Natural 1s: Fumble and get inspiration

[Dalebert]

Some folks are fans of fumble tables, critical misses, etc. How about this?

Let players decide that something bad happens IF they want. Let them use their own creativity and if you find it contributes to the story, you can reward inspiration. TOTALLY optional and within the player's control.

Examples:
You dropped your weapon slightly out of reach.

You exposed yourself to a reaction attack from the target.

Your monk ripped a nail off on the enemy's armor trying to do a karate chop. He has -1 on attacks and dmg until he takes an action to deal with it or gets magical healing.

[Mellack]

Why just on 1s? If you think such story-telling connected to mechanical effects adds to the experience, why not allow it on any roll?
Missed by just one? My sword got jammed on their wooden shield.
Hit but rolled low damage? Dagger is wedged in a armor joint.

Can the spend insperation to do great hits? Hit and rolled max damage, can they say they knocked off a piece of armor and now the opponent gets a -1 to AC?

[Deathtongue]

If you think such story-telling connected to mechanical effects adds to the experience, why not allow it on any roll?

They tried this in Exalted 1E/2E D&D, and what ends up happening is people filibustering every single roll in hopes of regaining motes/Willpower. It's kind of cute the first time people over-narrate a simple bandit attack, but it gets old real fast.

Allowing inspiration on a roll of 1 allows an opportunity for narrative flair without filibusters or the Wild Mage/Divine Intervention problem of 'it's all in the hands of the DM, not you, so why bother highlighting it'?

[Eric Diaz]

Sounds god to me.... It depends on the group,. though. Most of my players do not care for "dissociated" mechanics (or something), I have to keep reminding them inspiration exists at all....

Also, inspiration seems to have an in-game meaning in 5e... so I'm not sure how losing you weapon would give you inspiration. But, mechanically, sounds good.

And I agree with the "only on a natural 1" thing, or this will dominate every roll.

[pwykersotz]

Haha, it could work too well. It's like asking a child how they think they should be punished for something. They might go a lot further than you would. It could be fun though! Players just need to not feel unnecessarily compelled by the system. I think inspiration might be a soft enough mechanic to make it feel like an actual choice. Good idea!

[Specter]

Nobody wants to fumble. If they describe their stupidity to get inspiration, they're playing you. But at the same time, if you're giving fumbles on any 1 rolled on a d20, the problem is you.

A possible solution: if there's a 1 on the d20, have them roll a d4. If it turns out to be a 1, then it's a fumble, otherwise it's just a failure. Thiscan become a d6 or a d8 at higher level, to show that epic characters hardly (if ever) fumble.

[Pope Scarface]

I do something similar. When players roll a 1, they can choose to fumble to get an inspiration. They can also spend their inspiration to make an NPC fumble when they roll a 1. I determined the fumble results though. The players seemed to enjoy it.

[JNAProductions]

Not a bad idea. Let's players who know you well and know you're fair use the fumble system and get a (minor) reward for it, while those who are cagier and less trusting of DMs can not touch it at all.

[Eric Diaz]

Nobody wants to fumble. If they describe their stupidity to get inspiration, they're playing you. But at the same time, if you're giving fumbles on any 1 rolled on a d20, the problem is you.

I agree if you're giving fumbles on any 1 rolled on a d20, the problem is you.

A possible solution: if there's a 1 on the d20, have them roll a d4. If it turns out to be a 1, then it's a fumble, otherwise it's just a failure. Thiscan become a d6 or a d8 at higher level, to show that epic characters hardly (if ever) fumble.

Even this is not enough IMO. A high level fighter would still fumble too often, and TBH I dislike "confirming" rolls. [

Maybe two natural 1s in a row can cause a fumble - even if you're not the guy who rolled the first 1. Or something. High level characters shouldn't be fumbling even 1% of their attacks - special considering fighters can make a dozen attacks in a single fight or more.

Unless you use stronger criticals. Then things balance out a bit.

[Dalebert]

It's only a chance for inspiration of course. If they make it too weak, I wouldn't give it. It probably shouldn't be too bad either. Like was pointed out, a serious fumble should be much more rare than 5%. A minor inconvenience that's completely optional seems fine.

[Specter]

I agree if you're giving fumbles on any 1 rolled on a d20, the problem is you.

Even this is not enough IMO. A high level fighter would still fumble too often, and TBH I dislike "confirming" rolls.

Maybe two natural 1s in a row can cause a fumble - even if you're not the guy who rolled the first 1. Or something. High level characters shouldn't be fumbling even 1% of their attacks - special considering fighters can make a dozen attacks in a single fight or more.

Unless you use stronger criticals. Then things balance out a bit.

I use this second dice roll (d8) on my table, and it takes only one second away from the game. Besides, it's 1 chance in 160 to fumble if you're using a d8. That's definitely not too much.

[JNAProductions]

I actually like the "Roll a d6-if it's equal to or less than your proficiency bonus, you don't fumble."

It makes fumbles less likely as you level up, to the point where you CANNOT fumble at level 17+. Adjust die size as appropriate for the tone of your table.

[Eric Diaz]

I use this second dice roll (d8) on my table, and it takes only one second away from the game. Besides, it's 1 chance in 160 to fumble if you're using a d8. That's definitely not too much.

I actually like the "Roll a d6-if it's equal to or less than your proficiency bonus, you don't fumble."

It makes fumbles less likely as you level up, to the point where you CANNOT fumble at level 17+. Adjust die size as appropriate for the tone of your table.

It is a matter of preference. I just don't like fumbles on principle. I wouldn't mind playing a game where everyone had a chance of fumble, I guess, although I might avoid playing a fiughter with three or four attacks per round. I like the idea of no more fumbles after level 17, etc.

With that said, IMO:

How often do people throw away their own weapons or fall to the ground due to incompetence or bad luck in the kinds of adventures that have inspired D&D? Can you imagine Elric or Conan doing something like that?

Fumbles are bad even when NPCs do it. How heroic is winning a fight because your adversary stabbed himself by accident? Finishing a battle this way is more anti-climatic than rolling again to find out that nothing happens.

In short, fumbles are mostly a comedic device. Nothing wrong if that is what you're looking for - I certainly had my laughs while "tripping in invisible turtles" when playing Rolemaster.

Still, I see at least one interesting use for "natural ones": as a risk-reward mechanic. This means that the natural 1 only matters when you take an exceptional risk. For example, if you want to jump down from a house over you enemy and stab him at the same time, etc.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com...are-funny.html

[Dalebert]

I generally like that 5e doesn't have fumbles at all. I don't want to stray from that. Two things: K.I.S.S. and you are never subjected to a fumble. You can choose to fumble if you want. Simple and you can never fumble if you want.