- A natural 1 always fails a skill check, and a natural 20 always succeeds.
- A natural 1 has a value of –10, and a natural 20 has a value of 30.
- A natural 1 on an attack roll is a critical fumble, and the player drops the weapon or falls prone (optional Reflex save or Dexterity check to negate, usually DC 15).
The roll of a natural 1 or a natural 20 is an exciting moment in any d20 game, and most DM’s desire to make it more so. However, while rules like these add additional flavor to gameplay, they are not properly balanced and ultimately hurt player characters more than they help them. My purpose for this post is to outline and explain the common myths and misconceptions about these rules that all DM’s should know before choosing to implement them.
Myth 1: Improving the effect of a natural 20 balances the disadvantage of adjusting a natural 1.
This is untrue, especially in the context of skill checks. It’s simple mathematics to point out the error in Rule 2 listed above: turning a 20 into a 30 is an increase of 10, while turning a 1 into a -10 is a decrease of 11. However, this problem is minor compared to the major issue at hand. Over the course of time, players will get little benefit out of improving a natural 20, and they will be hurt constantly by adjusting a natural 1.
A natural 20 is nice, but normally it is also enough. The DC's for most tasks are in the 10-15 range, so with a natural 20 any character can succeed even without ranks, without an ability bonus, and while carrying a -5 armor check penalty! It is true that improving a natural 20 would allow for success on more difficult tasks, but what most DM’s forget is that these tasks are rare and are usually not attempted by untrained characters, because:
- Many skills do not allow for retries.
- Many skills carry an immediate consequence for failure.
If the task cannot be accomplished unless the player rolls a natural 20 improved by one of these house rules, then the task most likely carries at least one of these two restrictions. This means the character has a 95% chance of suffering a negative consequence for attempting the skill, and most wise players will pass on the opportunity. In the end, the only time players typically receive the benefit from an improved natural 20 on a skill check is when they are forced into the task with no alternative and the player gets lucky on the die roll.
Adjusting natural 1s, however, can be devastating to a player character. With this rule, players suffer a 5% failure rate at even the most rudimentary skills, despite any training or natural abilities the character may possess. This defeats one of the key purposes of higher skill ranks. Not only should a character be capable of accomplishing more difficult tasks, but he should be able to handle menial tasks with a great degree of certainty. Instead, not only does the player not succeed, but he often suffers the adverse consequences for failure and the player is left feeling inept at the skill he chose to develop. Since a player with a good skill modifier usually intends to use it often (thus increasing the frequency of die rolls), the 5% chance will frequently be tested, causing the character to fail in this skill quite often. So when a DM chooses to use this house rule, adjusted natural 1’s ultimately have a far greater impact than the improved natural 20’s.
Myth 2: Skill checks are similar to attack rolls and saves, so you should be able to apply the same logic of natural 1s and natural 20s.
This is definitely not true. This logic is often used to rationalize the implementation of critical failure/success house rules on skill checks, and it should be approached with caution. It is true that all three rolls require a d20 and add a modifier, but that is where the similarities end.
Unlike attack rolls, skill checks are used less frequently and carry greater consequences. The differences are easy to see in simple examples:
- If a character attacks on a natural 1 and misses when he should have hit (most likely a high-level character fighting a weak enemy), he still has at least a 75% chance to hit with the next iterative attack in his full attack action, even with the -5 penalty. If a character rolls a failing natural 1 on a DC 5 jump check to cross a broken bridge, he probably takes falling damage and gets separated from his party.
- If a character can make several attacks in one round, he still has a small chance to hit with those weaker attacks by rolling a natural 20, with no penalty for missing. Against a skill check, a character usually only has one chance, often with penalties for failure. Unless there is a significant chance of success, the character will likely avoid the attempt entirely.
Saves are far more ambiguous, but still very different from skills. There are 36 individual skills for characters to develop in the d20 system, but there are only 3 types of saves used to counteract special attacks made against them. While saves do carry similar consequences for failure, they are usually a player’s response to an unknown action where random chance does indeed play a significant role. Characters receive more grace from natural 20’s on saves because they are likely forced into the situation in the first place. A skill check, on the other hand, is a trained ability a character chooses to deliberately apply, and changes to these rules have a large impact on gameplay.
Myth 3: The ability to take 10 on skill checks balances the impact of critical failures.
This is partially true, but not to the extent people are looking for. It is true that taking 10 decreases the impact of critical failures. By taking 10 on a skill, you avoid failing on simple tasks in which you have a sufficient modifier to succeed. Even in a situation where taking 10 isn’t enough to meet the DC, adjusting the natural 1 makes no difference – the character would have failed the check either way.
What isn’t true, however, is the notion that taking 10 completely balances the disadvantages of adjusted natural 1s against the infrequent advantages of improved natural 20s. Characters cannot take 10 on skills while pressured or distracted. A level 11 elf archer who’s been climbing trees his entire life would, under the effect of adjusted natural 1s, still fall from a tree every 20 battles. Also, sometimes players just forget to take 10 every time the skill is used. Some players even prefer to roll the dice anyway, just to see how high a number they get. Perhaps the risk of failure is the price a player must pay for choosing to roll the dice, but that’s up to the DM to decide.
Myth 4: A character can overcome the -10 handicap of a random natural 1 by increasing skill ranks.
Again, this is partially true. However, most DM’s don’t stop to realize just how extreme that -10 penalty truly is. It takes ten extra levels of maxed skill ranks to make up for this handicap! We’ll take a closer look at that elf archer again as an example:
For easy math, we’ll assume his armor check penalty negates the dexterity bonus for a +0 modifier without ranks. By maxing out Climb as a class skill, the archer can easily take 10 to climb a tree (DC 15) as early as 2nd level. However, he wants to reliably climb trees even during the distraction of battle, which prevents him from taking 10. Going by the rules as written:
- The character no longer risks falling from the tree (failing the DC by 5 or more) by 7th level (max 10 ranks + 1 = 11).
- The character will always succeed by 11th level.
However, by implementing the –10 penalty on natural 1’s, the following occurs:
- To avoid the risk of falling, the character must be 18th level (max 21 ranks – 10 = 11).
- To reliably succeed in every attempt to climb a tree, the character must be epic level!
Myth 5: Critical fumbles handicap everyone equally.
The most common form of the critical fumble rule requires a player to roll a Reflex save of DC 15 whenever a player rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll. If the player fails the save, he drops his weapon and must make a move action to retrieve it (monks and other applicable characters might fall prone instead). There are many other variants I’ve either played or seen on these boards, sometimes involving dexterity checks or even negating the save completely.
Yet without such a save, the chance of dropping a weapon actually increases as a character attains higher levels due to additional attacks. Even with a dexterity check, nothing changes because the score does not increase at a comparable rate, if at all. The Reflex save evens the score a little bit, but not by enough to make a difference.
Imagine a fighter in full platemail who receives no dexterity bonus because of an average score. At 1st level he has a 5% chance to roll a natural 1 on his only attack, and a 70% chance of failing the Reflex save. This computes to a small 3.5% chance the fighter will drop his weapon in any given round.
Now at 6th level he still has a 5% chance for a natural 1, but only a 60% chance to fail the save thanks to an increased base save. However, since he has two attacks, the total result is doubled and he now has a total 6% chance of dropping his weapon in a round! By level 20, this has increased to 8%, and that’s not even accounting for extra options like Great Cleave or Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Thus, the fighter, the master of martial weaponry, will drop his precious +5 vorpal greatsword right into the hands of his enemies every few battles while a decent rogue only drops his rapier if he ever rolls two natural 1s in a row (a 1 in 400 chance).
Myth 6: Critical failures add an element of realism and humor into gameplay.
This statement is the single greatest reason DM’s choose to include critical failures into play, and it deserves some attention. Interpretations of realism and humor vary between different players and campaigns, and it would be senseless to address that here. However, there is an illusion in one key word: “add.” By using these optional rules, what are you adding to your campaign, and at what cost?
As attack rolls and saves already allow for critical failures and random chance, skill checks receive the real adjustment under these house rules. Unfortunately, as the points explained above have concluded, these rules mostly affect the rate of failure in the skills characters already do well. This often leaves a player feeling agitated and inept at some of his most prized abilities, because quite simply, players don’t like to lose.
The advantage to apply critical failures to skill checks is summed up in a few more opportunities to laugh when someone rolls a natural 1. Is this enough to justify penalizing the player? Consider the following:
- There are 36 different skills to train in the d20 system.
- Even a human rogue with an 18 intelligence score only receives 13 skills points each level, and 7 skills are still considered cross-class to him.
- There are always more difficult tasks and adverse circumstances that result in higher DC’s in which even a trained character can still falter.
For these reasons, you will probably never see a shortage of natural 1s that fail skill checks. So by adjusting the natural 1, you increase the frequency only a little, and at the expense of your players’ best abilities.
