Level Up (A5E) Changes to Crit and auto-success

[Lanefan]

It has a lot to do with the mechanic when the mechanic is "You fall prone" or "You drop your weapon" or "You hurt yourself."

Not every fumble has to lead to those effects, however (though some certainly should!).

Other options: "You open your defenses, your foe gets an immediate AoO on you". "Your weapon breaks (it gets a save if magic)". "You are blinded for the next round" (could be spashed mud, a slipped helmet, glanced into the sun - loads of ways to narrate this). "You lose your next attack". "You cannot move more than five feet next round".

Currently, a natural 1 is an automatic miss. There's nothing cool about missing. It's fine as is.

Fumbles, however, are always cool.

That said, there really does need to be a difficult confirm roll on both fumbles and crits - having each happen one swing out of twenty is far too often.

 

[Maxperson]

The only thing I really don't like about 5e crits is that if you need a natural 20 to hit something, it's either crit or miss. I don't think you should be able to crit something that requires rolling a natural 20 to hit.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, it's "fine." But there's plenty of room for something more interesting than just "you miss." Half your rolls are going to be misses; why not make that 5% of the time that you roll a nat-1 into something a little more interesting?

Because it's triggered by the thing your character is supposed to do in combat (attack), and you have no control over when it happens. So it isn't interesting, it's just arbitrary punishment. Crits are an equally arbitrary reward, and that is why they are just a modest damage boost--not much better than a good damage roll on a normal hit.

It's the converse of a critical hit. A nat-20 is already an automatic hit; why wasn't that "fine as is"?

Crits are bad game design, but they give players a moment of "Yay, I got a 20!" That little burst of excitement is their sole function and the only justification for having them. I see no reason to adopt bad design for the sole function of providing a burst of disappointment.

Other options: "You open your defenses, your foe gets an immediate AoO on you". "Your weapon breaks (it gets a save if magic)". "You are blinded for the next round" (could be spashed mud, a slipped helmet, glanced into the sun - loads of ways to narrate this). "You lose your next attack". "You cannot move more than five feet next round".

If you make three attacks per round, which is fairly common past 5th level (dual wielder, monk, Polearm Master, berserker frenzying), you are going to hit a natural 1 about one round out of seven. If we figure a typical fight is 3-4 rounds, that's every other combat.

The OA doesn't seem too bad, except that it punishes melee warriors for being melee warriors. Losing your next attack is fine in theory but in practice raises the question of how long you have the "no attack" penalty hanging over your head, and encourages weird behavior to "use up" the lost attack. The other two? You break a weapon every other fight? What are you wielding, styrofoam? You spend 1 round out of 7 blind or stuck in place?

I stand by my position: Fumble rules as commonly implemented lead to slapstick absurdity, and it's quite hard to come up with a non-silly implementation. There's a reason no edition of D&D has ever had them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There's a reason no edition of D&D has ever had them.

Yeah, despite that our tables have a system in place that works well, personally I'd rather not bother with critical hits or fumbles.

Imagine if a d20 could be coded two colors (one for success, one for failure), and you just rolled. One color or the other would come up, and it certainly wouldn't really matter which face of the die was shown otherwise.

I understand for speeding up the game (very slightly), the idea of critical threat was removed, but it makes a lot more sense to tie in the likelihood of crits and fumbles to skill, not just random luck, if you insist on keeping them in the game.

 

[Lanefan]

If you make three attacks per round, which is fairly common past 5th level (dual wielder, monk, Polearm Master, berserker frenzying), you are going to hit a natural 1 about one round out of seven. If we figure a typical fight is 3-4 rounds, that's every other combat.

5th-level characters getting 3 attacks per round is absurd to begin with...but that's a different issue.

Yes, if a fumble happens on a straight natural 1 there'll on average be a fumble one swing in every 20. Solution: put a confirm roll on it - say, 1/d6 or 1/d10 - simply to make it less frequent. Then, once it's less frequent having it be a problem when it does happen is fine.

The OA doesn't seem too bad, except that it punishes melee warriors for being melee warriors. Losing your next attack is fine in theory but in practice raises the question of how long you have the "no attack" penalty hanging over your head,

Until you would next attack within the current or following round.

and encourages weird behavior to "use up" the lost attack.

Should have been clearer: when you would next attack you do nothing (as if you'd gone through the motions of attacking and completely missed, perhaps). So there's no way to "use up" that lost attack - it's lost.

The other two? You break a weapon every other fight? What are you wielding, styrofoam? You spend 1 round out of 7 blind or stuck in place?

Add a confirm roll and it becomes less common.

Also, you only break a weapon every other fight if you get crazy unlucky on the fumbles table. You wouldn't spend 1 round in 7 stuck or blinded unless, again, you got unlucky on the fumbles table. The idea with fumbles is that there should be many things that could happen at random, the most common being very minor (e.g. a couple of h.p. damage go somewhere you don't want them to) and the less common being the real problems.

Keep in mind I also have it that you can fumble with spells or anything else requiring aim: I don't subscribe to the idea that spells always go exactly where you want them to, particularly if they're beign cast under duress or in a hurry (i.e. nearly all combat situations).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, systems with crit on 20, but with a confirmation roll, along with fumble on 1, but also with a confirmation roll, solves any issues really.

If people are too lazy to make the confirmation rolls, either stay with the current rules and please stop complaining about it, or just don't use critical hits and fumbles.

FWIW, we apply them to spells as well, including on saves.

 

[glass]

Yeah, systems with crit on 20, but with a confirmation roll, along with fumble on 1, but also with a confirmation roll, solves any issues really.

Well, I will never play with fumbles, so I guess it doesn't matter what other issues the system has. I guess that "solves" them.

Also, categorising concern for a mechanic's handling time as "laziness" is real classy.

_
glass.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Also, categorising concern for a mechanic's handling time as "laziness" is real classy.

Classy? Or Glassy?

Well, I will never play with fumbles, so I guess it doesn't matter what other issues the system has. I guess that "solves" them.

Good for you! Yep, if you don't play with fumbles, nothing to worry about.

 

[UberAffe]

Crits are bad game design, but they give players a moment of "Yay, I got a 20!" That little burst of excitement is their sole function and the only justification for having them. I see no reason to adopt bad design for the sole function of providing a burst of disappointment.

I hard disagree with this. If a design choice in a game about having fun with friends, increases the enjoyment of the people playing the game, then it is a good thing. There could still be room for improvement, but at it's base it certainly isn't bad design.

 

[glass]

Classy? Or Glassy?

Definitely unlike me, so certainly the former.

_
glass.