D&D 5E Critical Failures

[iserith]

I find my games are hilarious enough without punishing multi-attackers and that just comes down to good description and making failure fun (for the players and DM if not the PCs and monsters). I have never seen any net upside to a formal system for critical failures.

 

[Oofta]

When I tried it in a previous edition, I gave people "fumble saves". For warrior types it was based on twice their level, for everyone else it was based on their level (DC 20-level).

If they fumbled then basically they lost their next action due to some misstep.

However, as you point out it affects fighters with multiple attacks far more than anyone else. If I had to implement something? I'd do what [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] suggests and have them roll to see if they hit with a backup. If it's a miss, they lose their next attack (but may still have other attacks that round). The actual fumble is just losing their balance, they miss and the sword gets tangled in a low-hanging branch, etc.

Spellcasters don't attack as often, so I'd probably want to add in some other mishap chance for them. Something environmental that they need to make some sort of check to notice for example.

 

[sim-h]

We use the Critical Fail card deck from Nord Games. I recommend it. Fails are divided into categories and severities, and you take out the higher severity ones until the party reaches a certain level.

Also, there are some blank cards to write your own ones on, but I leave them shuffled in the deck - if someone draws a blank one, it's just 'no additional effect'. That way not every '1' is a fumble.

Last session we had the half orc barbarian pull a muscle and twist an ankle in successive rounds, which was quite funny. And to see the Druid's face when his fumble as a Cave Bear specifically had the effect of forcing him out of Wild Shape...priceless.

Worst thing is it's hard to discern the icon for which category entry to read out on the card.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I use a critical fumble chart and it tends to work fine. In order for a critical fumble to happen in my games, the player has to reroll the attack and confirm the fumble with another miss, then roll a percentile for what mechanical effect happens, but the player usually get to describe how it looks.

 

[Lord Twig]

I find my games are hilarious enough without punishing multi-attackers and that just comes down to good description and making failure fun (for the players and DM if not the PCs and monsters). I have never seen any net upside to a formal system for critical failures.

I will probably just do this. A funny description of a really bad miss (nat 1) without any mechanical repercussions is good enough.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I see no problem with a critical failure system in theory, but the implementation is hard. I would only use one as a balance to a critical success system, so to use 5E, it would only be a critical miss. The penalty should be about the equivalent to the benefit of a critical hit, so that creatures with multiple attacks aren't punished (just balanced). I would think the best method would be to grant the creature you attacked a critical hit if their next attack hits you (before your next turn). Still wonky, because ranged characters are hurt a lot less by this.

The difference between a regular hit and a critical hit is roughly the difference between attacking normally and attacking with advantage. You could cause a critical fumble to grant advantage on the next attack made against that character (before the end of their next turn).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Some of the players in my game have expressed interest in having critical failures in the game. I will admit it is fun when the enemy rolls a natural one and things go hilariously bad for them, but the fact is that critical failures are far more devastating to player characters than to monsters.

It's also worse for characters with multiple attacks, like two weapon fighters and monks. The more you roll, the greater the chance that you will fumble. This also means that as you go up in level that your chance of a critical failure goes up. At 1st level you may only have one chance to fail, but at 11th level you have tripled your chance to fail. That doesn't make sense to me. Why would you critically fail more often when you get better?

So does anyone have a good system for critical failures that add some fun to the game, but doesn't punish players for making more attacks?

Mine is simple.

If you roll a natural 1 you provoke an attack of opportunity from the target of your attack.

I also have weapon damage rules, and on a natural 1 you have to make a weapon damage check if you're using a bow or crossbow.

 

[robus]

Mine is simple.

If you roll a natural 1 you provoke an attack of opportunity from the target of your attack.

I also have weapon damage rules, and on a natural 1 you have to make a weapon damage check if you're using a bow or crossbow.

That's pretty neat.

 

[SkidAce]

The best fumble rule I've ever come across is just asking the PC who made the fumble to describe what happens. Those who enjoy auto-crit sneak attacking their own heads into four pieces will love it, and people who don't like added penalties for fumbles can make up a short flourish about they slipped on an invisible turtle and missed, but regained their footing.

Invisible turtle.....a Rolemaster reference?

 

[guachi]

The closest I've come is a roll of one is narratively interesting by mechanically has no effect.