Alternatively, if the player still meets the DC on a skill check when rolling a natural 1, you could treat it as an accidental success. This way, everyone still gets a good laugh, and the player does not risk unnecessary failure on a simple task. For instance, an accidental Tumble check might say, ”You trip over your own feat and start falling. But using your momentum, you roll into a backwards somersault and see the orc swing his axe where your head used to be!”
Ultimately, these house rules hurt players more than they help them. Note that I’m not outright saying these rules are wrong. Any DM has the right to use them, but he should be aware of how the inherent imbalances will affect the player characters, which will ultimately affect the enjoyment of gaming. A rogue in the party will be much less reliable if critical failures are invoked, and the resident fighter may often find himself weaponless if critical fumbles apply. The thrill of natural 1s and 20s brings excitement to players using the d20 system, and these house rules are a result of that philosophy. Nevertheless, these rules are generally less appealing in actual gameplay than they are in theory.
That being said the secondary effect of the nat 1 on a combat round is something I still use. However, I use a reverse of the critical hit rule in regards to natural 1. If a player rolls a natural 1 when fighting an opponent, they then make another attack roll. If the second attack roll misses, only then will they have a secondary effect. (I make it appropriate to the situation. Perhaps they'll overswing their heavy weapon and strain a muscle, or trip on rough terrain, open themselves to an attack of opportunity from an opportunistic opponent, or have to pull back to defend from multiple attackers and cease threat on surrounding squares.) Most of my players seem to enjoy this system, and since the enemies use it as well it helps keep the balance.
One point I'd like to make is that dropping the House Rules for natural 1s(and 20s for that matter) is sometimes quite difficult to get across to the players that take such a system for granted. Even now, over a year since I ditched the rule myself, my players expect a success when they roll a natural 20, and a failure when they roll a 1. Sometimes it's like pulling teeth to get their actual skill result out of them when they get that crestfallen look after rolling a 1. Oftentimes they have actually succeeded, but such is their mindset that to them a 1 equals failure. I have even been accused of babying them before by letting a 1 succeed. O_o
In the end though I have to agree with all the points raised in your post. When a skilled acrobat with no armor can't jump over a 2 ft chasm, then there are problems.(Seen this happen. Its what made me rethink my own system.)
That being said the secondary effect of the nat 1 on a combat round is something I still use. However, I use a reverse of the critical hit rule in regards to natural 1. If a player rolls a natural 1 when fighting an opponent, they then make another attack roll. If the second attack roll misses, only then will they have a secondary effect.
I'm kinder--I allow them to roll the confirmation roll as if it were their first iterative attack, in order to prevent any kind of situation in which the best warriors are the most likely to fumble. Then, I limit the impact of the fumble. They lose any further attacks that round and lose a move-action in the next round. This is to parallel ranged fumbles, which (since most of my games use modern firearms) indicate a dry clip and the need to reload. For more pseudo-medieval fantasy settings, I'm thinking a broken bowstring would be adequate, with the same assumption I make for magazines--you have spares and I don't need to keep track of them. It makes even more sense of bowstrings, since they don't really weigh anything.
By the rules of the Player’s Handbook, a natural 1 on a d20 attack roll is always a miss, and a natural 20 is always a hit. Similarly, a natural 1 always fails a save and a natural 20 always succeeds. These two core rules are the foundation for many similar house rules, including:
- A natural 1 always fails a skill check, and a natural 20 always succeeds.
- A natural 1 has a value of –10, and a natural 20 has a value of 30.
- A natural 1 on an attack roll is a critical fumble, and the player drops the weapon or falls prone (optional Reflex save or Dexterity check to negate, usually DC 15).
I use the following: for attacks and saves, 1 and 20 are always a miss and a success respectively (NOT in epic levels, though, I use the epic variant for them). But for attacks and saves, if you roll a 1 you reroll at a -20 penalty. If you score less than -5 total, you have a fumble. Congratulations!
For skills, 1 and 20 are rerolls at -15 and +15 respectively, though if you score less than 5 after a natural 20 or more than 15 after a natural 1 your dice roll total caps to 20 and 1 respectively (ie, there is no chance that you'll get by this rule less than 20 in your dice roll if you roll 20 in your initial dice roll). Fumbles happen at less than -5 usually.
I also don't allow anyone benefit from the above rules for twenties with continuous successes or by taking 20. It benefits only your first or second attempt at a task (this removes the "I roll hundreds of times to get the result I want" problem)
Myth 1: Improving the effect of a natural 20 balances the disadvantage of adjusting a natural 1.
This is untrue, especially in the context of skill checks. Over the course of time, players will get little benefit out of improving a natural 20, and they will be hurt constantly by adjusting a natural 1.
I agree, but not for the reasons stated below, but for this reason: enhancing the effects of 1s and 20s increase the randomness of the game, which in fact usually turns against the PCs in the long run.
A natural 20 is nice, but normally it is also enough. The DC's for most tasks are in the 10-15 range, so with a natural 20 any character can succeed even without ranks, without an ability bonus, and while carrying a -5 armor check penalty! It is true that improving a natural 20 would allow for success on more difficult tasks, but what most DM’s forget is that these tasks are rare and are usually not attempted by untrained characters, because:
- Many skills do not allow for retries.
- Many skills carry an immediate consequence for failure.
I disagree very much. In my games (where diplomacy and other skills are used extensively) there's rarely "too much of a skill". By scoring diplomacy 100 you actually persuade the demon to stop attacking you for example. Don't forget the extra effects you gain by scoring more than 20 above a DC. So, increased effects in 20s have awarded the players spectacular effects and successes many times. And they really really enjoy them!
If the task cannot be accomplished unless the player rolls a natural 20 improved by one of these house rules, then the task most likely carries at least one of these two restrictions. This means the character has a 95% chance of suffering a negative consequence for attempting the skill, and most wise players will pass on the opportunity. In the end, the only time players typically receive the benefit from an improved natural 20 on a skill check is when they are forced into the task with no alternative and the player gets lucky on the die roll.
You are right with many skills, but not for example with Diplomacy: sometimes you have enough ranks to succeed at making someone stop attacking you even if you score a 5, but with a natural 20 and a reroll at +20 you may even make him friendly! But, in general, you argument stands true for half the skills, so it is a valid argument.
You don't take taking 10 into account here. If you have many many ranks, half your uses of skills will be simply at taking 10 (or even more). You don't risk natural 1s by taking 10 (and of course, I insist that no house rule of rolling 1 should interfere with your ability to take 10). But we'll continue below on this.Myth 2: Skill checks are similar to attack rolls and saves, so you should be able to apply the same logic of natural 1s and natural 20s.
This is definitely not true. This logic is often used to rationalize the implementation of critical failure/success house rules on skill checks, and it should be approached with caution. It is true that all three rolls require a d20 and add a modifier, but that is where the similarities end.
Unlike attack rolls, skill checks are used less frequently and carry greater consequences. The differences are easy to see in simple examples:
- If a character attacks on a natural 1 and misses when he should have hit (most likely a high-level character fighting a weak enemy), he still has at least a 75% chance to hit with the next iterative attack in his full attack action, even with the -5 penalty. If a character rolls a failing natural 1 on a DC 5 jump check to cross a broken bridge, he probably takes falling damage and gets separated from his party.
- If a character can make several attacks in one round, he still has a small chance to hit with those weaker attacks by rolling a natural 20, with no penalty for missing. Against a skill check, a character usually only has one chance, often with penalties for failure. Unless there is a significant chance of success, the character will likely avoid the attempt entirely.
I don't agree with the factors you take as granted: in my games, skills are used more often than attacks by far (there are even characters who use 1 particular skill more often than their attack bonus). So the first argument of yours is not valid in many games.
Let's see the second argument: skill checks have inherent dangers of a failure.
I don't agree. Half the skill checks can be retried and are done at an environment without pressure. If you miss a search check when you are really really wanting to find something, you'll try again. Nothing's bad - you just lost some minutes of time. If you lose an attack while in combat, you are some seconds late in defeating your opponent - which means that he will probably survive long enough to attack you more times - which could kill you.
So, your arguments can be reversed. It's about context. So, I don't see any difference in this factor.Myth 3: The ability to take 10 on skill checks balances the impact of critical failures.
This is partially true, but not to the extent people are looking for. It is true that taking 10 decreases the impact of critical failures. By taking 10 on a skill, you avoid failing on simple tasks in which you have a sufficient modifier to succeed. Even in a situation where taking 10 isn’t enough to meet the DC, adjusting the natural 1 makes no difference – the character would have failed the check either way.
What isn’t true, however, is the notion that taking 10 completely balances the disadvantages of adjusted natural 1s against the infrequent advantages of improved natural 20s. Characters cannot take 10 on skills while pressured or distracted. A level 11 elf archer who’s been climbing trees his entire life would, under the effect of adjusted natural 1s, still fall from a tree every 20 battles.
