D&D 5E Critical Fumbles a core rule?

[Fanaelialae]

FWIW, my table has been using the four Crit/Fumble/Luck decks from Nord Games, and everyone really seems enjoy them. They're basically the one house rule that all 3 DMs at the table agree on. https://nordgamesllc.com/product/critical-fail-deck/

There is a separate crit deck for DMs and players, IMO because things like horrific dismemberment are less impacting for NPCs than PCs. The decks have crits for bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and magic effects. (Particularly for magic, not all effects apply but the simple rule is to just keep drawing if that happens).

The fumble deck is shared by DMs and players. It also has four categories: melee, ranged, natural attack, and magic.

All three of the decks above have their effects categorized by tier of play, if you don't want to introduce the deadliest possibilities at low levels.

The luck deck is half natural 1 and half natural 20 cards (meant to be used as 2 separate decks). When a player rolls a natural 1, the DM gets a nat 1 (bad luck) card that he can use against the PCs (they have different effects, such as adding 1d6 to a monster's attack roll or dropping a PC to the bottom of the initiative order). A player who rolls a natural 20, on the other hand, gets a nat 20 (good luck) card that he can play at a later time for a positive effect, such as improving an outcome or adding 1d6 to a saving throw. Each card has a different effect (though I think there are a few duplicates).

The way I avoid the predicament of high level fighters being masters of fumbling is to give players a choice between a fumble card or a bad luck card on a nat 1. As such, the player is in control of the rate at which he fumbles. If he never wants to fumble, the DM may accumulate a significant number of bad luck cards on a night when the dice are cold (which the players are likely to rue at some point), but the PC's skill in battle is untarnished. Plus, such a player can amass a significant number of good luck cards to help cancel out the bad. (Similarly, I give them the choice between a crit card and a good luck card on a nat 20, which negates the annoyance of wasting a crit on a goblin with 1 hp.)

I also ruled that any unused cards are returned to the deck at the end of a session, because my players will hoard their resources whenever possible and this forces them to use it or lose it (otherwise there might not be any good luck cards left in the deck by the end of the campaign).

 

[Inchoroi]

I wanted to use critical fumbles, but my players voted against it...at least I still get to use Lingering Injuries, though.

 

[Igwilly]

Critical fumbles are, and always were, an optional rule.
However, it is just so useful to mess up with players that most DMs I know use it, anyway.
I see no value in them. There are already so many ways to challenge PCs that I don't see a reason to use it. Plus, it makes me look like a generous DM.

 

[transtemporal]

And yet no one cries about crit successes heavily rewarding those same people beyond always hitting.

Right on man, no one thinks about the monsters! Monsters are people too!

 

[Jester David]

Not that I disagree with you, but that's kind of like saying it's always been an optional rule that all characters are colored purple and can only say "bleep".

While technically true, it's kind of meaningless. Optional rules in home games have always been, well, an option.

But in practice it doesn't matter if something is a hard rule in the book, and optional rule, a house rule found online, or a house rule done by the DM. The rules of th table are the rules of the table.

The core rules could say "no fumbles, at all, ever, period!" And it wouldn't matter. The Basic Rules PDF could say "if you use fumbles you're a horrible person." And it wouldn't matter. Because the only rules that do matter are the ones at the table. A DM's rules *are* the rules of the game.
In this case, that's fumbles.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

While it's often been in the core rules, it's always been optional.

As far as I can tell, critical fumbles on an attack roll have never been a part of any core rules. Critical hits were introduced as an optional rule (in AD&D, I think), and were eventually promoted to core.

 

[Oofta]

But in practice it doesn't matter if something is a hard rule in the book, and optional rule, a house rule found online, or a house rule done by the DM. The rules of th table are the rules of the table.

Which I agreed with.

Personally, I don't like critical fumbles because it penalizes front line fighters over all other classes. Ranged fighter roll a 1? Oh no! You just shot the front line fighter. Wizard? Well, nowadays every once in a blue moon you roll an attack roll but it's the exception to the rule. Rogue and other classes? Well, yes, but at a fraction of the chance of the fighter (especially when you take into account action surges).

As always, I'm not telling you how to run your game. However, the OP was a question on whether or not it's an "official" rule. It's not.

 

[SkidAce]

But in practice it doesn't matter if something is a hard rule in the book, and optional rule, a house rule found online, or a house rule done by the DM. The rules of th table are the rules of the table.

The core rules could say "no fumbles, at all, ever, period!" And it wouldn't matter. The Basic Rules PDF could say "if you use fumbles you're a horrible person." And it wouldn't matter. Because the only rules that do matter are the ones at the table. A DM's rules *are* the rules of the game.
In this case, that's fumbles.

While true, thats not the question the OP asked.

They wanted to know if it was in the books.

 

[Igwilly]

Well, there is a clear difference between an official rule and an un-official rule: if things go wrong, in the second case you blame the DM; in the first, you blame the designer.

 

[schnee]

Which I agreed with.

Personally, I don't like critical fumbles because it penalizes front line fighters over all other classes. Ranged fighter roll a 1? Oh no! You just shot the front line fighter. Wizard? Well, nowadays every once in a blue moon you roll an attack roll but it's the exception to the rule.

We're trying to add it, though. Whenever a caster tries something tricky - i.e. casts a Fireball and tries to split it perfectly so it gets one person (i.e. an enemy) and not another (a party member) they have to roll an Intelligence or Arcana check. If they get a 1, they fumble, and something bad happens.

I'd prefer to get rid of them entirely, but I came in later to DM so it's delicate.