D&D All. What's your take on Critical Faliures?

[The Glyphstone]

Draw your dagger, or punch, or kick, or tackle, or pick up rocks to throw. You are not useless.

Once you start reading about real warriors and what they take to battle, you'll see that there is always a backup weapon. Also, if you are fighting armed warriors, there are free weapons as soon as the first one dies.

Any player who thinks his character is useless if his primary weapon breaks has not yet begun to play the character of a melee fighter.

You must not play above very low levels in most cases, because you are drastically underestimating how much weapon bonuses matter to a melee character. At level 1-5 or so, sure - having your +1 weapon break and switching to your masterwork backup weapon isn't a big deal. At level 10+, switching from your +4 weapon with weapon focus/specialization/mastery to your masterwork backup you don't have feats to support is a huge drop in relative effectiveness.

[Knaight]

Becoming flat-footed and losing attacks is actually the most common "critical fumble" I've seen in SCA combat - often because something weird just happened that distracted you.

Falling happens. Roll, get up, or stab up.

This sort of thing works, though the frequency of failures is still a bit high - much of the fighting I've done has been on pretty bad ground, and between weapon losses (which happen), slipping and falling (which happens) and something weird suddenly throwing somebody off so they don't do much (which definitely happens), nobody fails anywhere near 5% of the times. A table with a "nothing happens" result can help here, but then it slows the game down.

Another method would be to have a set of tracks. You roll a 1, you can add a mark to a disarm track, a weapon damage track, a slip track, etc. Once they finally peak, then something bad happens. It's a bit of a metagame mechanic in a few ways, but that's not necessarily a problem.

[Jay R]

...nobody fails anywhere near 5% of the times.

I don't approve of making all 1s critical failures. As I've said more than once in this thread, most critical fumble tables make you roll for a second time if you roll a 1.

And the table we use, from The Dragon #39, has you make saving rolls much of the time.
01-19 slip; roll dexterity or less on d20 or fall and stunned for 1-4 rounds
20-33 stumble; roll dexterity or less on d20 or fall and stunned for 1-6 rounds
In fact, about half the time, a DEX roll negates the penalty.

You must not play above very low levels in most cases, because you are drastically underestimating how much weapon bonuses matter to a melee character. At level 1-5 or so, sure - having your +1 weapon break and switching to your masterwork backup weapon isn't a big deal. At level 10+, switching from your +4 weapon with weapon focus/specialization/mastery to your masterwork backup you don't have feats to support is a huge drop in relative effectiveness.

I repeat - have a backup weapon. My current 7th level Ranger (actually a Fighter2/Ranger 3/ Horizon Walker 2) has a +2 guisarme to use his Improved Trip feat, but he also has a +2 Flameburst longsword. By level 10+, you've found more than one weapon apiece. Keeping a second weapon you found is usually more useful than selling it for half value. (Of course, my Ranger also has a bow, but we're talking about melee.)

And I don't use weapon focus/specialization/mastery. They reduce your options when you have to pick up a weapon quickly, or when you find a superior weapon. Use feats to create more opportunities, not fewer ones. In fact, the reason I have the +2 Flameburst longsword is that the other fighter took weapon focus & specialization, and so couldn't use it.

Yes, optimizing your character for a single narrow option looks great, but stuff happens. If you have a maxed out +4 weapon but no other real option, then you went out of your way to not be ready for a melee. Your problem isn't the critical fumble table; it's that you aren't prepared for what happens in combat.

You're optimizing for "I hope nothing changes," and then getting upset at the critical fumble table. Your character is probably slightly more effective than mine if nothing ever goes wrong.

But I optimize for survival in any likely scenario, and so I'm not hurt that much by the ordinary random effects of combat.

Once you recognize that the critical fumbles can happen, and need to be planned for, they are just one more obstacle to have fun overcoming.

[Seerow]

And the table we use, from The Dragon #39, has you make saving rolls much of the time.
01-19 slip; roll dexterity or less on d20 or fall and stunned for 1-4 rounds
20-33 stumble; roll dexterity or less on d20 or fall and stunned for 1-6 rounds
In fact, about half the time, a DEX roll negates the penalty.

What? Dragon 39 was released *googles* in 1980. That's like immediately after AD&D was released. So we're talking the point in time where 1 round was a full minute, and stats averaged very close to 10.