I agree here. IMO, though, this elf archer SHOULD fail once every 20 battles. That's the pressure and randomness of battle. Of course, yes, as I said before, increased randomness is against the PCs. So we agree here.Also, sometimes players just forget to take 10 every time the skill is used. Some players even prefer to roll the dice anyway, just to see how high a number they get. Perhaps the risk of failure is the price a player must pay for choosing to roll the dice, but that’s up to the DM to decide.
I think that taking 10 should be encouraged. It makes gaming much faster. So if the player wants to slow down the game to benefit from the randomness, he must accept that randomness can turn against him.Myth 4: A character can overcome the -10 handicap of a random natural 1 by increasing skill ranks.
Again, this is partially true. However, most DM’s don’t stop to realize just how extreme that -10 penalty truly is. It takes ten extra levels of maxed skill ranks to make up for this handicap! We’ll take a closer look at that elf archer again as an example:
For easy math, we’ll assume his armor check penalty negates the dexterity bonus for a +0 modifier without ranks. By maxing out Climb as a class skill, the archer can easily take 10 to climb a tree (DC 15) as early as 2nd level. However, he wants to reliably climb trees even during the distraction of battle, which prevents him from taking 10. Going by the rules as written:
- The character no longer risks falling from the tree (failing the DC by 5 or more) by 7th level (max 10 ranks + 1 = 11).
- The character will always succeed by 11th level.
However, by implementing the –10 penalty on natural 1’s, the following occurs:
- To avoid the risk of falling, the character must be 18th level (max 21 ranks – 10 = 11).
- To reliably succeed in every attempt to climb a tree, the character must be epic level!
You don't take magic items into account here. An elf who really really wants to climb well, will have a +5 item of climbing at level 8 (so it would succeed the task by that level) and a +10 at level 13. So it's not 10 levels more, it's just 5 levels more. AND an elf who wants to climb WON'T have much armor check penalty. AND armor check penalty tends to lower with the levels (you get mithral chainshirts etc) while Abilities tend to increase (you get points and magic items), so it's very bad assumption to say that these two factors cancel each other out.Myth 5: Critical fumbles handicap everyone equally.
The most common form of the critical fumble rule requires a player to roll a Reflex save of DC 15 whenever a player rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll. If the player fails the save, he drops his weapon and must make a move action to retrieve it (monks and other applicable characters might fall prone instead). There are many other variants I’ve either played or seen on these boards, sometimes involving dexterity checks or even negating the save completely.
Yet without such a save, the chance of dropping a weapon actually increases as a character attains higher levels due to additional attacks. Even with a dexterity check, nothing changes because the score does not increase at a comparable rate, if at all. The Reflex save evens the score a little bit, but not by enough to make a difference.
Imagine a fighter in full platemail who receives no dexterity bonus because of an average score. At 1st level he has a 5% chance to roll a natural 1 on his only attack, and a 70% chance of failing the Reflex save. This computes to a small 3.5% chance the fighter will drop his weapon in any given round.
That's the reason I don't use the Ref 15 rule. With the above house rule I mentioned, an epic character has to score two 1s in a row to actually fumble an attack roll (average: 5 attacks x 1/400 = 1/80 rounds), while a 1st level character will do it a bit more often (1 in two 1s will be a fumble, so with one attack per round it's 1/40 rounds).Myth 6: Critical failures add an element of realism and humor into gameplay.
[...]
I think that these elements of realism and humor are well if played correctly by the DM and if the players really enjoy them. That's true with ANY house rule. So, yes, of course each DM should be very careful and should communicate with the players for all house rules.
Case in point: Our party Paladin was trying to persuade the captain of the skyship we were on to change course because of a large hoarde of invading orcs, dragons, etc. He role-played the conversation in a rather intimidating style so the DM made him roll a diplomacy check. Cue the one. The captain stormed off announcing that he would never change direction. He had plotted his course and was sticking to it.
I do, however, respect that some people are more serious than us and less random and so wouldn't use the natural ones in this respect. And I can understand this. I believe that the use of the natural one and twenty all depends on both the group and the campaign that is running.
*Note:*I believe that I am now the sole member of the party who hasn't done something to tick off that skyship captain. The party wizard left the captain in the clutches of a copper dragon. The Paladin has (unintentionally) threatened him. The rogue and the monk accidentally destroyed the ship last time they were on it.
For combat I use a fumble house rule: If you roll a 1 on an attack roll, and then fail a luck check (charisma check) DC 10-15 (depending on situation) something negative happen, fox example opponent getting an AoO, falls, lose weapon etc.
On natural 1 on the charisma check, something very bad happens, and this one is open ended. I've never see anyone roll 1 more than 3 times in a row...
One reason to use charisma for this roll instead of BAB is to make the stat more worthwhile since it represents luck. I'm considering also adding BAB to this roll to make fumbles more rare and let combat training matter more.
I don't know who these people are who think critical failures are fun. I never enjoyed them as a player. My players never enjoy them when I DM (or GM). I imagine some sadistic DM's might like to see their players squirm, but who gets a kick out of failing so regularly? Can we hear from a player who enjoys critical failures? Anyone? Bueller?
The rule I've used in D&D games for the past couple of years is this: roll d20. If you get a 20, roll again and ADD 20 + the result to your roll (keep going if you keep rolling 20's). If you get a 1, roll again and SUBTRACT the result from your roll (if you roll another 1, subtract 20 and keep rolling). This keeps an element of randomness in the game, without making it successes and failures too automatic. That kobold with a +2 attack bonus MIGHT hit your Epic Dwarven Defender with AC 63, but he'll have to roll three 20's in a row (odds 8000 to 1) to do it. Similarly, a 20th-level rogue with +30 Ref save MIGHT not avoid a DC 15 Fireball, but he would have to roll a 1 and then a 16 or higher (odds 80 to 1) for it to happen.
I know with this (very well-written IMO) article, you're trying to show how these rules are a bad decision because of their negative effect on the PCs, but I just thought I'd throw in that, in general and with creative/daring PCs, they mess up your campaign world as well.
In the end, against an opponent with an AC equal to 20 and a touch AC of 15, a level 10 fighter (10 STR; no weapon focus; no MW or enhanced weapons) is only going to drop his weapon 0.125% of the time, or once out of every 800 swings, statistically speaking. Even then, there is a 40% chance that he will do damage, even though he had lost his weapon. So that works out to 1 attack in 2000 doing absolutely nothing.
Although I have yet to see those figures show up realistically; in my current campaign there is a level 16 fighter that only ever threw a weapon in the very first battle of the game.
In the case of attack rolls, it actually reduces the value of a 20 and increases the value of a 1. Rather than being automatic hits/misses, these are calculated based on values of +10 and -10, thus allowing some attacks to be automatic misses (AC - attack bonus > 30) and some to be unmissable (AC - attack bonus >= -10). This is possibly not a good thing.
The other problem with using the +10/-10 rule for skill checks is that it breaks the take 20 mechanics. If 20 is actually 30, then it mechanically makes sense to resample the d20 until you roll a natural 20 (30), which is exactly what taking 20 is supposed to prevent.
Reverse confirm fumbles are an "interesting" rule, since it makes your chance of incompetence dependent upon your opponent's AC.
*Skill check: Tie shoes* , "Oh, lookitthat, I rolled a one. I must try again."
That being said the secondary effect of the nat 1 on a combat round is something I still use. However, I use a reverse of the critical hit rule in regards to natural 1. If a player rolls a natural 1 when fighting an opponent, they then make another attack roll. If the second attack roll misses, only then will they have a secondary effect. (I make it appropriate to the situation. Perhaps they'll overswing their heavy weapon and strain a muscle, or trip on rough terrain, open themselves to an attack of opportunity from an opportunistic opponent, or have to pull back to defend from multiple attackers and cease threat on surrounding squares.) Most of my players seem to enjoy this system, and since the enemies use it as well it helps keep the balance.
Two problems occur when you model attack roll critical failures to mirror critical hits, and Korimyr beat me to the first. Under this ruling, fighters have less chance to score a critical hit with each interative attack, but they would be more likely to make a critical failure, provided the second attack roll is made with the same BAB and modifiers. Korimyr's suggestion resolves this issue.
The second problem is that the character's chance of making some sort of critical failure is partially determined here by the enemy's AC. This leads to illogical conclusions, such as a ranged attacker breaking his own bowstring because the enemy wizard had cast Mage Armor. When an enemy dons Bracers of Armor and a Ring of Protection, your fighter is now more likely to trip over his own feet. You also need to ask yourself if, as a DM, you want to further punish your players for using tactics which already penalize attack rolls, such as fighting defensively or using Power Attack. A fighter who strains a muscle because he dumped all his BAB into extra damage to kill a lower CR enemy in one hit will leave the encounter feeling pretty silly.
