Critical Failure... Arrghh!!!

[Halivar]

We make it easy. If common sense dicates you cannot fail the check, you don't.

The problem with D&D is too many dice.

 

[Lalato]

Just use take 10 if the crits are starting to annoy you.

I wish it were that easy... but you can't take ten on a Diplomacy or Bluff check.

--sam

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I use a slight variant of the "1 is a critical fumble" house rule, which is "1 is something unexpected happens" house rule. Under this house rule, whenever a 1 is rolled in any check (attack roll, saving throw, skill check etc.) the player gets to roll again. If the second roll is another 1, then the consequences are dire (depending on circumstance, e.g. two 1s on attack rolls results in a broken weapon and injuries to those nearby). A low roll (2-5) on the second die is bad; on a roll of 6-15 something inconvenient happens (dropped/thrown weapon, lose next action etc.); on a roll of 16-19 nothing untoward happens; on a roll of 20, something useful but unintended happens (get an extra attack, your attack is treated as a successful feint, your charge becomes an improved bull rush, etc.).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[LordAO]

The critical failure doesn't apply to skills. Only to attack rolls and Saving Throws. Likewise, any roll that has a critical failure also automatically succeeds on a 20.

Perhaps they will make it apply to skills in 3.5 (I hope they will), but for now it doesn't.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why on earth do you want critical failures to apply to skills?

Do you honestly believe that a trained professional fails at his task (and in a catastrophic way) 1 time in every 20 attempts???

And just for the record - you can take 10 on any check. Even diplomacy or bluff. In fact it's an easy way to point out the benefits of ranks in diplomacy - you can just assume that characters always take 10 on diplomacy with whomever they meet. Thus someone with a +5 or more will consistently get better treatment than most of the rest of the party.

 

[LordAO]

Why on earth do you want critical failures to apply to skills?

Do you honestly believe that a trained professional fails at his task (and in a catastrophic way) 1 time in every 20 attempts???

Maybe not that often, but no matter how good someone is at something, there is always a chance of failure. Always. And even right now, no matter how good of a fighter you are, there is that 1 in 20 chance of failure. Why isn't it fair that skills recieve the same treatment?

And considering all the cheap +skill items and other crap, yes, I definately feel critical failure needs to apply to skills. I'm tired of all those rogues automatically succeeding at everything that they do.

And while 1 in 20, or 5% may seem harsh, it really isn't. Players rarely roll skill checks, especially compared to saving throws and attack rolls. Yet those have the 5% failure chance. And look on the bright side, this also would mean there is a 5% chance of automatic success also.

 

[Daedrova]

Maybe not that often, but no matter how good someone is at something, there is always a chance of failure. Always. And even right now, no matter how good of a fighter you are, there is that 1 in 20 chance of failure. Why isn't it fair that skills recieve the same treatment?

"Always"-you are making an absolute statement here, and thus, if an example can be thought of where there is no chance for failure, you statement is falsified. (I am not bothering to type a complete situation out as I am quite sure we can all think of some.)
Secondly, just because there may be some chance for failure in some situations, that does not warrant that their should Always be a 5% chance of failure. Perhaps if a circumstance occurs where it is much more difficult to perform a certain skill, a penalty to the skill check, or a DC modifier should be implemented (*looks and PHB ... wow, a system already in place), thus creating a variable chance of failure.

And considering all the cheap +skill items and other crap, yes, I definately feel critical failure needs to apply to skills. I'm tired of all those rogues automatically succeeding at everything that they do.

Foremost, these cheap "+skill" items were a bit of a mistake, and are being dealt with in "3.5". I also have been witness to multiple rogues failing in many different skill attempts. They get more possible skills, not higher limits on their skill ranks.

And while 1 in 20, or 5% may seem harsh, it really isn't. Players rarely roll skill checks, especially compared to saving throws and attack rolls. Yet those have the 5% failure chance. And look on the bright side, this also would mean there is a 5% chance of automatic success also.

I do not like "banking" on a 5% chance of success... And the frequency in which players will roll skill checks compared to Attack rolls or Saving throws depends on the campaign/DM... if that were even an effective argument in the first place.
The automatic chance of failure or success from those rolls comes from the "inherently chancy nature of combat," and that simply does not apply to many situations where skills would be used.
There is no problem with implementing those rules into your game, but I think it simply unnecessary.
Also, remember, a natural 1 on Attacks and saves is "automatic failure", NOT "critical failure" unless you implement that house rule, which I find detestable. “Yay, I am a HERO, and I have a 5% chance of COMPLETELY flubbing up ANY attack I make!…. Yesterday, I broke by sword, today, I shot myself with an arrow…” While this can be comical at times, it is usually not perceived as such by the “victim” and serves to detract from the idea of the characters being heroic or legendary.

 

[Numion]

to recovering from something that no sane human would fail at.

If it's such a task you could always take ten.

BTW, never never ever say the words "only fails on a one!" before the roll .. you'll jinx it

 

[hong]

I wish it were that easy... but you can't take ten on a Diplomacy or Bluff check.

It would have to be a harsh DM indeed who wouldn't allow taking 10 on Diplomacy or Bluff (outside combat).

 

[johnsemlak]

My DM plays critical hits pretty much standard (roll a natrual 20, then roll again...). However, with fumbles all natural one's are automatically critical fumbles. This has irked at least one of the players in my group.

The DM uses a fumble table he downloaded which contains some funny results, some of them are actually positive--several times I've gotten lucky and my fumbling blade 'fell' on my opponent.