Critical Misses

[TheZebraShakes™]

I have seen a lot of this recently. People rolling 1s on their d20s and then rolling reflex saves to see if they fumble in some awkward way (ie. dropping their weapons)

Now we've had a lot of debate at home over this, as half of us are in agreement that the idea of critical misses are pretty lame and unfair to some more then others, while others of us think that if you roll a 1 you should have something happen to you, and it's not that unfair as you would still be allowed a reflex save.

Personally, I am against critical misses. I place them in the unfair catagory, especially when the penalty most usually involves the character dropping his weapon.

I see no real point in involving critical misses, at least not in this way. Missing on a 1 automatically is punishment enough, especially for those characters who would never miss on a 1 otherwise.

The idea of dropping weapons or destroying bowstrings really isn't a fair punishment when you look at some other combatants who have no weapons or bows to worry about. Will the two weapon fighter who rolls 1s on his first attacks, dropping his weapons and forfeiting his next five attacks and every attack thereafter until he is able to retrieve weapons. Does our monk roll a 1 only to find his hand embedded in a stone wall, needing to succeed on several strength checks in order to pry it free. Does our courageous gold dragon roll a 1 on her bite attack and loose a mouthful of teeth, while falling prone in the process. And what if the ooze rolls a 1. It really has nothing to lose.

The whole thing just doesn't make much sense to me. I know that there have been other suggestions for those who like the idea of critical failures to ameliorate the litttle dilemma of having some consequences which are obviously far worse then others depending on the creature who happens to roll a 1, such as a negative to attacks or AC for the remainder of the round, but I've really seen no concensus on the whole thing. The whole dropping of weapons thing seems to me a bit overboard, especially considering the situation that the characters are then placed in and the fact that many enemies do not carry weapons.

Also I've never much cared for the idea of having to succeed on a reflex save afterwards. What is the point of this. You do not have to succeed on any save to confirm a critical hit. If in fact you are going to apply critical misses, then why not just roll the d20 to confirm that you missed so badly as to incur such harsh misfortune.

We've really come to no agreement in our own group, though we usually find ourselves in the midst of disagreements like that. But as I can tell on these boards, there's no set way to determine what will happen to you should you roll a 1 either. I'm not even certain in which games critical misses apply, as sometimes rolling a 1 does not result in extreme penalties.

I'm just curious as to how some of you deal with this issue in regard to particular characters and situations, or if you even choose to use the critical failure option in the games at all, as it is worrisome to roll a 1 and not know what to expect.

[Althael]

Well, it doesn't happened yet in my game, and the only games I've ever played are here on Kman.
Plus, I've never rolled, or seen someone roll a nat 1 on his attack until the short that we are currently playing in.

The ref save seems logical to me, in a way. You have to react quick to the really sucky attack you just made to make sure nothing bad happen. Though, that's where the problems come in. One attack out of 20, for every experienced fighter/barbarian/etc., will need him to make a ref save to make sure he will not drop his freaking weapon.
I can see this at the very low level, 1, 2.. maybe 3 too, but above? Not really. The character should be way too experienced and used to his weapon to drop it in the middle of a combat.

I don't know, maybe I'd roll this the same way crit are rolled. After you roll a 1, you roll a d20 again. If you beat the Ac, you miss 'normally'. If you miss it again, then now you roll for ref save.
Though, the drop weapon thing.. if I manage to roll multiples 1 in a row, it may be understandable, as what happened with Hildigunn.

But, logically, to not be able to hold a freaking maul with a 32Str, you live for battles and are really often involved in battle while you swing it at something? Not really...

I doubt I'll even rule the critical miss in my game though. Unless, as I said, that the said character roll two or three 1 in a row.

[K Man]

I must oppose ZebraShakes and say that I am for critical misses--but with alot of caveats to my argument.

And just to end some confusion right off the bat, I don't usually require a REF save, I prefer a DEX check instead. {However, after reading the posts, I LOVE the idea of rolling a confirm check instead. You roll a natural 1, roll again. You miss the AC, penalty as described.}

I am for the idea of critical misses because I'm egalitarian and think it only fair to oppose the idea of a critical hit. Why should there be only a critical hit when a critical miss is just as valid an idea, just as dramatic and just as necessary in game balance? We see it in movies all the time. The gun jams at just the right time, the sword shatters in two, arrow shafts are split in twain. The idea of a critical miss is not something new.

I am for it as a DM as well. Just as my players can land a lucky blow that allows them to kill something far outside of their Challenge Rating, they should be able to be bothered by a seemingly easy encounter because of failure. I'm all about balance.

That said, I agree with Shakes...it is ridiculous to penalize a character/creature that uses natural weapons and it doesn't make sense logically. How could someone/thing that has used the natural weapon its whole life suddenly misuse it in such a way that prevents them from recovering? This is where another caveat of mine comes into play.

I'm for penalties for a critical miss, but I would prefer the same penalty for everyone that makes sense in the game. The fighter dropping his sword, the archer splitting an arrow shaft--these are logical failures. The monk getting his fist stuck in a wall is unrealistic...but a monk overextending his punch so much that either he fails to regain balance (prone or AC penalty) or just plain forfeits a set number of attacks afterwards is not unrealistic. The dragon losing a mouthful of teeth is unrealistic, but a dragon that misses so horribly it leaves a vulnerable spot open or perhaps cannot shift its body in time to get its claw attacks in is realistic.

