House rule for Nat 1's what do y'all think.

[Lance Tankmen]

I'd say you do you DM. I have a critical fumble chart and a enhanced critical hit chart. Maybe it helps that some of the things on the fumble chart are positive or aren't stupid in that you can't harm yourself or friends with melee attacks . Ranged can hit someone randomly maybe a different enemy. magic fumbles can hurt you... also I've never had god hero mentality players at my table. The kind that get upset when things don't go their way even with out a fumble chart, who play d&d as though it's Skyrim. Heroes are forged on the anvils of suffering.

[Theodoxus]

This is why Halfings are my spirit animal. I will only play them from now on - gotten burnt too many times by silly DMs and their silly fumble rules. An auto-miss is harsh enough, wasting the players turn (at some tables, there can be upward of 10 minutes between turns) - adding insult to injury just isn't cool.

[Laserlight]

The concept of "extra pain for the players on a Nat 1" needs to die.

[Tinkermancer]

If you want to use a critical fumble chart (one that has been preapproved by your players, preferably) I highly recommend adopting the optional 'Inspiration' rules in the Player's Handbook. Then, on a natural one, offer the player the option of rolling on the fumble chart in exchange for an Inspiration point. This accomplishes a few things:

1. It eliminates 'Gotcha Dming'. The players know exactly what they are getting themselves into.

2. It promotes player involvement. It's up to THEM what they want to wager, leaving their fate in their hands rather than the DM's.

3. It adds a new element of surprise to the game. With a properly built fumble chart, it allows for normally impossible situations to unfold that can change the dynamics of a battle in very interesting ways.

4. It rewards them for taking chances, and increases their ability to be heroic at the times of their choosing.

Now, building a proper fumble chart is a different story, but I would recommend doing so WITH your players' help...

[Cespenar]

Whatever you do, the following addendum helps a lot:

-A natural 1 isn't a fumble unless the majority of that person's attacks this round are misses.

This helps with the "level 20 fighter making more fumbles" silliness.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

And when the dragon rolls a Nat 1, what penalty are you going to impose?

This raises a very good point, actually. We've discussed how the effects of fumbles are problematic with regards to the PCs, but another thing to consider is the problems they pose when dealing with significant enemies as well. Nothing takes the fear out of fighting a hydra than seeing it roll a 1 and tie all it's heads in knots or something. There's also the mechanical aspect to consider - one of the reasons that fumble penalties are generally worse for the PCs than the enemy is that, generally speaking, a PC's action is more important than the average enemy's one and thus a comparable interference hurts more - Alice the Fighter losing an action* probably is worse for her team than Bob the Kobold losing his action is for his team. However, for single, powerful enemies, that is turned around. And given that boss types tend to have more attacks anyway...

*Or having to spend an attack picking up her weapon, or getting disadvantage on her attacks, or whatever.

[Laserlight]

Whatever you do, the following addendum helps a lot:

-A natural 1 isn't a fumble unless the majority of that person's attacks this round are misses.

This helps with the "level 20 fighter making more fumbles" silliness.

I thought about "only if all your attacks this turn roll 1s, then it's a fumble", but then casters who make one big attack roll per turn still get screwed.

[Snails]

...one of the reasons that fumble penalties are generally worse for the PCs than the enemy is that, generally speaking, a PC's action is more important than the average enemy's one and thus a comparable interference hurts more - Alice the Fighter losing an action* probably is worse for her team than Bob the Kobold losing his action is for his team. However, for single, powerful enemies, that is turned around. And given that boss types tend to have more attacks anyway...

Exactly. Action economy potentially cuts in both directions, and we need to think this through or these house rules are destined to suck rocks.

It hardly matters if a mook fumbles, because their actions only matter in the aggregate or when swings of luck so happen to favor them enough to make the PCs sweat. Mook bad luck turning into very bad luck is practically a round off error, because a mook action is not valuable compared to a PC action.

But a BBEG's action is more precious than an individual PC's action, because of their limited life expectancy and the likelihood of the conflict boiling down to a battle of many heroes versus one antagonist. So self-inflicted bad luck that steals away the effectiveness of a future BBEG action can be a big change to the entire encounter.

