D&D 5E Critical Hits and Fumbles

[Diamabel]

The return is worth it, especially if you use a fumble table. The character with more attacks should fumble more often, and recover more easily.

I disagree, the return is *not* worth it... as Thyrwyn as mentioned, a critical hit is less damage than two hits.. And a more skilled (read- more attacks) character should *not* fumble more often, but *should* recover more easily in the event that something bad happens. As I've mentioned before, this punishes those with higher number of attacks with lower damage, vs lower numbers of high damaging/advantaged attacks.

 

[SirAntoine]

I disagree, the return is *not* worth it... as Thyrwyn as mentioned, a critical hit is less damage than two hits.. And a more skilled (read- more attacks) character should *not* fumble more often, but *should* recover more easily in the event that something bad happens. As I've mentioned before, this punishes those with higher number of attacks with lower damage, vs lower numbers of high damaging/advantaged attacks.

It's difficult to find something everyone can agree on. I'd recommend making each round length in your system three minutes, like professional boxing, or even five minutes. If you want a fumble only to happen once per round, for anyone, that would also work. And it may help to roll a d6 and on a 1 the fumble happens, or even to use 3d6 in place of d20 for the attack roll because then the minimum, 3, would be more of an outlier. That could be recommended for anyone using critical hit tables, too, because of the dramatic effects involved.

I find that fumbles do bring more drama to the game. It's a balancing concept. D&D combat is abstract, and only goes so far to simulate a real combat, and it shows that even the most skilled fighters aren't in control at all times. That is how it should be, because even the Drizzt's and Hector's of the world can trip on a rock or lose their grip on their weapon. Likewise, that knight who charges in on his horse might fall off, and the fumble rules are just trying to bring those consequences to life. The idea is that the combat will only last a few rounds usually, so we will otherwise never see a fumble. It's not meant to be the norm, although it can happen a lot if the dice roll poorly for someone.

And critical hits often make a big difference even if only the base damage is doubled. The thing is, every extra point of damage can drop someone, or kill if you're playing with death at 0 hit points. Critical hits change how long a combatant can last in combat, which upset other tactics such as when to heal or retreat. They can even win a fight outright. If you use expanded rules, the damage can be much greater, and other things can happen. Instant death, or maiming aside, of course, the critical hits can sunder shields and armor, inspire dismay in foes to make them check morale, and bring you extra experience points.

 

[Diamabel]

It's difficult to find something everyone can agree on. I'd recommend making each round length in your system three minutes, like professional boxing, or even five minutes. If you want a fumble only to happen once per round, for anyone, that would also work. And it may help to roll a d6 and on a 1 the fumble happens, or even to use 3d6 in place of d20 for the attack roll because then the minimum, 3, would be more of an outlier. That could be recommended for anyone using critical hit tables, too, because of the dramatic effects involved.

I find that fumbles do bring more drama to the game. It's a balancing concept. D&D combat is abstract, and only goes so far to simulate a real combat, and it shows that even the most skilled fighters aren't in control at all times. That is how it should be, because even the Drizzt's and Hector's of the world can trip on a rock or lose their grip on their weapon. Likewise, that knight who charges in on his horse might fall off, and the fumble rules are just trying to bring those consequences to life. The idea is that the combat will only last a few rounds usually, so we will otherwise never see a fumble. It's not meant to be the norm, although it can happen a lot if the dice roll poorly for someone.

And critical hits often make a big difference even if only the base damage is doubled. The thing is, every extra point of damage can drop someone, or kill if you're playing with death at 0 hit points. Critical hits change how long a combatant can last in combat, which upset other tactics such as when to heal or retreat. They can even win a fight outright. If you use expanded rules, the damage can be much greater, and other things can happen. Instant death, or maiming aside, of course, the critical hits can sunder shields and armor, inspire dismay in foes to make them check morale, and bring you extra experience points.

It is indeed difficult to find something all can agree on. You find fumbles bring drama to the game, and that is cool.. but rng is a harsh mistress. D&D combat is abstract, yes- but it is also a game, and you can game that system. I maintain that 1 in 20 is far too large a probability for a catastrophic failure to befall a PC, and under such poor odds, I'd be looking for opportunities to negate, or at least mitigate, rolling a 1.
(saving throw based caster -or a summoner- sure, my conjured badgers can fumble!, lucky feat, etc)

I am fine with 6 second rounds.. the system is set up that way and I see no reason to change it.

I don't particularly care when an enemy fumbles, and feel cheated if an otherwise epic battle is won that way. The DM can always throw more monsters at the party, while you typically only control one PC.
In the same vein: Crits are inherently balanced by the fact that enemies crit too.

Enemy RNG fumbles are particularly potent when facing a single large enemy- Whoops! the dragon fell over! And mitigated when there are a large number of enemies, where a single fumble is just a drop in the bucket(what does it matter if a single orc out of a group of 20 fumbles?).

 

[aramis erak]

No. Those charming enactments don't even scratch the surface of what combat is like.

The several times I've used steel to defend my life from criminals, it feels VERY much like practice on the field, only with a slight bit more adrenaline, and the grim determination that It Ain't going to be ME in the morgue.

