Quote Originally Posted by CarpeGuitarrem View Post
I don't actually find it ridiculous, at all. It's very cinematic, which is the exact tone of D&D.
Whatever else it is, it is not cinematic. I've never seen a movie in which a great swordsman who always either hits his opponent or drops his sword. Mostly, they exchange quips while missing through most of the fight.

And the ineffectual sidekick in the movies always drops his sword or fumbles in some way far more often than the main hero and villain do. Likewise, The main hero or villain have critically effective hits far more often than the ineffectual sidekick does.

So whatever it is you think you mean, it isn't "cinematic".

Quote Originally Posted by Lvl45DM! View Post
No I'm LOOKING to change the results. Fluff is fine and all but I'm not coming up with something new EVERY time theres a saving throw. I've got enough work as a DM. I want there to be a mechanical difference when you roll 20's and 1's in areas other than hitting things.
OK, then first decide in what way the rules at present don't fit what you want, and why the spells that currently have no potential backlash should become risky to cast. Then determine to what extent you want to change the best tactics. These ideas should probably be discussed with the players in advance, because it might change what character class they want to play. From those kinds of discussions, you can determine what changes to make to the rules.

I was in one game in which the GM made what seemed like a trivial change in the rules. Instead of using the hit location chart, a player rolled on his expertise. If he made the roll, he hit the location he aimed at.

Sounds trivial, right? My character devoted more points to expertise, because it meant that most hits became instant kills. It turned a small difference in fighting skill into a devastatingly large one.

Rules changes can change tactical considerations. Fluff changes are just fun, or at least diverting.