When I hear "rolling a 1 is supposed to be a upsetting thing" I want to know whether it is supposed to be upsetting to the characters or upsetting to the players.

If there is a genuine even-handed penalty that affects all characters quite similarly -- all PCs and all NPCs of all kinds of builds, such is something that could be workable. But I am going to argue relentlessly against penalties that really only matter to the players.

The rub here is these kinds of rules tend to be a trap, that trip DMs into bad behavior. For the most part, DMs adopt these kinds of rules with good intentions, as a means to add uncertainty to encounters so that they are "more interesting". But the PCs paying a premium for their fumbles when fighting nothing NPCs is only fair if the important NPCs can suffer the same kind of consequences.

When push comes to shove, it is so very tempting to fudge the dice to save the BBEG's neck if bad luck strikes early in the encounter, because it seems "less interesting" for the grand finale to be a walkover due to a bad roll or two. After all, "more interesting" is the goal, right? What is a DM to do? The net result is that NPCs pay a token penalty that will never be allowed to genuinely affect the battle in the players' favor, so the fumble rules end up being a real penalty only against the players.

[MeeposFire]

I know earlier I said that fumbles are terrible but there is an exception which is when you roll a one the DM (any way you like) decides on how the miss occurs but mechanically it does nothing more than just a miss. SO if you want the fighter to stumble because it would be funny that is cool just make sure he is back ready for action with no discernible loss of ability and you get your flavor but do not unduly punish someone for having more attacks.

Adding fun is fine I would just avoid the punishment. It really is not needed.

[Laurefindel]

I've often seen fumble rules triggered on the first attack of the round only. Thus it doesn't penalize those with multiple attacks per round.

Also, one could rule that a 20 rolled on a saving throw is a fumble for the caster. Again, only the first saving throw would trigger the fumble in case of AoO with multiple defenders.

[Mellack]

I've often seen fumble rules triggered on the first attack of the round only. Thus it doesn't penalize those with multiple attacks per round.
.

This would depend on what the possible consequences of rolling a 1 are. If it could be dropping a weapon (after having used your free interaction to say draw it) that would end your attacks. That would actually hurt those with multiple attacks more. Same with if they fall down, now all subsequent attacks are at disadvantage unless they still have half movement left.

[Pex]

The best use I've experienced for rolling a 1 in combat is the DM giving a flavor text explanation as to why your miss was more noteworthy for that attack than other misses that happened rolling not-a-1 which hadn't gotten commentary. Same is true for the monsters. No extra penalties needed.

[ko_sct]

One thing i often do is make a nat1 on an attack affect the environnement. Often creating difficult terrain and sometime actual hazards. It's mostly fiat but it add a little imprivisibility to combats without being unfair.

Exemples include smashing a table to pieces, smashing down an already crumbling wall (allowing people to pass through but creating a small zone of difficult terrain because of the loose stones), starting a small fire (a cantrip that does fire dmg in a place with lot of flammable things).

So far I've never had a player complain about these. I've also sometime made more catastrophic consequences for nat 1, but I reserve those for weaker mobs or incompetent fighter (like, in a fight against a milicia composed mostly of farmers with no weapon training, I've had nat 1 result in dropped weapon or falling prone).

The important thing is to avoid making it unfair to the players and to avoid slowing down play. For those reasons I'm really not a fan of fumble tables.

A simple test I've seen for testing a fumble table is to have 20 lvl 1 fighters train for 20 min against 20 dummies, each making an attack each turn. After this short training you check to see if there is anyone who is dead or seriously hurt, and you scrap the fumble rules if there is.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think this ruling is still in favor of casters.

Firstly, they could in fact do the whole spell component pouch and seem to suffer no losses other then a blow to their dignity when throwing bat poop at an ogre. A lot of spells just don't have attack rolls, so controlling/buffing spells become a lot more desirable because there's no chance of backlash.

Also, if the campaign has ample access to natural wilds, bards and druids are pretty much unaffected as druids can just forage for a new focus and bards probably could make a new instrument such as panpipes.