Last guy who mugged me wound up with a badly broken wrist. Not from a sword, but a post from a chickenwire fence, but the net effect was the same. Arm, stand ready, observe for attack and opening, and then parry the attack. A wrist hit with the edge of a wife fence fencepost makes a wonderful crunch.

20 years of assorted armed martial arts in my background. In practice, as in live use, fumbles are rare as hen's teeth; they happen, and people get hurt, but if they happened anywhere near as often or as bad as many games portray them, no battle would have lasted hours, let alone the 3+ days of certain set piece battles between France and Henry Tudor, or England and the forces of William Wallace... because the attrition would leave them down to one man by lunchtime.

 

[SirAntoine]

The several times I've used steel to defend my life from criminals, it feels VERY much like practice on the field, only with a slight bit more adrenaline, and the grim determination that It Ain't going to be ME in the morgue.

Last guy who mugged me wound up with a badly broken wrist. Not from a sword, but a post from a chickenwire fence, but the net effect was the same. Arm, stand ready, observe for attack and opening, and then parry the attack. A wrist hit with the edge of a wife fence fencepost makes a wonderful crunch.

20 years of assorted armed martial arts in my background. In practice, as in live use, fumbles are rare as hen's teeth; they happen, and people get hurt, but if they happened anywhere near as often or as bad as many games portray them, no battle would have lasted hours, let alone the 3+ days of certain set piece battles between France and Henry Tudor, or England and the forces of William Wallace... because the attrition would leave them down to one man by lunchtime.

If fumbles are catastrophic, sure, but if they're just little mistakes they can be quite common. It's just like a lucky opening either way, one for a critical hit, the other for a fumble. That's why the big part of it to me should be proneness, not even losing an attack or something else. I just enjoy the potential of making little mistakes, but I am open to playing with more invasive fumble rules even though they are not very realistic to say the least. They are maybe likely to happen 1 in 10,000 times, or less often for someone with training who is also in good health at the time. It's actually better in my opinion to make the critical hit be an extra attack, but my players have gotten used to the increased damage and they love them. In my case, I also have arrogant players, and a good fumble is needed to humble them. Everyone has a few laughs, and I take liberties to be creative with the monsters when they fumble.

 

[aramis erak]

If fumbles are catastrophic, sure, but if they're just little mistakes they can be quite common. It's just like a lucky opening either way, one for a critical hit, the other for a fumble. That's why the big part of it to me should be proneness, not even losing an attack or something else. I just enjoy the potential of making little mistakes, but I am open to playing with more invasive fumble rules even though they are not very realistic to say the least. They are maybe likely to happen 1 in 10,000 times, or less often for someone with training who is also in good health at the time. It's actually better in my opinion to make the critical hit be an extra attack, but my players have gotten used to the increased damage and they love them. In my case, I also have arrogant players, and a good fumble is needed to humble them. Everyone has a few laughs, and I take liberties to be creative with the monsters when they fumble.

Little mistakes are not fumbles - the difference between a clean miss and a lethal hit with a rapier is often measured in fractions of an inch... specific targets for this include brachial, radial, carotid arteries, jugular vein, the eyes. (A hit to the eye can penetrate through the back and into the brain with FAR less force than a hit to the forehead.)

Most individual attacks don't hit. They either get parried, deflected off a shield, or get stepped out of the way of.

Those "little openings" you're talking about are the bread and butter of a successful attack, period. They're why your base AC is 10+dex, not 15+nothing.

Anything big enough to be worth describing is so F*ing rare that it's not mechanically worth simulating.

And as for the fantasy heroic fictions we emulate... All the fumbles I can think about were in what can best be described as boss battles. They're not a staple of the genre. And they usually involve characters intoxicated or otherwise disabled. (in TPB, Wesley, and his being "mostly dead"...) But even in the comedies, almost all the mishandles of weapons are not fumbles, but successful disarms.

So again, anything past advantage (which would be a "big opening" or a "misplaced defense") is probably too strong mechanically.

 

[SirAntoine]

Little mistakes are not fumbles - the difference between a clean miss and a lethal hit with a rapier is often measured in fractions of an inch... specific targets for this include brachial, radial, carotid arteries, jugular vein, the eyes. (A hit to the eye can penetrate through the back and into the brain with FAR less force than a hit to the forehead.)

Most individual attacks don't hit. They either get parried, deflected off a shield, or get stepped out of the way of.

Those "little openings" you're talking about are the bread and butter of a successful attack, period. They're why your base AC is 10+dex, not 15+nothing.

Anything big enough to be worth describing is so F*ing rare that it's not mechanically worth simulating.

And as for the fantasy heroic fictions we emulate... All the fumbles I can think about were in what can best be described as boss battles. They're not a staple of the genre. And they usually involve characters intoxicated or otherwise disabled. (in TPB, Wesley, and his being "mostly dead"...) But even in the comedies, almost all the mishandles of weapons are not fumbles, but successful disarms.

So again, anything past advantage (which would be a "big opening" or a "misplaced defense") is probably too strong mechanically.

The way you have visualized combat in D&D is important to you. Use what works for you.