard and fast rule.

Good improvisation, from both the DM and the player, can make both critical successes and fumbles work much better - both in terms of payoff and execution.
Improvisation isn't the only option though.


One option I've liked is having small decks of effects. Roll a 20, draw from the good deck. Roll a 1, draw from the bad deck.
The catch is that you have to draw up decks of effects for each of the broad types of rolls you apply the rule to: attacks, spells, and skills - likely needing to segregate skills into broad groupings to get workable effects. This also has the advantage of encouraging casters to use spells that require rolls - though the effect generally isn't big enough to make a significant dent in that issue.
Another option is to use it as an advantage/disadvantage engine. Roll a crit, get advantage on your next roll. Roll a fumble, get disadvantage on your next roll. This neatly captures the idea that you've not just failed on the attack for example, but failed badly enough that you've hurt your positioning. This lessens the direct applicability to PCs that are already built with an advantage options, but it also gives PCs a way to use advantage options to offset a fumble.


The key is making the effects on either end balanced. "You auto-hit and deal an extra bucket of damage" simply isn't something that balances against most conceivable fumble effects.

OldTrees1
2020-08-13, 01:27 PM
Here it is. (https://anydice.com/program/1d406) It's dead simple.

To find the odds I used, to the right of data, hit "At Least" instead of "Normal".


ah, thanks, that was pretty simple.

Neat trick for future anydice use:


NAT: (1d20=1)
output 21dNAT

rumplepum
2020-08-13, 01:57 PM
I was surprised at the push back against him, I am still surprised at the push back against me.Literally noone was pushing back against the OP or you. I think every post included some variation of "if you like critical fails, that's fine, have fun."


Frankly, every response i give generates 4 posts demanding I answer their corner cases all at once, it isn't worth it.
And in general, I am not impressed by the arguments against them, because they work really hard to sidestep the reality at the tableAnd I think the OP has largely gotten the feedback they were looking for, at least of this small sample size.

And equally, I was unimpressed with your arguments. This got us no where so why not agree to disagree?

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 02:43 PM
Literally noone was pushing back against the OP or you. I think every post included some variation of "if you like critical fails, that's fine, have fun."
Pushback: a negative or unfavorable reaction or response.
Literally, stoutstein, JNA, Ovis, Amnestic, Tempus, and rumple had a negative and unfavorable reaction to my post.
Literally 0 of them said, if you like crit fails cool in posts to me.


And equally, I was unimpressed with your arguments. This got us no where so why not agree to disagree?
which arguments:

I like crit fails?
the crit hits do more damage than crit fails cost damage?
fighters get more crits succ/fail than mages?
this might not be a good fit for your table?
this lets players use their stupid skills that otherwise don't get used?
that players react to a Nat 1 as though it should matter?
which parts do we disagree on?

OldTrees1
2020-08-13, 02:46 PM
Edit: Removed quote

Is this a good time to reboot the conversation?

Ask your players. They will be disadvantaged by the rules more than NPCs will be.
Ask your players. Crit fail rules are inherently badly designed. This is not edition specific. The crit fail homebrew was badly designed back in 1st edition too. Most of it comes down to the detail that "not every character rolls the same number of d20s". An orc might roll 3. An orc shaman might roll 0. An orc barbarian PC might roll 1000. An orc fighter PC might roll 2000. An orc fighter using 2 weapons might roll 3000. An orc shaman PC might roll 100.

I have found the following works well for the groups I have been with:
On a skill/ability check, if they fail the check, and rolled a nat 1, and mention they rolled a nat 1, then I try to come up with a crit fail result. The crit fail result is designed as a consolation prize to the failure. While it is usually a downside to the character, it needs to be something interesting to the player.

An example that worked in my group, it might not work in yours:
A NPC had a small feather in their hair. It could easily be overlooked. When character A was trying to discreetly show character B, I had character B make a perception check. They failed, and it was a nat 1, that they announced. So I ruled character B literally could not see the feather (for a secret duration of 1 hour). This was especially fun for the players when they got their hands on the feather but their Druid (character B) could not see it. 12 sessions later they got the feather back out because it was relevant, but this time the Druid could see it.

Why this design? (Buy-in, reduced rate, it's a reward, not in combat)
1) If they player gets a nat 1 but does not want a crit fail, they don't get a crit fail. This also decreases the rate to much less than 1/20.
2) Crit fails only happen if the check already failed. This also decreases the rate.
3) I won't always come up with a good crit fail, so I have the option to not use a bad one
4) The crit fails are designed to reward the player, even if not rewarding their character
5) They are rare. They can add a bit of humor but only if used sparingly.
6) It is not used in combat.
7) The downside is not extreme and is not the point. The downside is the means of adding an interesting consolation prize to the player.
8) Yes, this can mean a player might prefer a nat 1 over a nat 2.

Tanarii
2020-08-13, 02:58 PM
The Mutant Zero engine has stat and gear breaking on critical fails. But the way it works, you have to fail, then elect to take a free reroll (push the roll)to attempt to succeed. And you can often see in advance if you're going to take some breakage points before you choose to reroll.

It's a choices and consequences system. Much better than 1/20 per attack roll which makes it worse to attack more often or to use physical attack rolls at all instead of magic spells.

Amnestic
2020-08-13, 03:14 PM
Literally 0 of them said, if you like crit fails cool in posts to me.



I mean I shouldn't need to reiterate it when it's literally in my first post (the very first reply even) of the thread.

But if you make an argument in *support* of them when I don't like them then...yeah, I'll question it, especially if I think it's something that could be improved upon or if I think it's a bad argument in their favour.

Man on Fire
2020-08-13, 03:22 PM
Hi, so I was just wanting to kinda test the opinion of this forum and see what people thought because I briefly mentioned crit fails as a house rule on a different forum and people generally disagree with how I was taught to play in previous editions and I was absolutely torn to shreds by people saying that 5e has no place for crit fails and I was wrong. So I wanted to ask in another place. Am I wrong as a DM for enjoying a crit fail? Has its place kinda been lost in this edition? Do you guys use crit fails in 5e?

No one likes being made into an incompetent fool who cannot hold his sword due to one bad roll.

stoutstien
2020-08-13, 03:26 PM
If I came off negative it was unintentional. I really don't have an option about critical fail/pass because it is something each table will have to decide individually.

