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

[Seerow]

Two questions:

For number three, the system I use would fail number three, except you would never actually roll out an hours worth of men attacking a target dummy, if anything you would have them roll once at the end, more likely you would skip over it because it isnt important or a pass fail type situation. Also, the fumble rules only apply when it is dramatically interested to do so if the PCs are not direcltly involved. Would that be a problem for you because the fumbles rules could end up in that result because you force them into a situation where they were never meant to go and the rules tell you you shouldnt?

Yes it would be a problem. Because the actual point isn't what happens to people attacking a target dummy, that's just the scenario to show how absurd it is. The actual point is what statistics say happen based with your rules over a large number of attacks. Which PCs will undoubtedly make over their career.

And if your point is "Yeah, but they'd end up dead after an hour of hitting a dummy because they'd die to a thousand little cuts from hurting themselves on 1s" then I'm just going to say the reason I hate critical fumble rules so much in the first place is personal experience where a fight was decided not based on who beat their enemy, but which character rolled the most ones to kill themselves first. Seriously the whole fight not one attack landed, but at the time critical fumbles were in play and if you got a 1 you'd hit yourself. Both of the involved characters here were rolling so poorly that one was at half HP and the other was dead, with neither having their opponent hit them once.

This should not be a scenario that can EVER conceivably happen. If it is a possibility, your rules are crap. And if statistics say you'll kill yourself after a few hundred or thousand attacks, chances are that it will happen at least once in game.

As for number five, what sort of fumbles DO results you accept? Because tripping or dropping a weapon in combat are just about the most common mishaps out there and don't seem particularly silly to me.

They may be common mishaps, but should not be remotely common, or even feasible, to happen to a high level character. I'd be more okay with something like this for a level 1-3 character, but by level 4-6 the character should be able to shrug it off and go "nope that didn't actually happen" most of the time, and beyond that straight up should never happen.

I tend to be most okay with critical fumbles that leave the character open to follow up from an enemy. Things like granting advantage on the next attack against you or the like.

[Morty]

I think "fumbles", or critical failures, or whatever, simply shouldn't come down to simple statistics. If the chance is too great, it's absurd, and if the chance is microscopic, then the rules might as well not be there. So if there are critical failure rules, they should be caused by circumstances. In the New World of Darkness, the statistical chances of a dramatic failure are pretty small - you need to have your dice pool reduced below 0, and then get a 1 on the single chance die you roll. But the newly-released second edition allows players to turn a simple failure into a dramatic one and get experience. Plus there are mechanical effects that transform failures into dramatic failures. This is just one example of how to do it.

[Seerow]

I think "fumbles", or critical failures, or whatever, simply shouldn't come down to simple statistics. If the chance is too great, it's absurd, and if the chance is microscopic, then the rules might as well not be there. So if there are critical failure rules, they should be caused by circumstances. In the New World of Darkness, the statistical chances of a dramatic failure are pretty small - you need to have your dice pool reduced below 0, and then get a 1 on the single chance die you roll. But the newly-released second edition allows players to turn a simple failure into a dramatic one and get experience. Plus there are mechanical effects that transform failures into dramatic failures. This is just one example of how to do it.

And that's fine for WoD. I'm also not too bothered by the "critical glitch" rules from Shadowrun because they have such a miniscule chance of happening unless you are trying something your character is not good at. But this thread is specifically about "D&D All", in which fumbles invariably boil down to rolling a 1 on a d20, plus maybe some confirmation roll.

[Zalphon]

Absolutely a fan. ABSOLUTELY. But I apply Critical Failures to all things. Like a 1 on a Disable Device Roll triggers it.

Rolling a 1 becomes a dreaded event...or a glorious occasion if a monster does it.

One of my players favorite events was watching a Dremora (it was an Elder Scrolls campaign) who was a boss roll a 1, then a natural 20 (to-hit against himself), and then roll max damage to cleave his own head off. The players lost it in both laughter and rejoice that they survived without anyone dead.

Then again a fellow buddy of mine in a campaign we played together in quite literally killed himself with a flying kick (he was a monk) that somehow managed to kick himself in the head and crush his skull--killing him as his brain leaked out his ears. We all lost it laughing. And then had him resurrected. ...That Monk killed himself more than he did killed monsters--he had to have crit himself into the Dead-Book a half-dozen times, but we'll never forget him for that reason. And that's something that's honestly quite cool in my opinion.