It would also lead to the odd idea that a cleric's god is very upset with how badly they are casting magic and causing that magic to destroy their own holy symbol. That just seems weird.

[Beelzebubba]

Our game has fumbles, but the consequences are adjustable.

If the party is kicking ass, it does something like 'bow string broke, fix it after combat' or 'the Orc interposed his wooden shield in front of the Fire Bolt, the impact blasted some hot cinders into your robe and hair, spend your action round putting it out or there is a chance it may catch on fire'.

If it has a chance of seriously endangering or killing a character, then it becomes silly like 'your Thorn Whip just destroyed a beer stein, spraying awful Orc lager all over the Halfling'.

[FreddyNoNose]

Thing is, I'd find this less annoying than "You accidentally shoot your friend," but more annoying than "You drop your sword." Dropping a weapon allows for a fun, cinematic bit of action where you have to dive to get your weapon back. Heck, if the villains decide that keeping you separated from your weapon is more important/useful than beating the HP out of you, it could swing the entire fight in a new and interesting direction!

A sword that breaks, on the other hand just leaves you sad and feeling SOL. That or, as others have said, you start going the golf bag route where you just keep half a dozen swords on hand. The frustration factor jumps a LOT if you're fighting something that is resistant or outright immune to non-magical weapons and the thing that just broke was your only magic sword.

Heck, even "I accidentally shoot my friend" is arguably less annoying than a broken sword; from a raw numbers perspective, she was probably taking damage anyway. The potential for friendly fire makes combat potentially more dangerous, but doesn't completely change the game; a PC going down to a friend's natural 1 or an enemy's natural 20 isn't too terribly different. A PC suddenly being rendered entirely useless in a fight until at least the next short rest just seems like you've reduced a PC to "the annoying NPC you have to keep safe during an escort mission, but who can't contribute anything useful," which doesn't seem like much fun when I sat down to do some Save the Day Heroics^TM.

Just going back to the good old first edition dmg page 63:

MISSILE DISCHARGE
This is the usual loosing of arrows and bolts, hurling of axes, hommers,
javelins, darts, etc. It also includes the hurling of rocks by giants, manticore
tail spike throwing, and so on. It can occur simultaneously with magical
device ottacks, spell casting, or turning of undead. Mogicol device and
spell attacks can negate the effects of or damage some missiles, i.e.,
arrows fired off simultoneously with the dischorge of o fireball spell, or a
iavelin hurled into on ice storm, or a dworven hammer tossed at on
opponent struck by o fireball or lightning bolt. As referee you will have to
determine the final results according to circumstances. This is not difficult
using the ITEMSAVING THROW table.
Likewise, discharge of missiles into on existing melee is easily hondled. It
is permissible, of course, and the results might not be too incompatible
with the desires of the discharging party. Assign probabilities to each porticipant
in the melee or target group according to sheer numbers. In the
case of participants of varying size use half volue for size "S', normal
volue for size "M", and one and one-holf value for size "L" creatures
which ore not too much larger thon man-size. Total the calues for each
group and rotio one over the other. If side A has 4 man-sized participants,
and side B hos 3 smaller than mon-sized participants and 1 size "L" bugbear,
the ratio is 4:3. Then, according to the direction of the missile discharge,
determine hits by using the same ratio. If 7 missiles were loosed, 4
would have o chance to hit side A, 3 side B. In coses where the rotio does
not match the number of missiles, convert it to a percentage chance: 117
= 14% or IS%, depending on whether the missiles ore coming from oheod
of side A (14%) or from behind (15%). Thus 4/7 = 56% or 60% chonce per
missile thot it will hit side A. The minor difference represents the fact that
there will be considerable shifting and maneuvering during combat which
will tend to expose both opponents to fire on o near equal basis. Such
missiles must then be assigned (by situation or by random determinotion)
to target creatures, o "to hit" determinotion mode, and domage assessed
for those which do hit.
Large missiles will be treated in the some foshion
If one opponent group is significantly larger than the other, accurate
missiles which have o small area of effect con be directed ot the larger
opponent group with great hope of success. You moy assign a minor
chonce of the missile striking o friend if you wish, but this writer, for
instance, olwoys allows archery hits to hit a gaint or a similar creature
engaged ogoinst a human or smalle opponent.

