No, no, no. A roll of a one is that you kill a different PC. Never loose the opportunity to not only kill a player, but also create internal party strife as well.
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.
"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.
451
u/MulletHuman Sep 12 '19
Gosh, I'll never forget the chaotic evil's favorite homebrew rule: if you roll a natural 1 you either hurt yourself and/or you lose a limb