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

[Sir cryosin]

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

[nickl_2000]

Sure, nothing wrong with that as long as players know it pre-level 1. It would adjust the gear that I select and the spells/tool proficiency I select as well.

Consider about magic weapons though. Can they take damage too?

[Millstone85]

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 think few people like fumble rules in general. Isn't the RAW auto-miss enough?

The weapon or spell focus takes some damage and after so many times it breaks.

What about a monk who uses their fists or a spellcaster who uses components?

[Sir cryosin]

Sure, nothing wrong with that as long as players know it pre-level 1. It would adjust the gear that I select and the spells/tool proficiency I select as well.

Consider about magic weapons though. Can they take damage too?

Magic items just have a higher threshold. I like to keep things simple as much as possible.

[caden_varn]

Not really seeing what this adds to be honest. So long as someone has the mending cantrip, they can just fix up everyone's gear every rest. Otherwise you pretty much either take a crafting proficiency or pay a few gold when you are back in town. There is no real danger of the weapon breaking that I can see here - it doesn't add anything interesting to the game for me. Just more book-keeping.

And what if the item does break? It either encourages people to carry around multiple weapons just in case, or face being useless in combat until they can replace it. Meanwhile, the casters continue blasting away with cantrips completely unaffected.

I don't think it is terrible, and I would not refuse to play in such a game. I don't see it as a benefit though, and would vote against it if the DM put it up for vote.
The people you need to talk to are your players though. They are the ones that will be affected - ask them what they think about it.

[Sir cryosin]

I think few people like fumble rules in general. Isn't the RAW auto-miss enough?

What about a monk who uses their fists or a spellcaster who uses components?

Monk idk right now. But spell components I have thought about that. It gives players that are worryed about breaking there focus a reason to use a component pouch. I haven't seen anyone use a component pouch.

[ZorroGames]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

Off the top of my OD&D DM memory I believe it would suffice to give the next foe to attack you to have advantage.

Perhaps cracks appear in the weapon from a non-damaging blow but then you need to track that with a break on the next 1 if not repaired.

[Lombra]

There are plenty of auto-critical failure tables on the internet, I like your houserule.

[Grey Watcher]

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

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.

[Millstone85]

Monk idk right now. But spell components I have thought about that. It gives players that are worryed about breaking there focus a reason to use a component pouch. I haven't seen anyone use a component pouch.

Odd. Isn't the choice purely cosmetic?

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

I would gladly give up on crits if it meant no fumbles.

Auto-hit on a natural 20, auto-miss on a natural 1, or treat both like any other result, I would be fine with that.

Off the top of my OD&D DM memory I believe it would suffice to give the next foe to attack you to have advantage.

Alright, that one seems reasonable.

[Rhaegar]

It would certainly make halflings more powerful given that they can reroll all 1s, and virtually ignore this mechanic. If you want to have durability loss in your game, I don't think tying it to rolls of 1, is the best way to do it. In the end you have to ask yourself, does this make the game more fun. I really don't think it will for the majority of players. It'll just end up slowing down games as people keep track of their durability, and go to the blacksmith every town visit to mend their weapons.

And if you want to have durability in your game, you shouldn't just do it on weapons and ignore armor. Armor is going to be affected by durability as much if not worse than weapons will. Perhaps if your enemy crits you, your armor takes durability damage.

[Mikemical]

My DM uses a table and has us roll a d100 to determine how badly we mess up on an attack if the d20 says 1 and you can't "save yourself" in the next d20 roll. I once rolled a 1, then another 1, had to roll the d100 twice, ended up losing my weapon and almost killing another party member with it, tripped on an exposed root and provoked an AoO for the bad guy before landing prone in front of him.

A 1 in a saving throw is a failure unless your character has an ability or feat that says otherwise(Luck Reroll, Knight's Impetuous Endurance, etc).

No insta-failure on skill checks on a 1, no insta-success on skill checks on a 20.

