D&D 5E Critical Failures

[Tony Vargas]

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).

I feel there /should/ be such an underlying assumption, especially in 5e, given it's core resolution (DM describes > Player declares action > DM determines results, possibly calling for a check). It's not as consistent as it could be, though. Attacks vs Saves is one of the more striking areas of inconsistency, though both mechanics are inconsistent in other ways, as well... :shrug:

(It /is/ still D&D!)

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

I like the question, and I'll get back to that in a moment.

Your answers are more about the goal of the mechanics of the fumble, rather than the goal of the fumble itself, but it's good stuff. There are two points I want to address.

First, I was thinking about the statement that front line fighters end up with the short end of the stick, particularly in getting more fumbles. Statistically, all characters who make attack rolls suffer the same amount of fumbles. However, since fighters attack more frequently, they will suffer more fumbles. That might sound like double-talk, but it's not really. It's like the statistic that most accidents happen within x miles of home. Part of the reason that's true is because of the sheer amount of opportunity within that radius.

So with this in mind, and the fact that fighters are exposed to potential critical fumbles more frequently, I'm OK with the idea that they are more likely to suffer from them as well. That doesn't mean that the critical fumble (if you use one) needs to be redesigned. Instead, it means we need to look for similar opportunities in the things other classes are more likely to do. A number have already mentioned spellcasting, and I think that's a great idea. I already have a wild magic surge system that can be triggered by various circumstances (like being struck for damage while casting or concentrating on a spell). Rolling a natural 1 seems like another reasonable trigger, considering I use that as a trigger for a fighter.

Second, the decrease in occurrence at higher levels. Sounds reasonable, but I think that's also related to the goal of the fumbles themselves.

So back to your first question - what's the goal of fumbles? I think there will be a lot of answers to that question. And I don't have a ready answer myself, so I'll go with what comes to mind right now.

The goal of fumbles for me is to simulate those points in a battle where the momentum changes, the luck changes, something shifts against one side or the other. It's not quite the opposite of a critical hit, but close.

Even the best trained fighter can find that a miscalculation here, an unexpected obstacle there, can change the course of the battle. Most combats are in unfamiliar environments, that aren't ideal circumstances, and aren't scouted for developing strategies, etc. (Which also leads to the possibility that a well-planned attack might suffer less fumbles).

A big example? The battle of Agincourt. The French were well trained knights, who knew how to fight. They made some major miscalculations in the terrain, they were forced into a bottleneck in a muddy field, in heavy armor. Yes, these were far beyond a critical fumble on a die roll. But historically there have been a lot of very good military men that made some very bad decisions. So it's not a perfect example, but I'm hoping it highlights that skill level doesn't always mean that you won't suffer mishaps.

I'm still on the fence about higher levels. One of the suggestions I made was to have a threshold, like a 1 plus miss by 5 or 10. That reduces the chances as you gain levels, but if a critical fumble (at least for me) is in part a moment in time where the momentum or advantage changes, often with unknown reasons, wouldn't it be more about the relative skill levels of the two combatants, rather than how much they missed by? Particularly since AC is not primarily a measure of skill?

But, part of that threshold is also to make them less frequent in general. A critical fumble happening 5% of the time is quite a lot. If it happens too infrequently, though, it's either meaningless, or really annoying the one time a year it happens.

Although our system has been working well to this point, I really want to go back and see if I can leverage this a bit more. I like the idea that it might be tied to the turning battle. Some expanded possibilities - the creature that makes the critical fumble can be "pushed" (more like driven, with an attack) 10 feet in a direction of the target's choice. Or the target can disengage as a reaction. I guess a better way to word it, is that the target can use their reaction to make an opportunity attack, push the creature that made the critical fumble 10 feet in any direction, disengage, and other possibilities.

Time for some thinking...

 

[Hawk Diesel]

So along the lines of my previous post and things that [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION] Vargus had stated, a critical fumble represents more than a fighter just doing something stupid like going all butterfingers and dropping their weapon. It could equally be described as the opponent taking advantage of an opening and countering.

But that said, if people are worried about fighters more likely to fumble because they are rolling dice to attack more often, you could just allow fighters to use their reaction to turn a fumble into a simple miss. Give them the ability when they get 3 attacks. This way it requires some resource within the action economy to utilize, and can represent specialized training to minimize the impact of mistakes or miscalculations.

 

[Oofta]

So along the lines of my previous post and things that [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION] Vargus had stated, a critical fumble represents more than a fighter just doing something stupid like going all butterfingers and dropping their weapon. It could equally be described as the opponent taking advantage of an opening and countering.

But that said, if people are worried about fighters more likely to fumble because they are rolling dice to attack more often, you could just allow fighters to use their reaction to turn a fumble into a simple miss. Give them the ability when they get 3 attacks. This way it requires some resource within the action economy to utilize, and can represent specialized training to minimize the impact of mistakes or miscalculations.

Since you only have 1 reaction per round, having to use a reaction can be either simply annoying (not being able to get that opp attack later) or a huge penalty (special reactions based on feats), depending on build.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Personally, I'm ok with that. But if using your reaction is a concern, you could just allow a fighter of a certain level to consider a critical fumble as a regular miss once per round. But I think being able to negate critical fumbles that often without some kind of action economy cost to it is too much, because we are talking about something that happens at most 5% of the time (significantly less if you require the fumble to be confirmed).

