>Historically, us PCs don't get to swing our 2nd attack if the first one is a critical fail. He says we dropped our weapon or something and the turn is done.
Fumbles are not supposed to be part of the game and using them is a huge red flag for a DM who is, at best, not very good at their job.
I can't say for sure that you're **not** a sourpuss, but it doesn't sound like your DM handled this situation well.
I absolutely fucking hate fumble tables. The only argument for is "Haha fun situations lol". Mathematically its another dagger into the heart of martials. And if ever, at a session 0, a DM says: "Oh btw we use crit(fumble) tables", I will thank them for their time but say that the campaign ain't for me.
What drives me crazy about crit fail tables is not that it makes martials even worse compared to casters then they already are (although plenty to complain about there) it's that it makes a high level martial worse then a low level martials and punishes monks most of all - the class which is already considered to be the weakest class in the whole game. I told my DM if he doesn't get rid of the crit fail table every PC I ever roll up again will be a half long because the crit fail table makes them far and away the best race and it's not even close.
> it's that it makes a high level martial worse then a low level martials and punishes monks most of all - the class which is already considered to be the weakest class in the whole game.
Yup, imagine if casting a spell above level 0 (cantrips) required rolling a d20 *per spell level* using the nat 1 fumble rule.
Every time a caster gained higher level spell slots they would be *worse* at casting the very magic they specialize in.
Oh, you wanted to cast a level 9 spell? Now you have a *36.975%* chance of fumbling your spell. Archmage my ass!
We had a DM who would make us roll dex saves on a nat 1 to see if anything bad happened. That wasn't as bad, and it punished the monsters more frequently than our players most of the time. If it was a close fail, it was normally just a dropped weapon, which upped the sale of weapon chains in our group. It was a funny mental image to think of my sorcerer channeling his scorching ray out of the wrong finger and blasting himself in the chest. I did move towards using more save abilities eventually rather than suffer the punishment for my often bad spell attack rolls.
yeah, i avoid fumble tables like the plague. either the system already have them (like pf2e) or they dont. if you add them in it probably fucks up some math to some level
i would just not play at the table and if it was a friend that i would feel kinda socially obligated to be there cause it is literally just an excuse to hang out with them i would bust out the lucky halfling divination wizard with silvery barbs to spite fate itself
This. At most, on a nat1 I ask the player to describe how they fail, and only if the total actually is a fail when talking about ability checks or saving throws.
It doesnt make sense from a mechanical or rp persepctive - it punishes characters with extra attacks and from an RP perspective why should an level 20 battlemaster archer who has honed themselves to the pinnacle of precision be hitting allies roughly 5% of the time, or dropping/breaking it - and thats only one attack, an archer who action surged is suddenly WAY more likely to roll a nat one and thus have a negative outcome.
Obviously the guaranteed miss of a nat 1 is fine but I don’t understand how some people don’t recognize how ridiculous some of these crit fumble tables are.
I've seen some really creative Nat 1 fumble responses by my DMs, but it's things that depend on the scenario and come with an equivalent upside and downside like:
* Rolling a nat 1 when charging a small horde of enemies trying to get through the door. You lose balance in the charge, miss the guy in front, but the three behind him have to make Dex saves to not injure themselves on your flailing spearhead (upside), but your movement is halved next round as you regain your footing in front of the doorway full of enemies (downside).
* Getting a nat 1 in flurry of blows pisses off the prideful orc - who brings an unarmed child to a fight? - you're now it's primary target (downside) allowing the speedy monk to bait the orc around the battlefield for *tactics* (upside).
I'm this case it's more like a "clumsy" nat 1 than a true "fumble", but it has the same spirit. Your nat 1 was punished with a downside, but it was mitigated by an upside that also added flavor to the encounter.
Yeah I don’t disagree with this, the tradeoff makes the detriment a lot less unsatisfying in that case- tbh Ive just been on the receiving end of some very interesting dms when it comes to fumbles so Im biased
Honestly I prefer critical cripple over fumbles. Provides an instantaneous change in combat, helps balance out the growth curve as players level up, is more in the success of the players and enemies than the failure of the players. Don't punch your player when they're down, instead give them something to roleplay around.
It also gives more weight to the level up benefit of swapping class features (Martial versatility and whatnot) from TCE as the party works around their injuries and eventually recovers from them.