The consequences you are imposing for critical failures are not nearly as harsh as dropping a weapon, so it's really splitting hairs at this point. But if I were to manufacture any check to negate a possible critical failure on an attack roll, it would be based on the Base Attack Bonus (the sole stat which measures a character's prowess in martial combat) against a predetermined DC, probably 10 (I considered making it 15, but I don't see the necessity of treating a 10th level fighter as clumsy in combat). As this is a "BAB check" and not an attack roll, it would not suffer consequences for using different tactics as mentioned above.
One point I'd like to make is that dropping the House Rules for natural 1s(and 20s for that matter) is sometimes quite difficult to get across to the players that take such a system for granted.
I couldn't have said it better myself! I first adored the -10/30 rule my DM suggested three years ago, but after a year of seeing it work I began to realize how silly my character was becoming. I have spent the remaining years since attempting to convince this DM the errors of this method, but he simply says I'm stuck with it because I agreed to it in the first place. This week, though, things will change as we begin a separate Eberron campaign with the same group of players for which I will be the DM, and I've handed everyone a printed listing of differences in DM style they should expect from me.
Irving is a 1st level commoner, and he has found a Dire flail- which he has no idea of how to use. He swings that flail 20 times in those 20 rounds, and will roll one "natural 1"- and he has a 75% chance of fumbling, since his reflex save is 0.
Thus, Conan will fumble around 12 time more often that Irving.
Meanwhile, Conan's buddy, the 20th level Wizard- will never have even rolled a D20 'to hit", and thus has no chance of fumbling ever.
Fumbles really screw over high level warrior types- exactly the classes that should have the least chance of fumbling. And, the classes that already are way behind on the "power curve' by then.
I'm kinder--I allow them to roll the confirmation roll as if it were their first iterative attack, in order to prevent any kind of situation in which the best warriors are the most likely to fumble.
Surely the best warriors are already the least likely to fumble as they have a smaller chance of missing (and therefore confirming the fumble)?
With fumbles, I have a fumble chart that I roll off of to determine the result. However, the results, while certainly unpleasant, are not going to be "game-over" type of situations. My fumbles are generally along the lines of: Dropped weapon (but not picked up by opponent), broken bow string, character falls, weapon becomes lodged in earth/beam/etc. and requires a move action to retrieve, etc. In each case, any additional attack is lost for that round.
This IMHO seems to balance it with the critical hits more. Extra damage is quite obviously great, but it will not in and of itself determine the outcome of a battle. Admittedly though, I also have to confess that the players in the campaigns I have been in rather enjoyed the crit fumbles/crit hits (going back to 1st and 2nd Ed.). For our groups, it did add that extra flavor.
My two favorite Fumbles that I can recall off the top of my head:
1. Fighter with locking gauntlet got his sword buried in a thick wooden beam and couldn't pass the Str. check to pull it free, so he remained stuck to the beam for the rest of the battle. (it never occurred to him to try to remove the gauntlet.
2. Fighter actually hits with his 1, but sadly for him, his sword became lodged in the opponent's ribcage and was yanked free of his hand. The unlucky Orc then got knocked into a 20 foot pit.
That being said the secondary effect of the nat 1 on a combat round is something I still use. However, I use a reverse of the critical hit rule in regards to natural 1. If a player rolls a natural 1 when fighting an opponent, they then make another attack roll. If the second attack roll misses, only then will they have a secondary effect.
Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Why are you more likely to hurt yourself while fighting a super-armored, heavily-buffed evil d00d than when you're cleaving goblins?
The confirmation could be against a 10 or something, but then you've got a bizarre situation where you're more likely to hurt yourself at levels 6, 11, and 16, because that's where you end up with an attack at +1.
I think it's better to stay away from that stuff. The miss is, itself, already bad enough. No reason to make it worse.
There is one flaw in this article, and that is the analysis of house rule 2 (call it the -10/+10 rule). This rule is intended to be applied only to attack rolls, not saves or skill rolls.
There may be a variant as you specify out there somewhere, but my DM does indeed have us playing this very rule on skill checks and saves, and I've seen it confirmed in use by other players on these boards.
I agree, but not for the reasons stated below, but for this reason: enhancing the effects of 1s and 20s increase the randomness of the game, which in fact usually turns against the PCs in the long run.
This does indeed increase the randomness of the game. However, I don't imagine randomness itself is what turns against the PC's, but the fact that consequences of natural 1s often outweigh the benefits of natural 20s. If you critically fail a Jump check, you take falling damage and stray from your path; if you "critically succeeded" (I don't know what else to call it), you merely succeeded with style -- you don't get back lost hit points or receive any other additional benefit.
I disagree very much. In my games (where diplomacy and other skills are used extensively) there's rarely "too much of a skill". By scoring diplomacy 100 you actually persuade the demon to stop attacking you for example. Don't forget the extra effects you gain by scoring more than 20 above a DC. So, increased effects in 20s have awarded the players spectacular effects and successes many times. And they really really enjoy them!
By my count, only 8 of the 36 skills give an extra benefit if you exceed the DC for the check. These are: Craft, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Gather Information, Perform, Profession, Sleight of Hand (when entertaining for money as Perform), and Tumble (likewise). Five of these are only for the purposes of earning money at a rate which is usually chicken feed compared to what PC's can make looting dungeons, so only the other three significantly occur in campaigns. Some skills can be used at a penalty for an increased benefit, such as Climbing at half speed, but this penalty is applied before the check is rolled to see whether the character succeeds. (However, you might house rule that the penalty can be applied retroactively, and if so, then it does increase the significance of greater success.)
On the other hand, 35 out of 36 skills would normally allow for success even if the character rolls a natural 1 but still has a sufficient modifier to meet the DC. Only the Use Magic Device check always fails in this manner, as described in its text. So as you can see, there is a vast difference between the ways in which skills are affected by natural 1s and 20s.
It's worth pointing out that if you're playing a campaign setting that uses action points (such as Eberron or d20 Modern), natural 20's are a great place to consider using them if you would benefit from an increased check result!
You don't take magic items into account here. An elf who really really wants to climb well, will have a +5 item of climbing at level 8 (so it would succeed the task by that level) and a +10 at level 13. So it's not 10 levels more, it's just 5 levels more. AND an elf who wants to climb WON'T have much armor check penalty. AND armor check penalty tends to lower with the levels (you get mithral chainshirts etc) while Abilities tend to increase (you get points and magic items), so it's very bad assumption to say that these two factors cancel each other out.
My point was to counter the notion that skill points can make up that -10 difference, and that does indeed take 10 extra levels. This example best allowed me to demonstrate that, and the armor check penalty and ability bonus were negated to simplify things. Regardless, I don't think this assumption is quite as flawed as you presume. Even with light armor, ranged attackers don't typically carry much of a Strength score, so the difference between the two is marginal at best.
Also, it's highly unlikely you carry a magic item for each of your usable skills. If you are of the opinion that magic items should be taken for granted to counter that -10 penalty, then remember that a rogue with only 8 favored skills would still have to shell out 80,000 gold pieces for slotted items to do so (and it would take 80 days for a wizard to craft these). If that kind of time and money is easily affordable in your campaign, then by all means, go wild.
I think that these elements of realism and humor are well if played correctly by the DM and if the players really enjoy them. That's true with ANY house rule. So, yes, of course each DM should be very careful and should communicate with the players for all house rules.
You're absolutely right. It does indeed differ between groups, and I wrote this article just as much for the players as I did the DM's so they know what they're getting into when they commit to this kind of setup. For instance, I am by far the most serious roleplayer in my group, with a tendency towards lawful goody two-shoes characters and a flare for epic conflicts and high action. My characters usually have this innate desire to apply 110% of their effort into every task, to the best of their ability.
So when my mid-level rogue rolls a natural 1 on a Move Silently check she has a +14 modifier for and my DM says I start singing to myself as I walk, I not only feel out of character and extremely stupid, but I feel betrayed that my noble elf was such an idiot at performing a task that should be as basic as breathing to her. Furthermore, the other players dwell on this incident and roleplay their characters as no longer trusting my rogue to be used for purposes of stealth. With each natural 1, I feel more like an NPC and less like a hero.
. In each case, any additional attack is lost for that round.
Yes, that's not uncommon either and that REALLY screws over the high level warrior types. While not having any effect to speak of on spellcasters.
I completely agree with chocobochicken. Critical misses and successes for skill checks and attack rolls are really "un-cool".
Does anybody of you out there own the "Advanced Player's Guide" from SSS? If you are really into these fumble rules, take a look at this book. It has some really ridiculous tables, page after page, in which the DM can roll out what happens to your fighter if he rolled a "1" on his attack rolls.
Some examples include:
- Throwing your weapon away (several feet of distance),
- Breaking your weapon (as if you've tried to sunder it),
- accidentally hitting somebody else (even other party members).
