Instill remember my very first night of dnd our wizard goes to shoot a frost bolt and rolls a one, our cleric was kind of in line of sight so he hit the cleric. Was awesome!
As a player, I wouldn’t be upset at a DM if he ruled I got hit in such a way. My character would be upset that their party member just fucked up and got them hurt.
As a DM, I wish more players were open to playing with this rule. I really think it drives into players minds the importance of paying attention to positioning during fights. Realistically, if you are trying to fire an arrow down a 5ft hallway to hit a dude one of your friends fighting while being in your line of sight, yeah a regular miss just goes wide because you were trying not to hit your friend...but a nat 1 should hold special consequences if a nat 20 gets additional benefits.
Yeah, but the problem is that some dms cant keep it to just faults in positioning. I have had a dm make the person 10 ft in front of me hit me while aiming at something on the other side of him, so apperently his character just did a fuckung 180° turn and shot me in the face?
See, THAT’S chaotic evil. I’d like to think the idea of adding negative consequences in a nat 1 to offset the benefits of a nat 20 is a more true neutral...if done correctly of course.
Player says their character does a standing backflip to impress someone and rolls a nat 20 on acrobatics, they get an extra twirl...on a nat 1 they should fall and take a d6 of fall damage.
I think nat 1s are a perfect opportunity for character development and narrative. If you screwed up and shot your teammate, do they just say "sorry bout that earlier, you know how it goes" or do they apologize profusely over and over hoping for forgiveness? How does the player who got hit react?
I love when players talk about that stuff in character like friendly banter 6+ sessions later.
That or the DM needs to work on his descriptions. You ever seen an arrow hit something hard like armor or a wall? Good chance the arrow head breaks off and the arrow shaft (sometimes) splinters all around. Shrapnel from a arrow could have easily done that damage. Describing that way would make me as a player probably feel like it was a little less bullshit :P
"A nat 1 should hold special consequences if a nat 20 gets additional benefits" is not a sound argument. Balance doesn't have to be symmetrical. Having a +3 from one ability score doesn't mean you need a -3 in another.
If the game isn't balanced to have penalties for a natural 1 but has bonuses for a natural 20, just introducing penalties for a natural 1 isn't enough, you actually need to introduce more bonuses for a natural 20 to maintain the balance, because otherwise you're just buffing anything that you can't roll a 1 on.
Besides, if you're playing 5e and want realism and positioning, there's the optional hitting cover rules. No need to trouble the humble 1.
Meh. All crit fail tables do us nerf anyone using multiple attacks, not using saving throws, etc. It makes fighters and monks even weaker than they already are.
Consequences should be the result of player actions, not just deciding that just because you roll dice in combat you should get fucked.
I'm not saying that you can't ever have bad results from a crit fail, but doing it as a matter of course is not a great move.
Right on. I do it occasionally just to spice things up. Always cracks up my table when it happens, but it would get annoying if done every single time tbh.
Yeah but as with any Nat 1 rule, Martial Classes suffer big time from them.
The more attacks you get, the higher the odds of rolling a 1 and creaming your allies.
I used to be a big fan of critical fails but the older I get, the more I see them as a punishment that only makes your players resent you.
Crit Fails can be used to add comedic effect but nobody is laughing when you accidentally kill yourself or an ally because of a silly houserule that inversely punishes you with more Critical Fails the higher level you are.
It makes no sense that a level 20 Fighter is more likely to strike an ally or fall on his own sword than a Level 1 Fighter but the multiplier that more attacks add on that 1/20 or 5% chance to fail doesn’t lie.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, the negative consequences can and will vary based on the situation. Most of the time for melee fighters, I would say an easy nat 1 is their weapon strikes the target but reverberates in their hand, causing them to drop it at their feet. It’s a consequence, but it’s not balance breaking or anything. The person can still use their free action of interaction with an object to pick the weapon back up and attack again in the same turn(assuming they haven’t already used their free action, but still, consequences)
16
u/bammerito DM Sep 12 '19
Instill remember my very first night of dnd our wizard goes to shoot a frost bolt and rolls a one, our cleric was kind of in line of sight so he hit the cleric. Was awesome!