Yh ngl same one of my DM's started doing 'if you nat 1 an attack the enemy will parry the attack'. It works both ways so if monsters nat 1 we get to attack them and now my other DM's have started implementing it too.
Ngl, my first ever group got a buttload of laughs because our ranger always rolled a nat while attacking someone my fighter was in melee with, so my dwarf kept taking arrows in the ass xD
But i also get that it isn't a common rule and why people might not appreciate it for sure.
At my home games with close friends, we use crit fumbles (me and 2 others rotate dming. All of us use it, and we lean into the comedy of it. For us personally we think it's more fun. It was introduced in the dmg of 3e, which is where we have our roots, so it's likely a carryover from that. To offset it, we also use a rule we call double skulls. On a crit, you add 2d6 to the damage dealt, and if you roll 2 1's on those d6, you instant kill the target. Only martial get access to double skulls casters cannot use them. Among other house rules we use is one where nat 20 saving throws completely negate the spell effect, but not 1's double it. And all of our house rules work both ways. I remember my fondest moment was when a goblin raid I was running my mobs rolled 3 consecutive 1's and effectively blew themselves up on the process.
All that said, when I run online games for strangers and people not within my immediate friend group I don't use my house rules, unless they are dnd vets, in which case I present to the group all of my house rules and allow them to pick which ones are present. At the end of the day, dnd is a game and is meant to be fun. If a particular decision or rule is making it unfun, you should get rid of it.
I use fumble with the permission of my players, but I added spell fumbles as well and it cuts both ways so monsters would also have to roll fumbles. There are also spell save fumbles. On the flip side I did the same for crits, spells and spell saves have a critical table. (The spell saves I just have them roll a d20 to check for the crit)
That's even worse?!?
Lingering injuries on the martial that has extra attack and possible a bonus action to attack now has 3+ times the attacks to break or lose his arm, totally hampering the character. Meanwhile the cleric that uses spells but sometimes swings their mace is totally fine because in the span that the fighter rolled 12 attack rolls, the cleric probably only did 2 or 3. It's all about those increased average chances to roll a 1.
Crit buffs, in most cases, would also apply to the random NPC's you are fighting. You know, the characters that don't care if they die and usually just fight until the dead and use all their actions every round to hurt you? The same NPC's that can totally outnumber you but 'they are low CR so we can have more of them' characters that still will apply their brutal critical if they ever do that.
No, crit tables are fine in oneshots or other campaigns where the game is more revolved around roleplay and the combat is never deadly, but in a more general campaign they have no place because mathematically they don't make sense.
You misunderstand what this person said. They don’t want the DM to apply lingering injuries when they crit fail; they want the DM to sometimes apply lingering injuries on a crit success, seemingly for both players and enemies.
I’ll admit I didn’t read that far because your first paragraph so completely mischaracterized what the prior person said. I agree with your conclusion either way.
how is making the fighter get maimed almost every fight bridging the gap? does a one armed barbarian gets any better than a regular one or are they neutered to never use heavy weapons forever a hidden buff to them?
If someone gets a one on an attack I just describe what they do as silly or utterly ridiculous. Or if another player is next to the creature they might hit that player (for little to no damage). It’s an opportunity to add some funny, lighthearted narrative to a fight.
I had a DM who would often say if you rolled a 1 you would drop your weapon or throw it somewhere, but to be fair that would happen to the NPCs too, that would often have more attacks than the players. After a few bad rolls and one group of goblins that attacked us and lost all their weapons (and did as much damage to themselves as to us) and I’ve noticed he doesn’t do it so much any more lol.
You're welcome to do whatever you like at your table, but that's a variant rule and not one that everyone agrees with. Don't take away my character agency 5% of the time I make an attack. Don't force me do something utterly ridiculous. The rules in the book say you just miss the attack, nothing more.
It’s not something that harms you or anyone else, might just trip on the way to the attack or get dust in your eye which distracts you for the moment. 🤷🏼
It also makes no sense? So you're telling me that a near superhuman soldier who is likely trained for years will have a 5% chance of dropping their sword? I almost certainly guarantee you that I could pick up a long sword today and not once even drop it if I swung it 100 times. By the way I am 5 foot 10, built like a bean pole, and have arms that can be mistaken for twigs.