Waterdeep Merch
2020-08-13, 03:41 PM
No one likes being made into an incompetent fool who cannot hold his sword due to one bad roll.
Erm. I do. And it's not like this is an alien concept, because I'm hardly the only person that plays in games where catastrophic failure and accidents are possibilities, even random ones. I can point you to a treasure trove of evidence, such a video gaming's dawning realization post-Dark Souls that there's a market for that very thing. Or how Nintendo party games use extreme random chance like this as a feature all the time.

Or how you can lose a hand of poker just because you got dealt a bad hand. Gambling in general, actually, especially high stakes gambling. You're acting like no one plays roulette, ever, especially with real money.

Some people legitimately desire the challenge. Some people like the satisfaction of winning as the underdog. And some people only appreciate a victory if it flirted with the potential for everything to have gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Don't mistake a player's desire to get stronger, seek out advantages, and avoid consequences with a deliberate want for a game devoid of weakness, traps, danger, or challenge. Some people, myself included, find immeasurable enjoyment in surviving those things and would find any game without them too dull to bother attending.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 03:48 PM
But if you make an argument in *support* of them when I don't like them then...yeah, I'll question it, especially if I think it's something that could be improved upon or if I think it's a bad argument in their favour.


the verisimilitude breaking somewhat if you're lugging around three identical greataxes because they are near guaranteed to need replacing during the adventuring day.
If my rule required you carry 3 greataxes, then i could see this being a valid counter argument...


If I came off negative it was unintentional.


Nothing like making Martials even more back seat PCs needing casters to make sure the poor little weapons are fixed when they break them.....
I can see how that was accidentally negative


I was answering questions honestly and openly. I don't think I was rude to the fair arguments, mostly cuz i agree with em.
I got snarky after people started taking my comments out of context.
If you don't like the rule fine, you can point out why.

Amnestic
2020-08-13, 04:04 PM
If my rule required you carry 3 greataxes, then i could see this being a valid counter argument...


According to the maths posted, you're looking at a 28% chance of damaging two weapons across two encounters, six rounds, which is a fair amount of combat between short rests. If you wanted to maintain your optimal damage as a greataxe wielder then you're looking at a greater than 1-in-4 chance that you will need to carry three weapons to do so. Chances are this sort of situation would, on average, crop up once every two long rests at least.

You're the one who was saying that there were ways around it like swapping weapons - carrying 3 greataxes is the logical conclusion of that.

The follow up of magic/silvered weapons was then pointing out how swapping weapons is not viable once you surpass starter weapons. Yes, magic items are 'optional' officially but they're also...in pretty much every game, including adventure league stuff, so it's not like they're an obscure variant rule no one uses.

The conclusion from that is that *as described* martials are overly punished compared to spellcasters - foci/holy symbols don't (as a general rule) give +hit/+damage bonuses like magic weapons, spells aren't cast as frequently as attacks are made after 5th level, and thus less likely to be 'damaged', and even if they are damaged, losing 1 damage is often far less impactful for a spellcaster than a martial since they can provoke saves or use buffs instead.

Man on Fire
2020-08-13, 04:08 PM
Erm. I do. And it's not like this is an alien concept, because I'm hardly the only person that plays in games where catastrophic failure and accidents are possibilities, even random ones. I can point you to a treasure trove of evidence, such a video gaming's dawning realization post-Dark Souls that there's a market for that very thing. Or how Nintendo party games use extreme random chance like this as a feature all the time.

Or how you can lose a hand of poker just because you got dealt a bad hand. Gambling in general, actually, especially high stakes gambling. You're acting like no one plays roulette, ever, especially with real money.

Some people legitimately desire the challenge. Some people like the satisfaction of winning as the underdog. And some people only appreciate a victory if it flirted with the potential for everything to have gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Don't mistake a player's desire to get stronger, seek out advantages, and avoid consequences with a deliberate want for a game devoid of weakness, traps, danger, or challenge. Some people, myself included, find immeasurable enjoyment in surviving those things and would find any game without them too dull to bother attending.


"D&D should be more like gambling" is not the worst take I have ever read but it is up there.

And do you know whose job it is to provide challenges, weaknesses, traps and all of that to make the players' adventure meaningful and their success feel accomplished? the DM. If you need critical fumbles for that you have failed as a DM.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-13, 04:11 PM
...That sounds like the exact anthesis of "fun" to me but there's no accounting for taste. You like them, then you like them.

I will admit that I'm curious of the ramifications of that in a world where shooting a bow is not unlikely to result in your own arrow piercing your throat.

I mean sure, shooting myself was annoying, what made it fun though was how funny it was. Here I am, a level 16 Ranger and I just happened to shoot at just the right angle to hit myself. Plus the fact that my luck went so wildly in the wrong direction. We're talking a nat 1 for a crit fail, nat 1 to see if I shoot myself, then a crit on myself. Its a really funny turn of events.

Of course, I'm also the person who loves as much randomness in the game as possible. I'm the guy who plays a Wild Magic Sorcerer in the hopes of getting a 1 so that I roll on the table 10 more times, while using a Wand of Wonder.

DeadMech
2020-08-13, 04:12 PM
"D&D should be more like gambling" is not the worst take I have ever read but it is up there.

Someone had to say it. It's up there with comparing Dark Souls and Mario Party.

Waterdeep Merch
2020-08-13, 04:12 PM
"D&D should be more like gambling" is not the worst take I have ever read but it is up there.

And do you know whose job it is to provide challenges, weaknesses, traps and all of that to make the players' adventure meaningful and their success feel accomplished? the DM. If you need critical fumbles for that you have failed as a DM.
That's a loaded statement itself. "You're having badwrongfun" is THE classic bad take.

I never even said your way was wrong, merely that claiming the other side doesn't exist is a gross overstatement that is willfully ignorant and insists on the malignancy of anyone who disagrees with you.

That actually is the worst take I've ever read.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-13, 04:22 PM
"D&D should be more like gambling" is not the worst take I have ever read but it is up there.

And do you know whose job it is to provide challenges, weaknesses, traps and all of that to make the players' adventure meaningful and their success feel accomplished? the DM. If you need critical fumbles for that you have failed as a DM.

How is it a failure if you and the players end up enjoying it? Sure, you could break your tools, but that's life. I'm guessing you're one of the people that hates the Wild Magic Sorcerer because it can really screw with even the most accomplished adventuring party by giving you Vulnerability to Piercing while fighting a Vampire.

