D&D 5E Critical Fumbles a core rule?

[MNblockhead]

If you have an option that doesn't penalize characters for having more attacks, I'd be curious to see details. But what you describe just sounds like high level fighters become extremely unlucky.

A 20th level fighter action surging has at least a 40% chance of fumbling. His halfling rogue buddy? He's probably firing from the shadows with advantage and rerolling the first 1 for around a 1.3% chance. The wizard that never rolls an attack never fumbles.

But the way most people implement the rule the fighters in the group are far more likely to fumble than any other class.

When I do house rules, one of the things I ask is whether or not it's going to significantly harm one class or build over all other classes. Fumbles don't qualify.

If I wanted to throw this kind of random penalty at my players (I don't) it would be a separate roll any time you take any action in combat. The more daring/dangerous the action, the more likely it is to cause a penalty. The higher level you are, the less likely you are to be penalized.

Fumbling on a 1 has it backwards. The higher level you are, the more attacks you have, the more likely you are to fumble. I try not to be overly critical of what other people find fun, but it's a dumb rule.

Well, you convinced me. Like another poster above, I use the Nord critical hits and fumbles decks. They are fun, but I'm finding that they are worse than DMs discretion.

Example. One of characters in the campaign I DM is 16th level fighter with the sharpshooter feet.

In the past if he fumbles, the string broke, he got something in his eye, or something tangled up in his quiver, or—rarely—he would hit another target that was very close to the target. The impact wasn't terrible and made some sense.

Something in your eye or your jostled, or lose your footing—you don't get the rest of your attacks that round.

String broke? You don't get any further attacks with the bow until you take an action to restring it—assuming you have extra strings.

A great archer firing three times in 6 seconds is putting his bow through a lot. I makes sense that the string may break every battle or so.

As for hitting the wrong person, I try to avoid it, but I want it to be an option. Yeah, you are inhumanely accurate and quick with your bow, but battle is chaotic. Friendly fire is a really common in the real world. Not that I want my fantasy to be "realistic" but it makes sense that friendly fire is something that should be a concern.

Generally, I would avoid breaking weapons. But sometimes it makes sense and can add to game. A sword may break and a fighter should have a backup. But I treat magic weapons as unbreakable. So, it is generally a lower-level concern.

In all these examples, with a creative and conscientious DM, fumbles can add to the flavor of the game. Knowing that there is a good chance you will hit the wrong person, you may choose targets differently. The party may use different strategies. The broken string issue may lead the sharpshooter to have a backup bow so maybe he only loses his extra attacks that round and not another three attacks the next round.

The problem with the Nord cards for fumbles is that you can have characters injure and even cripple themselves. I prefer to leave those threats to failed skill checks and failed saves. Maybe in some grim dark settings it makes sense. Front line fighters should have a much higher chance of being crippled, hurt, and other wise getting banged up when they fumble. But this is a game and many players would find that unbalanced and unfair and lead to selecting different classes and builds rather than just changing some behavior.

Now that I have more experience under my belt and have read a number of arguments about this, I think my new approach will be:

1. Most of the time, it is just a miss.

2. If something about the environment, combat situation, or other factors make the combat particularly treacherous, chaotic, or difficult, then I would still impose a chance for a situationally-appropriate complication to arise from the fumble.

3. For any fumble that I impose for a "1", the character will get a chance to make a save or skill check to avoid it so that more experienced/high-level characters are less impacted by fumbles over time.

To me, these guidelines keep the fun flavor of fumbles without overly punishing high-level characters.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I first tried out an easy fumble rule. If you rolled a 1, then you gave advantage to someone attacking you or had disadvantage on your next attack, as you left yourself open, or couldn't get your weapon around well enough after a bad swing for the next attack. It was simple, though I didn't usually do much narratively. When I tried more severe (hitting an ally), they did more damage to each other than to the things they were fighting. And when that rat swarm is all over your monk, and that fighter rolls a 1... No more monk.

 

[Sadras]

Personally, I'm not a fan of critical fumbles, however a less harmfull way to incorporate them would be to give the PC's, NPC's & monsters an opportunity to cause a complication at the cost of their reaction.

When a melee opponent rolls a 1 on on their attack, the wild dog may as a reaction attempt to trip the opponent. Opponent must makes an Acrobatic skill check DC 10 or they fall prone;

It is an engaging mechanic and provides a cost should one which to use it. It is a little trickier with ranged attacks, you just have to be a little creative

 

[Warmaster Horus]

As others have said, the only place a 1 is a 'bad' thing is a to-hit roll, and even then it's just an auto-miss. The character doesn't fall face-first into a pile of dung and get blinded for 1d6 rounds or stab themselves for critical damage or some silly other pratfall. DMs who use them are occasionally the type that like to humiliate their players rather than escalate them. Statistically crit-fumbles are stupid because it's more likely that experienced combatants will suffer them (2 attacks/round? You have twice the chance to crit-fumble!).

 

[CydKnight]

I incorporate a "special effect" on 20's and 1's only occasionally when I feel it is appropriate to the situation. I try to be careful with using it too often and, likewise try to be careful that whatever effect I add does not adversely effect the outcome of combat or campaign goal. I largely incorporate it as a flavor mechanism simply to add entertainment value.

 

[TheNoremac42]

Effects I give for crit fumbles generally aren't debilitating. They usually amount to a jammed crossbow, getting a blade stuck in a door/wall, butter-fingers that cause the weapon to go flying at the opponent instead, etc. Those usually require an action to amend. Sometimes, if there's another N/PC close to the target, I'll have them take half-damage from a grazing blow or an arrow that went wide. For roll-to-hit spells, the spell might backfire and blow up in the caster's face - causing them to take half-damage. Fumbles on saving throws will often involve disadvantage on the next save or extra damage (being charmed, landing on your head, or taking the full brunt of a fireball/lightning bolt).

For critical successes... They still get the double damage, but sometimes they'll get advantage on the next relevant check/save or instead take zero damage from a spell. They (usually PCs) might even cripple the opponent - giving them disadvantage on a certain attack or removing it entirely. I usually only apply extra effects for nat 20s when it's PCs doing the rolling, though.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, you convinced me. Like another poster above, I use the Nord critical hits and fumbles decks. They are fun, but I'm finding that they are worse than DMs discretion.

Man, I brought the crit and fumble decks to a game session last year to give them a try. I think we abandoned the fumble deck after the 3rd one of the combat. I've never seen something so immersion breaking in my gaming life.

Heck, until that session, I didn't even really know what "immersion breaking" was.

 

[guachi]

The closest I'd get to imposing a penalty on a 1 would be disadvantage on the next attack roll before the end of your next turn.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The closest I'd get to imposing a penalty on a 1 would be disadvantage on the next attack roll before the end of your next turn.

That doesn't really add anything to the game other than one more thing to keep track of though, and possibly making halflings a more popular race.

 

[jasper]

I think the first published rule on fumbles was Dragon 54 Critical Hits and Misses. IRMC It was broken down something like 01-40 double damage, 41-70 triple damage. 71+ the fun stuff began. The misses were similar.
Most people are okay with fumbles until they are missing the left leg below the knee, have only one eye, and their movement is 1/3. My old 2E group wanted to give critical fumbles due to the above. I said crits went to. I think we compromise to drop weapon on 1 and double damage on 20.