I remember, back in the 1st/2nd Edition days, there were many homebrew and sometimes published 'critical miss' charts. You would fail an attack so horribly and roll on this chart to see the outcome. Some of the results were just silly and if it didn't make sense, it was DMs discretion to overrule and make up an effect.

Ahh...the stupity of old, thank god the game has progressed.

Sort of-I still think we need a mechanic for horrible failures.

I'm sure some DMs still produce these charts and for a while, I did like them in my games...but I'm over that now. I realize the need to not produce more excess information that everyone needs to have access to and I'm more for fair, equal penalties for everyone. If one person can roll well on this chart and have nothing happen and the next person end up striking a friend for critical damage...that just isn't fair.

So my solution? Well, I have a few;

1) One is missed attacks. If a critical hit is essentially doubling or sometimes tripling/quadrupling the damage done in a single hit, then a critical failure should be the opposite...the inability to do damage equal to the potential for a critical hit. If you're longsword does X2 damage, your penalty for a failure should be two missed chances to attack (including the one you just missed with the 1, I'm not that mean).

2) Two is favorable penalties like an AC modifier for next round of say...-2 or -4. It's an inconvenience for sure, but probably not game breaking. Or maybe it's a more severe penalty like becoming prone which would usually incur and AoO upon righting yourself.

3) Three (and probably the least desired) is weapon malfunction. The fighter drops his blade, the archer splits his arrow, the gold dragon chips a tooth and cannot deal as much damage, the monk sprains himself or strikes a wall and takes damage. Not really equal since it's based on weapon choice, the key word there being choice. You don't want to drop your sword, get a locking gauntlet. Don't want to break your tooth, use spells or tail maces. Don't want to break a wrist, use a kama etc. Like I said, I don't really like this option since it's too free-floating and the penalties aren't even.

Do these solutions have problems--certainly. Why should you lose just as many attacks with a greataxe as you would with a punching dagger or scimitar when the latter two are clearly lighter and easier to regroup from? Why should the agile monk fall prone when he simply missed one of his five kicks? Why would a five thousand year old dragon chip a tooth on the 300th knight he eats?

Hey, I'm certainly not perfect...but I'm willing to work on it.

I've always said it, I'm about the players. Without them, my game and this site is nothing. If they don't like the idea of critical failures, we take a poll and majority wins--it's only fair. I never like to punish so badly that it hurts the players in the game (though I am sorry I instantly defaulted to my old standby in "Trapping More Than Fur" when Hildigunn missed with a 1) but I am for balance and equality. I am all about creating rules that everyone can abide by and think is fair.

If any of my players want to know more or set down rules (even if the rule is no rule for crit misses) I'm always here.

Great topic Shakes!





** - PS; I have never done critical skill checks. A nat 1 on a skill check will never result in a penalty just as a nat 20 will never result in automatic success. Just wanted to get that out.

[VemuKhaham]

I'm all for critical misses because I'm all for anything that brings a little spice in an otherwise dull fight.

Would it be fun to watch a scene in a movie with two pirates dueling and they both just take turns swinging swords, or even once in a while do something different like trying to trip the other? I think it would be less so. If however one of the pirates took a step backward and ends up stumbling to the floor over a rope littering the ship's deck, or something like that, it creates tension and spices up the battle. Will the athletic pirate get up in time to regain his defense or will this error be his last?

That said, I think the D&D-combat rules would profit if they would allow for just a touch more of randomness. I don't mean luck (with the dice; I hate a luck factor that is too great), but randomness, or variety. Things may happen that nobody expected; that's what sparks tension.

Now, I realize being careful with critical misses is important, cause they're quite subjective in their ruling (unless you've got one of those charts Kman mentioned, but I don't like that idea very much). The DM should be entrusted by the players to rule fairly, like he does through the entire game. I don't see why critical misses should suddenly be a big problem, even though it might be a negative decision toward the player rolling the 1.

I would rule critical misses like this:
1.) Roll a natural 1 means a crit. miss chance
2.) Roll an ability check (Not necessarily dex, but the one most appropriate. For instance: a 1 on a magic touch attack should be followed by the ability wis, int or cha, depending on the type of caster). The DC should be low, like DC 2-10 (depending also on the situation), so the chance of a crit. miss is not too great. The seriousness of the penalty may also be based on the severity of your failure against this DC.)
3.) With a failure on the ability check, the DM improvises an appropriate penalty for the player. This should depend on the character's action, the opponent's action and, very importantly, the environment. A fight on a narrow rooftop may have worse consequences in case of bad luck (step 1) and lousy self-control (step 2) than a fight in the arena, which is only realistic.

I wouldn't recommend making the Ability check a second attack roll against AC, because that way, I think the character's power level has less influence on his ability to prevent bad luck from happening than with an Ability check with a low AC. Beating someone's AC is oftentimes harder than beating a low DC, even if attack rolls increase faster than ability modifiers.

There is also the third option; the saving throw. I would prefer the ability roll, because six types of abilities makes for more specific rolls than three types of saving modifiers. Also, the saving throws increase faster than ability modifiers but most often slower than the attack roll modifiers, so it could be a good option for players seeking it in between the two extremes.
(In the above, maybe my math is a bit sucky, but that's because I wrote it)

Regardless of which of the three ways (Attack, Ability, Save) you choose, it does depend on your rating with the given modifier, and therefore more experienced characters get to fumble a whole lot less. A fighter with dex 18 will hardly ever loose his balance in a fight, while one with dex 8 will.