Without a chance for something to go wildly, hilariously, wrong, DnD becomes boring. What's the point of a Rogue making a skill check after level 10 if there's no way they can fail? There isn't. No, having that 5% chance of the Rogue breaking some of their Thieves Tools is part of the fun. And lets face it, even the most experienced people make mistakes occasionally.

Of course I will admit my take on DnD is a bit odd. I'm the kind of player that will say I rolled a 1 or a 5, despite what I actually rolled, if I get the sense that failure will result in something funny happening, even if that something causes a setback for the party or ends up nearly downing me.

Snownine
2020-08-13, 04:28 PM
As has been stated crit fails punish martial characters more than spellcasters. And punish higher level characters who should be more skilled than it does low level characters.

That should be enough to take whatever fumble table you are homebrewing and tear it in half.

Imagine a training hall full of soldiers armed with great swords training against training dummies. Like a 1000 of them. At level 1 50 of them are going to crit fail every six seconds and either fling their weapon across the room or worse lop off one of their own arms and bleed out on the floor after they deal 2d6+3or4ish damage to themselves. Does that strike you as a realistic situation?

I explained this to a DM I refuse to play with any more. His response was "In 5e you don't roll for a situation unless I tell you you roll for it." Which just sidesteps the point I was making rather than refuting it. It doesn't matter if it's a hall full of training dummies or its 1000 soldiers fighting another 1000 soldiers. Or orcs. Or kobolds. Or whatever. That is an absurd amount of damage this army of 1000 is going to deal to itself every turn. Even if the chaos of a battlefield who could possibly imagine 50 soldiers mutilating themselves with their own weapon every 6 seconds?

At Level 5 these 1000 fighters get a second attack thus a second chance to fumble. Going back to dropping weapons. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second. 97 or 98 soldiers disarmed themselves in one turn of combat. Almost 10% of an army just threw their swords on the ground.

At level 11 the get a third attack a round. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second and ~45 drop it on the third. 142ish soldiers disarm themselves EVERY ROUND. 14% of an army.

20th level. 1000 soldiers. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second and ~45 drop it on the third and ~43 drop it on the forth. 185 20th level fighters, 18 and a half percent of an army drop their weapons EVERY ROUND.

My old DM would probably tell me that we don't play DnD in a training hall against dummies or as armies of 1000 combatants against another 1000. We play it as a handful of adventurers against a handful of monsters. I would agree that this is true but it's again sidestepping the point rather than refuting it.

How many times in a campaign are you taking the attack action? how many times before level 2? The odds don't change.

Oh but the monsters roll crit fumbles too.

Still doesn't address the issue. Enemies are made to die. No one really cares Minions 176 kobold 6 drops his spear. He was going to die anyway without much fanfare. And is anyone really going to be satisfied when BBEGs make a mockery of themselves?

My ex DM had a crit fumble table you rolled on after you rolled a 1. You could hit yourself, crit hit yourself. Oh and Decapitate yourself. Presumably cut off any limb as well. So at level 20 you have nearly a 20% chance to hurt yourself each round. Probably even outright kill yourself 1-5% of the time when you do. Utter madness.

I have always argued against critical fails for the same reasons listed in this thread, lack of fun and a diminishing of verisimilitude. This is such a great breakdown of just how ridiculous it is. I am definitely going to bring up your 1000 soldier example in the future if it comes up again. It really highlights just how stupid the idea of trained individuals catastrophically failing the thing they are most skilled at 5% of the time is.

Edited for wording.

DeadMech
2020-08-13, 04:30 PM
I have always argued against critical fails for the same reasons listed in this thread, lack of fun and a diminishing of verisimilitude. This is such a great breakdown of just how ridiculous it is. I am definitely going to bring up your 1000 soldier example in the future if it comes up again. It really highlights just how stupid the idea is.

Thanks I stole it from someone else on these forums I'm sure. I don't know who.

NaughtyTiger
2020-08-13, 04:30 PM
You're the one who was saying that there were ways around it like swapping weapons - carrying 3 greataxes is the logical conclusion of that.

If you truly think carrying 3 greataxes is the only logical way to deal with a -1 to damage, then I concede.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-13, 04:36 PM
I have always argued against critical fails for the same reasons listed in this thread, lack of fun and a diminishing of verisimilitude. This is such a great breakdown of just how ridiculous it is. I am definitely going to bring up your 1000 soldier example in the future if it comes up again. It really highlights just how stupid the idea of trained individuals catastrophically failing the thing they are most skilled at 5% of the time is.

Edited for wording.

But the chance of that happening is part of the fun. Seeing an army fail in that way is funny, and makes for a fairly memorable experience. Heck, having the big bad villain fumble at the last moment makes for a funny memory and will be remembered far better then the bad guy who nearly won but was ultimately beaten in a hard fought battle. The randomness of it is what makes it fun and funny.

Amnestic
2020-08-13, 04:38 PM
If you truly think carrying 3 greataxes is the only logical way to deal with a -1 to damage, then I concede.

Not doing so, by your own post, is them being "stubborn":



If a fighter or wizard is too stubborn to swap a damaged weapon/focus (free action during combat) or repair it throughout the entire adventuring day, then yes they will be gimped.


Weapon swapping was *your solution*. I just followed the maths provided.

rumplepum
2020-08-13, 07:26 PM
Pushback: a negative or unfavorable reaction or response.
Literally, stoutstein, JNA, Ovis, Amnestic, Tempus, and rumple had a negative and unfavorable reaction to my post.
Literally 0 of them said, if you like crit fails cool in posts to me.I must admit, that comes across as quite rude and condescending. I will assume it was not your intent but it read that way.

Maybe I misspoke, I apologize. I meant most posters (I didn't count them exactly) had expressed that crit fails are fine in your game if you like them. And I said pushback to the OP or you as in personally. It seemed like people were reaponding to your points negatively (which makes sense since so many fokns hate these rules) and you seemed to take it personally. Again, that may have been my biased reading and if so, I apologize for that also.


which arguments:I like crit fails?Well that's the only one I meant: you like them. I don't. Agree to disagree on that, ya?

So we can now go off and focus at having fun at our respective tables! I hope you continue to enjoy what you like and have fun with critical fumble stories.