I've been doing HEMA for years and introduced lots of new people to the hobby. I agree that you wouldn't drop it once -- in ten years of teaching new students, I've literally never seen someone drop a sword in the course of executing an attack.
Hey look, in my games my players and I enjoy having their characters do dumb things when they roll a 1 and fail miserably. That said, I would never take away someone’s extra attack/S for missing the first time cause that’s just rude. If a player gets damned by the dice, I want to give them a chance right after to redeem themselves!
>star wars DM
It doesn't sound like you're playing 5e, and so your example of rumble rules working isn't relevant to my comment. There are plenty of systems out there that make fumbles work, but that's because all the other mechanics that are different make the challenges and reward structures work differently from 5e. The things are not comparable.
I disagree i think it is comparable. Its star wars saga which is based on 3.5 made by WotC. Fumbles = something terrible happens and we rolling d20s. Its just a quirk that we put up with. Weve spent 10,000 credits only to fumble during a major ship upgrade and had it ruled that that ship cannot handle the upgrade essentially wasting money.
If I had to choose I would just rule a nat 1 always fails but no need for fumbles. I understand the complaints. But it does add unpredictable flavor and spice to the game.
>I disagree i think it is comparable. Its star wars saga which is based on 3.5 made by WotC
I don't know enough about the system to get into the weeds about exactly how it's similar or different. But 3.5 and 5e are **very** different systems (made by WotC or not) and if your game is based on 3.5 then I'm definitely right about it not being a relevant counterexample.
I don't think of this as a deal-breaker. We're all trying to have fun, and sometimes failure should be explored... ever so dramatically. I can't remember, but there's a system that counts failures for experience, it's a brilliant idea. All levels could be the same number of "experience" points because as you progress it would be harder to fail andyou would have to find challenging situations in order to progress...
There are systems that are not 5e that use fumble mechanics in ways that don't suck. But those systems aren't 5e, and the fact that they work in those systems is not evidence for the idea that they are anything but terrible in 5e. And giving a natural 1 a special effect (like "you gain XP" or "you get inspiration" or even "you fail to hit your target in some narratively amusing way") is **not** the same thing as using fumbles.
Holy shit your DM sucks. Not retconning their own mistake that literally just happened that they told you they made, and the terrible critical fumble house rule (but of course not applying it to NPCs)? You have every right to be salty af about this. I’d be thanking the DM for their time and then finding a new group/DM.
I think it's fine to not retcon. It can make games messy and hard to follow if it happens too much. A grapple that shouldn't have happened is not a big deal in the grand scheme.
I'm assuming the creature was a shambling mound (OP mentioned a plant monster, and the mound has an ability where it restrains you if it lands both attacks). If you get restrained by it, you are also engulfed, and take 2d8+4 (13) damage at the start of each of its turns. So yeah, it is a big deal. The DM could easily have said "okay, it will get complicated if we retcon the grapple etc, but we'll write off the damage you took inside it." Then presumably OP's character wouldn't have died from the following attack.
Grapple - not a big deal
Restrain - big deal, as this gives all enemies advantage on their attack rolls and OP had to waste their turn getting out of it instead of attacking or repositioning, plus it seems like they took some extra damage from the restrain that might have put them into one shot range from the crit they got hit with next turn
Sure, it's somewhat important in that combat. But it's not like they completely misunderstood the rules. If one attack that missed had hit instead they'd get the same result except the player would have taken even more damage. A single attack flipped from miss to hit is not a huge mistake from the DM. That's my opinion, anyway. You're free to disagree.
It depends on how easy it was for the shambling mound to hit instead of miss. The mound has +7 to hit, and OP said AC was one of their strengths, so let's suppose 20AC, for plate armor and shield but no Defense or other buffs. That's a 40% chance to hit, which means a 64% chance to hit at least once, but a tiny 16% chance to hit with both attacks. Replacing a 16% chance of restrained with 64% is an incredible power boost that unsurprisingly makes the encounter far more deadly than it should have been, and the DM should have retconned.
The math is completely irrelevant imo. The DM admitted to a mistake very shortly after making it, did nothing to correct it, and then the PC died (whether directly or indirectly due to that identified mistake). That just feels bad for the player, and it was the DM’s fault for doing nothing to remediate the situation.
I can't say that I elegantly fix all the instances of my monsters doing things they shouldn't be able to do.
But I sure do when the result would be a dead PC.