And Kman brought it up in his last few words, but I think it is a very important thing to consider: what types of dice rolls should be critical-sensitive (both crit. hits and misses)? Personally, I do not see a reason why attack rolls should be subjected to these possibilities and skill checks should not. Even more so, it sets aright the aforementioned unfairness between the classes: if skills are subject to critical hits and misses just like attack rolls, a rogue or any other skill-class suffers or benefits from the same rules. If touch attacks made with magic or even turn undead checks would be subjected to these rules, casters and clerics would also be treated with the same rules.

And I think it is fair for a DM to say that the choice of equipment of any character may influence the DM's decisions on the matter of critical misses. The equipment was chosen by the player with the knowledge that heavy armor is indeed very discomforting to the touch if you fall to the ground, that a dire flair is indeed very clumsy and that hitting unarmed does include the risk that that part of your body used for the attack may come to harm as it is exposed.

But back to the skill checks, the most important example of dice rolls that in my opinion can benefit from the randomness brought by critical misses and hits. Currently, many skills have in their description: if the character fails by # (usually 5) or more, something harmful happens (e.g. falling while climbing, misinterpreting while deciphering, etc.). But many other skills have not. For instance, what if a rogue were picking a lock with a pin and suddenly his pin breaks and gets stuck in the lock? Or what if a bard performing for a dragon tells of a hero that slew a dragon? Countless things can happen using skills, probably even more varied than with attack rolls. And not all bad: what if the same rogue gets a critical "hit" on his open lock roll, he may be able to pick the lock in a move action instead of a full-round action; it may save his life in the right situation. Maybe the bard mentions some name in his tale to the dragon he himself considered unimportant, who the dragon happens to think of as an admirable person?

So I say that critical misses are just as fair as critical hits, and for spice and tension probably just as interesting. And, just like in life, anything you do can, by some strange twist of fate, go horribly wrong or simply fall perfectly into place. Therefore, in D&D, every roll you make that determines success or failure should include the possibility of great success or failure.

[Japic]

Yah, good topic.

I don't think I'll be posting a novel about my likes/dislikes, but I'll get my basic thoughts across.

I too believe that just as there is the chance for a critical success, there should be a chance for critical failure. Speaking from a combat perspective I have always thought it was weak that the monster didn't "drop his teeth". There have been many jokes around or table on the subject, but no one ever proposed a change.

I too believe there should be some sort of level playing field for critical misses in combat and if I have to choose one of the ones that's been presented here It'd prolly be Option 2 that KMan wrote. While dropping your fist cannot happen to monks you certainly can overextend and put yourself at a disadvantage.

While dropping your weapon at a critical moment can be exciting for a story (like Hildi in the Shorts game); it can also be deadly (as we nearly learned from the same). I believe that incurring a -2 or -4 for the error would be appropriate, without putting the character into mortal danger if their weaponless.



On the Skill side I dislike teh concept of auto crits and fails. You are skilled at a thing, and depending on how well you roll the die, you either do the task well, or fail in some way. Natural 1s do not necessarily equal a failure depending on the taks. For instance for lockpicks; breaking a pick is certainly a viable option. No matter how good you are, if you sneeze with your tools in a lock, they could well break.

I'm done for now, but keep up the discussion; maybe we can come up with something that all of KMans can agree on so there isn't any guessing about how they are handled.

[Lin]

I'm not a fan of critcal misses. There is nothing about egalitarianism here: both the PCs and the monsters can get critical hits. That's equal. Anyone who wants to use an attack roll abitity that inflicts damage reaps the benefit.

Critical misses are equal too I suppose, but I don't like how they are equal. Any character that uses an attack roll (and not just those that deal damage) has the chance to suffer misery from them. But, what about characters that don't use attack rolls?

My prime example of this would be the battle controller wizard who makes there living on space control effects and save-or-owned effects. No, they don't get any advantage from the critical hit rule, but there abilities are just as powerful without needing that mechanic. When you add a mechanic that punishes attack roll types, they get a no cost additional layer of protection, even if it is a small one.

This might not be bad, except for two factors:

1) As level increases, people take more attack rolls, yet should theoretically mess up less.
2) As level increases, abilities that require attack rolls tend to become less powerful.

I think D&D fights, especially when presented well with a group of players that "play off" each other, are very interesting and are also often very exciting as well. Critical fumbles don't seem to add to it. In a game where fights very often clock in under 5 rounds, an otherwise guaranteed attack to a natural one is very bad, at the very least elimnating 20% of that characters impact on the fight. In fact, descriptively I might describe the event as a fumble of some kind, dropping the weapon, but managing to kick it off the floor back into his hand in time to parry a blow. But, I don't see a very good reason to add in "extra" mechanical penalty.

[K Man]

lin said:

1) As level increases, people take more attack rolls, yet should theoretically mess up less.
2) As level increases, abilities that require attack rolls tend to become less powerful.

1) Is entirely true and would remain the same if you used the critical failure confirm mechanic. The chances of you rolling a nat 1 and then missing the AC of your target when you roll again (especially with say, a +23 to hit) are slim indeed. As characters get better, theoretically their chances to fail diminish (sheer bad dice luck aside).

2) I'm not well versed enough in the special ability arena to say this is accurate. Personally, I think the abilities get more beneficial, but you're right, they seem to no longer require attack rolls once they get super cool. Again, I think this relates to wiser characters getting better and failing less--their special abilities can't or rarely miss.