I may not get it but I'm glad that you and your table enjoy them :)

rumplepum
2020-08-13, 07:31 PM
I mean sure, shooting myself was annoying, what made it fun though was how funny it was. Here I am, a level 16 Ranger and I just happened to shoot at just the right angle to hit myself. Plus the fact that my luck went so wildly in the wrong direction. We're talking a nat 1 for a crit fail, nat 1 to see if I shoot myself, then a crit on myself. Its a really funny turn of events.

Of course, I'm also the person who loves as much randomness in the game as possible. I'm the guy who plays a Wild Magic Sorcerer in the hopes of getting a 1 so that I roll on the table 10 more times, while using a Wand of Wonder.Gotcha, well hey more power to ya! Glad you got a good story out of it.

micahaphone
2020-08-13, 07:53 PM
For an example of the disparity this causes, let's consider a party of level 5 characters.

It's not too hard to build a wizard (or cleric or other) that never needs to roll an attack. Acid Splash, Burning Hands, Fireball, etc for damaging spells and debuffs are based on saves too. A wizard with Haste, Fireball, Misty Step, Suggestion, Mirror Image, Enlarge/Reduce, Levitate, Shatter, Mage Armor, Shield, Find Familiar, Absorb Elements, and some others has a good solid list, doesn't seem like they're hamstrung.

Now a level 5 fighter? Doesn't matter if you're ranged or melee, you're gonna make attack rolls.

Dankus Memakus
2020-08-14, 03:27 AM
For an example of the disparity this causes, let's consider a party of level 5 characters.

It's not too hard to build a wizard (or cleric or other) that never needs to roll an attack. Acid Splash, Burning Hands, Fireball, etc for damaging spells and debuffs are based on saves too. A wizard with Haste, Fireball, Misty Step, Suggestion, Mirror Image, Enlarge/Reduce, Levitate, Shatter, Mage Armor, Shield, Find Familiar, Absorb Elements, and some others has a good solid list, doesn't seem like they're hamstrung.

Now a level 5 fighter? Doesn't matter if you're ranged or melee, you're gonna make attack rolls.

So I've been away and I've only skimmed some of the comments so if I'm way out of line I apologize, and also personally as someone who enjoys crit fails I include them on saves as well so I'm going to try to argue something that I don't practice as a sort of devil's advocate type deal. Again, if I'm totally off base, my bad.

I have been under the impression that (especially at lower levels) it is better to make an attack roll than force a save. I should probably go find the math but I believe that you have a higher chance of doing damage if you are rolling to hit. So while you can make a mage who only forces saves, perhaps it balances out for that reason? Perhaps this argument makes sense around level five as per your example, but it may lose its potency once your proficiency bonus is pretty substantial. Then again there's legendary resistance to counter that. Just trying to add in a little food for thought.

Unrelated to this quote, people keep using flat percents on how often they crit fail and while that makes sense in a white room numbers situation (which we are currently in) how often do you think you actually crit fail? On average I think we only have one per session. Occasionally it will be alot but with advantage and such it doesn't really seem like it happens often at least for me. I suppose this has a great deal of luck involved though so probably not the best idea to balance a mechanic on. Dice are fickle.

DeadMech
2020-08-14, 04:51 AM
Unrelated to this quote, people keep using flat percents on how often they crit fail

Because that's how you discuss probability. If you are only rolling a 1 once a session you are probably playing at low level where it's least noticeable or you are playing a caster who doesn't make weapon attacks. You know... like how I explained earlier. It becomes vastly most common as your progress through the game and supposedly become more competent. Eventually you will get to a point where going a full battle without rolling a 1 becomes rare.


Pushback: a negative or unfavorable reaction or response.
Literally, stoutstein, JNA, Ovis, Amnestic, Tempus, and rumple had a negative and unfavorable reaction to my post.
Literally 0 of them said, if you like crit fails cool in posts to me.


which arguments:

I like crit fails?
the crit hits do more damage than crit fails cost damage?
fighters get more crits succ/fail than mages?
this might not be a good fit for your table?
this lets players use their stupid skills that otherwise don't get used?
that players react to a Nat 1 as though it should matter?
which parts do we disagree on?

1. preference is not an argument
2. False. Regularly you roll a 20 you double your damage dice. You roll a 1 you miss. With crit fails if you hit yourself you deal your full attack damage to yourself. Damage dice plus bonuses are greater than just adding damage dice. Also it's a straight nerf because it's adding a penalty that didn't exist before hand.
3. They sure do. That's a bad thing.
4. It's a bad fit for any table that values balance, verisimilitude. So yes it's a bad fit for my tables.
5. It's a tax. It forces me to spend build resources to compensate for breaking my equipment for doing what I am supposed to be doing. Now I don't get to be good at some other thing that I would have preferred. Again a straight nerf to martial characters.
6. People do react to rolling a 1. It means they missed and nothing they can do or remember to add to their roll will make the attack hit. How they react beyond that is up to them.

micahaphone
2020-08-14, 10:22 AM
So I've been away and I've only skimmed some of the comments so if I'm way out of line I apologize, and also personally as someone who enjoys crit fails I include them on saves as well so I'm going to try to argue something that I don't practice as a sort of devil's advocate type deal. Again, if I'm totally off base, my bad.

I have been under the impression that (especially at lower levels) it is better to make an attack roll than force a save. I should probably go find the math but I believe that you have a higher chance of doing damage if you are rolling to hit. So while you can make a mage who only forces saves, perhaps it balances out for that reason? Perhaps this argument makes sense around level five as per your example, but it may lose its potency once your proficiency bonus is pretty substantial. Then again there's legendary resistance to counter that. Just trying to add in a little food for thought.

Unrelated to this quote, people keep using flat percents on how often they crit fail and while that makes sense in a white room numbers situation (which we are currently in) how often do you think you actually crit fail? On average I think we only have one per session. Occasionally it will be alot but with advantage and such it doesn't really seem like it happens often at least for me. I suppose this has a great deal of luck involved though so probably not the best idea to balance a mechanic on. Dice are fickle.


I'm not a statistics wizard like some of the posters here, but I think I've heard similar things before about saves vs attack rolls. But as you increase in levels your save DC improves and the number of attacks each round increases. So a level 11 fighter now has 3x chances to roll a nat 1 and hurt themselves each turn - they're 3x as likely to fumble as a level 1 fighter!