I've currently lend the book to a friend so I can't give you page references, but it is the most stupic thing that has ever seen the pages of a rpg book. If you have no problem with your lvl20 fighter "accidentally" killing his rogue buddy or breaking his Magical Sword of Ancestral Doom(tm), go ahead. If you play something else than MontyD20 stay away from messing around with skill checks and "critical fumbles".
Just my opinion on this topic.
Greetings,
_Ra-Tiel.
PS: Congratulations for this article, chocobochicken! Well done!
White Wolf had almost as bad of a mechanism, whereby the better you were at something, the more dice you had to throw, and thus the greater the chances of rolling a 1 and failing.
In White Wolf each die you rolled gave you one success if it came up high enough, and as you got more skilled at something you got more die. As you got more success, a 1 wasn't an automatic failure, it took away a success. A botch (their term for a critical failure) was in their second edition was when you had more ones than success, in third when you had no success on ANY die and had ones, now in the current version I could be mistaken but I believe it's when you role only one die and it comes up a one. So the math comes up your less likely to botch as you have more dice.
tec-goblin, doesn't the way you do the math show that critical failures makes less sense than the way
I don't mind the IDEA of a natural one failing but it seems like the rules are just very flawed when you try to do it. Most casters don't have to use skill checks, or a d20 that often so it seems to make them way more powerful.
Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Why are you more likely to hurt yourself while fighting a super-armored, heavily-buffed evil d00d than when you're cleaving goblins?
Because in the second case, you take it eeeeeasy! You are under much less pressure.
[QUOTE[
The confirmation could be against a 10 or something, but then you've got a bizarre situation where you're more likely to hurt yourself at levels 6, 11, and 16, because that's where you end up with an attack at +1.
Yep, indeed, but the rule appears so rarely that no one will notice this.
By my count, only 8 of the 36 skills give an extra benefit if you exceed the DC for the check. These are: Craft, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Gather Information, Perform, Profession, Sleight of Hand (when entertaining for money as Perform), and Tumble (likewise). Five of these are only for the purposes of earning money at a rate which is usually chicken feed compared to what PC's can make looting dungeons, so only the other three significantly occur in campaigns. Some skills can be used at a penalty for an increased benefit, such as Climbing at half speed, but this penalty is applied before the check is rolled to see whether the character succeeds. (However, you might house rule that the penalty can be applied retroactively, and if so, then it does increase the significance of greater success.)
Yes, this house rule could help in some cases - for example, when you could do something with a -10 penalty, you could say that, even if you haven't declared it before the roll, if you beat the DC by 15, it will work. And the rule that by beating by 20 a DC you have some spectacular effect is general, so the DM is free to increase the effect of a skill check in such cases (IMC, even Intimidate could cause Madness checks to the opponent. Ravenloft Madness checks!)
My point was to counter the notion that skill points can make up that -10 difference, and that does indeed take 10 extra levels. This example best allowed me to demonstrate that, and the armor check penalty and ability bonus were negated to simplify things. Regardless, I don't think this assumption is quite as flawed as you presume. Even with light armor, ranged attackers don't typically carry much of a Strength score, so the difference between the two is marginal at best.
Also, it's highly unlikely you carry a magic item for each of your usable skills. If you are of the opinion that magic items should be taken for granted to counter that -10 penalty, then remember that a rogue with only 8 favored skills would still have to shell out 80,000 gold pieces for slotted items to do so (and it would take 80 days for a wizard to craft these). If that kind of time and money is easily affordable in your campaign, then by all means, go wild.
Well, my point was that, IF you really want to never fail with a skill, the -10 rule will leave you about 3 levels behind. You won't take super magic items for all your skills, but you could do it for about 3 of your skills. In your above example, the ranger who really wanted to climb trees etc could use the Agile Athlete feat from RoW to add his increasing Dex modifier to the rolls.
(Even in mid-magic campaigns, I had managed to increase in 18 levels my Bluff by +87)
Of course, with my variant, there's ALWAYS a chance of failure (open ended 1s - see my above post), but if you have tons of a skill this chance is negligible.
So when my mid-level rogue rolls a natural 1 on a Move Silently check she has a +14 modifier for and my DM says I start singing to myself as I walk, I not only feel out of character and extremely stupid, but I feel betrayed that my noble elf was such an idiot at performing a task that should be as basic as breathing to her. Furthermore, the other players dwell on this incident and roleplay their characters as no longer trusting my rogue to be used for purposes of stealth. With each natural 1, I feel more like an NPC and less like a hero.
Yes, indeed. If I was a DM, the whole miss would be a crack on the floor, a sudden scream when a thorn cuts you or something similar. Not something obviously stupid as singing to himself. Anyway, we tend to agree for the whole point (just with some issues regarding the details of the arguments). I feel this thread is in general a good mental exercise. Thanks for starting it.
On the other hand, 35 out of 36 skills would normally allow for success even if the character rolls a natural 1 but still has a sufficient modifier to meet the DC. Only the Use Magic Device check always fails in this manner, as described in its text.
Someone pointed out my misunderstanding on this skill, and I need to correct this statement. Use Magic Device does not automatically fail on a natural 1; it just adds an extra consequence if you do fail. Rolling a natural 1 and failing while trying to activate an item means you cannot activate that item for 24 hours. Rolling a natural 1 and successfully reaching the DC because of ranks and other modifiers means you succeed as normal.
Hence, all 36 skills allow for success on a natural 1 provided you can still meet the DC.
There may be a variant as you specify out there somewhere, but my DM does indeed have us playing this very rule on skill checks and saves, and I've seen it confirmed in use by other players on these boards.
I'm sure that people have applied it to skills. However, by the text of the variant rule on DMG pg 25, it applies to attack rolls (and nothing else). As applied to skill rolls, your logic is quite valid.
Due to there being a confirmation roll required for a natural 1 a "Bad" thing only happens once in 400 rolls, and the very bad thing happens only once in 8000 rolls. While the above posters are correct that the greater number of attacks that high-level fighters get will increase the chance of a weapon drop or injury, our group accepts this as an acceptable flaw.
Skill rolls are not adjusted from standard D&D rules. However for saves we use the nat 1 is always a failure rule. Though I have run that if a roll of 1 plus the save exceeds the DC by 10 or more then no roll is required from the PC's. This allows very high-level PC's to ignore very weak poisons etc.
After 3E, I've played games where the DM does use critical hits and fumbles. Usually, the results are not long lasting. You could just fall prone or lose your weapon or incur an AoO. In any case, effects of critical fumbles have an uneven effect depending on the type of character. Melee characters with multiple iterative attacks get more chances to fail and if they fall, they are surrounded by enemies. Ranged combat types are better off because if they fall, no one is around them and are not close enough to get AoO's against someone standing up from prone. Spellcasters don't have many spells that require attack rolls, so they are affected the least.
I have seen systems that are more complex to try to balance this out. DevilKiller gave one such example. In any case, there are extra rules to balance things out in a system that inherently is unbalanced in the first place. The extra complexity just doesn't add enough value to the game.
The last couple of times I DM'ed, I did away with critical fumbles. No one complained that they didn't get a chance to fumble. In any case, most fumbles can be duplicated with special combat maneuvers that are inherent to the 3E combat system. You can sunder, disarm or trip. If you want to add extra flavour, then perform these maneuvers. Since these options are available, it allows players and DM's to control whether or not one of these things happen and if so, which one.
It is true that the enemies AC influences the chances of a critical hit, but why not? For instance the ranger firing at the wizard that just cast mage armor may have to pull his bowstring a little harder, and the fighter attacking said wizard may have to do so more aggressively. It also increases your chance of a fumble using power attack, but that makes sense too because the fighter would be swinging harder.
Also in my game a natural one is an automatic failure as well. However, for a critical failure you have to fail by more than the DC described in the skill description. For example, if you are climbing a DC-15 surface and you fail by five or more, you fall. A character with +15 climb skill will never fall, even if hurried, but he may have to pause for a round to find some hand holds if he rolls a natural "1".
Another reason I like natural "1" as a failure is that certain PrCs have skill mastery (are allowed to take 10 even under pressure). The skills they master are usually ones they are really good at. Failing on a "1" makes this ability more valuable.
One point that has been ignored thus far (I hope I skimmed the other posts thoroughly enough), is that monsters and NPCs have to put up with these rules as well. In my experience, when you have to confirm critical misses, monsters will fail more often than the PCs (since they usually have a lower chance of hitting the PCs than vice versa). Also the fleeing baddie may roll a natural "1" on his climb/swim/jump/tumble check and allow the PCs to catch him.
Overall, everyone in the group seems to enjoy these rules.
For example, one of the few instances this happened was when the rogue of the party was trying to open a lock and rolled a 1. Re-rolled a confirmation failure (made by rolling again and failing the DC by more than 15) and rolled a 5 (not enough). What was the critical failure? He broke his masterwork tool inside the lock jamming it for good. No problem; the dwarf's warhammer took care of the incident. It was a bit louder than intended, but that is what will happen from time to time with really bad luck. It was funny for everyone.