As for the battle-sorceror types, there is enough penalties that the idea of a critical miss mechanic doesn't really grant them anything beneficial over other players. There are monsters immune to spells, the concentration check Vs. damage taken, AoO's and even the requirement of an attack roll at times (Ranged and touch attacks etc); not to mention spell resistance anti-magic fields, counterspells etc.

Magic is a whole different arena from combat with enough spare mechanics and extra rules that the idea of a critical hit and critical miss mechanic still leaves fighter-type players with 10% of the rules to deal with and really only one penalty to face. Whatever that penalty is has yet to be unanimously decided, but it cannot be as bad as losing a spell that takes 8 hours to recover. A fighter can be off balance for a round; a mage blows a spell, they're underpowered for the rest of the day.

There can also be far more dice rolling in a combat situation for a magic user than sword-slinging PCs should ever deal with--and that's the choice and benefit of being a magic user. Sure you can sling spells like mad and do tons of damage without ever failing...of course unless it's a golem, or healed by lightning spells, or hasted by fire damage, or has spell resistance, or can counterspell or you've taken damage or you're in an anti-magic field or....

Magic users won't be penalized any further by this (in using magic) or gain any real benefit over others by this.



And as for story-telling of the DM, I agree. If the mechanic is that you lose a bit of AC for the round, the in-game description matching yours would be a perfect way to tell it. Drop the weapon, yet still look cool enough when you flick it back up to you hands and make the next attacks.

I'm just still advocating the use of a critical failure mechanic to offset the idea of a critical success--maybe not a valid reason for some people. But what is light without dark?

[TheZebraShakes™]

Magic users won't be penalized any further by this (in using magic) or gain any real benefit over others by this.

A wizard can score a critical hit with a ray or some other such spells which require attack rolls to hit and deal damage in one form or another. How would you deal with a critical miss. Just curious. It's pretty much like the monk thing, they're not holding anything, so how would they drop their weapon, but in this case, they can't overextend either, so how would you account for other penalties to AC or attack or whatnot. I hope you don't intend to have the wizard take damage from his own missed ray.

[Lin]

Getting steamrolled by a Scythe critical from an NPC Barbarian with a death fetish seems to qualify as the dark side of criticals.

I wholly disagree that the stipulations for spell casting in any way would be analgous to a critical failure mechanic.

Losing a spell is a loss, but is it really a bigger loss then losing an attack? While it might be attractive to view a fighter's attacks as an unlimited resource, within the realistic circumstance of combat, it isn't. The fighter will eventually run out of people to attack or be dead. Not hitting the enemy means it lives longer, which in turn increases his chances of being dead. Losing a spell for the whole day is the loss of a more significant resource, but in terms of contribution to the goal it is equal: they did one round of nothing and are going to have to expend more resources in order to make up for it.

Just as there are monsters that can theorically own wizards, similiar monsters exist for melee characters. Characters that rely on an attack roll can often be countered in a single spell, often not high level (Wind Wall vs. archer comes to mind). Plus, even in wizard counter scenerios, there is often a solution. Solid Fog followed by Repeated Summon Monster/Nature's Ally can beat any golem when four spellcasters are working together at it. But no force on earth can help a melee character pin down a dragon kiting him. At least, not unless he's got someone to teleport him foward. To say that this is a limit on a Wizard might be true, but its universal for all D&D characters.

Attack roll dependent characters are ALWAYS dependent on attack rolls. Wizards have different tools. Against an enemy with high SR, they use battle control spells or summons that have no SR. Against enemies with huge saves but low touch AC, they use touch spells. Against enemies with lower saves and SR (or no SR), they shoot for the moon with Save-Or effects. The anti-magic zone is really the only area the wizard honestly can't deal with.

My biggest beef with the mechanic has been, "Why shaft the fighter?" You can insert lots of different classes there. Sure, wizards have there mechanics to be wary of, but they also have a class feature that is immensely more powerful across situations. They can add damage (just like a fighter-type) or they can do countless other effects should those be more desirable. At low levels, the wizard's limited resources really are a shackle and limit their contribution potenial, but quickly this disappears as the number of spells available is sufficient to cover the bases and come up with all sorts of combat solutions that are not replicatable by
other classes. Wizards can tank or deal consitent damage, but fighters can't cast utility magic.

Being currently in a high level game, I see these things all the time. Now, our group doesn't do Clerics or Druids. We have tweeked lots of things in order to make the high level martial classes desirable and useful. We have also noted that playing in a fighter/fighter/rogue/rogue party makes the game uniquely fun, as tactically, not having a full caster to solve problems with high level spells added something dynamic to the game. We also noted that having a high level conjuror simply owns so many different types of combat encounters without really trying too hard. One might say, "Well, you need a tank to protect that bitch!" which is true, but why get a tank when you could add a second conjuror to summon tanks?

I'm not saying that martial characters are useless in the face of casters at high level, but I will say they are at a distinct disadvantage. I don't advocate playing a cleric/druid/druid/wizard party either just because its effiecient. People should be able to play the character archtype they want up to the degree the campaign allows it. They shouldn't be punished for that choice either, be it with constant antimagic fields or unable to significally contribute to the party's goals¹What I do say is that mechanics like critical failures, that may have the good intentions of making combat more exciting, seem to instead just weaken (even if it is even so slightly) a subset of characters for what I would say is no good reason. I think combats become more exciting with good story telling and interesting match-ups between the PCs and the creatures, setting and environment the encounter takes place. It is true critical failures can add that "Oh, snap!" factor, but it sucks when that means your character died. I think the critical hit/saving throw features have plenty of "Oh snap!" as it is and adding more might even dillute the action. But that's just taste.