I'm trying to think of how to apply a similar critical fumble for spells w/ saving throws, something like "if your target rolls a nat 20 the magic rebounds". Like, if someone rolls a nat 20 against a Hold Person or Slow or Suggestion, it has some effect on the caster.
The first issue I see is that you only cause multiple saving throws if you target multiple enemies, so even at level 11 the fighter still gets 3 chances to self injure no matter their target, but the wizard might choose to only target the boss for just 1 chance of a bad reaction.

Second thought is how to narratively explain what's happening with damage spells usually offer only 1/2 damage for saving. Like, does being really good at dodging a fireball explosion mean that the weave sends some of the fire energy back at the caster?

DCraw
2020-08-14, 11:25 AM
As has been stated crit fails punish martial characters more than spellcasters. And punish higher level characters who should be more skilled than it does low level characters.

That should be enough to take whatever fumble table you are homebrewing and tear it in half.

Imagine a training hall full of soldiers armed with great swords training against training dummies. Like a 1000 of them. At level 1 50 of them are going to crit fail every six seconds and either fling their weapon across the room or worse lop off one of their own arms and bleed out on the floor after they deal 2d6+3or4ish damage to themselves. Does that strike you as a realistic situation?

I explained this to a DM I refuse to play with any more. His response was "In 5e you don't roll for a situation unless I tell you you roll for it." Which just sidesteps the point I was making rather than refuting it. It doesn't matter if it's a hall full of training dummies or its 1000 soldiers fighting another 1000 soldiers. Or orcs. Or kobolds. Or whatever. That is an absurd amount of damage this army of 1000 is going to deal to itself every turn. Even if the chaos of a battlefield who could possibly imagine 50 soldiers mutilating themselves with their own weapon every 6 seconds?

At Level 5 these 1000 fighters get a second attack thus a second chance to fumble. Going back to dropping weapons. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second. 97 or 98 soldiers disarmed themselves in one turn of combat. Almost 10% of an army just threw their swords on the ground.

At level 11 the get a third attack a round. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second and ~45 drop it on the third. 142ish soldiers disarm themselves EVERY ROUND. 14% of an army.

20th level. 1000 soldiers. ~50 fumble on the first attack and ~47 or 48 drop their weapon on the second and ~45 drop it on the third and ~43 drop it on the forth. 185 20th level fighters, 18 and a half percent of an army drop their weapons EVERY ROUND.

My old DM would probably tell me that we don't play DnD in a training hall against dummies or as armies of 1000 combatants against another 1000. We play it as a handful of adventurers against a handful of monsters. I would agree that this is true but it's again sidestepping the point rather than refuting it.

How many times in a campaign are you taking the attack action? how many times before level 2? The odds don't change.

Oh but the monsters roll crit fumbles too.

Still doesn't address the issue. Enemies are made to die. No one really cares Minions 176 kobold 6 drops his spear. He was going to die anyway without much fanfare. And is anyone really going to be satisfied when BBEGs make a mockery of themselves?

My ex DM had a crit fumble table you rolled on after you rolled a 1. You could hit yourself, crit hit yourself. Oh and Decapitate yourself. Presumably cut off any limb as well. So at level 20 you have nearly a 20% chance to hurt yourself each round. Probably even outright kill yourself 1-5% of the time when you do. Utter madness.

To me this is less a critique of Crit Fails, rather Crit Fail Tables - and also the alternate laziness of crit fail = disarmed. There are times where a crit fail with mechanical impacts would be funny or dramatic, and there are times where it would be disastrous. The whole point of having a DM run the game, rather than a computer, is that they can adapt to things like this. They should use mechanical fails when it would improve the game, but have non-mechanical (but funny/embarrassing) backups when necessary.

Regarding the training hall example, you are correct that soldiers throwing away their weapons 5% would be absurd, particularly while drilling or sparring. The answer to that is not that crit fails are per se a bad idea, but that disarming on crit fail is. Ideally the DM would tailor the fail to the situation, but if you want a standby that works mechanically and satisfies verisimilitude, consider this: "You over-commit to the attack and miss, giving them an opening. Your opponent may spend their reaction to make a single melee weapon attack." I've done some HEMA and I've never seen someone lose hold of their weapon. Over-commit, grow over confident, and the like, certainly, happens all the time (5% might even be an underestimate).

If you want something more dramatic while adventuring (or maybe for one of the 1000 recruits, because story), try this: "a crack develops in your crossguard, and one side flies off with a snap. Attackers have advantage against you for one round as you figure out how to use your new double-edged Kriegsmesser."*

The DM can even have some fun with it, without any real mechanical effects. "As you miss, you swear out. 'Damn it [Deity]!' You hear a clap of thunder, despite the clear skies. The next time the Warlock casts Eldritch Blast, its colour has changed." If anything this should happen more often than the mechanical crit fails.

Crit fails can add a lot of chaotic fun to a game, but this really needs to be controlled and guided by the DM. Crit fail tables are often lazy and, well, frequently absurd. There's a difference.

*Yes, based on a real story - although he changed weapons before continuing sparring, obviously.

Tvtyrant
2020-08-14, 11:28 AM
I have seen three blow outs at a table in my time. Two were from crit failures where they had to role on a table. If there was a crit success table just for the PCs I would probably be okay with it, but otherwise no.

langal
2020-08-14, 11:38 AM
I played in a crit fail system and the scaling frequency is a real thing. High level fighters crit fail a lot and our DM put in a feat for "fumble proofing" which feels like a feat tax since you have to take it. He also uses a table where the effects can be horrible and it slows down the game as the fumble frequency invariably increases. There are buffs to counter balance this but it is more house rules. Just be mindful that it does not scale well and be ready to change your tables rules to balance it out.

Snails
2020-08-14, 12:51 PM
How would a spellcaster crit fail on casting Fireball? They should be able to, after all, but does your system account for that? And is it fun for the players?

This.

These Crit Fail systems always seem to be biased in specific ways. They are biased against martial characters. They are biased against higher level martials. They are biased against PCs.

If anyone actually believed that random embarrassing failures were a Good Thing, we could easily have a universal Fumble mechanic that were equally fair/unfair to all PCs and NPCs.

When someone proposes a system where the BBEG has an actual 5-10% chance of nuking himself on the first round because this kind of thing is so fun, I might consider the idea seriously. But I am quite certain DMs who love these Crit tables do not play that way.

I would love to hear many war stories about BBEGs who nuked themselves and made the final climatic battle a big laugh. Prove me wrong!

