D&D 5E Critical Failures

[Lord Twig]

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.

It's simple, but the more attacks you have, the greater the chance that your opponent will get an Opportunity Attack. In other words, the higher level your fighter is, the more he is going to leave himself open, which is the opposite of how it should work.

Likewise with ranged weapons, the higher level your archer, the more likely he is to break his bow.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It's simple, but the more attacks you have, the greater the chance that your opponent will get an Opportunity Attack. In other words, the higher level your fighter is, the more he is going to leave himself open, which is the opposite of how it should work.

Likewise with ranged weapons, the higher level your archer, the more likely he is to break his bow.

Good point. You have the ability to use your reaction to parry in my campaign, and most likely the fighter is going to be better at that. So that mitigates it to some degree.

I have built in confirmation for my critical hits. You have to roll a 20 and hit by 5 or more. For a fumble, I could simply say a 1 and miss be more than 10. That way the chance reduces as your level goes up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why would you critically fail more often when you get better?

Because you're a fighter, and this is D&D. Reality hates you.

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?

You could let a character with Extra Attack negate a critical failure by sacrificing (or even just accepting disadvantage on) on his next attack that turn. So he'd only be forced to suffer the full effects if it was the last attack of his turn.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

You could give them a critical-failure (magical backlash say) anytime one of their victims rolls a nat 20 on a save. So fireball 20 orcs, fine, they're all dead, even the guy that rolled that 20, but something bad happens to you, too, for a change...

... of course, the 'fumble' would probably be "oops, caught the fighter in the area again!"

 

[Sunseeker]

It's simple, but the more attacks you have, the greater the chance that your opponent will get an Opportunity Attack. In other words, the higher level your fighter is, the more he is going to leave himself open, which is the opposite of how it should work.

Likewise with ranged weapons, the higher level your archer, the more likely he is to break his bow.

BUT, if you keep with the "one reaction per round" rule then it doesn't matter how often the Fighter Nat 1's in a turn. Any given enemy still only has one reaction per round. Sure the Fighter's still more likely to have that reaction used on them, but a tactical enemy may ignore a Fighter's fumble to be ready to Counterspell the party Wizard.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

You could give them a critical-failure (magical backlash say) anytime one of their victims rolls a nat 20 on a save. So fireball 20 orcs, fine, they're all dead, even the guy that rolled that 20, but something bad happens to you, too, for a change...

... of course, the 'fumble' would probably be "oops, caught the fighter in the area again!"

For casters, anytime they make a spell attack roll there is a chance for a critical hit or fumble in my games. But when it comes to saving throws, the critical hit or fumble is placed upon the target. For example, someone is hit by a fireball and rolls a natural 20, it's a potential critical success for the target (in my games players roll to confirm both crit success and fumble). They take less damage than even if they had saved, possibly no damage, or some other relevant effect. But I wouldn't say a natural 20 on a saving throw is a critical fumble on the spellcaster since success or failure is more linked to the target's ability to resist than the spellcaster's ability to succeed with the spell. But likewise, a natural 1 on a saving throw is considered a potential critical failure for the target, and would result in more damage or greater relevant effect for the spell being used.

 

[Celebrim]

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

I'm going to pick on you, mostly because I've seen suggestions of this sort a lot in the thread, and I don't really understand what you mean.

How can an event be both "narratively interesting" and yet have so little effect on the fiction that it results in no change in the situation? If it results in no change in the fiction, how can it be interesting, and perhaps more to the point - how can it ever be more interesting than any other result at all? I mean, can't both player and DM add whatever non-mechanical color to the attack they desire provided it has no mechanical effect on the game? Every hit and miss can be narrated already. How is this assertion that narration should occur even a rule much less a "critical failure"? Isn't by definition a "critical failure" a failure that makes the situation tangibly worse?

Look at it this way. Imagine you implemented "critical hits" as, "On a natural 20, something narratively interesting happens that has absolutely no effect on the targets ability to continue fighting and does absolutely nothing to shorten the fight." In what sense could that narrative ever be "interesting", and in particular more interesting than any other hit?

And perhaps even more to the point, if it really is narratively interesting to add this sort of color without mechanical effect, why aren't you doing it with every roll?

In my experience, as well meaning as such narration may be, whether applied to "fumbles" or whatever else, in the long run it falls to the wayside and is used only sporadically precisely because it adds nothing to the game and quickly is revealed as merely redundant and meaningless. I suppose you could treat the throw of 1 or 20 as a sort of 'pacing', reminding you to throw in some throw away color from time to time, but even that I suspect won't stay interesting for long because the players literally have no reason to react to it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For example, someone is hit by a fireball and rolls a natural 20, it's a potential critical success for the target (in my games players roll to confirm both crit success and fumble). They take less damage than even if they had saved, possibly no damage, or some other relevant effect. But I wouldn't say a natural 20 on a saving throw is a critical fumble on the spellcaster

What about spells where a successful save already negates?

since success or failure is more linked to the target's ability to resist than the spellcaster's ability to succeed with the spell.

They're both factors. With an attack, the defender is trying to avoid being hit, may be blocking with a shield or parrying or counter-attacking to fend you off, but only you roll. With a spell, the defender may have no knowledge of magic nor particular ability to defend against it other than just nebulously 'resisting,' but he rolls. :shrug:

 

[Oofta]

What's the goal of fumbles?

If I were to implement it would be:
- Every character class/build should have a roughly equal opportunity to fumble
- Should be quick to resolve and not slow down the game
- Fun, but not game-breaking results
- Decrease in occurrence at higher levels
- Penalties should primarily affect the PC that fumbles.
- Be applied to monsters/NPC opponents in a way that works for the DM

I'm just not sure how to do it. Front line fighters always end up with the short end of the stick on both suffering penalties and getting more fumbles.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

What about spells where a successful save already negates?

Obviously magic and spells are a bit more varied, so it can be just a case by case basis regarding what would make sense. For example, let's say someone gets a crit success against Charm Person. Maybe it's appropriate that for the rest of the encounter, the original target of the spell is more on his guard and gains advantage against any other spell saves or spell attacks are at disadvantage when done by the original caster. Or maybe the target raises some innate psychic defense, causing the caster to take 1d12 psychic damage. Either would be appropriate, but I saw it as more a result of the target successfully defending rather than the caster getting a fumble. This is especially true on spells that target multiple creatures. If one crit succeeds on a fireball, it doesn't mean everyone is better off because the caster had a brain fart, but that specific target did a really amazing job getting out of the way.

They're both factors. With an attack, the defender is trying to avoid being hit, may be blocking with a shield or parrying or counter-attacking to fend you off, but only you roll. With a spell, the defender may have no knowledge of magic nor particular ability to defend against it other than just nebulously 'resisting,' but he rolls. :shrug:

While this is a matter of perspective, there seems to be an underlying assumption in D&D that the person rolling the d20 is the active one within the situation. An attacker is actively attacking, while the defender is passively defending (AC is technically a passive defense check where the target takes 10 rather than roll). Opposed checks seem to be the most active types of checks, since both creatures are rolling d20s both are seen to be doing something. But like I said, it is a subtle difference and not everyone may see it that way.