Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Paraxis Jul 11, 2014 7:58:23	I keep seeing people talk about fumbles and rolling 1's on all kinds of checks in D&D and just wanted to know how common this house rule is.   For the record in this edition of D&D there is no fumble rules for ability score checks, skill checks, attacks, or saves. The only thing close in 5e is that a natural '1' on an attack roll is an auto miss.  A natural '1' on a skill check or a saving throw that still meets the DC is a success.   By the rules the degree or success or failure does not matter it is binary, most DM's do take the result as a indicator of how to narrate the action, but he doesn't have to.   I don't use fumble rules at all, I do use 1' and 20's to help narrate instances of humor or glory sometimes but I never penalize a player for rolling a 1, looking like a fool 5% of the time is way to often for heroes in any epic story I am trying to tell.   So who uses fumbles?  How do you use them?  Why do you use them?
#2 bawylie Jul 11, 2014 8:04:51	I don't use fumbles for humor.  When I'm playing, I'm always keeping a certain emotional tone in mind.    Last session, the kids' group was fighting in the gon caves. Elf Cleric switched from longbow to short sword. Rolled a 1 on a goblin. what did I do?   ...   bawylie ruling: Elf Cleric rolled damage (managed to kill goblin), but shattered his shortsword in the assault. He faced 2 others, unarmed, who leapt on him and stabbed (with advantage).
#3 SwampDog Jul 11, 2014 8:14:02	I never use fumbles for humor, either. When one of my players rolls a 1, I ask him to describe what happens.   Usually, it's something like dropping his weapon, injurying himself or an ally, slipping and falling down.   I don't decide, the player does.  And that's more entertaining for me, because I don't know what the PC will say.
#4 kill_the_wiz_first Jul 11, 2014 8:16:06	In our 80's group the DM running the show for a few years had a plethora of houserules and critical fails were one of them. Applicable to saving throws, ability checks, combat related checks, and just about anything you roll a dice. 1 was the number you didn't want to see and our DM, I swear, was setting up a business model to kill adventurers. We loved and hated him for it.   Anyways, if I recall some of the doom charts attack rolls were the most elaborate of them all, but had some leniency too. If you roll a one while attacking you also had a chance for something bad to happen but not, only, because you rolled a one. It was next a roll a percentile and if less then some x% then roll d20 to pick what went wrong. 3 could of been your weapon breaks, 12 could of been you're disarmed, 20 could of been you stumble and fall, 1 could of been you hit an ally, and so on.   The leniency-part was that x% was pretty low, otherwise it was just a plain fail/miss/etc.
#5 edwin_su Jul 11, 2014 8:15:21	Paraxis wrote:
#6 Emerikol. Jul 11, 2014 8:19:46	I like them but in moderation and I wouldn't want the same thing happening every time.  As DM, I usually adjudicate some result from a pool of possibilities.  A simple rule would be that you are now out of position and give advantage to the attacker you missed.   It doesn't have to be draconian every time.  If I were going to write a rule, I'd have a table.  Roll on the table for a result.   Maybe I'd require a second attack that if it hits negates the fumble.  Kind of like confirming criticals.     Lots of ways you could handle it.  I like an option though to consider something different and a natural 1 is a good moment for such contemplation.
#7 sleypy Jul 11, 2014 8:40:10	This is how I do it reguardless of the edition... No critical fumbles at all, I have only had bad experience with them.  I use critical failure for melee attacks, and critical success for spells attacks. Skill checks and contest don't use critical rules at all.
#42 iserith Jul 14, 2014 13:52:46	I did a cursory review of who uses fumbles, who doesn't, and who "kinda" does (that being defined as being circumstantial or the like). There might be a correlation here. Do you see it? If you do, what it is and why do you suppose it is?   Yes Emerikol Rastapopoulos kill_the_wiz_first BoneManPress arjomanes Rils Azzy1974 CCS ankiyavon masterfat78 dmgorgon SwampDog   No Paraxis sleypy iserith EnglishLanguage AaronOfBarbaria Rhenny Lawolf Gnarl Saelorn Noon Shasarak   Kinda bawylie edwin_su TacOman MechaPilot strider13x Chimerasame   (PM me if you want to be moved from your current spot to another category and I will edit this post. I did this pretty quickly and without particularly rigid criteria for categorization.)
