Why do some people think fumble on a natural 1 is a good house rule...

Why do some people think fumble on a natural 1 is a good house rule? Can anything good come of 5% of all roles ending in tomfoolery like falling on your own sword or hitting the wrong target?

Hitting your allies or bystanders is more likely than you'd think, however weapons jamming or breaking is less common. Even a 1 in 100 chance for a gun to jam on a given shot is too high if the shooter knows what they're doing and the weapon is well maintained.

There is a gap between what sounds like it will be fun, and what is actually fun.

In a non-serious game, it's decent for chuckles. In a game where you want the party to feel like they're a bunch of unlucky bastards, it's a good rule. Otherwise, it might not fit well.

Just be happy you're not playing one of those shitty narrative games, where the GM is actively encouraged to make something WACKY happen whenever you fail a roll, which is usually a 1-in-6 chance or greater depending on the system.

We only do it if you roll 2 in a row. If you roll a 1, roll it again, if it's a 1, it's a fumble/hit ally ect.

Same with natural 20s, it only does double damage if you roll another 20 right after.

if nothing else it gives you a good excuse to come up with something to change things up

you dont have to do something as sever as that everytime, but if combat has fallen into a predictable rut, then getting their heavy hitter to fumble and drop his arcane focuse down the drain by accident (it happens), then watching them scramble can break the monotony

Critical fumbles are more interesting when they're less "you drop your weapon" and more "a complication arises." For example, instead of "you miss and shoot your friend," say "you miss and shoot a lantern, which shatters. Fire spreads across the floor." Something that changes the circumstances of the whole fight is neat.

If I can't think of an immediate complication as the result of a critical failure, I'll save it for later. If I can't come up with an interesting/worthwhile complication at all I forget about it.

Oddly enough, a critical failure becomes even MORE common at higher levels. Whether you're a monk or just have a high BAB, you get more attacks. More attacks means a greater chance of a critical failure occurring during your round. Your 20th level monk has a greater chance to fumble than a level 1 commoner when making a full attack.

Not playing D&D, but I use it as a sort of a "shit die". Whenever characters travel or similar downtime-ish circumstances, I roll. In a post-apocalyptic paramilitary survival game 20 might be stumbling upon some recent firefight, all people dead or dying, basically free loot. 1 might be attempted ambush, basically the same firefight but they're on the receiving end.

An easy house rule is having all your the attacks rolling a one is a fumble. Therefore attacking twice you are skilled enough to not fumble as much, and three times? Hell no.

An expert pianist playing the "Death Waltz" is liable to make more errors than a novice playing a melody-only version of "Mary Had a Little Lamb."

Because they've never played a game and just consume epic DnD memes

If your action has a failure chance lower than 5%, why are you rolling in the first place?

Multiattacks seem to break a lot of things. Or at least, they require a lot of extra rules to handle edge cases.

I honestly don't know why it hasn't been replaced with "roll extra damage dice" instead of "roll multiple d20s". I would houserule that, but a lot of classes are built around multiattack (sometimes with different attack bonus for each attack), which almost makes it more trouble than it's worth.

this is some next level insane troll logic

Not really.

Multi attacks should require obscene concentration.

>Can anything good come of 5% of all roles ending in tomfoolery like falling on your own sword or hitting the wrong target?
It could cause more trouble (fun for GM) or plot (fun for PCs).

Personally, I treat it as a measurement of action itself failing rather than PC failing to preform an action.

For example, you have a chase scene with player rolling 1:
>PC fails - he falls down, crashes into a wall etc. like a clumsy fuck despite his 20 dex.
>Action fails - a cart moves between player and the target, an NPC runs into player etc. like it could happen in a lively world.

First option makes PC a laughing stock and adds nothing else.
While the latter option in itself could create new plots and opportunities to interact with the world, other than calling people to move the fuck away. Like having NPC being some noble running from his bodyguards, since freedom, or having a family moving their stuff on a cart to a new house in the city, with some opportunities to trade foreign items to make up for lost chase.

20 = critical hit on enemy
1 = critical hit on self

What's so hard to understand about that?

Expectation
>if combat has fallen into a predictable rut, then getting their heavy hitter to fumble and drop his arcane focuse down the drain by accident (it happens), then watching them scramble can break the monotony
Reality
>Mage player gets angry at becoming useless for the rest of the fight, bringing everyone else down because the mood is ruined, which generally makes the rest of the table uncomfortable as well as bored.

Also, your example is wank anyways because Wizards will rarely ever touch their dice.

>Multi attacks should require obscene concentration.
>Magic though? Go ahead and rape my encounter without touching a single die.

Out of curiosity, how often do you see successful crits? Probably never?

Because it makes the game more fun.

If it's happening too often, confirm their critical failure by rolling again and if they get another natural 1, it's a critical fail. There, now you have a 0.25% chance I think.

For multiple attacks, rule that a critical failure can only come from the first attack roll made that round (so if I roll a natural 1 on my second attack, it's just a miss). If they want to roll a bunch of attacks at once, just make them designate one die as the first attack.

It is literally a meme, a concept that spreads much like genes do. Some idiot saw that fumbles and crits happen on attacks in D&D, decided the same would happen on all rolls regardless of reasoning, and other people decided they wanted to do the same thing.

For whatever reason.

It's a good rule because it provides entertainment for the casters who get to watch the martials fail at their simple job.

I think it's a good idea that doesn't work with the coarseness of a 1d20 roll.

Ideally fumbles should be very very rare unless you're trying something way beyond your ability. Other systems scale that way and it works very well.