With saves on spells, I don't like the nat 1 as failure either. It means the epic level cleric can be dazed by the first level wizard. My variant rule on that is if you still make the save even though you rolled a 1, then you are subject to half of the spell's power (damage, duration, etc, depending on spells and not all spells are subject to this). If you still beat the DC by more than 5 points, then you made the save.
With fumbles, the rules are easy. You either drop your weapon or a move action on the next turn, which ever applies to the specific case (melee weapons you have 20% of dropping your weapon). This can only happen on the last attack of your turn. So, if you roll a 1 in the first attack and a 3 on the next attack, you don't fumble.
If you want a funny adventure...play funny PCs. If not, don't get your rocks off by describing how awesome it is that your PCs screw up because they rolled a 1 on something.
D&D does not stand for "Dumb & Dumber."
Now, I also have critical fumbles, which provoke an AoO from opponents. A DC 15 REF save is necessary to avoid the fumble, which occurs only on a natural 1. Now the more attacks you get, the more chances of rolling a 1. However, the melee fighter type with that is TWF will have the most number of attacks AND a natural bonus to his REF save due to his DEX. TWFs tend to also have decent DEX to make up for the lack of a shield. The fighter worse off is the low DEX fighter, though even he gets +6 eventually. And anything that boosts saves also lowers the chance of a critical. In other words, it is an issue at low levels, but at higher ones, the issue practically goes away (down to a 50% chance at only +5).
What does this mean? Critical fumbles are even more rare than automatic successes, which benefit the PCs the most. And a fumble only results in the opponent having the chance to do a combat maneuver.
Given these rules, my +18 to bluff wouldn't matter at all 5% of the time when dealing with a 1st lvl. commoner. Or consider this, even with my modified +28 on hide, 5% of the time, random NPC #3 would be able to see me.
I really don't, however, have a problem with auto fail/succeed on saves. Consider this scenario, you grew up as a fairly frail individual, always sickly. You've now been poisoned with a fairly major poison. It only makes sense to me that 5% of the time your body miraculously rallies to your defense.
Alternately, you're the quickest, dodgiest individual you've ever met. It's nearly impossible to pin you down with anything. Logically, however, you'd occasionally be looking the wrong way when a fireball comes your way. That's how a nat 1 should be played. On, say a reflex save, you happened to be looking the wrong way when something was cast at you. Or a will save, you just completely let your mental defenses down there. It happens to everybody. As a fort save, well, you let your immune system get run down.
This is opposed to a 20, where, despite being slower than Christmas you manage to position yourself so as to avoid something, or your immune system functions miraculously, or maybe you unlock some inner potential within your being that allows you to fortify your mind against some strike.
As far as attacks go, I see your point on how a fighter shouldn't botch horribly more often than, say a bard. I guess I just never noticed it because my 13 reflex prevents me from failing most of those ;)
This is the sort of thing like a master chef trying to make a cheese sandwich and failing.
Now, for the 30 roll, by the same token, there are tasks that are just impossible even for an epic character to complete until they are very high level. The Epic level handbook provides DCs for certain actions up to 100. Normally, if you roll a natural 20, you can walk on water. Is that to suggest that all people have a natural 5% chance of jumping to the moon or walking on water? Making it a 30 seems a lot more plausible in my opinion. In fact, this house rule seems to work even pre-epic levels, unlike the -10 rule.
Similarly, if you get a 1 on an attack roll on an attack roll, you miss. You might have done more than that though, so you roll again. If you roll 2 or better nothing happens, but if you roll another 1, you not only missed but you hurt yourself in the process. Now you roll again. If you get 2 or higher, do a damage roll as per your original attack and take that much damage. If you roll a third 1, you critically missed, and you have to make yet another roll. If you get 2 or higher, do a damage roll for a critical hit and take that much damage. If you roll your fourth natural 1, you accidentally kill yourself. You die, and get no save.
This system may be a bit complicated, but it really adds an extra element to the game. I and other people I have played with really enjoy it. The extremes are quite rare. There's a .0125% chance that any hit will instantly kill an opponent, and a .000625% chance that a player will die, but when either of those things do happen, it's certainly exciting.
This is the system I have commonly used for my adventuring groups:
A natural 20 followed by a second natural 20 followed by a successful hit results in an instant death. This represents putting a sword straight through someone's vital area and resulting in a death. While this means that my main NPC may die at the hands of a low level NPC who got lucky, then so be it. People get lucky all the time, it just happened to be the right time and place for that pc.
On the flipside a role of a natural 1 is then followed up with a second role, to which I apply the appropriate modifier (reflex save, strength bonus, skill bonus, etc.) from that character. If they would have succeeded no ill action and play goes on as usual. If they fail with this role, which I try to scale to the difficulty of the setting, then something could happen, such as dropping a weapon, slipping on some blood and falling down, or whatever else comes to mind.
I have at times had characters break weapons, not magical ones, but common weapons, or even hit a fellow character, I mean let's look at it this way, in a real battle friendly fire happens, it isn't intentional it just happens. The same holds true for a fantasy battle in my mind, if you are fighting a creature that takes up a five foot area and your friend comes up to help you and they trip as they are running up there's always that chance they might hit you as they fall. Yes this is unfortunate, but it happens.
I find that one of the biggest problems is that too many people get hung up on the rules and this balancing crap and forget this is simply a game. If I am involved an RPGA event that's one thing, but so what if you're at home with your good friends and you happen to be rolling bad that night, the gods are just not looking at you favorably that night. If you're friends, you can forgive the mistake or accident that might not have benefited the party.
The important thing is not to make such fumbles statistically impractical like a master swordsman fumbling 1 in 20 swings. Confirming fumbles (using your highest attack bonus) circumvents this. I can speak from the personal experience of seven years of martial arts training when I say that I am far more likely to fumble (stumble or some such) fighting an opponent who pushes me to my limits, rather than an easy adversary, hence, an increased probability of fumbles against a higher AC opponent makes sense (you have to work harder to hit them).
I'll grant that fumbles are a matter of play style and less appropriate to an epic campaign style. Nevertheless, in my experience, the possibility of failure (and critical failure) grants characters a more realistic dimension. Never failing at tying your shoes is one thing--if you're making your players roll for this, what are you thinking!? Never failing at climbing a tree in battle seems unlikely at best. No matter how good you are, you can never account for all environmental conditions (perhaps that branch you just grabbed is weaker than it looks and snaps, etc). For my groups, they work.
Personally, I believe the VERY best way to handle natural 1s and 20s is: use absolutely no house rules on skill checks or saves except for skill checks the amount that the PC/NPC surpasses or fell short of the target DC affects how desirable or adverse his/her result is.
This method for skills can only double the fun players will have at your table when making skill checks (it works amazingly, I have used it to DM for years). For attack rolls, the very Very VERY worst thing you could ever have is to make a 1 an automatic failure (you'd be plum insane to do it at epic level). Critical hits, however, are an awesome concept, though the best thing to do is have them be +10 because every 1 out of 20 times even the lowliest kobald could still strike the highest of the air elemental elders. Especially when made even more realistic and colorful with a table such as the following (please excuse me if it formats improperly):
CRITICAL HITS
Critical Hit Result
Weapon Type
Cutting Stabbing Crushing
Flesh Wound 01 - 16 01 - 20 01 - 20
Unconscious 17 - 28 21 - 30 21 - 28
Broken Bone
Below Knee 29 31 29 - 33
Above Knee 30 32 34 - 40
Below Elbow 31 - 32 33 41 - 50
Above Elbow 33 34 51 - 55
1d3 Ribs 34 - 36 35 56 - 60
Pelvis 37 36 61 - 62
Spine 38 - 39 37 63
Neck 40 38 64
Skull 41 - 43 39 65 - 70
Artery 44 - 56 40 - 48 71 - 74
Vein 57 - 69 49 - 54 75 - 82
External Organ
Ear 70 55 83
Eye 71 56 84
Nose 72 57 85
Mouth 73 58 86
Internal Organ
Abdomen 74 - 77 59 - 81 87 - 90
Heart 78 - 80 82 - 83 91
Brain 81 - 85 84 - 95 92
Limb Crushed
or Severed
Below Knee 86 - 87 96 93
Above Knee 88 - 95 97 94 - 95
Below Elbow 96 - 97 98 96 - 97
Above Elbow 98 - 99 99 98 - 99
At Neck 00 00 00
Critical Hit Results Key
Flesh Wound Double damage; bleeds at 1pt per round until staunched
Unconscious
FORT Save; DC = 8 + Damage done by blow
fail = unconscious for 3d6 x 10 minutes
success = stunned for 2d6 rounds
Vein
Normal damage, bleeds for ½ that damage per round until staunched
Artery Normal damage, bleeds for same damage per round until staunched
Broken Bone
Affected member is rendered useless. Roll 1d6 for recovery time:
1:heals in 1d3+3 days
2:heals in 1d10+10 days
3-6:heals in 2d6 weeks
Internal Organ
Abdomen
Double damage, Cure Critical Wounds or better, or die in 3d20 hours
Heart
Triple damage; Cure Critical Wounds or better, or die in 3d20 minutes
Brain
Triple damage, Cure Critical Wounds or better or die in 3d20 minutes.
