D&D 5E Advantage, Criticals, and Fumbles

[Smackpixi]

Advantage/disadvantage is fantastic for not knowing actual rules of any given situation. It’s brilliant for bringing new people into the game and making everything easy For a new DM with new players. And it’s great for rewarding Or penalizing fun player ideas. When in doubt, yah, sounds like advantage on that.

 

[lingual]

Fumbles don't scale well. A 20th level fighter will be fumbling 20 percent of the time with 4 attacks. An extended combat that lasts over a minute basically ensures that said fighter would break a weapon, chop off his own head, kill the wizard, etc.

Also a lot of implementations I've seen introduce concepts like wounds and broken bones which the game does not actually support. It gets silly because the only way someone breaks their leg is when they roll a one when attacking.

 

[Cadence]

Fumbles don't scale well. A 20th level fighter will be fumbling 20 percent of the time with 4 attacks. An extended combat that lasts over a minute basically ensures that said fighter would break a weapon, chop off his own head, kill the wizard, etc.

Also a lot of implementations I've seen introduce concepts like wounds and broken bones which the game does not actually support. It gets silly because the only way someone breaks their leg is when they roll a one when attacking.

I'm having flashbacks to some VtM 2e threads on botches.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Regarding Advantage and Disadvantage, in the games I run and play this mechanic is typically not over or under used. I think we have found the sweet spot, but this is likely due to our group's particular play style. Additionally, we don't allow flanking to provide advantage, which really helps. One thing I've started incorporating is allowing a 1d4 bonus / imposing a 1d4 penalty. This can be used in conjunction with advantage/disadvantage and creates a larger spectrum in terms of interacting conditions that might affect the outcome of an action.

2. CRITICAL HITS (and Ability Checks/ Saves)

2A. On a linear d20, if you need a 20 to hit a creature, it should NOT also be a critical hit; it should be a normal hit.

Personally, if an encounter includes a creature that one or more players can only hit on a natural 20, I would consider that a poorly designed encounter. It's not fun for players to miss more often than they hit and generally just leads to frustration. Of course there could be circumstances where this might happen, but that should probably be an exceptional situation that might happen once in a campaign. For me, I would rather a DM tell me it's impossible to hit the creature than to only allow it to be hit on a natural 20. Of course, this is my perspective and may not be right for your personal play style or game table.

In the games that I run, I handle critical hits a bit differently. I do require confirming a critical hit, like they did in 3/3.5. However, a crit deals maximum damage, and a confirmed crit does double max damage and the player rolls on a d100 table for an additional effect. I do the same thing with fumbles, but it is just a miss unless it's a confirmed fumble. If it's a confirmed fumble, its a miss plus they roll on a d100 for an additional fumble effect. I feel this makes crits incredibly deadly, makes them more interesting than just dealing pure damage, and it reduces complexity by having crits deal either max or double max damage (which also ensures a person doesn't feel salty when they roll low on their critical hit). I also apply critical success and failure to saving throws and ability checks.

Whether or not crit fumbles or saves are necessary depends on your play style and game table. I don't think they are necessary. However, I do think they add an additional element of excitement to a game. It can also make encounters a bit more swingy (which I personally like, but others may not).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Personally, if an encounter includes a creature that one or more players can only hit on a natural 20, I would consider that a poorly designed encounter. It's not fun for players to miss more often than they hit and generally just leads to frustration. Of course there could be circumstances where this might happen, but that should probably be an exceptional situation that might happen once in a campaign. For me, I would rather a DM tell me it's impossible to hit the creature than to only allow it to be hit on a natural 20. Of course, this is my perspective and may not be right for your personal play style or game table.

No, this doesn't come up often IME, but sometimes it does happen because I design encounters based on the story, not the relative strength or weakness of the creatures or the party. If it makes sense for higher level PCs meeting a BBEG and some of the minions require a nat 20 against the tank, then I'll include those minions.

So, we play if you need a nat 20 to hit, it is not a crit, but just a hit.

 

[Irlo]

Fumbles don't scale well. A 20th level fighter will be fumbling 20 percent of the time with 4 attacks. An extended combat that lasts over a minute basically ensures that said fighter would break a weapon, chop off his own head, kill the wizard, etc.

This is why, when I start to think about consequences for Nat 1s on attack rolls, I throw all my ideas away.

But, if I were to use them, I think I'd allow the target to make a reaction of some sort ... a riposte, maybe, or a dodge vs. the next attack. I haven't worked out the details, but that seems a lot more interesting than self-inflicted wounds or dropped weapons.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

No, this doesn't come up often IME, but sometimes it does happen because I design encounters based on the story, not the relative strength or weakness of the creatures or the party. If it makes sense for higher level PCs meeting a BBEG and some of the minions require a nat 20 against the tank, then I'll include those minions.

So, we play if you need a nat 20 to hit, it is not a crit, but just a hit.

I believe in designing encounters around the story as well. And I am also a proponent of the idea that just because the PCs encounter something doesn't mean they can kill it or beat it. But just from a design perspective, using standard array a PC at level 1 is going to have a +2 or +3 in their primary attack stat, and a +2 proficiency bonus for a total attack bonus of +4 or +5. In this example, that 1st level PC would need to face an enemy with an AC of 24 or higher. This only increases as players increase in level and their bonuses. To put this in perspective, the Tarrasque has an AC of 25.

So again, whether you are operating from a purely mechanical perspective or a narrative one, I'm struggling to imagine a situation in which the design would call for a creature or enemy that could only be hit with a natural 20.

IMO, it would be better for the DM to just telegraph to the players that attacking it would be useless rather than creating a situation where the players might have to attempt to make attacks and aren't able to realize the futility of their attempts until they start rolling natural 16s and 18s. I mean, at level 1 any PC that is going to run into the Tarrasque would have an understanding that attempting to fight it would be certain death. They shouldn't have to take a couple of swings and then get eaten for them to get there.

 

[MNblockhead]

Like everything except crit fumbles. Unfairly punishes players that get multiple attacks. But I do like @Bacon Bits idea of having critical fumbles for ability checks for skills you are not proficient is. It will make proficiency mean more without having to say "no, you can't try this because you are not proficient in the skill."

 

[Lyxen]

My thoughts on adv-disadv is that it's a brilliant mechanic in the right situation but 5e uses it wa-a-ay too much, in places where a flat bonus or penalty would be better. Flat bonuses or penalties are also far more granular and apply equally all the way across the 1-20 spectrum, where adv-disadv instead turns a linear outcome into a bell curve.

Small bonuses have almost no effect on a d20 roll, and it turned the game into the dreaded bonus hunt.

I also think that for a given roll, if there's competing adv and disadv each instance of one should cancel out an instance of the other, and when all the cancelling-out is done if anything is left over it should apply.

And that would be another type of bonus hunt. 5e, in particular with unchanging bonuses and adv/dis has divided the length of time needed to run a combat by a factor of 2 to 10 depending on the circumstances, while still keeping exciting, actually making way more exciting because it's so blindingly fast, there is no way I'm going to go back on these principles.

Criticals are quick and fun, and fumbles worse than an automatic miss would just slow down the game again.

 

[John R Davis]

1. Adv / Dis great mechanic simple and effective. Easy to teach. Cuts down fiddly maths.
2+3. Not in a d20 game ( I despise them in PF1). Don't mind a 1 or 20 being autofail/success.