[HidesHisEyes]

Nobody likes Nat 1's where the DM tells you that you hit one of your party members or lost your weapon or dropped it. I'm thinking house ruling in my games at if a player rolls a Nat 1's on a attack. The weapon or spell focus takes some damage and after so many times it breaks. Now you can spend a rest to fix your equipment if you have tool Prof or use the mending cantrip or pay someone to fix. What do y'all think

I quite like this idea. In answer to those wondering what it adds, I think it adds more value to crafting proficiency and the mending cantrip, thereby increasing the number of meaningful choices in character creation. And if you're using any form of encumbrance rules then the golf bag approach won't necessarily be a good solution.

I might prefer a dice roll to see if it breaks each time you roll a 1, so there's no bookkeeping of weapon HP. Masterwork and magic weapons would have a smaller chance to break.

Monks could maybe have a chance to take like 1d4 HP damage themselves (for not making a proper fist and crunching their fingers or something!) Not so sure about that though.

I think the "tyranny of fun" idea is relevant here:

https://youtu.be/Mx4d3_76scg

As others have pointed out, it really depends on the players. If your players subscribe to the notion that everything that happens in the game should be fun in an immediate sense, then you probably shouldn't implement anything like this. But if they like the idea of a sort of longer term fun that unfolds throughout the session (or even the campaign) in which things that are frustrating or annoying in the short term (like a weapon getting broken) have a part to play, then try it out. Usual disclaimer: neither approach is correct, both are valid, subjectivity etc etc.

[90sMusic]

I dislike anything beyond the auto-miss for natural 1's.

So you rolled a nat 1 a couple times, welp, your weapon is broke. But don't worry, you can fix it!
Rolled nat 1 a couple times on repairing the weapon, welp, your hammer/tools broke. Too bad.

I don't think players should ever be penalized for trying things unless they're doing something obviously stupid or incredibly dangerous. Breaking weapons and tools and whatever else is kind of awful because it makes players not want to even try to do things.

"Hey rogue, pick this lock on this treasure chest."
"Ooooooh... yeaahhhhhh... About that... I've already failed a couple of times and my lockpick is damaged, I don't want to risk it breaking, sorry"

As a DM, I always ask myself whenever I make a decision "what will this add to the story or to gameplay".
Breakable weapons and tools isn't going to add anything. It's going to get handwaved and ignored mechanically very quickly because players will just repair every short rest if they're allowed to do so, and if the requirements are too stringent they'll just carry spare weapons and tools around and toss the old ones on the ground when they break and completely ignore the mechanic. Only thing they won't chuck is something like a magical weapon which should not be taking "wear and tear" damage in the first place, but they'll just hold on to it and pull out a spare when they have to and do the tedious "repair" whenever they get the chance.

The only scenario where this kind of thing would actually matter is in some kind of super resource-starved world where things like metal weaponry is hard to come by and even metal to repair them is expensive. Like a post apocalyptic sort of deal. In a standard game, it's just a tedious addendum to their statement every time they take a short rest.

It's just not worth it. It isn't going to add anything positive or meaningful to the gameplay experience. If it is strictly enforced it'll get tedious real quick but if it isn't, it's going to get handwaved majority of the time.

I quite like this idea. In answer to those wondering what it adds, I think it adds more value to crafting proficiency and the mending cantrip, thereby increasing the number of meaningful choices in character creation.

It isn't really much of a choice though. If you can get mending, you're GOING to take it because otherwise you know your focus will break. Likewise with crafting proficiency.

So you go from virtually never having a means of repairing things, like most parties, to rules that practically enforce everyone have a way to repair their own equipment only it costs them one of their proficiencies or a cantrip known.

It still isn't really "meaningful", it's just sort of forcing a profession on you.