Snails
2020-08-14, 01:38 PM
Without a chance for something to go wildly, hilariously, wrong, DnD becomes boring. What's the point of a Rogue making a skill check after level 10 if there's no way they can fail? There isn't. No, having that 5% chance of the Rogue breaking some of their Thieves Tools is part of the fun. And lets face it, even the most experienced people make mistakes occasionally.


The main point of leveling up PCs is to make the (up to now) common encounters easier, and new (previously too dangerous) kinds of encounters to be now possible.

There is no logical necessity for, say, kobolds to present a significant opportunity for spectacular failure on the part of PCs at higher levels. FWIW, your idea is also highly contradicted by the RAW of every edition of D&D.

You may find that kind of thing fun -- I have no argument with that. But your strongly worded conclusion suggests poor encounter design on the part of the DM, that you are so easily bored, or both.

That a run of the mill lock can cause spectacular failure to a 10th level rogue sounds, to be blunt, pretty stupid to me. If YOU like that kind of thing....okay. But for me, the challenge of such a lock should not be to get past the door or whether the lockpicks survive the attempt. The challenge should be whether the lock can be picked so silently that someone on the other side of the door hears nothing. The challenge should be whether the lock can be picked on the first attempt while under negative mods for hurrying, when the sound of approaching footsteps from a castle patrol can be heard.

OldTrees1
2020-08-14, 02:02 PM
How is it a failure if you and the players end up enjoying it? Sure, you could break your tools, but that's life. I'm guessing you're one of the people that hates the Wild Magic Sorcerer because it can really screw with even the most accomplished adventuring party by giving you Vulnerability to Piercing while fighting a Vampire.

Without a chance for something to go wildly, hilariously, wrong, DnD becomes boring. What's the point of a Rogue making a skill check after level 10 if there's no way they can fail? There isn't. No, having that 5% chance of the Rogue breaking some of their Thieves Tools is part of the fun. And lets face it, even the most experienced people make mistakes occasionally.

Of course I will admit my take on DnD is a bit odd. I'm the kind of player that will say I rolled a 1 or a 5, despite what I actually rolled, if I get the sense that failure will result in something funny happening, even if that something causes a setback for the party or ends up nearly downing me.


I like crit fails on skill checks. But I also like skill uses to eventually become guaranteed. For me I don't want the 20th level Rogue to crit fail on a 10th level lock. But it could be interesting to see them crit fail on a 20th level perception check.

I also sometimes decide I rolled a 1. Some of the time it is a "If I get my minimum result I still pass, let's skip the roll." and some of the time it is a "My character will fail this, so let's nerf my result to represent that".

Those cases help inform my crit fail solution:

1) If a skill result passes the DC, it is not a crit fail. Even if it was a natural 1.
2) If the attempt failed, then it failed.
3) If the attempt failed, and the Player declares it was a natural 1, then it is a crit fail.

I especially like the opt-in aspect of this system. It allows you to have crit rules for when appropriate and not have them when they are inappropriate.

Chaosmancer
2020-08-14, 06:06 PM
My DM currently runs crit fails (much to my distaste) but we've disliked them enough he has changed the system. Currently after rolling a natural 1, we have to confirm by rolling a d6. On a result of 4, we take the damage of our attack.

He usually narrates it in a way that isn't us being stupid, sometimes it is that the swing causes us to hit the enemies weapon, or something like that, but the truth is, we are hurting ourselves.


And yes, nothing makes you feel worse about wasting your turn missing all of your attacks, than missing all your attacks and inflicting self harm. We even had one PC who ended a fight having harmed himself more than any enemy (they couldn't hit him, but he still lost nearly 30 hp to self-inflicted crit fails)



But, there is one thing worse that Critical Fumble Rules, and that is Critical Success tables (or decks)

There was one introduced that had different decks of cards for different damage types. You could deal x4 damage, stun the enemy until your next turn, shatter their weapon. My fellow players were super excited about it.

Until I pointed out that these rules would apply to us just as much as the enemies. And we tended to fight enemies who outnumbered us. And I didn't particularly want to take x4 damage from a giant's club, or lose my turn, or lose my weapon.


Later, the DM themselves even admitted he was shocked we almost went for using those rules, because they were so bad for us, in aggregate, that is made no sense for us to want to include them.

stoutstien
2020-08-14, 08:37 PM
Alternative critical table/ decks can work but it's best to avoid total action denial. Preventing reactions/ bonus actions or limited movement are fine.
The same reason that critical fails should be that detrimental because they're common critical success are the same.

I personally offer a list of alternatives like double damage with dice on criticals ranging from leaving the Target opens so to the next attack on them has advantage to disadvantage on next saving throw.
Most of them focus on teamwork so they act like set-ups for epic combos.

Shabbazar
2020-08-14, 09:11 PM
After all the negativity in this thread re: crit fails/hits (which I agree with), you will all be astounded to hear of something even worse. I recently played a bit with a group that used crit hits/fails on 1's and 20's, but also used 1-4 on a d20 as an automatic fail, although not a crit fail. The other players didn't think this was weird and thought the DM was just the greatest thing since sliced bread. Needless to say, I didn't stick around long.

There's no limit to how screwed up homebrew can get.

Pex
2020-08-15, 10:01 AM
My DM currently runs crit fails (much to my distaste) but we've disliked them enough he has changed the system. Currently after rolling a natural 1, we have to confirm by rolling a d6. On a result of 4, we take the damage of our attack.

He usually narrates it in a way that isn't us being stupid, sometimes it is that the swing causes us to hit the enemies weapon, or something like that, but the truth is, we are hurting ourselves.


And yes, nothing makes you feel worse about wasting your turn missing all of your attacks, than missing all your attacks and inflicting self harm. We even had one PC who ended a fight having harmed himself more than any enemy (they couldn't hit him, but he still lost nearly 30 hp to self-inflicted crit fails)



But, there is one thing worse that Critical Fumble Rules, and that is Critical Success tables (or decks)

There was one introduced that had different decks of cards for different damage types. You could deal x4 damage, stun the enemy until your next turn, shatter their weapon. My fellow players were super excited about it.

Until I pointed out that these rules would apply to us just as much as the enemies. And we tended to fight enemies who outnumbered us. And I didn't particularly want to take x4 damage from a giant's club, or lose my turn, or lose my weapon.


Later, the DM themselves even admitted he was shocked we almost went for using those rules, because they were so bad for us, in aggregate, that is made no sense for us to want to include them.

