Have Critical Failures that hurt you ever been an official rule.

[Dandu]

In general, fumbles affect the PCs much more than monsters, that is the real issue. However we're talking about gaming groups who wantto have fumbles, we're not trying to convince everyone that they should use fumbles in their game, just try to discuss a solution that would reasonably work for those who want them.

I advise that they not only do away with fumble confirmation, but have a table where potential side effects range from striking a teammate to lopping off one's own head.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Well the game that inspired me to post this, I had cast a ray spell, and rolled a 1, the DM ruled that it struck another PC, (not in melee with the target or in the line of fire)

This was then taken as an excuse to attack my PC, I took issue that if the DM was going to be using house rules he should have told us before the game began (I would not have taken ray spells) and everyone argued with me that fumbles have always been in the game I should have assumed.

So the striking a party member was in the rules the DM was going by, and the PCs seemed to be in favor of it but they still wanted to get mad at me when it effected them.

 

[Dausuul]

Well the game that inspired me to post this, I had cast a ray spell, and rolled a 1, the DM ruled that it struck another PC, (not in melee with the target or in the line of fire)

This was then taken as an excuse to attack my PC, I took issue that if the DM was going to be using house rules he should have told us before the game began (I would not have taken ray spells) and everyone argued with me that fumbles have always been in the game I should have assumed.

So the striking a party member was in the rules the DM was going by, and the PCs seemed to be in favor of it but they still wanted to get mad at me when it effected them.

Okay, setting aside the question of whether critical fumbles are standard rules or not, you appear to be gaming with jerks. Attacking another PC over a bad die roll is the behavior of someone who's just looking for an excuse to give a fellow gamer a hard time.

I wouldn't necessarily say you should quit the group over this one thing, but if stuff like this keeps happening, I'd walk.

 

[x93edwards]

I'm an old-timer and I'm going to go with no, though more than one DM I played with used the optional rules.

 

[Mad Hamish]

I started playing in 2e, I've played a little OD&D but never any 1e, and it's been years and years since I've done any of them so I just don't remember

I have frequently heard as a complaint from my friends about new DND (4e) that it doesn't include this rule, and how "Well that's how it always was" (despite some of them starting in 3.x)

So I'm not really asking was there an optional rule in the book, I'm asking was it every the default rule that rolling a 1 did damage to you, or a miss hit your allies.

Not a default rule.
A natural 1 has (iirc) always been a failure on a saving throw or attack roll but has not had more of an impact than that
I believe there have been official fumble rules in various editions but normally it has at least included a confirmation roll (so you roll to hit again and if the second roll would hit it's only a normal miss)

 

[Stormonu]

Many *optional* critical hit systems have appeared in Dragon, and I believe 2E's Combat and Tactics had fumble/critical tables, but none have been part of the base rules.

I'd been using roll-to-confirm fumbles and crits since 2E, and still do with PF (using the crit/fumble cards). By about 5th to 6th level, most fumbles in my game would require someone to roll two 1's in a row and then draw the 1 card out of 54 that'd either have them hurt themselves or an ally (most of the othe cards are either a free attack against the victim or a short-lived condition for a round or two).

 

[Stormonu]

Just a thought ... this was because you rolled a 1, not because you were firing a ranged attack into a melee, correct? Because I think 2E did have default hit-an-ally rules on a miss for firing into melee.