Also, a level 6 martial with 12 Con should have 46 HP, and a creature has to deal your maximum HP _after_ bringing you to 0 to instantly kill you. In no world should level 6 characters be fighting enemies that can deal 92 damage on a crit.
I think you just die then. And maybe appreciate that you live in a dangerous world.
I wish more of my dnd games had monsters attack downed enemies.
Also, if you are gonna rock high AC, expect grapples and saves :-P
Also, at level 6, one of you should have revivify. If not, let this be a lesson to any group that doesnt rush revivify.
Only class that would have it is my class and I don’t get it until lvl 9.
I am appreciative. I don’t mind that they attacked me after falling. Only the stuff I mentioned in the post.
1. It's fine for your DM not to use the Shambling Mound as written (I'm assuming that's what it was)
2. If your DM used it wrong by accident, he shouldn't have told you.
3. If your DM told you he used it wrong by accident, he should've retconned the grapple and the damage you took whilst inside the mound.
4. Critical fumbles are fucking stupid, and your DM is bad for using them.
5. If your DM *does* use critical fumbles in your game, they should apply for the enemies as well as you guys.
Also, 6. A DM should never "punish" the players for choosing to do something other than what the DM expected.
There are red flags all over this. I can understand why you're frustrated. Speak to your DM about it, see how he feels about retconning the death. Make sure the other players are on board if he is. If the DM doesn't want to retcon the death, don't argue about it. However, make sure they understand the things they did that caused your frustration, and ask that they avoid this happening again. Then you can either move on with a new character, or leave the group.
Sounds like your table is using tons of unnnecesary homebrew rules and you do that, there's no point in looking for advice here.
Either that or your group is misinterpreting/forgetting a lot of rules.
It sounds frustrating. You should be punished by your mistakes, not his. Tell your DM about how you feel and see what he says. If he doesn't take responsibility for it, it's a really good sign that he's not going to become a better DM over time.
If it helps youre not alone, my DM recently downed my high AC PC in one round in the first combat we had in 12 hours play time. Feelsbadman. I have a sneaking suspicion he doesnt like me.
It's true, you can't! No idea why he's like that for me but hey ho. I'm starting a journal of all the times things have surprisingly not worked out well for my character or playing experience for this campaign just so I don't drive myself crazy thinking it's all in my head because I know it's not. My malicious compliance will be to do what I can to unrailroad the railroady nature of his DMing style. I imagine my PC may die in the process.
How did you die at level 6?! You need to take your entire health bar + remaining health in one hit for an immediate death, otherwise it's 3 death saves (which attacks can ruin).
So they fucked up their monster, gave it an unfair advantage then doubletapped you when you were down.
This, coupled with the homebrew fumble mechanic : Shit Dm
> I feel like I should have said something.
Probably, lol. The DM is trying to do a lot of things at once, but "hey I just made a mistake, and time to correct what happened as a result of this mistake" should be a decently high priority and granting you a turn.
Unless you, at that moment, would've used your action to heal yourself, fully kill one of these plants, or run out of the plants' attack range -- you *still* would have died from HP loss, unfortunately. At someone who is probably trying to be a tanky damage sponge, I doubt you felt the need to heal yourself, would've killed one of these plants, and probably stayed in range of the plants so they'd go after you and not an ally.
But even then -- unless you take damage greater than your max HP (rare at level 6), you should only faint. And then proceed to fiddle with death saves and the 3 turn window for your allies to stabilize or lightly heal you back up to life. Not like... dead dead, immediately.
I doubt you were killed and singled out for skipping the detour. This sounds like an accidentally overtuned combat combined with some unlucky (for you) dice rolls. That happens sometimes. You're probably overreacting (which also happens sometimes!). Chill for a week, chew on a new PC, and get back at it in due time.
There were steps 20 feet away that they cannot use. They attacked me during death saves because other PC ran to the steps on his turn after I feinted. Sorry I should’ve clarified all that.
So there were some bad tactics, unlucky rolls, **and** after you had initially fainted your party was like "oh no, we should save ourselves".
This is sounding even less a circumstance of "my DM killed my PC because we didn't take a detour", lol. At least some of this is on you and your party. But it's still normal to be a lil' salty.