[Sartharina]

-snip-

All of those are only relevant if you ignore that there's another agent on the other side of the attack roll. A critical failure is a critical success from the other party.

[Talakeal]

Yes it would be a problem. Because the actual point isn't what happens to people attacking a target dummy, that's just the scenario to show how absurd it is. The actual point is what statistics say happen based with your rules over a large number of attacks. Which PCs will undoubtedly make over their career.

And if your point is "Yeah, but they'd end up dead after an hour of hitting a dummy because they'd die to a thousand little cuts from hurting themselves on 1s" then I'm just going to say the reason I hate critical fumble rules so much in the first place is personal experience where a fight was decided not based on who beat their enemy, but which character rolled the most ones to kill themselves first. Seriously the whole fight not one attack landed, but at the time critical fumbles were in play and if you got a 1 you'd hit yourself. Both of the involved characters here were rolling so poorly that one was at half HP and the other was dead, with neither having their opponent hit them once.

This should not be a scenario that can EVER conceivably happen. If it is a possibility, your rules are crap. And if statistics say you'll kill yourself after a few hundred or thousand attacks, chances are that it will happen at least once in game.



They may be common mishaps, but should not be remotely common, or even feasible, to happen to a high level character. I'd be more okay with something like this for a level 1-3 character, but by level 4-6 the character should be able to shrug it off and go "nope that didn't actually happen" most of the time, and beyond that straight up should never happen.

I tend to be most okay with critical fumbles that leave the character open to follow up from an enemy. Things like granting advantage on the next attack against you or the like.

Well, my system requires a confirmation roll on a natural 1, and players have several mechanics to negate them using action points or traits. I generally don't see more than one or two fumbled from a player in an entire weekend of gaming, and maybe half a dozen random mooks if there is a lot of combat.

I can't imagine an actual fight where fumbles come up reasonably often. Even if you auto fumble on a twenty, and the fight is only between two people, and only lasts three rounds, that is a 1/64,000,000 chance of all fumbles occurring, which is not conceivable. The odds of anyone actually killing themselves is even smaller unless they are carelessly tossing around AOE attacks in melee.

Honestly, I think the chances of actually killing yourself, or even an ally, are smaller than in reality going by statistics on accidental death or friendly fire.

[Zavoniki]

Absolutely a fan. ABSOLUTELY. But I apply Critical Failures to all things. Like a 1 on a Disable Device Roll triggers it.

Rolling a 1 becomes a dreaded event...or a glorious occasion if a monster does it.

One of my players favorite events was watching a Dremora (it was an Elder Scrolls campaign) who was a boss roll a 1, then a natural 20 (to-hit against himself), and then roll max damage to cleave his own head off. The players lost it in both laughter and rejoice that they survived without anyone dead.

Then again a fellow buddy of mine in a campaign we played together in quite literally killed himself with a flying kick (he was a monk) that somehow managed to kick himself in the head and crush his skull--killing him as his brain leaked out his ears. We all lost it laughing. And then had him resurrected. ...That Monk killed himself more than he did killed monsters--he had to have crit himself into the Dead-Book a half-dozen times, but we'll never forget him for that reason. And that's something that's honestly quite cool in my opinion.

These are both examples of why I think Critical Failures are bad.

[DM Nate]

Well, failing the Disable Device by more than 5 triggers it anyway.

[TheCountAlucard]

Well, failing the Disable Device by more than 5 triggers it anyway.

But triggering a trap when you roll a 1 is a lot different from triggering a trap when you miss the DC by 5. Sometimes a combination of buffs, magic items/tools, and a good skill modifier make the roll itself more or less unimportant. Simple traps should have a microscopic chance of being accidentally set off by a skilled rogue, not 5%.

[Sartharina]

But triggering a trap when you roll a 1 is a lot different from triggering a trap when you miss the DC by 5. Sometimes a combination of buffs, magic items/tools, and a good skill modifier make the roll itself more or less unimportant. Simple traps should have a microscopic chance of being accidentally set off by a skilled rogue, not 5%.

Why are you rolling?

Of course, if I were houseruling critical failures, I'd have such a situation be similar to Shadowrun's 'Glitch on a Success'. Sure, Nat 20/Nat 1's aren't as scaling-friendly as Shadowrun's Exploding on Max/Glitch on Half 1's, but they're generally enough playing with anyone that isn't an emotionally dead math nerd unfazed by the face of the die.