That sounds like the Pathfinder deck. I hated that. A DM I had had used them. One time a player critically failed the result was a critical hit on himself. All the players hated it. Eventually he relented in that you only use the critical fumble cards if you use the critical success cards. No player used the critical success cards, so this nonsense went away by default.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-15, 03:09 PM
I like crit fails on skill checks. But I also like skill uses to eventually become guaranteed. For me I don't want the 20th level Rogue to crit fail on a 10th level lock. But it could be interesting to see them crit fail on a 20th level perception check.

I also sometimes decide I rolled a 1. Some of the time it is a "If I get my minimum result I still pass, let's skip the roll." and some of the time it is a "My character will fail this, so let's nerf my result to represent that".

Those cases help inform my crit fail solution:

1) If a skill result passes the DC, it is not a crit fail. Even if it was a natural 1.
2) If the attempt failed, then it failed.
3) If the attempt failed, and the Player declares it was a natural 1, then it is a crit fail.

I especially like the opt-in aspect of this system. It allows you to have crit rules for when appropriate and not have them when they are inappropriate.

See, I'm on the opposite end. I'm of the opinion that, no matter how skilled you might be, a person can, and will, occasionally fail their task. People do go auto-pilot when they're working on a task they've done 1000 times and they do make mistakes. It should never be 100% guaranteed that you will succeed a skill check, because there is never a 100% chance that you'll succeed a given task, no mater how often you have done it.

I also only fail skill checks when I know I can actually fail. So doing things like falling off a rope, failing to pick a lock, stuff where failing has consequences that could turn out to be interesting consequences.

Pex
2020-08-15, 06:03 PM
See, I'm on the opposite end. I'm of the opinion that, no matter how skilled you might be, a person can, and will, occasionally fail their task. People do go auto-pilot when they're working on a task they've done 1000 times and they do make mistakes. It should never be 100% guaranteed that you will succeed a skill check, because there is never a 100% chance that you'll succeed a given task, no mater how often you have done it.

I also only fail skill checks when I know I can actually fail. So doing things like falling off a rope, failing to pick a lock, stuff where failing has consequences that could turn out to be interesting consequences.

That's fine, but that doesn't mean it has to be a crit fail. Taking the analogy back to combat it already exists you can never have 100% autosuccess on hitting because a Natural 1 is an automiss. However, the failing to hit doesn't mean your weapon breaks, you hurt yourself, you drop your weapon, or whatever horrible circumstance you wish you never bothered to get up in the morning befalls you.

OldTrees1
2020-08-15, 06:13 PM
See, I'm on the opposite end. I'm of the opinion that, no matter how skilled you might be, a person can, and will, occasionally fail their task. People do go auto-pilot when they're working on a task they've done 1000 times and they do make mistakes. It should never be 100% guaranteed that you will succeed a skill check, because there is never a 100% chance that you'll succeed a given task, no mater how often you have done it.

I also only fail skill checks when I know I can actually fail. So doing things like falling off a rope, failing to pick a lock, stuff where failing has consequences that could turn out to be interesting consequences.

Ah the argument from realistic failure chances. I calibrate reality around levels 1-4, and when the levels are that close together I agree in the occasional failed task. IRL many fields reduce that chance to less than 1 in 20, so we can round the risk up or down when we use the 1d20. But when a level 20 attempts a level 10 task, I expect guaranteed success. However that might be different preferences

What about the opt-in nature of my design? Did you have any thoughts on that? I find it works well for players with different tastes.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-15, 07:57 PM
Ah the argument from realistic failure chances. I calibrate reality around levels 1-4, and when the levels are that close together I agree in the occasional failed task. IRL many fields reduce that chance to less than 1 in 20, so we can round the risk up or down when we use the 1d20. But when a level 20 attempts a level 10 task, I expect guaranteed success. However that might be different preferences

What about the opt-in nature of my design? Did you have any thoughts on that? I find it works well for players with different tastes.

True, most fields do reduce the chance a lot. Though I suspect it is mostly preference for the two of us.

I actually like the opt-in nature of your design and might start implementing in my own games. I might be able to get people to use it in my games with it.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-15, 08:01 PM
That's fine, but that doesn't mean it has to be a crit fail. Taking the analogy back to combat it already exists you can never have 100% autosuccess on hitting because a Natural 1 is an automiss. However, the failing to hit doesn't mean your weapon breaks, you hurt yourself, you drop your weapon, or whatever horrible circumstance you wish you never bothered to get up in the morning befalls you.

I mean, I find those chances of something bad happening to be part of the fun. As I said in a previous post, the most memorable and enjoyable combat experience I had back when I was starting to learn DnD was when I crit myself with a Composite Greatbow. Sure I nearly went down, but so what? The risk made it fun, and the situation made it hilarious and memorable.

As for my own crit fails, they range from Weapon Damage, where a weapon can take up to a -3 before it gets destroyed but can be repaired with the Smithing skill, Mending, or taking it to a Smith, to shooting an ally, to hitting yourself. And don't worry, mages get to experience crit fails as well. You crit fail when casting a spell it could hit something else, or maybe go haywire and cause a wild magic surge.

Sadly though, my players said no when I offered crit fails as a homebrew rule.

5eNeedsDarksun
2020-08-15, 11:21 PM
That's fine, but that doesn't mean it has to be a crit fail. Taking the analogy back to combat it already exists you can never have 100% autosuccess on hitting because a Natural 1 is an automiss. However, the failing to hit doesn't mean your weapon breaks, you hurt yourself, you drop your weapon, or whatever horrible circumstance you wish you never bothered to get up in the morning befalls you.

That's basically the rule we use: 1s are failures, but not Critical. We also make a 20 a success even if the math says a fail (though not a Crit in that case).

Chaosmancer
2020-08-15, 11:27 PM
I mean, I find those chances of something bad happening to be part of the fun. As I said in a previous post, the most memorable and enjoyable combat experience I had back when I was starting to learn DnD was when I crit myself with a Composite Greatbow. Sure I nearly went down, but so what? The risk made it fun, and the situation made it hilarious and memorable.

As for my own crit fails, they range from Weapon Damage, where a weapon can take up to a -3 before it gets destroyed but can be repaired with the Smithing skill, Mending, or taking it to a Smith, to shooting an ally, to hitting yourself. And don't worry, mages get to experience crit fails as well. You crit fail when casting a spell it could hit something else, or maybe go haywire and cause a wild magic surge.

