Nefermandias
Hero
Not even a variant rule. This is just how action resolution works.
D&D 5E How fantastic are natural 1's?
- Thread starter rgoodbb
- Start date
Not even a variant rule. This is just how action resolution works.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Sigh... there is a variant rule (DMG p. 239)
... which is what I was talking about.
This is no other rule that says if your modifier is high enough, you don't need to roll when otherwise a roll is called for. Sure, in some cases it might become academic, but nothing else says anything like, "If the DC is equal to your modifier to the roll minus 1, do not roll the 20 as your success is automatic."
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
I'm going to take a middle ground stance on "Fumbles".
I absolutely hate a blanket always fumble when you roll a 1 system. I mostly hate an always fumble when you roll a 1 and confirm with a second roll system (takes too much time for little gain).
But I do reserve the use of a natural 1 being "extra bad" when the in game situation is such that an action taken by the player that is failed MAY BE disasterous.
Example: After chasing the villain down a few alleyways the PCs have her cornered. She reacts by grabbing a hostage and holding a knife to his throat. The party halts and begins negotiating, trying to save the innocent. Meanwhile the party rogue has taken up a sniper position on a nearby rooftop. The player announces they aren't waiting anymore, and want to take a shot at the villain.
RAW the villain gets a cover bonus to their AC, but the rogues shot is either a hit or a miss. In this case I would trot out the complication that on a 1 the rogue is going to accidentally hit the hostage instead.
I absolutely hate a blanket always fumble when you roll a 1 system. I mostly hate an always fumble when you roll a 1 and confirm with a second roll system (takes too much time for little gain).
But I do reserve the use of a natural 1 being "extra bad" when the in game situation is such that an action taken by the player that is failed MAY BE disasterous.
Example: After chasing the villain down a few alleyways the PCs have her cornered. She reacts by grabbing a hostage and holding a knife to his throat. The party halts and begins negotiating, trying to save the innocent. Meanwhile the party rogue has taken up a sniper position on a nearby rooftop. The player announces they aren't waiting anymore, and want to take a shot at the villain.
RAW the villain gets a cover bonus to their AC, but the rogues shot is either a hit or a miss. In this case I would trot out the complication that on a 1 the rogue is going to accidentally hit the hostage instead.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
I would use the suggestion in the core book that if the attack would normally hit without the cover bonus, but failed because of it, the "cover" is hit instead--in this case the hostage. shrug
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
You could if you felt like the hostage would be hit 10% to 25% of the time that the rogue took a shot. Or you could lower the chance to 5% (the lowest chance a singular d20 roll can offer) and have it happen on the "worst possible miss".
There is a psychological component to tagging events to the worst or best singular die rolls which crits and fumbles tie into. It's natural to want to tie those player facing feelings into the character facing game world. As has been said here multiple times already, many find that a crit on every 20 doesn't affect the narrative in a way that strains credibility like a fumble on every 1 does so it's an acceptable rule to implement for the "best roll possible" when the mirror opposite is NOT an acceptable rule to implement.
I don't care how any individual want to game at their table and I'm not advocating for people to change the game they like. I'm just presenting my GM application of the use of crits (every 20) and fumbles (rare situations that are called out as dangerous on a 1 before you roll so that you can decide if it's worth it to pursue).
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Well, hitting the hostage is the reason why people use them as shields... so, having only a 5% chance that could happen on a miss is pretty low IMO because otherwise people wouldn't use them. Of course, YMMV, and that is fine. I am just telling you (and others) how I would do it. shrug
Now, you might say the rogue could make a "called shot" to get around the hostage, imposing disadvantage maybe? Then I would agree ruling a hit on the hostage only on a 1 would make more sense to me.
As far as the psychological component, I get it, I just don't agree with it. I would remove critical hits altogether, personally, and just make the rule a 20 always hit and a 1 always misses. The damage die would more represent a critical hit (rolling max damage) and a mechanic where the damage die exploded would be more to my liking personally.
Anyway, that's my take on it all. Cheers.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Depends on the style of game you desire.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
The "other rule" is that you don't need to roll unless the outcome is uncertain. That's in the core description of gameplay, in the basic rules document. If your modifier is within 1 point of the DC, then you don't need to roll, because the outcome isn't uncertain.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
At my table we call rolling max damage (regardless of the to-hit roll) a "ghetto crit".
Chaosmancer
Legend
I was curious about how this thread was going to get ressurected, from noting that the OP was early November. And, I was thinking about the OP the entire time I was reading the thread.
And, I think my answer also sums up my feelings on crit fails being fumbles.
Every story I can think of, was not amusing. The time the paladin hit himself with his own sword. The game in another system where my character was nearly shot in the back of the head three seperate times by another player, to the point where I almost refused to have my melee character get in front of them, because it was only the soak rolls that prevented my character from dying to friendly fire.
I have one DM who still insists on using the rules. Roll a 1d20, get a 1, then roll a d6 and on a 4, you take the damage from your attack. Sure, we like it when the enemy gets hurt, because we always want the enemy to die faster. But every campaign I ask to get the rule removed.
Because I hate hitting myself. It isn't funny. It isn't fun. It makes me feel incompetent.
And, I think my answer also sums up my feelings on crit fails being fumbles.
Every story I can think of, was not amusing. The time the paladin hit himself with his own sword. The game in another system where my character was nearly shot in the back of the head three seperate times by another player, to the point where I almost refused to have my melee character get in front of them, because it was only the soak rolls that prevented my character from dying to friendly fire.
I have one DM who still insists on using the rules. Roll a 1d20, get a 1, then roll a d6 and on a 4, you take the damage from your attack. Sure, we like it when the enemy gets hurt, because we always want the enemy to die faster. But every campaign I ask to get the rule removed.
Because I hate hitting myself. It isn't funny. It isn't fun. It makes me feel incompetent.
Similar Threads