There's a psychological effect of rolling minimum/maximum on a die.

[Jay R]

also, first post! yay.

Welcome to the playground.

also, mandatory link to an epic fumble: Sameo

Note that with no critical fumble rule, we would never have had the story of Sameo.

[awa]

I've tried this one before, and I found the only one interacting with this rule was the Archery Ranger, who was stuck dealing with all manner of penalties usually between cover, poor lighting, and Rapid Shot. It really was not fun for him dealing with broken bow-strings and the like all of the time.

at least in my system only one of those is a penalty cover improves the other guys defense, poor light grants concealment not a penalty.

rapid shot grants a penalty of -2 i would hope that anyone taking such a feat has at least 1 bab to go along with the required minimum 1 dex making it unlikely to come up with out additional debuffs. And at least in my game pcs throw out debuffs more often then monsters

[Kamai]

at least in my system only one of those is a penalty cover improves the other guys defense, poor light grants concealment not a penalty.

rapid shot grants a penalty of -2 i would hope that anyone taking such a feat has at least 1 bab to go along with the required minimum 1 dex making it unlikely to come up with out additional debuffs. And at least in my game pcs throw out debuffs more often then monsters

Ok, so there were some goofed up rulings that I didn't realize that made things harder on him (I treated cover as a penalty for simplicity's sake, and I thought Concealment was both a penalty and a miss chance). On top of that, it was early levels, and he took a chance on Rapid Shot instead of Precise Shot, having that penalty in there. The main part that nobody else interacted with the rule stands, and if nobody's set to interact with the rule, what's the point of it?

[Raine_Sage]

I am a fan of critical fumble rules but generally as an extension of murphy's law rather than an instant fail condition.

For example, rolling a natural 1 on a check to leap nimbly down from the roof of a building doesn't mean the rogue has suddenly gone flat footed, more that one of the shingles came loose at exactly the wrong time and instead of silently escaping into the night, they now have to lose their pursuer.

Or in combat, the fighter doesn't cleave his own head off, he just missed so widely that the enemy got in a free shot because he left himself open. Once an enemy rolled three 1s in a row (I do also like rolls to confirm to shrink 5% to something a little more manageable) and that meant the cleric's god decided that they were going to be especially awesome that day and smote the beast in a rain of holy fire as it still raised its mace.

I've played with critical fail rules pretty much as long as I've been gaming, I never felt they were particularly unfair. That might just be because if we were rolling in the first place then rolling poorly meant bad things could happen even on a normal failure. If the rogue had rolled a 5 instead of a 1 they would still have failed as escaping silently and needed to lose their pursuer. They just wouldn't have fallen off the roof into a trash bin. That extra little detail actually helped take the sting off because it was something we could all laugh about.

[awa]

Ok, so there were some goofed up rulings that I didn't realize that made things harder on him (I treated cover as a penalty for simplicity's sake, and I thought Concealment was both a penalty and a miss chance). On top of that, it was early levels, and he took a chance on Rapid Shot instead of Precise Shot, having that penalty in there. The main part that nobody else interacted with the rule stands, and if nobody's set to interact with the rule, what's the point of it?

in my game? it comes up becuase the pc like stacking debuffs, morale penalties, luck penalties ect on bad guys and then feel very pleased with themselves when there foes weapons break and so on. Sure it doesn't come up very often but it does come up.

[TheCountAlucard]

Why are you rolling?

I wouldn't be, but if the GM was forcing fumble rules on people, then yes, that 5% chance of catastrophic failure would make rolling necessary.

[Prince Raven]

My least favourite critical fumble systems are the ones where I could conceivably defeat most non-magical opponents by simply building high enough AC and waiting for them to kill themselves.

[Mr Beer]

Absolutely a fan. ABSOLUTELY. But I apply Critical Failures to all things. Like a 1 on a Disable Device Roll triggers it.

Rolling a 1 becomes a dreaded event...or a glorious occasion if a monster does it.

One of my players favorite events was watching a Dremora (it was an Elder Scrolls campaign) who was a boss roll a 1, then a natural 20 (to-hit against himself), and then roll max damage to cleave his own head off. The players lost it in both laughter and rejoice that they survived without anyone dead.