Sadly though, my players said no when I offered crit fails as a homebrew rule.


For many of us, hitting yourself or risking self-harm aren't fun. They make us feel like clowns. And not the funny ones either.

I mean, I'm sure the most dramatic moment in 300 was when they accidentally stabbed an ally in the back, not when they worked together like a well-oiled combat machine to decimate their foes.

sithlordnergal
2020-08-16, 03:15 AM
For many of us, hitting yourself or risking self-harm aren't fun. They make us feel like clowns. And not the funny ones either.

I mean, I'm sure the most dramatic moment in 300 was when they accidentally stabbed an ally in the back, not when they worked together like a well-oiled combat machine to decimate their foes.

Heh, maybe the fact that I find such situations enjoyable, and why well oiled machines bore me a bit, is also why I like the Wand of Wonder, Wild Magic Sorcerer, and Deck of Many Things so much. They all add a nice, healthy dose of inconsistency that can cause just the right amount of chaos to force you to restrategize your current plan.

...I wonder, would it surprise people here to know that, in my group, I tend to be the most strategic? Like...I love chaos and all, but if a plan of attack is needed I tend to offer some of the more strategic options that aren't just "Charge and Attack".

langal
2020-08-16, 11:16 AM
Heh, maybe the fact that I find such situations enjoyable, and why well oiled machines bore me a bit, is also why I like the Wand of Wonder, Wild Magic Sorcerer, and Deck of Many Things so much. They all add a nice, healthy dose of inconsistency that can cause just the right amount of chaos to force you to restrategize your current plan.

...I wonder, would it surprise people here to know that, in my group, I tend to be the most strategic? Like...I love chaos and all, but if a plan of attack is needed I tend to offer some of the more strategic options that aren't just "Charge and Attack".

I think most here are fine with randomness. The randomness in this case just does not scale well. High level fighters turn into buffoons.

Asisreo1
2020-08-16, 12:11 PM
If you're going to use crit successes to mean the punishment is more than a miss, then you should have crit successes to mean a benefit greater than double damage dice.

If a crit fail breaks your weapon, a crit success should substantially lower AC by your to-hit with a minimum of 0.

If a crit fail results in a loss of limb, a crit success should allow you to have a permanent increase in your damage from that point onward.

If a crit fail means hurting your teammate, a crit success should allow you to have another attack or even a whole other action.

Otherwise, you're making punishments worse and nothing else, which is just a plain nerf.

Chaosity
2020-08-16, 02:17 PM
It especially gets annoying your character suddenly "accidentally" attacks the other party members. No need to punish other characters for my choice to have a lot of attacks. I had encounters i completly stopped attacking cause the chance of me hitting my teammates was going to do more damage to them then the monster would do if i left it alive for another turn.

Or a simple encounter ending in a return to town and salty players cause the fighter decided to shove a wizard to the ground when they accidentally hit them with a cantrip and be suprised the wizard doesn't just take it and decides to retaliate with force

Best way I've seen it done is let the player decide what happens when they roll a nat 1. Players who don't want to deal with it can just say they missed. And players who want randomness can suggest their own randomness. You can reward players who willingly take bad effect to give the monsters more bad effects too.

MeimuHakurei
2020-08-16, 02:23 PM
Can someone test various crit/fumble tables at level 1/5/11/20 in a combat demo where two identical fighters fight each other, where one fighter attacks every turn and the other only uses dodge, popping Second Wind as appropriate? Naturally the dodging Fighter should never win but in the scenario outlined they might.

langal
2020-08-16, 04:35 PM
Can someone test various crit/fumble tables at level 1/5/11/20 in a combat demo where two identical fighters fight each other, where one fighter attacks every turn and the other only uses dodge, popping Second Wind as appropriate? Naturally the dodging Fighter should never win but in the scenario outlined they might.

That would be interesting. Here's an old ADnD chart from a Dragon magazine that I think my DM uses. 40 percent chance on a fumble to basically be stunned for multiple rounds. This would be funny if used for 5e. Basically 20th level fighters knocking themselves out going against a training dummy.

Aussiehams
2020-08-17, 06:22 AM
I think this has been fairly well answered, but I hate them, and generally associate crit fails with adversarial DMing.

Xervous
2020-08-17, 06:38 AM
I find it somewhat disturbing that the results of numerous fumble tables are things you’d call a GM malicious for if they occurred in more free form systems.

Ganryu
2020-08-17, 12:03 PM
Probably going against the grain here. I use it, and enjoy it.

As a DM, I'll have a 1 be a fail, and often be well known how it fails, but its mostly narrative. I don't use it to punish too much.

Someone misses with a nat one, I'll narrate how a missed arrow strikes something on the battefield, an eldritch blasts shatters the roof behind them.

The players love it, and occasionally get creative, such as noticing the battlefield.

Sometimes, they do hit eachother, but it goes over in character great. It's a battlefield, it's chaotic. Sometimes it happens with enemies, and they cheer. (HIdden fact for my players, I'll make nat 1 hurt enemies more.)

Now, while I do use it, I don't see it as a reason to punish anyone. You shouldn't disarm a fighter for example, their job's hard enough. No one's 'cutting off a limb'. Its never supposed to be a case of DM vs players.

I have another DM in a game I play who just lets nat 1s provoke an AO. (Hilarious when one boss got one, and everyone around him just shanked him, DM face palmed, and declared we'd killed it.) Personally I don't like this cause I feel like range is already favored, but I don't mind it either.

Snails
2020-08-17, 01:48 PM
Heh, maybe the fact that I find such situations enjoyable, and why well oiled machines bore me a bit, is also why I like the Wand of Wonder, Wild Magic Sorcerer, and Deck of Many Things so much. They all add a nice, healthy dose of inconsistency that can cause just the right amount of chaos to force you to restrategize your current plan.

...I wonder, would it surprise people here to know that, in my group, I tend to be the most strategic? Like...I love chaos and all, but if a plan of attack is needed I tend to offer some of the more strategic options that aren't just "Charge and Attack".

That you like this kind of randomness is all fine and dandy.

But my problem is this idea of adding Fumbles to poorly thought through, it boils down to a non-argument.

If we actually believe this kind of randomness is a good thing in general, then it obviously should be applied to all PC classes and monsters, etc. Essentially, ALL spellcasters should have some flavor of Wild Magic applied to them. And then the game would be Even Better, right?