If Heal or Regenerate is unavailable, rethrow INT:
Roll 1d100 for INT range:
01 - 60 = roll on 1d6
61 - 75 = roll on 2d6
76 - 95 = roll on 3d6
96 - 99 = roll on 4d6
00 = roll on 5d6
Use the resulting score as shown, don’t discard any dice.
External Organ
Ear, Nose,
Mouth
1d6 Charisma penalty in social situations
Eye
Blind in that eye. No depth perception, -2 penalty to combat, balance, pick pockets etc.
Limb Severed or
Crushed
Below
Knee/Elbow
Double damage; acts as ARTERY wound until a tourniquet is applied
Above
Knee/Elbow
Triple damage; acts as ARTERY wound until a tourniquet is applied
Neck
Triple damage, acts as ARTERY wound until a tourniquet is applied. Dead if single-headed.
This method of doing it, IMHO, is squeaky-clean-perfect. If anyone has any objections, questions, comments, or would like to tell me in detail how full of crap I am :D just reply.
This way, even the umpteenth-level fighter misses sometimes, and even a lvl1 can get lucky and slay the tarasque.
In my homebrew, I use the 20 --> add another d20, same downwards if 1 is rolled, and failing a check by 20, or succeeding by margin of twenty, are criticals. Also, negative results are fumbles, but base skill modifiers are greater than in D&D.
Put me down in the "critical failures are stupid" camp. I don't see it as "lighthearted" at all. It's just a mechanic for PCs to look like inept clowns. Five gets you ten that the DM who makes his players roll these fumbles is the same DM that just conveniently ignores it when his über "I'm compensating for something" NPC happens to turn up a 1.
I'm completely and utterly serious here. If you characterize any play, screen or stage, you will find moments where people fumble. There are no actual critical fumble rules in the game. Without fumble rules an entire shade of reality is shortchanged. Five gets you ten most DMs fudge a lot more than a crit 1 on a regular basis seeing as how that's their job (keeping the game/plot together - no a DM is not a CPU).
I agree with OP that as you try to fiddle with them too much become more and more complicated, and more and more detrimental to the players as opposed to the NPCs due to the number of dice rolls involved by both parties, but ... you fail sometimes. Not just fail, but really fumble up, right? In real life. When playing a game that has the potential to emulate every shade and facet of irl existence (on-demand + bonus magic powers) you should be maintaining the possibility for critical fumbles. Even if it is as simple as "you rolled a one - something 'bad' happens." Seriously.
I'm completely and utterly serious here. If you characterize any play, screen or stage, you will find moments where people fumble. There are no actual critical fumble rules in the game. Without fumble rules an entire shade of reality is shortchanged. Five gets you ten most DMs fudge a lot more than a crit 1 on a regular basis seeing as how that's their job (keeping the game/plot together - no a DM is not a CPU).
I agree with OP that as you try to fiddle with them too much become more and more complicated, and more and more detrimental to the players as opposed to the NPCs due to the number of dice rolls involved by both parties, but ... you fail sometimes. Not just fail, but really fumble up, right? In real life. When playing a game that has the potential to emulate every shade and facet of irl existence (on-demand + bonus magic powers) you should be maintaining the possibility for critical fumbles. Even if it is as simple as "you rolled a one - something 'bad' happens." Seriously.
But this whole thing is based off a bad assumption, namely that having everything from real life in the game is a good thing. A otherwise healthy man could fall from 30 feet, land on his head, and have brain damage then spend the rest of his life crapping himself. Even though in D&D I could get that undone (or my friends could since I might not be able to speak), I don't want that brought in the game. Just kill my character. Before you can say that taking out a whole shade of reality you need to show that bringing it into the game is a good thing. And I for one put all nat ones being bad in the same camp as adult diapers.
If we use 1s as fumbles, a confirm role of some kind needs ot be used. I propose we take a page from 2nd edition and make a "BAB Check." Instead of setting a DC, the player merely needs to roll lower than their BAB.
This system gives obvious boosts to fighter type characters over others. The only problem is that at 20th level a character with full BAB is no longer subject to critical misses. I personally think this makes sense. After facing combat for so long and reaching that 20th level pinnacle of power, it seems logical a fighter should have mastered combat enough not to make careless mistakes.
In addition, if the encounter isn't too dangerous the fumbles often get worse, not to make the encounter more dangerous, but to make it funnier. - You fall facedown in the muck, you wrap your spiked chain around that pretty spiked armor of yours, you shoot the hat of the party wizard, you trip as you charge and impale yourself on your opponent (silly armor spikes), etc...
We don't use any hard rules for rolling a 1, we just run with the guidelines above.
White Wolf had almost as bad of a mechanism, whereby the better you were at something, the more dice you had to throw, and thus the greater the chances of rolling a 1 and failing.
Just FYI, that's not how it works, a 1 merely subtracts a success from your total, you have to roll no successes naturally and roll a 1 just to critical fail (i.e. 2 successes and 3 ones rolled does not critical fail, but no successes and a single one rolled do) Which makes it night on impossible to critical fail at higher dice totals, rather than easier like you seem to believe.
I think the main problem with critical rules is people always say, "this automatically happens" both the good, the bad and the ugly. What I would do is do it as normal but make 20s a CHANCE to fail. If you roll 1 on an attack, and fail to hit their AC again, you automatically miss. That way Mr. 20 level fighter would need most of the time two 1s in a row, which is more fun I think.
Everyone has there own rules, and a lot are very complicated but I hope to make some simple, fair ones which I'll post in Regdar's if they are any good. It's an interesting topic, and a great article but every group has different wants and needs in this area.
I always find natural failure and success on a natural 20 or 1 to be too high... 5% is too high!
Suggestion: For every natural 20 rolled, add another d20. That way, player may achieve difficult task (DC 45) but the chance is much less than 5%. I got players that roll 60+ for listen check! For that I gave them some extra information and some humor (you heard the guard 2 rooms away whispering).
Critical success is fun, but not critical failure. If you like, maybe you can do this: For every natural 1, as someone suggested, add a -20 and reroll again. Add another -20 for every natural 1 and add 20 for every natural 20. Your player will not likely to get 3 or 4 20s in a roll and I am sure excitement will go up with each 20 (or 1)! Critical fumble only happen if the final result fail the DC by 10(or 20) or more. This way you still get critical failure but chances will get lower as character get better.
Before you can say that taking out a whole shade of reality you need to show that bringing it into the game is a good thing. And I for one put all nat ones being bad in the same camp as adult diapers.
Yeesh, why play a game that you cant loose? Its not really a game then. Its a pass time at best. Bringing reality into a game makes it easier to get into the game conceptually. Bringing reality into a game brings you into the game.
As someone who has played with crit fumbles, in multiple systems, I have seen the excitement flare on player faces when an action that was expected to be easy and rutine suddenly becomes a catastrophy. I have seen the same excitement in a ball game when one player "fumbles" the ball. It brings a real (and almost primal) excitment and upredictability to a game. Adults learn to enjoy the way a real chance of failure makes success ever so much more sweet.
No nat ones? You might just as well start the game with a 50th level greater diety - then you dont even need to roll - just compare stats.
Myth 1: 20's and 1's are incredibly rare. Rolling one is an amazing and unique event.
The truth is that 5% isn't that rare when you're rolling multiple attacks per round. A high level warrior getting 4 attacks per round will get a natural 20 or a natural 1 every 2.5 rounds.
Myth 2: Critical hits are some incredible godlike attack that's practically an insta-kill. Therefore, critical fumbles should be pretty bad to balance hat.
That's just not true. Critical hits are worth 1-3 extra attacks, in some ways less because not all damage is multiplied on a critical and you can't multi-trip/disarm/grapple on it.
Therefore, here's my rules on critical fumbles, trying to mirror the critical hit rules as much as possible:
* Natural 20s auto-hit and natural 1s auto-miss, as normal.
* In addition to a critical hit range and multiplier, each weapon has a critical fumble range and modifier. Most weapons have 1/-1, which is the equivalent of 20/x2. Non-proficient weapons have the range boosted to 1-2/-1, and improvised weapons have it boosted to 1-3/-1. Especially unwieldy weapons may have a greater penalty, such as 1/-2.