Then again a fellow buddy of mine in a campaign we played together in quite literally killed himself with a flying kick (he was a monk) that somehow managed to kick himself in the head and crush his skull--killing him as his brain leaked out his ears. We all lost it laughing. And then had him resurrected. ...That Monk killed himself more than he did killed monsters--he had to have crit himself into the Dead-Book a half-dozen times, but we'll never forget him for that reason. And that's something that's honestly quite cool in my opinion.

These are arguments against using critical failures.

[Teron]

Nah, it's a demonstration that critical failures turn a game into a slapstick comedy. If that's what you're after, knock yourself out.

[Alex12]

My group doesn't use crit-failures for attack rolls. We do use them for skill checks, kinda.
If you roll a 1 on a skill check, and would normally fail it on a 1 or otherwise are insufficiently awesome (generally agreed upon to mean a less than +10 bonus to the skill) then you either fail harder or fail amusingly. If Bob the level 1 Commoner tries for an untrained Acrobatics check to jump over a small puddle in the road, and he gets a 1, he'll land in the puddle, slip, lose his balance, and fall prone and maybe have to make a low Reflex save or take a bit of damage (say DC 8 to avoid 1d2 damage). If his brother Ed the level Monk with his +16 to jump rolls a 1 on the same check, he still lands exactly where he wanted to because he's just that good at jumping that he's not relying on luck.
To balance this, a natural 20 on a skill check, explodes recursively, but only in situations where you can't take 20 without using any limited resources or abilities.

[Talakeal]

Nah, it's a demonstration that critical failures turn a game into a slapstick comedy. If that's what you're after, knock yourself out.

A few years back my uncle went hunting eith a couple of his buddies. One of them forgot to put his safety on or unload the gun when they were done. As he was putting it in the car it went off, shooting him in the throat. He bled to death on the way to the hospital.

Does this sound like a slapstick commedy to you?

Fumbles happen. Sometimes they are funny, sometimes they are tragic. Sometimes they are frustrating or embarrassing, sometimes they turn a boring day into an adventure. A decent DM should be able to narrate a fumble in such a way that it matches the desired mood rather than ruining it.

[Earthwalker]

When mentioning crtical failures in DND all I think is.

EWWWW someone has spilt Runequest all over my DnD, Quick mop it up before it sticks. (I do love the murpheys rules where it does some number crunching on a runequest battle and with 500 people on each side, something like 8 people would chop thier own heads off)

I am not a fan of critical failures in DnD. Don't think they add anything and as people have pointed out its just another mechanic that works against melees more than casters.

[illyahr]

Nah, it's a demonstration that critical failures turn a game into a slapstick comedy. If that's what you're after, knock yourself out.

Don't say stuff like that! What are you trying to do, jinx us?

[icefractal]

A few years back my uncle went hunting eith a couple of his buddies. One of them forgot to put his safety on or unload the gun when they were done. As he was putting it in the car it went off, shooting him in the throat. He bled to death on the way to the hospital.

Does this sound like a slapstick commedy to you?

Fumbles happen. Sometimes they are funny, sometimes they are tragic. Sometimes they are frustrating or embarrassing, sometimes they turn a boring day into an adventure. A decent DM should be able to narrate a fumble in such a way that it matches the desired mood rather than ruining it.

If 5% of hunters shot themselves fatally on each hunting trip, then it would be considered a huge crisis and most people would stop hunting until a solution was found to prevent it.

That's the problem with fumbles. **** happens. But not 5% of the time for every action you take. Not even 1/400th of the time, for extreme stuff like shooting yourself. Fumbling ridiculously often does turn the game into comedy (maybe dark comedy), or just gibberish.

[Merellis]

A few years back my uncle went hunting eith a couple of his buddies. One of them forgot to put his safety on or unload the gun when they were done. As he was putting it in the car it went off, shooting him in the throat. He bled to death on the way to the hospital.

Does this sound like a slapstick commedy to you?

Fumbles happen. Sometimes they are funny, sometimes they are tragic. Sometimes they are frustrating or embarrassing, sometimes they turn a boring day into an adventure. A decent DM should be able to narrate a fumble in such a way that it matches the desired mood rather than ruining it.

That's less of rolling a 1 and more a lesson in gun safety being key to avoiding such situations.

[Talakeal]

Which is only a problem if you insist on rolling for every little thing. But that doesnt happen in actual play, only people crunching numbers on the internet.

Yes, if you make players (and npcs) roll for everything they will fumble all the time. But you dont play that way, you only roll for dramatically important ings, and over time this shouldnt cause any more fumbles than real life.

