Critical failure rules. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Critical failure rules. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ozzymandias
01-30-07, 07:38 PM The discussion in the Repository has brought to mind an interesting topic: critical failure rules for fumbled spellcasting checks. I once played with a GM who ran a version of DnD that was something akin to a mix between 1st and 2nd edition. He had a ton of house rules for the game, and in all honesty it was a lot of fun, though a bit much to completely comprehend (not unlike the current edition :rolleyes: ). One of his rules included the possibility of really screwing up whilst casting a spell. The party wizard messed himself up to the point where we killed him just so we could resurrect him and save some time on the healing part.

My question is this: are there rules floating around this board that cover this sort of thing? Basically what I'm looking for are suggestions about making some slightly more stringent spellcasting rules, that take into account the possibility that magic, while known and well studied, is not always that predictable. They would probably rework the Difficulty Classes for Concentration checks, and they would most certainly have critical fumble results for those times when a wizard or cleric really botches his spell.

Many thanks in advance for the help.
Neutronium_Dragon
01-30-07, 10:54 PM Given that D&D expects constant, routine use of magic, implementing something like that would be apt to bring the game to a near-standstill as the players spend more time fixing their mistakes than actually accomplishing anything. Not a good idea.
Mitsukai_sama
01-31-07, 01:53 AM Given that D&D expects constant, routine use of magic, implementing something like that would be apt to bring the game to a near-standstill as the players spend more time fixing their mistakes than actually accomplishing anything. Not a good idea.

For the most part, I concur. I disagree only in that it depends on how the system is implemented, whether the flow of gameplay is significantly affected. The potential certainly exists for this to occur, perhaps to the point where players opt not to play spellcasters altogether. However, if such mishaps are rare, and if you feel that there is a strong case for magic being such an uncontrolled force in your campaign (and your players agree to this deviation from the norm, of course), then it may add to the flavor of the campaign.

How severe are these mishaps? To make nonmagical comparisons: will the possibilities make them grumble a little bit as they recover, putting them at a noticable but temporary disadvantage (like an archer having to spend an action restringing his bow, or a tank wasting time picking himself up off the ground after a critical miss), or absolutely cringe at the outcome (the archer scoring a critical hit on an ally instead, or the tank shattering his new +3 weapon on his foe's hide)? Definitely a balance to be struck, should you decide to do this.

Personally, for Critical Failures, on a natural 1 followed by a roll that results in a failure, I impose some moderately troublesome circumstance - one that equates to that character losing an action to recover, or some other appropriate minor penalty that sticks with them until the situation is somehow improved. I reserve the truly horrific consequences for the truly horrific blunders: two consecutive natural 1s (one on the check, then one on the critical failure confirmation check), followed by a roll that results in a failure. These are the things that (in your system) would make the caster's Fireball detonate at a distance of 0 feet, the Harm spell inflicting itself upon the one holding the charge, or the Time Stop you just cast putting you in an equally long Temporal Stasis effect.

And always, always keep in mind - when creating a system that makes the world a more dangerous place for all creatures, ultimately, it is more dangerous for the PCs than any NPC you create. Whether they can handle such danger depends on the experience of the players, the level of the characters, and a plethora of other campaign-related factors. Over time, the probability of any one PC experiencing such a mishap is much greater than that of a single NPC (with the obvious exception of the DMPC).

HTH. :]

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ozzymandias 01-30-07, 07:38 PM	The discussion in the Repository has brought to mind an interesting topic: critical failure rules for fumbled spellcasting checks. I once played with a GM who ran a version of DnD that was something akin to a mix between 1st and 2nd edition. He had a ton of house rules for the game, and in all honesty it was a lot of fun, though a bit much to completely comprehend (not unlike the current edition :rolleyes: ). One of his rules included the possibility of really screwing up whilst casting a spell. The party wizard messed himself up to the point where we killed him just so we could resurrect him and save some time on the healing part. My question is this: are there rules floating around this board that cover this sort of thing? Basically what I'm looking for are suggestions about making some slightly more stringent spellcasting rules, that take into account the possibility that magic, while known and well studied, is not always that predictable. They would probably rework the Difficulty Classes for Concentration checks, and they would most certainly have critical fumble results for those times when a wizard or cleric really botches his spell. Many thanks in advance for the help.
Neutronium_Dragon 01-30-07, 10:54 PM	Given that D&D expects constant, routine use of magic, implementing something like that would be apt to bring the game to a near-standstill as the players spend more time fixing their mistakes than actually accomplishing anything. Not a good idea.
Mitsukai_sama 01-31-07, 01:53 AM	Given that D&D expects constant, routine use of magic, implementing something like that would be apt to bring the game to a near-standstill as the players spend more time fixing their mistakes than actually accomplishing anything. Not a good idea. For the most part, I concur. I disagree only in that it depends on how the system is implemented, whether the flow of gameplay is significantly affected. The potential certainly exists for this to occur, perhaps to the point where players opt not to play spellcasters altogether. However, if such mishaps are rare, and if you feel that there is a strong case for magic being such an uncontrolled force in your campaign (and your players agree to this deviation from the norm, of course), then it may add to the flavor of the campaign. How severe are these mishaps? To make nonmagical comparisons: will the possibilities make them grumble a little bit as they recover, putting them at a noticable but temporary disadvantage (like an archer having to spend an action restringing his bow, or a tank wasting time picking himself up off the ground after a critical miss), or absolutely cringe at the outcome (the archer scoring a critical hit on an ally instead, or the tank shattering his new +3 weapon on his foe's hide)? Definitely a balance to be struck, should you decide to do this. Personally, for Critical Failures, on a natural 1 followed by a roll that results in a failure, I impose some moderately troublesome circumstance - one that equates to that character losing an action to recover, or some other appropriate minor penalty that sticks with them until the situation is somehow improved. I reserve the truly horrific consequences for the truly horrific blunders: two consecutive natural 1s (one on the check, then one on the critical failure confirmation check), followed by a roll that results in a failure. These are the things that (in your system) would make the caster's Fireball detonate at a distance of 0 feet, the Harm spell inflicting itself upon the one holding the charge, or the Time Stop you just cast putting you in an equally long Temporal Stasis effect. And always, always keep in mind - when creating a system that makes the world a more dangerous place for all creatures, ultimately, it is more dangerous for the PCs than any NPC you create. Whether they can handle such danger depends on the experience of the players, the level of the characters, and a plethora of other campaign-related factors. Over time, the probability of any one PC experiencing such a mishap is much greater than that of a single NPC (with the obvious exception of the DMPC). HTH. :]