I played a campaign in pathfinder once where we were forced to spend skill points every level on a chosen profession. The idea being we weren't always adventurers and came from other walks of life before, and also the place we were going needed craftsmen and artisans and other "useful" people.

But 5e already has backgrounds which include proficiencies related to whatever you did prior and the game is sort of balanced around having X amount of chosen proficiencies, taking one away because of a mandatory homebrew rule is just kinda... I don't like it.

It isn't adding anything meaningful to gameplay or the story, it's just arbitrarily penalizing the players.

[djreynolds]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

On a natural 1, if you are shooting a bow/cantrip and your buddy is within 5ft, you now reroll to see if you hit him instead.

And melee you may have to roll to see if you hit your teammate depending on everyone's position and 5ft, 10ft for reach weapons.

[Beelzebubba]

I'd say you do you DM. I have a critical fumble chart and a enhanced critical hit chart. Maybe it helps that some of the things on the fumble chart are positive or aren't stupid in that you can't harm yourself or friends with melee attacks . Ranged can hit someone randomly maybe a different enemy. magic fumbles can hurt you... also I've never had god hero mentality players at my table. The kind that get upset when things don't go their way even with out a fumble chart, who play d&d as though it's Skyrim. Heroes are forged on the anvils of suffering.

I can't stand them.

Martials are unfairly targeted because they roll a LOT more d20's than spellcasters. Get a Battlemaster with a few maneuvers with bonus actions and reactions and you will fumble almost every combat.

Spellcasters force others to roll d20's. Not nearly as affected, and when they are, it's almost 100% of the time on cantrips and other things that have no possible way of 'breaking' or becoming taken away, like a sword can be dropped or a bowstring breaking.

Either get rid of 'em or force spellcasters to do arcana checks any time they try to do any spell and make a 1 a fumble there.

[Sigreid]

Why should a Nat 20 be a auto hit and extra damage. When a Nat 1 is just a auto fail. How is that fair? You should have equal consequences to failing and to succeeding.

I would say it's fair because it applies evenly to party members and npc's and monsters.

If you want a extra impact that is felt from rolling a 1, might I suggest that your next attack is at disadvantage as you recover from whatever went wrong?

[Klorox]

I'll be completely honest: if a DM wants to make up special rules for natural 1's, the first thing I do is think up builds that work with halflings.

[Pex]

I'll be completely honest: if a DM wants to make up special rules for natural 1's, the first thing I do is think up builds that work with halflings.

Halfling Diviner Wizard with Lucky feat.

[robbie374]

As many others have pointed out, natural 1 fumbles harm players far more than their enemies. 1s for minions are mostly meaningless, and otherwise there are usually noticeably more PC rolls than BBEG rolls, and so the PCs will roll many more 1s on average.

Here is a better way that is fun. A natural 1 is an auto-miss, and along with it, something funny or unexpected happens. This something must be neutral in effect or good for the PCs, no matter who rolls the 1.

For example, at first level in one campaign my PC rolled a 1 when trying to attack some wolves at range. The DM ruled that the attack was horribly off and struck a tree. The tree fell onto the wolves, and one of them failed its saving throw, getting squished. This was funny and unexpected, but didn't have a major impact on the encounter, and best of all, it let me have fun as a player.

Boosting natural 20s is nice but doesn't undo the stolen fun from the natural 1s.

DMs remember: D&D is about fun. Misses are not fun. Adding painful fumble rules makes them even less fun. If your DM-instituted rules make the least fun parts of the game worse, then you are doing it wrong.

[Sir cryosin]

As many others have pointed out, natural 1 fumbles harm players far more than their enemies. 1s for minions are mostly meaningless, and otherwise there are usually noticeably more PC rolls than BBEG rolls, and so the PCs will roll many more 1s on average.

Here is a better way that is fun. A natural 1 is an auto-miss, and along with it, something funny or unexpected happens. This something must be neutral in effect or good for the PCs, no matter who rolls the 1.

For example, at first level in one campaign my PC rolled a 1 when trying to attack some wolves at range. The DM ruled that the attack was horribly off and struck a tree. The tree fell onto the wolves, and one of them failed its saving throw, getting squished. This was funny and unexpected, but didn't have a major impact on the encounter, and best of all, it let me have fun as a player.