[icefractal]

Which is only a problem if you insist on rolling for every little thing. But that doesnt happen in actual play, only people crunching numbers on the internet.

Yes, if you make players (and npcs) roll for everything they will fumble all the time. But you dont play that way, you only roll for dramatically important ings, and over time this shouldnt cause any more fumbles than real life.

Umm - you don't roll for attacks in combat? Because that's where a lot of the issue shows up.

Let's take some soldiers as an example. We'll even say that they're only making one "attack" a round, although they're definitely shooting more than one bullet per six seconds. If twenty soldiers are in a fire-fight that lasts one minute, then by 'natural 1' rules, about ten of them would have shot themselves. Does that seem reasonable?

Ok, so we make it require a confirmation roll. Now only 3-5 shoot themselves. Each time they go into combat. Still seems high.

Ok, only on a natural 1, followed by another natural 1. This is more scarce than most people mean when talking about fumbles, but I have seen it used, so ... Now only one soldier shoots themself for every two fights. I'm not actually sure what the statistics are, but that still seems too high.

(If, by the way, the use of automatic weapons is considered to give the soldiers a second attack / round, or their training is considered to include Rapid Shot, or they're elite units with BAB +6, then double/triple all those numbers. Yes, the SEAL team would apparently shoot themselves more often than a new recruit).

[oxybe]

Our fighter in the wednesday pathfinder game has three attacks per round. That means every round he has a 3/20 chance of fumbling. This means that every round he full attacks, he has a 15% chance of fumbling.

This means that he's almost guaranteed a fumble once every 6-7 rounds.

In the "real time" terms that means in a section of combat that lasts less then a minute our level 13 fighter, FAR above what most mortals can even think of accomplishing, is silly, especially in a game where the top end we are at right now have VERY little grounding in "reality".

And that's the thing: we fully expect the fighters (or fighter likes) to be mundane guys with mundane capabilities but yet fully want them to competently stand up against supernatural things. The fumble rules generally punish these characters more then they should, especially at the higher levels where they have a much harder time staying relevant.

In the middle of a pitched combat with a balor, would you really want a guy who might throw away his sword across the room, the sword being his only real way to contribute, in less then a minute's time?

And that's one of the reasons I don't like those rules.

[Red Fel]

And another point, which has been mentioned somewhat by others, is that fumble rules penalize PCs more than they penalize NPCs. Why? Action economy.

Let's look at a combat situation. Let's assume that we're dealing with a team of 4 level 15 melee-types (so 2-3 attacks apiece on a full attack, or 8-12 total attacks per round) versus a Young Adult Black Dragon (CR 9). It's a Large Dragon, so it gets 1 bite, 2 claws, 2 wing slams and 1 tail slap - a total of 6 attacks in a round.

If we assume that all characters are using only melee attacks, the PCs have between 8-12 chances to fumble in a round. The dragon has, at most, 6 chances. (And because it's using natural weapons, it doesn't have the "oops, you dropped your weapon" or "oops, your weapon broke" options.) Ironically, the advantage of the action economy - multiple PC actions for an NPC's one - turns into a disadvantage when fumble rules are introduced.

Now, let's change the combat situation. Let's replace 2 of our 4 melee-types with casters. They are no longer subject to fumbles. Further, let's play the Dragon smartly. As a Young Adult, he's going to fly, cast spells, and strafe with his breath weapon, a line of acid. None of that is subject to fumble rules. Right now, the only characters subject to fumbles are PCs - the two melees.

That's the point. If a PC is designed around non-magical combat, he will almost always be subject to fumble rules. At low levels, NPCs will have fewer melee actions to the PCs' actions, and will thus see fewer fumbles; at higher levels, they will have generally have magical options not subject to fumbles, and will thus see fewer fumbles. On average, therefore, the PCs are likely to fumble more than NPCs.

And as a rule, any option which hoses the PCs but leaves NPCs relatively unscathed (Sameo's epic story notwithstanding) isn't a very tempting option, in my book.

[Kelb_Panthera]

For general play, absolutely not. For the reasons others have already hashed out and rehashed more than once now, I normally -despise- fumble rules.

The former is qualified for one reason and one reason only; once in a great while, my group would do a one-off comedy adventure. Class choice is restricted to NPC classes and the plot hooks lead to fairly mundane tasks in which relatively frequent screw ups (fumbles) are paired with absurd characters and even more absurd complications that make the whole thing into a gut-busting farce.