* When you roll within the critical fumble range (usually just natural 1, but sometimes all the way up to natural 3, as mentioned above), you have a chance to critical fumble. Roll another attack roll. If it misses the target's touch AC then you have critically fumbled.
* On a critical fumble, you lose your next X attacks, where X is the critical fumble modifier (-1 in most cases). Those attacks count as auto-misses, and persist until you take them. You can clear any stored ones by refocusing.
* Example critical fumble ranges:
+ Longsword: 1/-1, like most weapons, it only has a chance to fumble on a natural 1 and you only lose 1 attack.
+ Full-blade, wielded without proficiency: 1-2/-1, wielding a weapon without proficiency increases the chance to screw up.
+ Chair: 1-3/-1, using an improvised weapon makes you even more likely to have problems. Classes/feats that grant improved proficiency with improvised weapons also reduce the critical fumble range.
+ Titan Hammer: 1/-2, this would be a giant hammer type weapon, dealing more damage normal (3d4 perhaps), but also being heavier and harder to recover balance with after fumbling.
+ Spinning Blade on a Rope: 1/-3, an example of a powerful but ridiculously unwieldy weapon. This could cause major problems if you fumble.
* Even when you do fumble, you don't do stuff like cutting your own arm off or throwing your weapon across the room. You just lose a certain number of attacks, designed to mirror critical hits. You can describe this however you want though, from simply getting off-balance to having your weapon slip from your hands and losing the rest of the round diving after it.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't have "20 hits, 1 misses" rules in combat. They're fine. "20 is +30, 1 is -10" is all right as well, though the -10 is actually a bigger penalty -- it should be -9 to balance properly (20+10 = 30, 1-10 = -9). That isn't really a big issue, because attack rolls get autohit/miss anyway.
The issue is twofold: Critical misses in combat, and auto-fail (or heavily penalized) skill checks.
I don't see the "up side" of either of these issues. Why is it more fun to have to remember a special mechanic that rarely comes up and makes you feel like a buffoon when it does? Why is it more fun to have the same character capable of vaulting a wall with one hand or falling flat on his rear? Why complicate the system with rules that primarily hurt PCs, or at the very least, have no significant effect?
It seems to me that many DMs want to institute house rules just for the sake of doing so, and not for any legitimate system reason.
Where is your sense of drama?
Lets flub reality for a second and talk about entertainment. You watch some sports... get excited when theres a fumble? How about that action movie scene where the primary and the antagonist scramble for a 'fumbled' weapon? That look of panic on the face of the hero when their leap does something a little bit worse that just plain fall short, or a moment made perfect by an impossible failure.
Anyone that uses crit fumbles can say that they are fun... to watch. Had my life saved by a few monster fumbles. Ooooh heres one - I laughed my butt off this one time when my fighter got his sword stuck in the wall while trying to hit this (unexpectidly rather ) high level kobald rouge.
In dozens of sword fight movies those blades get stuck in things... only crit fumbles allow that to happen in D&D.
SO, I say - if you dont use crit fumbles you are not only shortchanging yourself on reality - but drama, excitment, and the stuff of legends.
Gilgamesh dropped the secret of eternal life into to a river... I characterize that as a fumble.
• When your opponent has better armor and is flat footed
• When your opponent is good at dodging. Not better at tripping you.
• When your opponent is being attacked at range and is harder to hit due to distance or wind.
• When you are firing past allies and have taken an attack penalty because you DON'T want to accidentally hit them.
Basing your confirmation on the chance to hit your original target does not allow for other conditions that are easily overlooked in combat such as; blood on the floor, a tree branch or ceiling that is just low enough to be clipped.
Basing the chance on your opponents defensive ability is also a little simplistic. I once saw a very experienced black belt get horrifically kicked in the groin by a total beginner during some sparring. The beginner performed the kick far too slowly for the black belt who blocked before the kick got close enough to intercept. The black belt was momentarily distracted by another fight right beside them that was getting quite exciting to watch. Overconfidence and the need to be aware of the movement of other combatants was the cause of this incident. A more experienced attacker might have had much less chance of landing such a crippling blow on this person.
My D&D group does use fumbles. And they can be bad news. We did use the roll again and see if you still miss, to confirm a fumble, but these days we are happier cutting back the occurrence of such occasions. Fumbles are now feared but are less common so you don't end up with the whole party turning into a bunch of incompetent clowns all of a sudden.
Here are the basics of what we do now if you rolled a natural 1 on an attack.
Roll again and if you get another natural 1, then you fumble.
Knowing that you only fumble on a natural 1 followed by a natural 1 allows you to get on with determining your fumble pretty much instantly without having the DM calculate anything or give away the AC of your opponent simply because your confirmation was good enough to hit.
If you are making ranged attacks where; allies are in the way and you don't have precise shot, and you don't announce that you are reducing your attack by the standard amount to indicate taking care to avoid hitting allies then:
A natural 1 is a fumble (no confirmation required) and you probably just hit someone else (possibly an ally).
When a fumble introduces the chance to hit an unintended target:
Make another attack roll with you base attack bonus substituted by +10 to see if you do hit the unlucky person that the DM has selected in some manner. The defenses of someone still count when a redirected shot goes their way.
A +10 (pure chance) base attack bonus is used instead of your normal bonus.
You are not intentionally trying to hit your ally (or yourself) with this mechanic.
A strength bonus and the magical properties of your weapon might increase the chances of your blow injuring the new target (also affects damage). Your dexterity bonus does not.
If you do hit an unintentional target you might end up scoring a critical.
On the bright side, if you are shooting into a crowd, or surrounded by foes, sometimes the enemy still suffers from your wayward shots.
Too many fumbles suck and are disastrous. Complex confirmation rolls slow the game down and give away information.
It depends on desires of the people playing the game. Different groups have different desires. That is why houseruling will always occur because no group of players has the same level of experience, exposure, and interests.
In one case there is a type of player who want to "improve" the game to make it more reflect the happenings of an epic story, which has unexpected twists and where luck both amazingly good and terribly bad can occur to keep things "interesting" and "real".
The opposite type of player is one who outwardly appears to be more tactically and competitively focused and to whom randomness is an annoyance that can only ruin the game through disrupting logical tactics that are enjoyed by analysis and planning and testing that outcome.
An example of house ruling to make the game seem more "epic" is the stray shot (especially where an ally is injured or killed) as this can trigger all sorts of role playing possibilities (I always thought he was jealous, a traitor, holding a grudge etc.). An opportunity for misunderstanding or horrific guilt will occasionally be played up or seized upon by players who want to get some good old fashioned role playing into the game. A good role player will only "misread" the intent of the attack if there is already some underlying friction or suspicion that needs to be resolved. The best roleplaying is character vs character because an NPC is not as important to the game as a player character.
Another example of randomness helping reflect "classic plot twists" is the maiming critical (that is another house rule that we have). In this case it is possible to inflict a maiming injury on rare occasions. An example of this is the Lord of the Rings story where Sauron gets his ring finger removed and is THUS defeated and almost destroyed. Later Frodo gets his ring finger bitten off, and THUS is released from its evil power.
These house rules have only appeared because they have been wanted. My group have used this particular sort of house rule since 1985 and really we would not go back. Admittedly fine tuning of our house rules has been an ongoing process. You can't play D&D for this length of time and not eventually get sick of it unless you make it as interesting as possible. The tactical issues are still important to us as they are the meat of the game but we want the full course meal. Consider it seasoning. Does anyone object to more monster types or spells getting invented?
I don't see the "up side" of either of these issues. Why is it more fun to have to remember a special mechanic that rarely comes up and makes you feel like a buffoon when it does? Why is it more fun to have the same character capable of vaulting a wall with one hand or falling flat on his rear? Why complicate the system with rules that primarily hurt PCs, or at the very least, have no significant effect?
It seems to me that many DMs want to institute house rules just for the sake of doing so, and not for any legitimate system reason.
Some of the GMs may, for example, like a more dangerous setting. Or a grittier one. Or less cartoon like. Where fighting entails more than a marginal chance of defeat and death, even if balanced properly. Simply, critical fumbles, much like any other rule, bring in a certain theme. And a bit of extra excitement, once in a while. And, paraphrased and translated from one of my players upon his (mighty) character fumbling a defense check "It doesn't feel as bad to die when I fumbled my own check, GM didn't just crit." (For reference, the character survived; tough one he is).
"Legitimate rules changes only" is a policy that never brings anything new to the gaming world. Flavourful, well thought-out rules, on the other hand, can be great additions, if not to the one using them, then to others. Or, as the case is with bad rules, they can act as warnings for others.
Gilgamesh dropped the secret of eternal life into to a river... I characterize that as a fumble.
IIRC, Gilgamesh first dove for it in the sea and some time after let the herbs lay in ground for some reason (a bath?). Then came a snake and ate it. The snakes shed their skins because they have eternal life; they simply change bodies when the previous one gets old.