[JNAProductions]

A good rule I've seen is that nat 1s provoke an opportunity attack. In order to avoid punishing Fighters more than anyone else, only the FIRST attack can provoke in this manner-the rest attacks just miss on a 1.

Alternatively, you drop your weapon, and can pick it up as an attack action. That way, the two-attack Paladin or Fighter is able to simply waste their next attack picking up their weapon, but the one attack Wizard who's desperate in melee can be actually hit hard by it.

[Sir cryosin]

A good rule I've seen is that nat 1s provoke an opportunity attack. In order to avoid punishing Fighters more than anyone else, only the FIRST attack can provoke in this manner-the rest attacks just miss on a 1.

Alternatively, you drop your weapon, and can pick it up as an attack action. That way, the two-attack Paladin or Fighter is able to simply waste their next attack picking up their weapon, but the one attack Wizard who's desperate in melee can be actually hit hard by it.

OA would be a nice thing if my enemy's wornt all ready using there reactions.

[JNAProductions]

OA would be a nice thing if my enemy's wornt all ready using there reactions.

What are they using it on?

[Dragonmuncher]

Seems like it'd be annoying to track, and especially annoying if you couldn't fix the damage.

[Zaq]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

Off the top of my OD&D DM memory I believe it would suffice to give the next foe to attack you to have advantage.

Perhaps cracks appear in the weapon from a non-damaging blow but then you need to track that with a break on the next 1 if not repaired.

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.

[Sir cryosin]

What are they using it on?

Special attacks and other abilitys. I took the idea when I used a monster from volo's guide. It stats with a T I think it's some demon orc. But it has a reaction attack when it hit. So I give creatures small little things that make sense. Giving my creatures BA and reaction stuff adds to the combat. But if I'm using more creatures then the party I don't give them anything.

[Rhaegar]

Special attacks and other abilitys. I took the idea when I used a monster from volo's guide. It stats with a T I think it's some demon orc. But it has a reaction attack when it hit. So I give creatures small little things that make sense. Giving my creatures BA and reaction stuff adds to the combat. But if I'm using more creatures then the party I don't give them anything.

If you're giving creatures reaction abilities above and beyond what's naturally in their stat block, make sure you increase their challenge rating appropriately. Depending on what reactionary abilities you give them, it could easily increase their challenge rating by one, if not more.

[Unoriginal]

I prefer the RAW for crits, IMO.

Combat hazards might be a thing, but the whole "lol you rolled a 1" stuff is pretty meh.

[Laurefindel]

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 don't think it will game breaking nor crippling the players too much. As a player I wouldn't object.

If anything it might never come out to be an issue, which leads me to ask, what is your design philosophy behind this rule, and what are you trying to achieve? (no sarcasm implied).

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I prefer the RAW for crits, IMO.

Combat hazards might be a thing, but the whole "lol you rolled a 1" stuff is pretty meh.

I tend to agree with this. Nothing makes characters feel less like awesome heroes and more like inept schmucks than having them make a really, really stupid mistake every few battles. (The proposed weapon damage rule has the effect of also making every weaponsmith in your setting look bad at their job for making swords that are constantly cracking and breaking.) If you're going for more of a hijinks-y comedic tone, I guess it could work, but it doesn't really fit with the kinds of games I like to play and run.

[GPS]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

Yeah, I've noticed that. People love those cool homebrew crit charts, but for some reason balk at the idea of special crit fails. I personally think the risk makes the reward that much sweeter.

Breaking weapons though, ehhhhh. Yeah, it's either too harsh if nobody in the party can mend it, as it cuts the party member out of combat, or too meh if the party has a dude with the mending cantrip.

[Vaz]

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

[Beastrolami]

If you want to have durability loss in your game, I don't think tying it to rolls of 1, is the best way to do it. In the end you have to ask yourself, does this make the game more fun. I really don't think it will for the majority of players.

And if you want to have durability in your game, you shouldn't just do it on weapons and ignore armor. Armor is going to be affected by durability as much if not worse than weapons will. Perhaps if your enemy crits you, your armor takes durability damage.

