D&D 5E (2014) How fantastic are natural 1's?

[rgoodbb]

If you know the rules, then why would you expect anyone else to have stories for what happened when they implemented your goofy house rule?

There are good reasons why such a rule isn't in any of the books. It turns the whole game into even more of a joke than it already is. It's bad for the game, and bad for the hobby.

So you think that the game is already a joke? Why?

You think that the groups that I play in/DM having fun is bad for the game and bad for the hobby? Why?

You think that improvisation and creating new stories on the fly as a group of friends round a table is some sort of goofy house rule that is wrong? That my friend, is D&D for me.

My fun is obviously wrong.

I started this thread because I wanted to hear about great fun stories that happened because of the dice rolls. Thanks for your...contribution.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@rgoodbb

Ignore others who go on about "the rules" and such. Sometimes it seems people reading posts here don't seem to read between the lines. It was obvious to me that you are asking because you either use such a house-rule or are considering adding it.

So, we DO use the "goofy" house-rules for natural 1's. We also rule natural 20's always succeed on ability checks and saving throws. Natural 1's always fail attacks, ability checks, and saving throws unless a feature overrides it (Halfling's Lucky trait, Rogue's Reliable Talent, etc.).

Frankly, we love those rules. It stops automatic successes and keeps an element of chance in the game, however rare.

When an attack roll is a 1, we do a confirmation roll or you drop your weapon, fall prone, or suffer a minor mishap. If you fail the roll, you also have to check again or suffer a disaster, such as hitting an ally or yourself, breaking your weapon, etc.

Also, if you have extra attack or multiattack (for monsters), rolling a nat 1 ends your attack action.

We have had TONS of times when it has been very impactful in the combat, both for creating dramatic tension and for comic tension. If a table uses natural 20's for critical hits to create heroic moments, IMO natural 1's should be employed as well. Every table I have ever played at since 1E has used critical hit and fumble rules, and I always will.

 

[commandercrud]

And it is of course more likely to happen to a Fighter making multiple attacks a round, then to the wizard who can sit back and make his enemies make the dice rolls.

I've always found this argument to be rather lame. Being in melee and swinging swords around is obviously going to lead to more mishaps than standing in the back not swinging a sword.

 

[Oofta]

Ugh. I hate fumbles on 1s. Take a look at who has the highest percentage chance to roll a 1 on an attack. A 20th level fighter. The pinnacle of fighting, honed to the point where they are death incarnate and their sword is just an extension of who they are. With up to a 45% [EDIT: actually around 37%, see below] chance to fumble in a single round.

It's a stupid rule and spoils the fun of playing anyone who attacks multiple times per round or relies on melee attacks. Fighters using bows? Oh no, they just hit their buddy. You know, the fighter making multiple attacks in the front row who already has become a bumbling, walking laugh factory for how many times he's throwing his weapon around, breaking it, getting it stuck in the dirt.

I've quit games because the DM enforced a fumble on a 1 (he also over-emphasized crits). So ... no. Fumble on a 1 with any real consequence is a game I will never play again.

 

[Oofta]

I've always found this argument to be rather lame. Being in melee and swinging swords around is obviously going to lead to more mishaps than standing in the back not swinging a sword.

More attacks per round simply reflect how effective you are at attacks and reflect that you can take advantage of the openings your opponent leaves. Not that you suddenly start just swinging your sword around wildly in hopes of hitting something.

 

[commandercrud]

More attacks per round simply reflect how effective you are at attacks and reflect that you can take advantage of the openings your opponent leaves. Not that you suddenly start just swinging your sword around wildly in hopes of hitting something.

Really? Wow, thanks for that explanation.

 

[Oofta]

Really? Wow, thanks for that explanation.

So what's your explanation? That 20th level fighter one of the best if not the best swordsman in the world, suddenly starts whipping his sword around randomly yelling "Look at me mom! I'm a fighter! Wo-hoo!"

If a fighter at the pinnacle of their craft can't go a single combat without fumbling (and at high level the odds are they will not) it's a stupid rule that significantly penalizes builds that rely on multiple attacks. Meanwhile it has no impact on casters that rely on saving throws of enemies, minimal impact on PCs that don't get multiple attacks and little or no direct impact on archers. It's a bad rule.

 

[DND_Reborn]

To address the need for the critical hit, it isn't needed. Period. Natural 20's on an attack roll are just as random as a natural 1. So, there is no valid argument for a critical hit mechanic unless you want the drama it adds. Likewise with critical fumbles/failures.

Now, I mentioned in my last post about our confirmation rules. We use them because it decreases the likelihood of a more experienced fighter fumbling simply because he has more attacks. Sure, he has more chances of rolling a nat 1, but he is also more likely to make the confirmation roll and thus avoid the critical fumble.

I'll elaborate with an example. The confirmation is DC 15. Let's assume a level 1 PC has +5 (+3 ability, +2 proficiency). That means if they roll a natural 1, they have to roll a 9 or lower to fail the confirmation roll (mishap) and if they fail it, roll another 9 or lower to confirm the disaster. That is only a 2.25% for a mishap and 1.0125% for a disaster.

Make it a level 11 fighter with +9 (+4 ability, +4 proficiency, +1 magic/misc). The same 1/20 for nat 1, but now the confirmation failure is only 25% (not 45% as with the level 1). So, the chance of a mishap is 1.25% and a disaster only 0.3125% (1 in 320). So, despite getting 3 attacks, the odds of a mishap or disaster is roughly the same or lower over all.

The only rule I think should be implemented in the game as an actual rule (not a house-rule) is that a 1 should always fail (not critically, but fail) and a 20 should always succeed (not critically, either). This way you have no AC's that are invincible, no saves that are impossible, and likewise no guarantees that someone will always succeed or always hit, either.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Oofta

I'm not seeing your math. The odds of a level 20 fighter rolling a nat 1 on 4 attacks is less than 19%, not "up to 45%". Where are you coming up with 45%???

If you add the confirmation roll (as our table does), the odds of the confirmation roll failing is very low, compared to a low-level fighter.

EDIT: FWIW, we apply critical fumbles on spells as well as weapon attacks. We've also used critical success and failure on saves and ability checks.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

The DM in my campaign uses fumbles, although they're a bit tame. You roll again to confirm if you'd hit, and if you don't you harm yourself or an ally and deal half damage. It didn't come up too often to me since I was a Barbarian with reckless attack, but one time I threw a javelin and it slipped out of my hand and impaled the NPC Guard that was behind me with a bunch of undead blocking the way . . . somehow.

I'd surely never play a non-Barbarian or Halfling martial with those rules around. I just went for Druid after the Barb died.