Boosting natural 20s is nice but doesn't undo the stolen fun from the natural 1s.

DMs remember: D&D is about fun. Misses are not fun. Adding painful fumble rules makes them even less fun. If your DM-instituted rules make the least fun parts of the game worse, then you are doing it wrong.

A Nat 1 fumble is way more harmful to the DM then the players. First of all DM rolls more dice then a player. And two monsters only have so many turns before the players kill them.

[JNAProductions]

A Nat 1 fumble is way more harmful to the DM then the players. First of all DM rolls more dice then a player. And two monsters only have so many turns before the players kill them.

Except monsters are, usually, intended to die/be defeated. So them dying/losing one round early, due to some nat 1s, or doing less damage than expected isn't a big deal.

[robbie374]

A Nat 1 fumble is way more harmful to the DM then the players.

This is your problem. You are thinking about it as the DM against the players. The DM is running the game, not playing the game. The DM has the fun of creating a story and narrating NPCs, creating a whole world of adventures, and seeing his players enjoy his creation. That's what DMing is about. There is no such thing as "harmful to the DM" unless the harm is destroying his creation at large. The DM is playing the monsters, yes, but the story is about the players, not the monsters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Crits BY PCs are balanced by crits AGAINST PCs. No need to add a fumble rule beyond the RAW automatic miss. I don't think fumble rules improve the game at all.

+1

As a novel idea, why not just have a failure, fail? Why does it need crazy effects added to it?

Some people can't leave well enough alone. We went through this whole "every neat idea in the world phase" with Dragon Magazine. Eventually, we realized we'd made things too complicated.

Given that crits are in the rulebook but fumbles are not,

There's that.

Failure is already its own reward.

Never seen it put that way, but nicely said.

Where does it say that rolling a 1 is supposed to be an upsetting thing?

That's a good question. It turned into a meme one day, I guess. I first saw critical fumbles in a dragon magazine article over 30 years ago.

The concept of "extra pain for the players on a Nat 1" needs to die.

Yeah. (If you have ever been critted by a frost giant during combat, that's pain enough).

On a natural 1, if you are shooting a bow/cantrip and your buddy is within 5ft, you now reroll to see if you hit him instead.

Shooting into melee is a whole different deal, and this one I can almost live with.

This is your problem. You are thinking about it as the DM against the players. The DM is running the game, not playing the game.

Yeah, there's that.

[Rowan Wolf]

I never liked the "oooh a 1, how bad do we make this suck" I've had DM's have perception/spot/etc, and my trained character's modified one was less effective that higher natural roll from another (with a lower total)

Doesn't add any meaning to the game.

[Sir cryosin]

This is your problem. You are thinking about it as the DM against the players. The DM is running the game, not playing the game. The DM has the fun of creating a story and narrating NPCs, creating a whole world of adventures, and seeing his players enjoy his creation. That's what DMing is about. There is no such thing as "harmful to the DM" unless the harm is destroying his creation at large. The DM is playing the monsters, yes, but the story is about the players, not the monsters.

That is not all DM's. The DM is not just running the game. They are playing npc's and monsters. A DM is playing as the antagonist. A DM should play monsters to win the combat. Because the monsters are living things as much as pc's. If you as a DM is only getting your joy from the story then write a book.

Also to DM's not every combat that ends with the party hitting 0hp is not a tpk. They can be captured or just left to be bleeding out and they make all there death saving throws to stabilized and wake up hours later with no enemies around.

As a DM my self I roll really poorly when I'm DMing. And my players find it more challenging and fun were I have combats were I don't roll for attacks. Meaning using saving throws and grappling, shoving. And sents I switch to this type of combats I did away with this rule because. When I was using it my monsters were not challenging and my player got bored and were complaining about them. It fun to be a badass and killing everything. It starts feeling like
DM OK ya'll see a group of orc's you cast a few fireballs and turn into a bear and swing your sword at then and end up killing them you all lose a few hp.