 

[Celebrim]

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

Can't be done. For example, passive or reactive builds inherently interact with the enemy less often than active ones. If I have a bard or a cleric in a support role, I'm just not going to fumble as often. A more reasonable goal might be, "No approach to combat is so highly discouraged by the fumble rules that it becomes deprecated, ineffective or unpleasant to play." Pure balance might be unobtainable, but the point is that you should take care to avoid getting into obvious traps like making melee, weapon wielding fighters nearly the sole bearer of the burden of fumbles.

Should be quick to resolve and not slow down the game

Can't be done. Inherently, adding a mechanic is going to slow down the game. If you don't want complexity, you shouldn't go there. A more reasonable approach is to consider the density of fun over time. The extra time required to resolve the fumble should add an amount of fun appropriate to the time spent, contributing to the density of the fun.

Fun, but not game-breaking results

I would tend to see that as redundant. If the results are fun, then they aren't game-breaking. And if they are game-breaking, then they aren't fun.

But I also see it as trivial. Fun is ultimately the reason we do anything. What needs to be described is how fumbles achieve the result of being fun, so that even the players don't mind that they fumble from time to time.

Decrease in occurrence at higher levels

Absolutely. Catastrophic failure should be associated with low skill, and become increasingly rare over time. And this is essential to not punish characters that can attack more often than normal.

Penalties should primarily affect the PC that fumbles.

I think this goes back to the requirement of "fun" and how you achieve it. One critical element of a fumble is they have to feel fair. In that, they shouldn't break the normal expectations about how the game works. My example of a fumble table with a "weapon breaks" absolute result, is an example of that. The better quality the weapon, the less often it should break. Having a +6 holy avenger suddenly break in a fight with a kobold is not fun because it isn't fair and it isn't avoidable. It's just wild random chance.

Similarly, having someone else's fumble effect your character should only happen when it makes sense - like when you are in a grabble with a spirit naga and your buddy tries to stab the Naga with a spear. In that case, if your buddy misses, you might feel that makes some sense. And both of you might feel that there is risk in the situation and consider steps to prevent that - like making a decision not to use a heavy weapon against a foe in a grapple with your buddy (maybe enter the grapple and use a light weapon instead? maybe use a non-lethal attack?). Random "decapitate ally" results off a normal attack are simply not fair as neither side could do anything about it.

Be applied to monsters/NPC opponents in a way that works for the DM

This is a good call out because the DM always has a massive amount of work compared to a player.

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.

It's a complex topic and I think part of the answer involves stepping back and looking at a wider picture than the potential fumble rules. Is the basic problem that being a "front end fighter" is already getting the short end of the stick anyway? D&D has tended to privilege missile weapons and ranged combats heavily. So is the problem that going toe to toe with foes already sucks and adding critical fumbles to the mess just makes the problem worse?

 

[Lord Twig]

I was going to just let this thread die, but then I had an idea that might work for my group. (And maybe others?)

The idea is that if you roll a 1 on an attack and do not hit with any other attack that round, the 1 becomes a critical failure.

With this method your chance of rolling a 1 goes up with your number of attacks, but it is mitigated by having a chance to hit with another attack. So the more attacks you have, the greater your chance of getting a hit and avoiding the crit fail.

For NPCs the mitigation can be ignored, or not, at the DMs discretion.

This also has the advantage that there are no extra rolls.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I use it purely within context of the situation. Swing at an enemy and roll a 1, no big deal, you missed. Swing at an enemy while dueling on a narrow catwalk, you better make an acrobatics check or slip.

Also use them for humor in the same context. Session before last the party was attacked by an owlbear that wanted to eat the horses of their stagecoach. The party wizard that was driving the coach (the actual driver had died) decided to reach down and one in each hand shoot the owlbear with the coach drivers flintlock pistols (which the character did not have proficiency in).

He rolled double ones. No one in their right mind would just say "you missed twice" and move on.

Combat was interrupted by a good 5 minutes of laughter has the wizard shot and killed two of the horses he was trying to protect.

Oh, and as follow up, the next round he decided enough WASNT enough and picked up the coach drivers blunderbuss and rolled a third one in a row. He hit the barbarian going toe to toe with the owlbear in the back, though he didnt kill him.

On the plus side he can say he has never missed when using a firearm.

 

[Kalshane]

I'm one of the folks that does "the double 1s when you have Disadvantage" thing. Even then, it's a minor mishap rather than completely disastrous.

That being said, I'll sometimes apply some flavor to an ill-timed natural 1 during combat, just to keep things fun. In a recent game the swashbuckler rogue managed to roll a 1 with both her weapons simultaneously while fighting inside a barn that was also used as a dog kennel.

Me: "You dash forward to attack the hound but slip on some dog crap just as you begin your strikes, causing them to go horribly wide. Thankfully you catch yourself and maintain your footing."
Rogue Player: "Good thing I have those fancy new magic boots that never get dirty."
Next creature to go is the hound she attacked, which hits and she promptly fails the Strength save not to fall prone.
Me: "The hound sinks its teeth into your leg and jerks backward, sending you sprawling to the ground."
Wizard Player: "Tell me, do the rest of your clothes have the magic 'can't get dirty' thing?"
Rogue Player: "Aw, man..."
Everybody gets a good laugh.

 

[Alexemplar]

What if all classes EXCEPT the warrior-types risked critical fumbles on attack rolls?

They dont spend nearly as much time swinging around weapons as a Fighter or Paladin so when they roll a 1, they don't just miss, they perform the kind of errors the less trained are prone to make.