We're talking about a typical fighter swinging his sword, and 2-3% of the time falling on his ass so hard he can literally do nothing at all for up to 6 minutes.

That's so hilariously bad I don't know what to say.



Sorry I don't mean to pick on you, but this is exemplary of the problems with critical fumbles. All the time you hear "Yeah, they can be bad but the rules I use/like aren't anything like that!". You see it in any discussion involving someone trying to defend fumbles, including in this thread. But any time an actual example is given, it results in horrific results like this. Followed by it being pointed out how absolutely absurd it is, then someone else saying "yeah okay that sucks, but my tables aren't anything like that" along with some vagaries to deflect providing an actual rule. Eventually someone else provides a crit fumble rule and the process starts all over again.


edit:

My current 7th level Ranger (actually a Fighter2/Ranger 3/ Horizon Walker 2) has a +2 guisarme to use his Improved Trip feat, but he also has a +2 Flameburst longsword.

What?!

Okay maybe if your games throw wealth by level out the window and everyone can afford to have not one, but multiple high end weapons for their level to carry around as backup, and selling those weapons to exchange for loot that might actually get used that can be the case. But really? You are level 7 with a +4 weapon as a backup?! And a +2 weapon as your primary? A +2 weapon costs 8,000gp! A +4 weapon costs 32,000gp! Level 7 wealth is 19,000. Even if you go to the slightly more generous pathfinder, it's 23,500gp. I can't imagine a level 7 group that gets a weapon worth 32,000gp and their thought is "Yeah hold on to that in case you crit fumble your weapon and need a back up" rather than "Lets sell that, split the 16k we get from it 4 ways, and cover half our expected wealth gain between this level and next from that item alone"

Like what you describe is so far outside game expectations it's absurd.

[Jay R]

What? Dragon 39 was released *googles* in 1980. That's like immediately after AD&D was released. So we're talking the point in time where 1 round was a full minute, and stats averaged very close to 10.

We're talking about a typical fighter swinging his sword, and 2-3% of the time falling on his ass so hard he can literally do nothing at all for up to 6 minutes.

That's so hilariously bad I don't know what to say.

That's such hilariously bad math I don't know what to say.

If we roll a one, we then roll another "to-hit" roll. Only if that fails do we go to the table. Then, I have to roll over my DEX for that to take effect, and my character's DEX is 18. Even if it happens, a roll of one round is just as likely as 6. So falling down for 6 rounds happens about 5% times about 1/2 (chance to hit varies) times 14% times 1/10 times 1/6 - call it 0.006%, not 2-3%.

What?!

Okay maybe if your games throw wealth by level out the window and everyone can afford to have not one, but multiple high end weapons for their level to carry around as backup, and selling those weapons to exchange for loot that might actually get used that can be the case. But really? You are level 7 with a +4 weapon as a backup?! And a +2 weapon as your primary? A +2 weapon costs 8,000gp! A +4 weapon costs 32,000gp! Level 7 wealth is 19,000. Even if you go to the slightly more generous pathfinder, it's 23,500gp. I can't imagine a level 7 group that gets a weapon worth 32,000gp and their thought is "Yeah hold on to that in case you crit fumble your weapon and need a back up" rather than "Lets sell that, split the 16k we get from it 4 ways, and cover half our expected wealth gain between this level and next from that item alone"

Like what you describe is so far outside game expectations it's absurd.

When I came into the game at 7th level, I bought the glaive; my backup was a non-magical longsword. We found the Flameburst longsword. And I'm pretty lightly armored as a consequence of spending that much on the guisarme. Neither weapon is inherently a back-up. In our last game I used both in successive battles -- the Flameburst sword against Frost Giants, which are more vulnerable to it, and the guisarme against a large number of humans for better battlefield control.

"everyone can afford to have"? Why make this up? I'm currently the only member of the party with two weapons that high, but I believe that the Fighter has a +2 rapier and a +1 dagger.

And the issue of selling it won't come up until we get to a place where we could do it. But even when it does, this is a group of people more concerned with optimizing the party than each individual. I'll get less of the next hoard (probably none), but, no, we have no intention of turning a 32,000 value that we can use well into a 16,000 value.

You're just making up things that are untrue, based on incomplete information. I admit I was surprised that I got it, but the Fighter in the group has taken Weapon Focus/Specialization and Weapon Finesse, so he's pretty locked into a rapier. As I said, that approach doesn't allow flexibility, so I get the longsword.