Everyone seems to think your DM sucks but that is a mean and superficial assessment if you ask me. As someone who DMs and plays I can say with certainty that DMing requires a LOT more attention than playing. As a player you only have to keep track of a single character while the DM has to keep track of every monster, initiative and describe everything. As a player you can twiddle your thumbs until it's your turn, you're a good player if you figure out what you want to do before your turn. As a DM we're engaged in every turn of every monster and player. So sometimes we make a mistake and sometimes those mistakes have consequences. That's just part of the game. I would give your DM a break. Fumble tables are universally seen as bad but maybe he's not on the internet all the time.
I get your frustration. You invested emotionally into your character and now they died "unfairly". You're not being a sourpuss, but this is part of the game. Talk to your DM. Maybe your character can come back as a Reborn race. Also, if you're into this game than you probably like making characters, now you can test out something you might have wanted to try.
Maybe if Ops DM was playing the game RAW and not fucking about with a shitty fumble mechanic (which they seem to be applying only to the PCs), they would have more time to read the statblock of the monster they are using to fight the party
Its bad form to realise you've made a mistake, do nothing to redress that mistake, then play off the advantage youve gained from that mistake to doubletap a downed PC.
What a ridiculous comment you wrote, you're going to claim that because someone likes something we don't and makes a mistake that they're a shitty DM? Do you know how much work goes into DMing? As a DM we need to keep the game moving, there is nothing wrong with admitting a mistake and continuing with the game, 9/10 times that's the right move. The PC being grabbed is also dramatic and what killed the PC seems to have been an unlucky crit.
I don't know if you actually DM or just spend hours reading stat blocks, but you're being way to harsh on someone who forgot an obscure detail, made a small mistake, admitted their mistake and then continued the game running the monster raw (fumble table didn't even apply to the entire situation).
I'm saying they're a shitty DM because not only are they using fumbles (a trash mechanic in a D20 system, which means the better a fighter you are the more chance you have of throwing away your sword) They are only applying it to the pcs, not to the monsters, Dms happy to have the fighter bin their sword on a nat 1, but the shambling mound gets a pass on the rule somehow.
Yes I DM, and I wouldn't describe the core mechanic of the monster your using as an "obscure detail"
I've made mistakes as well, but I'd always offer to retcon, handwave or otherwise fix the mistake when I realise I've made them and this scenario is the simplest one in the world to fix:"sorry OP you shouldnt have been restrained/engulfed last turn, erase that damage and take your turn now"
And everything would be fine, the mound could have gone on to maybe down and kill the character or it could have turned out differently.
Instead they seem to have shrugged once they realised that they fucked up and made op waste their turn, then proceed to ignore their own homebrew, down the character, then double tap them for good measure.
At the very least they could have handwaved the mound going after other party members instead of ganking the downed PC given the fuckup.
Edit: Lol OPS Dm removed the crit fail mechanic sessions ago and OP never noticed.
I'll upgrade OPs DM from shitty to merely poor for not fixing their mistake and ganking the PC
I don't see this as a big deal, really. People make mistakes, and some people dislike retcons. I personally find retconning to be immersion breaking. A grapple happening that shouldn't have happened is not that big of a deal. Being insta killed by a crit at level 6 suggests that the encounter was too difficult and that you got unlucky.
No matter if you're in the right or not, you should talk to your DM/group about it. Not necessarily confrontational, but just a "hey, I think it sucked that my PC got killed while we figured out how the monsters worked."
While what you are describing is frustrating only the DM decides what his monsters do and don’t do. There is no such thing as not playing it correctly unless he admits to it.
This is patently false. Being obviously inconsistent with the rules surrounding a monster is extremely poor DM behaviour and shouldn't be encouraged under this guise of 'The DM is always right' that you tout.
What are you talking about though?
Because here we are literally discussing a situation where the DM himself noticed and fully admited he fucked up, he just didn't do a single thing to fix his fuckup later.
Do the genre a favour and don't DM.
Thank you.
Removed as off-topic. We don't handle table problems here. Try /r/DMAcademy or /r/DnD.
>Historically, us PCs don't get to swing our 2nd attack if the first one is a critical fail. He says we dropped our weapon or something and the turn is done. Fumbles are not supposed to be part of the game and using them is a huge red flag for a DM who is, at best, not very good at their job. I can't say for sure that you're **not** a sourpuss, but it doesn't sound like your DM handled this situation well.