>jam on a given shot is too high if the shooter knows what they're doing and the weapon is well maintained
what if he's been firing it a fucking lot during the battle

The only time I ever made a NAT 1 a fumble is if people are firing a ranged weapon into a melee, in which case they will hit the other target in the melee.

Is this a jerk move?

if we, or an enemy roll a 1 on an attack we then roll a d6:

5-6: no effect
3-4: -2 AC next turn
1-2: attack of opportunity

If there is a friendly in combat we hit them instead of rolling the D6.

fumbles are really in the hands of the DM. they can be as powerful or as minor as he wants to make them.

No.

Fumbles are one of those "wacky" rules that in actually just makes a game worse whenever they're implemented.

But worse is that everyone overdoes it on the critical failure level.

Think about what a critical success gets you in most games? It's normally pretty great but nothing insane. Automatic success, double damage, maximized damage, exploding dice. All of these are pretty reasonable.

Now compare most fumbling homerules. "Okay let's break out the chart of what horrible thing happens to you, some of which might be good for you and at least one of which just kills you outright."

If you're going to make something bad happen on the lowest possible dice roll, it should be reasonable. Automatic failure, for example, is a good place to start. Maybe something like a temporary disadvantage, something that would last until the start of your next turn on something.

This!
>Martialfag gets butthurt at arcane might so I let him take point for the next encounter.
>Sit back and brew some tea while he fights monsters.
>Martialfag trips over his own feet and throws his sword over a cliff.
>Sip tea smugly knowing that he'll have to beg me to use Locate Object later.
There's no better feeling.

>If you're going to make something bad happen on the lowest possible dice roll, it should be reasonable. Automatic failure, for example, is a good place to start.
And that's all it is in pretty much every D&D/PF game. That's all that happens, you miss. Even if your ability to hit something is practically guaranteed, there is a small chance something might come up where you miss, whether by slipping during the attack, a minor distraction, anything.

And i'm in full agreement on Crit fails being utter shit. Crit successes are barely better, and should be strictly equivalent if not double or triple damage.

Because it means your results will be less swingy. If you've got four attacks, then your way means you can only hit four times or miss four times. On the other hand, if you roll for each attack separately, then you can hit three, two, or one time as well.

In the long run they average out to the same thing, but I know I personally prefer consistently doing something each turn rather than having a mix of excellent turns and wasted turns.

>you know what would make this game more fun?
>if things were a whole lot less predictable!

it's about a 0.25% chance to roll two of the same number on 2d20, so it'd be pretty rare.
that said, in GURPS a 3 or 4 on 3d6 is a crit, and i've seen an almost impressive number of triple ones (and conversely, triple sixes) come up when running that game, and the chances for one of those is about 0.46%. it can still get fucking annoying.

of course, he's also confirming crits wrong - i'm pretty sure the actual rules for crit threats in games like PF only required you to beat the original DC to get your crit, so it'd be a natural 20 and then roll again vs 17 or whatever with your modifiers.
as for the actual rules for crit fails in games like PF - they literally don't exist. the only games i've seen with crit fails based directly on dicerolls are GURPS and Cyberpunk 2020, using 3d6 and 1d10 respectively.

i have no idea. people often tell me 'but 5% is really small' and 'but 10% is rare' (FUCKING cyberpunk and its FUCKING 1d10) and i have to go take a shit in anger, especially when somebody is fucked over by le wacky nat 1s.
i almost felt relieved when my swd20 character lost an arm and got a shoddy cybernetic that the DM ruled would 'punch something else' on any natural 1, because at least then it meant that a) bad shit was happening to other people and b) i knew what the fuck was actually going to happen on a crit fail meme.
it didn't matter that i was a healer, because fuck it, the DM was going to make me kill somebody on a 1 anyway.

i eventually buffed my relevant skills to +10 and higher, then settled on weaselling my way into taking 20 and taking 10 as often as possible, just to avoid the chance of ever rolling.

fuck the natural 1 meme, seriously.

i prefer a high degree of unpredictability

In any game ever, people will always favor the option that's the most consistently effective over the option whose effectiveness is determined by luck.

Why do you think mages are consistently more powerful than martials? It's because not only do they have the most options available but most spells also performs a result that happens whenever the enemy fails their saving throw.

Why cast Fireball that can only deal 8-48 damage when you can cast Hold Person and take one target out of combat?

i like to use it as an excuse to bring out dm fiat, since i will take any reason to do things that players dont expect

most of the time its just guaranteed misses, but every so often someone gets a limb cut off

to balance things out, the enemy will occasional drop a weapon, and everyone gets a good laugh

By "Death Waltz", you mean "UN Own Was Her?", I take it. The actual "Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz" is literally unplayable.

So you never play caster in d&d?

>Why do some people think fumble on a natural 1 is a good house rule?
Because it's fun.

>Can anything good come of 5% of all roles ending in tomfoolery like falling on your own sword or hitting the wrong target?
That's not a problem with the rule, it's a problem with how the rule is implemented.

it depends on the firearm desu, at the extreme end is something like a maxim gun tht can reasonably be expected to fire for days in mud and rain without a single stoppage, on the other end something like an m249 which jams fairly frequently around dust but can also be fixed within a couple seconds
and on that note, generally military firearms are extremely reliable, the ones tht aren't usually get fairly quick upgrades to make them much less to jam

No

>have to confirm crits
>1s are auto fumble
Playing an attack speed char get worse with level, th emore attack you get per turn, the more likely you are to fumble every turn.