[Seerow]

That's such hilariously bad math I don't know what to say.

If we roll a one, we then roll another "to-hit" roll. Only if that fails do we go to the table. Then, I have to roll over my DEX for that to take effect, and my character's DEX is 18. Even if it happens, a roll of one round is just as likely as 6. So falling down for 6 rounds happens about 5% times about 1/2 (chance to hit varies) times 14% times 1/10 times 1/6 - call it 0.006%, not 2-3%.

So let's keep moving those goalposts by adding more information that wasn't mentioned to start with, in an attempt to make the rule more palattable shall we? First, I was going based off roll a 1 then fail a dex check, which will average to around 2.5%. the 2-3% gives some leeway for higher or lower dex scores, but you trying to say "I have an 18 dex so it's actually fine!" is totally disingenious. Similarly in the post I quoted you didn't once mention "roll a second attack and miss that too" before moving on to the check. I didn't bother factoring in the d100 roll because without having the full chart available, I feel comfortable in assuming the whole table is full of pretty awful things, the only two entries you showed both involve the Fighter falling on his ass for multiple rounds. You will note I said "up to 6 rounds" not "exactly 6 rounds", so your 1/6th multiplier at the end is adding in an extra condition that has no purpose.

But now that we have the full picture, you roll, then roll again, then roll a d100, then roll a dex check, then roll a die for duration. We're rolling 5 fricken times to resolve a single attack just to give a chance to change someone's attack from a miss into giving them a chance to take themselves out of the fight entirely. What is the point?!

When I came into the game at 7th level, I bought the glaive; my backup was a non-magical longsword. We found the Flameburst longsword. And I'm pretty lightly armored as a consequence of spending that much on the guisarme. Neither weapon is inherently a back-up. In our last game I used both in successive battles -- the Flameburst sword against Frost Giants, which are more vulnerable to it, and the guisarme against a large number of humans for better battlefield control.

Which says nothing to change that you have twice your wealth by level in weaponry alone, and can only use one of the items at a given time. You were using this as an argument in favor of critical fumbles causing you to disarm yourself, saying that everyone should have a backup weapon! Bringing your own experience with it automatically sets that experience as what you expect to be the average for the purpose of the discussion, and that bar you set is so far outside a normal play experience that it makes the entire argument laughable.

An average level 7 character with a +2 weapon doesn't have even a +1 backup weapon. He's falling back onto a masterwork weapon. If we supplant that into your example, you're not pulling out the Masterwork Longsword when you fight frost giants, you're going to stick with your +2 Guisearm, because it is more accurate, has more damage, and has better reach which is important when fighting creatures with reach. So you're reduced to the character carrying around what amounts to dead weight in the form of a backup longsword, just for the off chance that he fails so hard he throws his weapon across the room and needs something else to do.



Basically, just because your special snowflake character with his 18 dex and +4 backup weapon worth more than half of what the party owns combined doesn't feel the bite from critical fumbles doesn't mean the rules aren't dumb. They're still dumb. It's still an awful rule. It works for out for you because of extremely contrived circumstances. Congratulations. The design still sucks, and I wouldn't just walk from a table trying to use them, but run as fast as possible.

[Prince Raven]

It's not that bad an outcome, but I've never had a melee fighter without a backup weapon, even back in 1975 before I ever heard of critical fumbles. When skeletons show up, leave the sword in its sheath and draw the mace.

My major problem is when it happens during a full attack and you lose all your attacks unless you're lucky enough to roll that 1 on the last attack. Which brings up another issue - a character using a full attack action becomes much more likely to fumble based on how many attacks he can have (and when you have a build that's throwing out 16 attacks at higher levels that's a big problem).

On the extremely rare case that a "damage yourself" outcome occurs, power attack bonuses should not apply, because the sword isn't hitting at the spot all that power was focused on. A competent DM should also take into account the weapon. You can't stab yourself with a rapier, though you can cut your left hand with a really stupid parry. You can strike yourself with a sword, but not with the sweet spot; damage should be reduced.

I agree on both points, but not all GMs do.

This can happen, but should be ridiculously rare. It's happened to me once in 35 years of SCA melee. Again, it doesn't occur unless the ally moves in front or at the end of a spent swing. Lower damage.