My Co-Dm and I are planning a west marches game that wants to emphasize crafting and exploration. We came up with a similar rule (using the mechanics from rust monsters for degradation). That way a nat 1 will be an auto miss, and effect the rest of combat unless you waste an action on mending on your turn. The weapon probably won't permanently break unless you roll a lot of Nat 1s. Classes like monk and spellcasters would take 1 damage instead of having their "weapons" degrade. We also have a system of armor degradation, and are working on how that would affect spellcasters and monks because they don't wear armor. One issue is spells that force saving throws being immune to all these effects. Of course, it will bog down the rules, and make more bookkeeping for DM and players. And how will it make the game crafting focused, if someone just goes around and casts mending to auto fix everything.

[Squiddish]

I have to agree, breaking a weapon is too harsh if nobody has mending, and tedious even if they do.

I dislike critical fumbles in general, but I understand the appeal. I'm perfectly willing to play with them under a few conditions:

1. Should not harm you or your allies more than a critical hit harms your enemies.
2. Should be plausible (If you can't do something while trying, you shouldn't be able to do it by accident)
3. Enemies should be bound by the same rules
4. Should resolve quickly-no more than one round.
5. Should happen no more than once per turn, maybe even once per person per fight.

As for specific rules, I think it has to be based on the environment.

[NecessaryWeevil]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

Given that crits are in the rulebook but fumbles are not, that seems entirely reasonable.

[Pex]

It seems people want those Crits but not the fumbles.

When a PC crits a monster for extra damage, the monster was supposed to die anyway. It will just happen roughly one round sooner. When a monster crits a PC for extra damage, the PC is going to get hit anyway and needs healing. He just needs healing a round earlier or a more resources expended to do so.

When a PC fumbles and suffers a harsh effect depending on the effect he loses playtime. Also depending on the effect different PCs of different classes will have a large disparity on how the rule affects them. When a monster fumbles and suffers a harsh effect, the monster was supposed to die anyway. It will just happen roughly one round sooner.

A monster is only on camera for that one combat. A PC is always on camera. He will suffer the harsh consequences more often than any particular monster. When a monster dies the DM has another one. He's only playing that monster for that one combat anyway. Even a recurring villain gets defeated eventually for the most part. When a PC dies it's not enough to say the player can just make a new one. The player spent real world time and effort on that character. A PC death can happen and is lamentable, but since the player rolls dice for that character more than the DM rolls dice for any one particular monster harsh conditions on a 1 have more an effect on the PC.

There's also a verisimilitude factor. A high level character rolls more attacks than a lower level character and will thus have more of a chance of a harsh condition fumble for the same attack action.

A critical fumble is not equal and opposite a critical hit.

[Snails]

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.

Indeed.

I hate the proposed rule because it stinks to high heaven of phony symmetry.

Does the DM roll to see whether the BBEG has worn out equipment? Because it is possible that the BBEG finds himself helpless after round 1 by rolling a Nat 1.

No, that is the sort of thing that will be "forgotten" in order to keep the game "fun".

This kind of rule looks sort of fair at a superficial level. In reality it will only be used to punish PCs, and will not be enforced against NPCs, unlike, say, the Crit rules. In fact, it is only certain PC concepts that will end up punished, and the others will figure out simple workarounds.

If the rule does not end up applied too heavy-handedly, the net result is it will force PCs to avoid flavorful choices of tool proficiencies in order to maintain their equipment. While it may be logical for bad arsed adventurers to only have specific skills, it sucks at the fun level.

My dwarf picked brewer's supplies instead of smith's tools because it would bring a few laughs. Is that choice something that needs to be punished?

[Snails]

Enemies should be bound by the same rules

That will never ever happen. This rule may look like it is even-handed on paper. But since the PCs will have to track accumulated damage because their many combats are played out explicitly, they will be punished and the NPCs will always get off scot free. The DM will hand wave that the NPCs maintain their equipment well enough so that he does not have to track these things, thus negating the rule for NPCs.