The critical failure situation appears to be an unneeded extra that adds an unwanted weakness to one of the party roles. I don't see it as any more desirable then requiring bards make a perform check and having there music fail if it isn't good high enough. It'll make playing a bard more exciting, I suppose, at the cost of making them less efficient. Is that desirable is the question.

Footnotes
1: This doesn't extend to that A-Hole player that designs there character to specifically be useless to the party in the face of overwhelming evidence and advice that this will be the case due to the way their character is going to be/is designed. I think they do it to get attention.

[TheZebraShakes™]

I pretty much agree with Lin. Wizards have so many ways not to get screwed that it's ashame to see fighters becoming even more useless at higher levels.

The whole idea of the conjurer owning the battle is pretty much the way it usually ends up in our games. Not that she does it all on her own, but I would like to think that if she had to, and she played her cards right, she could. Sometimes I even find myself deliberately bringing her along because I know that if I have her around no one will get too badly hurt. Using area control spells and the divide and conquer method, with spells such as wall of stone, wall of iron, any fog spell, a summoning or two and a few party buffers can serve well to bring any enemies down quickly with the least amount of injury to the party, and not one risk of a critical miss or any kind of negative effect to worry about in the process. Spellcasters should never be compared to warrior classes, sad to say, but they are better by far in most every way.

The biggest thing at home, and the situation which triggered the biggest debate over the critical misses as of late went something like this.

A party of two level 17 characters, a fighter and a ranger (spelless), were out doing their thing, fighting bad guys coast to coast, saving the farmlands from werewolves and vampires, not an ounce of magic between them save their equipment. They are pretty much completely reliant upon their swords to win battles quickly in order to survive.

So they enter into combat with some pretty heavy hitters. Not so bad if the ranger can get her hits in and the fighter can stand around to deflect hits with his high AC, soak up damage that the ranger can't be taking and apply his own damage in the process.

Well ranger goes to take her swings.
hit 1= On hand, nat 1
hit 2= Off hand, nat 1
Roll dex checks, do not pass DM's DC

DM,"Tera you drop your swords."
Me,"You're kidding, I have five more attacks left."
DM, "Well."
Me," So now I have to stand here and eat two full attacks and then take four attacks of opportunity to pick up my swords and then take some more attacks on their next turn"
DM," You rolled two 1s."
Me," Is that worth losing 12 of my attacks and dying in the process?"
DM," Alright, let's talk about this,"

We still haven't determined what exactly a critical miss should entail, but the DM at the time realized how unfair it was to fighter types and in the process realized how much he hates spellcasters. It's not really an issue just now, as Lin is telling the story for the most part currently, and he doesn't involve critical misses, but the above scene was really what brought the issue to the center screen, as nothing like that had really happened before.
I think automatically missing on a 1 when you would have otherwise hit is bad enough. There's really nothing gained from giving fighters another thing to worry about in combat. The natural 1 tripping or disarming you so that your opponent is spared the effort and the hazards which could follow a failed attempt. He can just go nuts on you while you're down.

Granted, a lot of you like the idea of critical failures, and in second edition, I do recall critical failures, but back then the rules weren't as cut and dry as they are in 3e. The rules of combat weren't so clearly defined as they are now so things just didn't seem as bad. You drop your dagger, no worries, you can just pick up a bottle from the bar and break it over your enemy's head and there you go. Brand new sharp and shiny dagger. Now with the whole implementation of move actions and standard actions and attacks of opportunity and improvised weapons, it's a lot more difficult to add in any sort of flavorful combat rules without causing a disruption in the balance which the game tries to maintain.

If you want excitement in your combat, it's not going to be about seeing how badly the characters will get owned and how they will come back from it, it is now about teamwork and fighting well as a cohesive group. Storytelling, terrain and lighting conditions, interesting match ups and using the surrounding environment to the best of the combatants' ability is going to make for a good fight. At least that's what I think. OK, the group took the bad guy down in two rounds. That shouldn't be a bad thing. That's great, they must be doing something right, so why should they be unduly punished?

That's my piece.

[VemuKhaham]

Lin and Shakes do make some good points about why spellcasters are at later levels stronger than other classes, I think that can hardly be denied. And I have always been one of those players preferring the "down-to-earth" type of battles without too many flashy spells.

But I think it's not always balance that should be the biggest priority. Yep, it's very important, but the chance that a critical miss occurs should be so small that it will hardly be of any weight on the balance. Take your example for instance: the Ranger rolled a 1 twice in a row, also probably his first couple of most powerful attacks cause he could not finish his others that turn. The chance of that happening is like 1/400, and failing both his dex checks further decreases that chance, and even when it occurs, it should be up to the DM to determine a fair penalty. That should not always entail dropping both his swords. A hundred other things can happen instead. But in this case, with 2 consecutive critical misses, I think it would be fair if the penalty improvised by the DM should be a little greater than with only 1 critical miss.

So like always, the DM has the final say, cause he should know what is fair and what is not. And yes I'm with you if you say it is a very sour thing to a player if his character dies because of the consequences of a single die roll, and a DM should remember that as well. A critical miss only runs out of hand when the DM forgets that, because he determines the penalty.