#43 Paraxis Jul 12, 2014 6:30:57	That is a pretty even split.  I knew fumble rules were the most common house rule I have ever come across but I didn't think it was that common.
#44 SwampDog Jul 12, 2014 6:51:07	I'm surprised that so many gamers want nothing to do with critical fumbles.   I'm a fairly serious role player, but it is a game, after all, don't avoid fun. I absolutely use fumble rolls, I just have the PC describe the result of the failure instead of myself.   Usually, they come up with a harsher penalty that I would have. I also use them for skill checks when appropriate, and again, let the PC describe the results of a critical fumble.   "Not only do I not pick the lock, my favorite lockpick broke off in it."
#45 dmgorgon Jul 12, 2014 7:19:23	bawylie wrote:
#46 kill_the_wiz_first Jul 12, 2014 7:34:13	Proud Member of the Yes category. ~flexes, knocks over lamp and spills coffee~
#47 DemoMonkey Jul 12, 2014 8:34:39	In the olden times (when Hair was Big and Belts were White) we used the old Arduin Grimoire critical hit and fumble tables. The results were entertaining, but not always appropriate to the tone.   In 2nd edition, we had a custom d20 fumble table that include breaking your weapon (even a magical one) if you fumbled and then rolled a 1. One character did that 3 times. ("This is the sword that is forged anew. And this one, and this one, and this one too!")   In 3.5, I used a reverse version of the critical rules, where you fumbled if you rolled a 1, and then "confirmed it" by rolling again and missing. If you confirmed , you lost your next attack, the conceptual flip side of doing double damage on a critical. It was meh; rerolling is always a mechanic to use with caution.   In 4E, I used the standard rule of "You miss, your turn ends, and you grant combat advantage.". The players could describe exactly what happened to them, but the mechanical effect was the same. And honestly? That one worked best, fast, smooth, fair, and more fun for the players.If I do port in a fumble rule, using that would probably be my choice.
#48 iserith Jul 12, 2014 9:51:22	A character that makes a single attack roll per round, over 5 rounds, has a 22.62% chance of rolling a 1. A character that dual-wields and makes two attack rolls per round, over 5 rounds, has a 40.13% chance of rolling a 1. The same can be said of rolling a 20 and getting critical damage.   The question is whether a given fumble chart or ad hoc penalty is appropriately balanced to offset the improved chance of a critical. I've not seen one yet that does the trick and I'm not bothered by a dual-wielding character's chance of a higher critical since their weapons are often of lower damage dice than someone who uses a two-hander and their second attack doesn't add their ability score bonus. (Lower defenses are sometimes a tradeoff, too.)
#49 Brock_Landers Jul 12, 2014 10:23:50	If wielding a light-sabre you lose an extremity.
#50 Miladoon Jul 12, 2014 10:23:52	kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
#51 sleypy Jul 12, 2014 10:29:23	For me the  SwampDog wrote:
#82 Orethalion Jul 14, 2014 13:47:02	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#83 ankiyavon Jul 14, 2014 13:58:19	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#84 Paraxis Jul 14, 2014 14:09:08	ankiyavon wrote:
#85 ankiyavon Jul 14, 2014 14:13:52	Paraxis wrote:
#86 Brock_Landers Jul 14, 2014 14:18:01	I detest crit-confirm rolls, talk about blue-balls.
#87 MechaPilot Jul 14, 2014 15:33:14	ankiyavon wrote:
#88 Psikerlord Jul 14, 2014 19:45:55	Paraxis wrote: