D&D 5E Critical Hits and Fumbles

[SirAntoine]

There should be a fumble the way it reads in the PHB for rolling a 1 or 20. They say that fate sometimes favors or disfavors a character, such that the veteran can miss and the novice hit. They give an extra effect if you roll a 20, though, not just an automatic hit. When you roll a 1, it just says you always miss. That is not equal.

I'd say try to make a fumble at least make the character lose their next regular action in the game.

 

[Diamabel]

There should be a fumble the way it reads in the PHB for rolling a 1 or 20. They say that fate sometimes favors or disfavors a character, such that the veteran can miss and the novice hit. They give an extra effect if you roll a 20, though, not just an automatic hit. When you roll a 1, it just says you always miss. That is not equal.

I'd say try to make a fumble at least make the character lose their next regular action in the game.

Again, this disproportionately punishes characters with a high number of attacks, and will warp how people approach combat- Advantage becomes more important than # of attacks, and Save vs spells become much safer than Attack roll spells.

 

[Nebulous]

I'd say try to make a fumble at least make the character lose their next regular action in the game.

I still think this is too harsh. And what's worse than losing their next action, the next two actions?

I like the idea of fumbles, i really do, the problem, in my opinion, is that rolling a 1 - a 5% chance - is going to come up way too often. Remember when we had to confirm a crit? How about using something similar to confirm a fumble and THEN go hogwild on the bad crap that happens to you. Just an idea.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There should be a fumble the way it reads in the PHB for rolling a 1 or 20. They say that fate sometimes favors or disfavors a character, such that the veteran can miss and the novice hit. They give an extra effect if you roll a 20, though, not just an automatic hit. When you roll a 1, it just says you always miss. That is not equal.

I'd say try to make a fumble at least make the character lose their next regular action in the game.

In fairness, there are other things that are not equal that favor monsters. Monsters don't have to worry about resource drain, for example. They're typically full when entering a fight.

I agree with earlier posts that said that fumble rules favor monsters. Monsters are meant to be disposable. PCs are normally meant to survive multiple encounters.

Losing your next action would punish good fighters (those that have multiple attacks) more than weak fighters, because someone with 4 attacks per round will fumble four times as often as someone with a single attack. If you were to implement something like this, I would recommend that only the first attack each round fall under the fumble rules.

 

[Paraxis]

Fumble rules also make halflings all that more awesome and they are already top tier with +2 Dex, Lucky, and moving through medium sized enemy spaces.

Every character I ever build for a campaign that uses fumbles would be a halfling, or at the very least a human with the Lucky feat.

 

[SirAntoine]

It's tough. I thought fumble rules would be good. Maybe take away critical hits?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Also remember that PCs roll many more dice than any other entity. Critical Hit and Fumble rules will therefore impact PCs far more frequently than they will anything else. Since there are currently no rules for a Fumble, introducing them will be, in the long run, a hindrance for the PCs. The more extreme the consequences, the more extreme the hindrance.

I'm not saying don't do it, just something to think about. ( RuneQuest is one of my favorite games, and it's fumble rules are punishing. )

Ive seen this raised before but its only true on an individual entity basis. If you consider the monsters for a whole day, PCs roll about the same number of crits/fumbles as their opponents do (probably less actually if your party is caster heavy).

 

[Kaychsea]

I did say next attack roll, but I do like your interpretation of "your next turn", so I updated my original post to match.

Great minds my friend

 

[Kaychsea]

Okay. How about a critical hit does double the dice in damage plus 10% of the maximum hit points of the target, rounded down. I was thinking about how many hit points monsters have, and this would affect small and big ones equally well. I was going to say triple or quadruple damage, but that would over-multiply the sneak attack damage and anything else that gets to be a big number. Just tripling the base weapon damage isn't that big. If the critical rolls low, you can still do less damage than the maximum for a normal hit, so in this way, too, the plus 10% will help keep the critical always a factor. I would also introduce the critical hit tables from 2nd edition, in optional format as they were, for those interested in them as an alternative.

Personally I think that upping the crit is the wrong way to go. RuneQuest is one of my favourite games and the fumbles there span a huge range, from a bit inconvenient to Oh my Humakt I'm going to die (or in some cases am already dead). And while it can be a talking point it's a bit of a downer. And an unnecessary one at that.

If there is going to be a benefit to rolling a 20 there should be a similar problem with rolling a 1, goes for the bad guys as much as the characters, but it need not be death out of the box.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Personally I think that upping the crit is the wrong way to go. RuneQuest is one of my favourite games and the fumbles there span a huge range, from a bit inconvenient to Oh my Humakt I'm going to die (or in some cases am already dead). And while it can be a talking point it's a bit of a downer. And an unnecessary one at that.

If there is going to be a benefit to rolling a 20 there should be a similar problem with rolling a 1, goes for the bad guys as much as the characters, but it need not be death out of the box.

Well, a crit is slightly weaker than landing two hits (because although you double the dice, you only add static modifiers once). If you want crits and fumbles to be equivalent, how about something like, your next attack (if it hits) deals minimum damage? You automatically miss on your first attack (because it was a nat 1) and you either miss with the follow-up or get minimum damage (making it slightly less than automatically missing twice).

If you want the two to have parity, then if you add cinematic effects (dropping your weapon) on a fumble, you should probably have similar effects on a crit (disarming your opponent).

Ive seen this raised before but its only true on an individual entity basis. If you consider the monsters for a whole day, PCs roll about the same number of crits/fumbles as their opponents do (probably less actually if your party is caster heavy).

That's true, but increased swing (while it has the potential to make things exciting) favors monsters over players in the long run. If you think about it, a typical orc will not survive the encounter he's introduced in, whereas the PCs are generally expected to survive more than their first encounter. The vast majority of fights are designed (via the XP guidelines) to be a statistically likely win for the party (as opposed to a TPK). Crits and fumbles increase swing, increasing the possibility that you will stray outside that probability.

Let's say, merely for the sake of illustration, that crits and fumbles are auto-kills (dial the swing up to 9000). Over the course of a day, PCs and monsters are indeed likely to crit and fumble roughly the same number of times, not counting casters who are less likely if they use certain spells. However, there's a big difference when Ragnar the Bold kills himself with a nat 1 and when Orc #5 does it. They're both dead of course, but unless you're playing ToH there was probably an unspoken assumption around the table that Ragnar's lifespan was likely to be longer than that of a random unnamed orc. If fights were rare and only against named BBEGs, it might be different.

Crits and fumbles increase the odds that PCs will die, not due to bad play but rather bad luck. That said, they can be exciting and fun, but the potential for increased party turnover is something to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to add fumbles.