And to add on my "tension" argument: in D&D-combat it's often the case that, as the battle slowly draws to an end, the outcome can be predicted with the steady decrease of the HP of both sides etc. That's not a good thing. Critical misses present the possibility that suddenly the odds completely turn by an unforeseen happening, like can happen in real-life, even though it can be a bad thing to happen for the Players (though if the Party's opponents make critical misses it can be a great thing to happen). It's true that teamwork, use of the environment, atmosphere, description and such things are important for tension in battle, but one key ingredient is still missing; the element of surprise.

And as a final note: the element of surprise also adds the element of unforeseen defeat for the PC's. In case of your ranger and fighter in their battle against the vampires and wolves, maybe the odds would indeed turn after that critical moment with the ranger. The ranger may have to consider retreating, even leaving his swords where they are. That's bad, but not an insurmountable problem, and could lead to further adventures if the weapons were valuable or otherwise important. If not in the case of vampires and werewolves but instead less terrible adversaries, the ranger may have to surrender. Next adventure he'd find himself in the dungeon of his enemies, needing to escape. In my opinion D&D shouldn't always be about balance and fair fights, but also about the unexpected turn of events.

[Japic]

Wow, that's alot of text from some of you.

While I agree and understand that it may not be "fair" for someone to lose their weapons (as in the Ranger scenario above) it's really up to the DM to ensure player survivability even in the face of crappy odds.

That's why I personally dont' see a problem with keeping crit misses as they are. Ok, so you dropped your sword(s). Unless you have a really vindictive/spiteful DM he/she should do what they can to ensure the survival of a party. That's jsut my opinion though. In our games we don't particularly like killing PCs, it makes for hard feelings and a general loss of fun. In the baove ranger scenario, the bad guys should start dealing subdoal damage and take you down for some unknown (and unforseen) after party. PC lives, and as Vemu said, it opens up more paths for fun/games.

On the other hand a PC can help themselves to be protected from crappy dice with a 8-16 gp purchase. Buy a (or two) Locked Gauntlet. You cannot drop it (on accident or purpose), and get +10 to any sort of disarm attempts. Yes the item does require that you spend a moment to lock the weapon into your fist (full round says the rules), but I as a DM would allow a MW version of said gauntlet to do the same with a standard action. One could also carry spare weaponry so as to not be up a creek without a spare paddle.

I suppose I look at it mostly like this: PCs love to roll critical hits and loathe the critical misses. On the other hand the same PCs loathe when the baddies roll critical hits and love their critical misses.

It IMO makes it a better and more realistic fight if the chance to actually screw up exists. Yes, no one ever really wants to fail at D&D. That's why some people cheat at dice; that why some people min/max their PCs; that's why some people expect takebacks when an action/roll doesn't work out in their favor. The game is supposed to simulate "real life" for a fantasy adventurer. No matter how good you are you can still slip on goblin brains at the worst possible moment. It happens; and it should be expeced that these fantasy heroes will roll with the punches and get themselves out of whatever trouble they're in.

[Althael]

I'm with Vemu with this one.
There's tons of way to trick a situation to make it survivable even if the combat seems to go terrible. Although, I don't really like the idea to change the attitude of the NPCs simply to make the PCs survives. If he roll bad, receive deadly hits and die from hit, he had to die. Sure, they're important person in the world, but so what? They're random adventurers too.
I know I won't change the attack of X NPC to help the PC in a fight.

And the PCs should feel the same danger as the monsters/NPCs feels when fighting them. Knowing that they can too die from stupid errors and the like.

And for the ranger.. depends of the DM.
If you have one that like to go unusual, you may roll multiples nat 1, making you drop your weapon.. and then he make you roll a ranged attack, who know? Flying weapons are never good.

[TheZebraShakes™]

I agree with Althael, in that, why should the attitudes of the NPCs change in regard to ensuring the survivability of the PCs. In our game, we have a saying, "Don't roll for it if you don't want it to happen." This mainly applies to the storyteller at the time. If they don't want a particular scene to play out as it ought to, they will forego rolling dice for it and continue on with the story. We realize that this, in its very essence, it going against the very nature of D&D and heading for something more along the lines of free form, but no one's trying to hide that fact behind a screen or fudging dice rolls or anything. It's not the DMs responsibility to ensure the survivability of the characters by having them deal subdual damage unless they have a good reason to do so. My ranger is not going to leave her 200,000 gp swords just lying on the floor and run away hoping that they won't give chase. And they sure as hell weren't planning on taking them to any dungeon.

So I could say, that if you're not going to pay attention to what the dice say and continue on with your own story anyhow, why are you even playing D&D and not free form role playing. Which is why I see no need for critical misses, because by the existing nature of combat rules, they are unnecessary and unduly harsh or extremely beneficial, depending on who's looking at it.

Sure I could buy locking gauntlets or use spare weapons, but what will happen when I roll a nat 1 with the gauntlet on, does that automatically bypass the rule. And how will I ever deal damage to a vampire with my crappy MW short sword and not my holy acid splashing silver shortsword +3 which is lying next to me on the ground.