Which brings up another problem I have with most critical fumble house rules, they happen way too often. A 5% chance every single swing means a party of 4 mundanes is probably getting at least 1 fumble every combat encounter. The only critical fumble system I've ever liked is one where you had to roll to confirm the fumble, there were no major penalties to characters such as accidentally stabbing someone or losing all your remaining attacks, and they only applied to the first attack roll in a full attack. It was also a low-magic campaign, so the mundane vs. caster discrepancy didn't really matter.

Draw your dagger, or punch, or kick, or tackle, or pick up rocks to throw. You are not useless.

Ok, not useless, substantially less effective I should say.

[Zale]

So far almost every game in which I've had critical fumble rules have been very light hearted, low-stakes comedy games. And they're usually quite funny.

Of course, natural twenties could be almost as bad as failure, since sometimes those would result in doing too well.

Like the time someone fished up a kraken.

Luckily I saved us with kamikaze zombies.

But in a serious game they'd be a real pain.

[Prince Raven]

Sure, critical fumbles do have their place in a comedy game. There are lots of things I'd put in a comedy game that I'd keep as far away from a serous game as possible.

[Totema]

Critical failures should be as extraordinary as critical hits, but easier to get for low-level characters than high-level characters. Because of this, I ask that my players confirm fumbles, just like they do for crits.

If the confirmation roll beats the target's AC, then they use their original 1 for a traditional attack roll, rather than it being an automatic miss.

If the confirmation roll doesn't beat the target's AC, it's an automatic miss, but nothing more than that. However, if the confirmation roll is also a 1, then there's an additional negative effect. It's nothing so over-the-top as "you attack yourself instead", but usually something to the effect of being flat-footed or triggering an attack of opportunity.

(FYI, I also removed the idea of nat 20s being automatic hits. If a player's crit confirmation roll doesn't beat the AC, they just use the 20 for the attack roll instead. Confirmed crits are still automatic hits with bonus damage, as is typical)

I hate the idea of completely cutting them out of the game, but I completely agree that every attack carrying a 5% chance of making the PC look like a total ass is unacceptable. This way, there's still a titch of dramatic tension when a player rolls a 1, but it's very unlikely to completely derail a fight.

[Prince Raven]

^ Now that's a critical fumble system I can get behind.

[Talakeal]

If the confirmation roll beats the target's AC, then they use their original 1 for a traditional attack roll, rather than it being an automatic miss.

If the confirmation roll doesn't beat the target's AC, it's an automatic miss, but nothing more than that. However, if the confirmation roll is also a 1, then there's an additional negative effect. It's nothing so over-the-top as "you attack yourself instead", but usually something to the effect of being flat-footed or triggering an attack of opportunity.

I'm confused. If your attack bonus is high enough that you need a 1 to auto miss, wouldn't that mean that you can't fail the confirmation role without also invoking a fumble?

It seems like you could just say "A 1 is not an auto miss, however you must roll again and if the second roll is also a 1 you fumble," and get the exact same effect.

[Totema]

I'm confused. If your attack bonus is high enough that you need a 1 to auto miss, wouldn't that mean that you can't fail the confirmation role without also invoking a fumble?

It seems like you could just say "A 1 is not an auto miss, however you must roll again and if the second roll is also a 1 you fumble," and get the exact same effect.

If your BAB is high enough, and your target's AC is low enough, then yes, that would be the effect. Why wouldn't an epic-level fighter be able to tear through CR 1/4 goblins like rice paper?

[Talakeal]

If your BAB is high enough, and your target's AC is low enough, then yes, that would be the effect. Why wouldn't an epic-level fighter be able to tear through CR 1/4 goblins like rice paper?

But wouldn't your attack bonus ALWAYS exceed your targets AC for the "auto miss on a 1" rule to come into play? Otherwise a roll of a 1 would already miss regardless of whether or not you are playing with "A roll of a natural 1 automatically misses" or not.

Or are you saying that you only add your base attack bonus to the confirmation roll rather than your full attack bonus?

[Sartharina]

Critical failures should be as extraordinary as critical hits, but easier to get for low-level characters than high-level characters. Because of this, I ask that my players confirm fumbles, just like they do for crits.

If the confirmation roll beats the target's AC, then they use their original 1 for a traditional attack roll, rather than it being an automatic miss.

