D&D 5E Critical Fumbles a core rule?

[robus]

While true, thats not the question the OP asked.

They wanted to know if it was in the books.

Sure but that question has been answered. We've now moved on to the history and value

 

[robus]

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.

The wizard in my group loves the added challenge. Auto-hit is hiring for many spells so the risk of placing a spell effeçt just so makes more interesting. We've had some exciting moments using that house rule.

 

[schnee]

The wizard in my group loves the added challenge. Auto-hit is hiring for many spells so the risk of placing a spell effeçt just so makes more interesting. We've had some exciting moments using that house rule.

What are the mechanics of your rule? I'm interested in the details (and possibly 'borrowing' them).

 

[Jester David]

While true, thats not the question the OP asked.

They wanted to know if it was in the books.

Right. And the dozen posters before me clarified the OP's question that fumbles aren't in the rules. As did my first post. So I feel safe expanding on things.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Depends how fumbles are handled. The ranged warrior might break a bow string instead of hitting an ally, or pull a muscle, or leave themselves open to a counterattack, or spill their quiver on the ground.
If the effects of the ranged attacker penalize the melee player, that's on the DM and the execution of fumbles, not the rule or the concept of fumbling.

 

[robus]

What are the mechanics of your rule? I'm interested in the details (and possibly 'borrowing' them).

Nothing fancy, just the simple judgement of certainty. If the caster can't miss I just let them roll. If there's some uncertainty about how successful they might be (the approach risks hitting some PCs too) I have the caster roll an INT check against a DC I set. I also let them know what they're risking if they fail the check. And off we go... a fumble result (if it happens) is decided based on the current situation.

But as I say the caster in my group appreciates the opportunity when his casting ability is tested.

 

[Oofta]

Depends how fumbles are handled. The ranged warrior might break a bow string instead of hitting an ally, or pull a muscle, or leave themselves open to a counterattack, or spill their quiver on the ground.
If the effects of the ranged attacker penalize the melee player, that's on the DM and the execution of fumbles, not the rule or the concept of fumbling.

I'm just relaying experience. In games I've played where critical fumbles were used, if the ranged attacker rolls a 1 they target a random person in the fight.

That and fumbles make the high level fighter at the pinnacle of expertise, the ideal that epitomizes everything all fighters should want to be, look like a bumbling idiot.

I can see it now, 2 commoners on the city wall watching a fight below:

Bob: "Who is that guy in the silver armor?"
Joe: "That's Sir Mighty, hero of the realms! We are all saved!"
<Sir Mighty fumbles and drops his legendary Blade of Many Cuttings>
Bob: "He's a hero?"
Joe: "Ummm ... well, look at how many times he's swinging ... anyone could lose their grip when swinging so mightily!"
Bob: "And the guy in the green?"
Joe: "That is Sir Swifty! The greatest archer the realms..."
<Sir Swifty fumbles and spills his arrows on the ground>
Bob: "We're doomed, these idiots don't know what they're doing."
Joe: "You may be right. That's Edric the Clumsy defending the front line! The carpenter's son. He only picked up that pike last week!"
<Edric doesn't fumble. He doesn't hit either, but at least he's not accidentally hitting an adjacent ally>
Joe: "Hmm. Wait! Its The Shadow! It is a rare thing to see him before he strikes!"
<The Shadow doesn't fumble, because unlike the previous two fighters who action surged, he has a 5% chance to fumble on his turn, not a 30% chance>
Bob: "Wow! He just literally eviscerated that orc king, we are saved!"
Joe: "I told you! These other jesters are just there to support him, we may yet live to see another day!"
​

Now, if you have a method wherein the 20th level fighter fumbles less often than the level 1 commoner wielding a pike for the first times in their life I'm open. Until then? No thanks.

People seem to treat a "1" on a die as if it's some mystical cursed unicorn that is only rarely seen, and whispered of in the dark of night. It's not. Depending on how long your fights are, on average high level fighters are going fumble at least once a combat.

IMHO it's one of the worst commonly used house rules out there as far as immersion and potential impact on play.

 

[robus]

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], yeah that isn't a great scenario. I think once you get to higher levels treating it more as FFG Star Wars Despair is a better way to go. The heroes don't fumble, but things definitely take a turn got the worse. For example the bridge they're on starts collapsing etc.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], yeah that isn't a great scenario. I think once you get to higher levels treating it more as FFG Star Wars Despair is a better way to go. The heroes don't fumble, but things definitely take a turn got the worse. For example the bridge they're on starts collapsing etc.

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.

 

[Lehrbuch]

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

Only in the "you are what you eat" sense.