To be disarmed or tripped is one thing, to have it come without warning on a natural 1 is another

[VemuKhaham]

I agree with Althael too; the DM shouldn't change the ingame action because of metagame reasons to prevent things from going out of hand (maybe only as a very, very last resort); he should make sure that the option of a player kill is still a very extreme option, but only when the PC's are messing things up because of their own fault. A single die roll isn't their own fault, so the DM should be careful designing his penalty for critical failures. So, like Shakes puts it, the survival of the PC's is not the DM's responsibility, but I add that it IS the DM's responsibility that PC's don't die totally randomly, such as by a single die roll.

But that is hardly an argument against critical misses, because the critical miss may have been caused by a stupid die roll, but in the end the DM designs the penalty, which is what really matters. So a rule like the one with critical misses doesn't needlessly kill PC's, it would be a DM having messed up. Though I guess what some may find an unduly harsh penalty others do not; that's the grey area, which may lead to discussions, and I guess there lies the main difference between us.

And yes, I think it should be a possibility for a player having to run from a fight leaving his 200.000gp sword. His pride may have gotten a few blows and his bank account a drop, but he may find a new sword some other day, or he may try to retake his sword some other day. Heroes aren't always victorious. The good part is that most often they aren't but somehow they manage to win the final decisive battle; the greater the suffering the sweeter the victory.

But in the end, it's all personal taste.

[TheZebraShakes™]

Well you can't run away from every battle. especially when you have no magic and your fighter is wearing full plate. Sometimes you need your next 12 attacks just to stay alive. It's not always an option. but aside from that.

we would need something not so extreme as falling prone or dropping weapons. Perhaps the notion of confirming the miss, so it wouldn't happen on your first attack so often. Maybe a slight penalty which reduces your next attacks or your AC by 2 for the remainder of the round, but it should not carry over to the next round. That way it would effect everyone equally. Although wizards still own either way and the warriors still get screwed. I don't know

[VemuKhaham]

maybe we can all think up a few possible penalties and make a list for dm's to refer to. That way, everybody can say about the options proposed if they think it too severe or not.

- player may not do any secondary attacks that round after the critical miss
- player provokes AoO's during his critical miss
- penalty on AC for that round
- penalty on attack rolls for the remainder of the round
- temporary ability damage (e.g. dex when spraining oneself)
- HP damage (player cuts himself, bumps into something)
- If spell with touch attack roll, the spell goes awry and some random effect occurs (could lead to interesting things, not even necessarily negative)
- I still think dropping something or falling prone are viable at DM's discretion
- If ranged attack against oponent in melee with another, hit the other guy instead
- Player looses move action if it still had one
- Player is moved 5 feet to a random (roll 1d8) direction because of imbalance. No AoO. Could have serious consequences on rooftops...
- Player becomes shaken.

And if wanted, we could eventually make this list longer and add numbers to it for a d% chart.

[K Man]

vemukhaham said:

And if wanted, we could eventually make this list longer and add numbers to it for a d% chart.

This is exactly the percentile chart from 1st and 2nd edition I was talking about. Random effects (to me) are bad. One person can get penalized pretty harshly while the other gets off scott-free. It undoes the whole equal penalty for all argument I've been pushing. Plus it creates another document to reference during game play as opposed to just having a house rule to remember.

thezebrashakes said:

Magic users won't be penalized any further by this (in using magic) or gain any real benefit over others by this.

A wizard can score a critical hit with a ray or some other such spells which require attack rolls to hit and deal damage in one form or another. How would you deal with a critical miss. Just curious. It's pretty much like the monk thing, they're not holding anything, so how would they drop their weapon, but in this case, they can't overextend either, so how would you account for other penalties to AC or attack or whatnot. I hope you don't intend to have the wizard take damage from his own missed ray.

I've never been for advocating damage done to party members or the acting character during a failure. I may have mentioned it, but probably with the addendum that it's not the best course of action. In this scenario, I would rule a critical miss with a spell requiring an attack roll as the spell caster getting caught up in the somatic components of the spell and stumbling, hence the loss to AC or DEX as he recovers. No Somatic? Well then he/she is so focused on the spell that fails and isn't as wary of the battlefield as he/she should be, hence the loss to DEX. There are ways of making a spellcaster's critical failure seem logical in combat.

As for the Ranger example...that does suck. To me, that is too strict of adherence to the rules and yeah, frankly, a DM stumbling on a scenario that would mean life or death for a character because of bad dice and ruling too quickly on it. At 17th level, it's unlikely a Ranger would lose their trusted blades...

---

The more I read this insanely long post of novels, the more I gather that there will always be a dividing line of pro-critical failure and anti-critical failure supporters. So long as the idea can be viewed as negative from both angles, there will always be argument about it, tying it to one scenario or another. That's how debate just inherently works.

This discussion has been EXTREMELY good for me to participate in, I'll tell you that now. For about the 8-10 years I've been DMing, I've just always understood critical failures to be something that happened and the results should be something similar to forfeited later attacks, dropped or broken weapons, or even combat modifiers that negatively affect the PC. I know now, that was probably a dumb thing to have in place for so long. It has taken this discussion, and honestly, some hella good meta-game and rules examples from you guys to show me the errors of my ways.

We have sunder attempts, we have disarm attempts, we have trip attempts, we have grapple checks...these are the things that combat orientated characters can use to penalize foes they cannot otherwise affect. There is no need for characters to be unduly penalized unexpectedly because the dice are against them.