If the confirmation roll doesn't beat the target's AC, it's an automatic miss, but nothing more than that. However, if the confirmation roll is also a 1, then there's an additional negative effect. It's nothing so over-the-top as "you attack yourself instead", but usually something to the effect of being flat-footed or triggering an attack of opportunity.

(FYI, I also removed the idea of nat 20s being automatic hits. If a player's crit confirmation roll doesn't beat the AC, they just use the 20 for the attack roll instead. Confirmed crits are still automatic hits with bonus damage, as is typical)

I hate the idea of completely cutting them out of the game, but I completely agree that every attack carrying a 5% chance of making the PC look like a total ass is unacceptable. This way, there's still a titch of dramatic tension when a player rolls a 1, but it's very unlikely to completely derail a fight.

I've been kicking around a similar idea, but a nat 1 provokes an AoO, which can be used to attack or perform a combat maneuver without risk of AoO retaliation - that way, you still get "Drop sword/fall prone/break weapon/suffer penalty/sudden makeout" etc, but resolved through the game's already-established mechanics instead of having automatic pratfalls. I thought about having the nat 1 need to be confirmed, but that's the purpose of the enemy's attack. As a bonus, though, a critical hit, instead of requiring confirmation, allows the same array of options - so you can crit for massive damage, or crit and deliver a rider instead (Or do any of said combos - maneuvers can also crit, so you might be able to disarm and harm someone on a crit, or knock them down and disarm them in one awesome crit). These crits can explode endlessly, though, for added Critical Insanity.

As for why the epic-level hero can fumble against a level 1 goblin? Well, the true hero of the moment is not always the one with the highest CR.

[Totema]

But wouldn't your attack bonus ALWAYS exceed your targets AC for the "auto miss on a 1" rule to come into play? Otherwise a roll of a 1 would already miss regardless of whether or not you are playing with "A roll of a natural 1 automatically misses" or not.

Or are you saying that you only add your base attack bonus to the confirmation roll rather than your full attack bonus?

I'm not sure where your confusion comes from. It's a confirmation roll just like for confirming a critical hit, so it uses all your attack modifiers. In this way it's pretty symmetrical with critical hits, in that it's really hard for a high level martial character to fail a critical hit confirmation or a critical failure confirmation, and a lot easier for a lower level character to fail both. Which is the goal of this version anyway.

[Sartharina]

I'm not sure where your confusion comes from. It's a confirmation roll just like for confirming a critical hit, so it uses all your attack modifiers. In this way it's pretty symmetrical with critical hits, in that it's really hard for a high level martial character to fail a critical hit confirmation or a critical failure confirmation, and a lot easier for a lower level character to fail both. Which is the goal of this version anyway.

The problem he's having is that there's no point in distinguishing between hitting, and missing on a non-nat1. Those that don't miss on a nat 1 can't fail to hit unless they fumble because they confirm 'normal attack' on a 2. Those that do miss on a nat 1 won't gain any benefit from beating the AC on the confirmation roll, because they miss anyway.

People who hit on a 1 will always confirm except on a fumble.

People who miss on a nat 1 will never hit even if they confirm.

[Totema]

The problem he's having is that there's no point in distinguishing between hitting, and missing on a non-nat1. Those that don't miss on a nat 1 can't fail to hit unless they fumble because they confirm 'normal attack' on a 2. Those that do miss on a nat 1 won't gain any benefit from beating the AC on the confirmation roll, because they miss anyway.

People who hit on a 1 will always confirm except on a fumble.

People who miss on a nat 1 will never hit even if they confirm.

Ah, I hadn't considered that consequence. (which should demonstrate just how ad hoc my little system really is) I could argue that it's supposed to do that, but it does defeat the purpose of preserving the dreadful reputation of the nat 1, even for high level characters. I'll think on how I can work with it.

[Dunsparce]

There was only one instance where the group I'm in played with a critical failure table. While there was one instance where it was an awesome thing(An enemy Barbarian was about to charge and kill our rogue(anything 2 and above would hit and kill him) crit failed so badly he dropped his weapon, broke his armor, and fell prone in one go). Because I was a Mystic Ranger, I felt the table more than the other party members since Ranger's are all about making many attacks in a round. the DM dropped the whole thing when I rolled 3 crit fails (two during the same full attack), and all three got the "your weapon breaks" option. None of us really enjoyed it, and the DM just wanted to try something different.