But I still feel the need for an opposition to landing such a good blow that you can go from (theoretically) dealing 21 damage to dealing 88 points of damage in a round...enough to undo the villain in a single shot. As a DM and as a player, I want the chance for the tides of battle to turn. I want the villain who has been owning my character to suddenly be at a disadvantage, even if meager, so that I can have that spark of hope left in beating him. As a DM, I want the important NPC to be given a bit of luck to win the fight so that I don't have to draw up a new storyline and a new NPC. It doesn't need to be much, but it should be something.

I know this penalty should not be game-breaking or potentially life-threatening to a PC, nor should it replace any of the special combat actions we have and above all, it should be equal for everyone, regardless of class, race or items.

After reading this whole thread and seeing all angles, my new house rule, applicable in all my games (of course, if voted in by majority of players) will be;

---

1) If PC rolls a Natural 1 for an attack (Spell or otherwise), roll a confirmation. (Attack Roll again at corresponding bonus)

2) If the confirmation roll fails to beat the same AC the PC was aiming for with the missed attack/spell, it is a critical failure.

3) In addition to failing the attack or losing the spell as would happen with a miss, if the roll is a critical failure, that PC suffers a temporary -2 to AC until their next round.

---

Is it the do-all, end-all? Probably not, but it works for me. Sure, the archer in the rear of the party won't worry about a -2 AC when he critically fails as much as the fighter that's surrounded, but that's a character/player choice to be in combat and above all, that choice is situational.

It's not going to be life-threatening to fighters because they take this same risk charging. Though they command when they charge, they could still miss the attack and be at the disadvantage. It won't be detrimental to spellcasters because it can be offset by shield of faith or other spell, if they're even in combat. It's not going to affect higher level PCs anymore than it affects your 1st level PC. It doesn't deny DEX, incur AoO's or otherwise put PCs in a bad place.

What is does do is grant that little edge. Where last rounds attack missed by 1, this round's attack will succeed by 1. Where you thought you were invincible because the goblins had to roll a critical to hit you, now they only have to roll an 18.

I like it. It works for me and I'll certainly be asking all my players in my games if this rule works for them.

[Japic]

So far as Althael, Shakes and Vemu referring to NPCs changing their attitudes... I say why not? It's not for the Players to know every NPC or Monster's mind. If the DM chooses to have it/them drag you off subdued to an alternate fate then the DM could certainly do so. I've been reading in the DMG II lately that includes tips on productive DMing and some of their suggestions ring pretty true to me.

I won't kill a PC on purpose just because my Storyline cannot be compromised or breached/redirected in any way. No offense intended to those who feel otherwise, but that's just plain retarded in my opinion. The fun of a game is the most important factor of any game. Without the fun, no one comes back. I don't like to murder PCs because that kills their fun factor too. From here on out I'm going to be more conscious of railroading PCs along the exact storyline they need to follow (IMO I made a few mistakes on this point before).

If having a new something-er-other show up and say, "The boss wants them alive" or "Don't kill them I need blood for something" is all the reason a baddie needs to maintain the lives (if only by a thread) of whoever they are beating on (say a ranger who lost his swords). As a DM I care more about my player's continued happiness than killing them when they screw up. If that means creating a story arc to compensate, then so be it; it's my job to make that happen.

Sure I could just ignore rules I see no harm in (when people can make concessions to live within those rules with relative ease), but what would be the point of that. If it's not broke, don't fix it. That is my opinion, and I'm stickin to it. The DMs SHOULD be responsible for maintaining fun at a gametable, even at the expense of his carefully plotted storyline.

[VemuKhaham]

Kman said it, and I agree; such discussions are far more interesting and valuable than I thought. We should have more of them in the future. I may have some topics on mind.

As for the final solution: I like it and I dislike it. I dislike it because it is not the solution I initially proposed, as it leaves little room for variety, but I like it because I think it is a sound rule with a solid reasoning behind it; equal penalties for all. So it's not my way, but another viable way. In fact, I find it hard to dislike this critical miss ruling more than the rules on critical hits; it's simply consistent and no-nonsense. Though the penalty might have been a little more noteworthy, like -4.

Japic; I think you may be right that pc's shouldn't be killed because the DM refuses to loosen up a little, but he can loosen up in multiple ways. In your previous post you talked about the enemies suddenly beginning to deal nonlethal damage. I think that, if there were no ingame reason provided for this change of tactic (like the one you now introduce with the NPC saying the boss wants them alive), it should not be done like that. But if that reason is provided, than maybe it's just one more way of dealing with an otherwise sad development. As long as you also remember that players like to win because they also might lose, and die.

But from personal experience, I've played with two kinds of DM's on this matter I think: Kman in BOYD, who might've killed Romar thousands of times I think, if realism was all he cared about (though he never made it seem unreal, but instead heroic, which is I think now maybe the best way to handle it), and on the other hand someone who's now a player in my DM group but ran a campaign some time ago. My poor halfling bard who rolled poor hp's every level and had a negative con to boot died twice, and both of the times he was brought back to life, but despite that, the character then became a little... well, like old shoes worn too long. Especially when the second time he got reincarnated as a bloody halfelf! I eventually gave up that character and allowed him to pursue a life outside the main quest, even though I still liked his concept, and took up another guy.

In the end, It's all about walking that fine line between overkill and overprotection. I don't know how exactly to handle that. I guess it's about making those moments of near-death seem heroic and making every single combat encounter seem like near-death. And sometimes, actual death may/must be the result of that to maintain belief.

I hope that's the end of my part in this novel. Hope there'll be a sequence soon though!