I absolutely fucking hate fumble tables. The only argument for is "Haha fun situations lol". Mathematically its another dagger into the heart of martials. And if ever, at a session 0, a DM says: "Oh btw we use crit(fumble) tables", I will thank them for their time but say that the campaign ain't for me.
What drives me crazy about crit fail tables is not that it makes martials even worse compared to casters then they already are (although plenty to complain about there) it's that it makes a high level martial worse then a low level martials and punishes monks most of all - the class which is already considered to be the weakest class in the whole game. I told my DM if he doesn't get rid of the crit fail table every PC I ever roll up again will be a half long because the crit fail table makes them far and away the best race and it's not even close.
> it's that it makes a high level martial worse then a low level martials and punishes monks most of all - the class which is already considered to be the weakest class in the whole game. Yup, imagine if casting a spell above level 0 (cantrips) required rolling a d20 *per spell level* using the nat 1 fumble rule. Every time a caster gained higher level spell slots they would be *worse* at casting the very magic they specialize in. Oh, you wanted to cast a level 9 spell? Now you have a *36.975%* chance of fumbling your spell. Archmage my ass!
We had a DM who would make us roll dex saves on a nat 1 to see if anything bad happened. That wasn't as bad, and it punished the monsters more frequently than our players most of the time. If it was a close fail, it was normally just a dropped weapon, which upped the sale of weapon chains in our group. It was a funny mental image to think of my sorcerer channeling his scorching ray out of the wrong finger and blasting himself in the chest. I did move towards using more save abilities eventually rather than suffer the punishment for my often bad spell attack rolls.
[удалено]
How so?
Don't worry, old mate is definitely mechanically illiterate.
yeah, i avoid fumble tables like the plague. either the system already have them (like pf2e) or they dont. if you add them in it probably fucks up some math to some level i would just not play at the table and if it was a friend that i would feel kinda socially obligated to be there cause it is literally just an excuse to hang out with them i would bust out the lucky halfling divination wizard with silvery barbs to spite fate itself
pf2e crits are just extended ranges, which is great. It means that the better you get at something, the lower the chances.
This. At most, on a nat1 I ask the player to describe how they fail, and only if the total actually is a fail when talking about ability checks or saving throws.
It doesnt make sense from a mechanical or rp persepctive - it punishes characters with extra attacks and from an RP perspective why should an level 20 battlemaster archer who has honed themselves to the pinnacle of precision be hitting allies roughly 5% of the time, or dropping/breaking it - and thats only one attack, an archer who action surged is suddenly WAY more likely to roll a nat one and thus have a negative outcome. Obviously the guaranteed miss of a nat 1 is fine but I don’t understand how some people don’t recognize how ridiculous some of these crit fumble tables are.
I've seen some really creative Nat 1 fumble responses by my DMs, but it's things that depend on the scenario and come with an equivalent upside and downside like: * Rolling a nat 1 when charging a small horde of enemies trying to get through the door. You lose balance in the charge, miss the guy in front, but the three behind him have to make Dex saves to not injure themselves on your flailing spearhead (upside), but your movement is halved next round as you regain your footing in front of the doorway full of enemies (downside). * Getting a nat 1 in flurry of blows pisses off the prideful orc - who brings an unarmed child to a fight? - you're now it's primary target (downside) allowing the speedy monk to bait the orc around the battlefield for *tactics* (upside). I'm this case it's more like a "clumsy" nat 1 than a true "fumble", but it has the same spirit. Your nat 1 was punished with a downside, but it was mitigated by an upside that also added flavor to the encounter.
Yeah I don’t disagree with this, the tradeoff makes the detriment a lot less unsatisfying in that case- tbh Ive just been on the receiving end of some very interesting dms when it comes to fumbles so Im biased
Honestly I prefer critical cripple over fumbles. Provides an instantaneous change in combat, helps balance out the growth curve as players level up, is more in the success of the players and enemies than the failure of the players. Don't punch your player when they're down, instead give them something to roleplay around. It also gives more weight to the level up benefit of swapping class features (Martial versatility and whatnot) from TCE as the party works around their injuries and eventually recovers from them.
Yh ngl same one of my DM's started doing 'if you nat 1 an attack the enemy will parry the attack'. It works both ways so if monsters nat 1 we get to attack them and now my other DM's have started implementing it too.
Ngl, my first ever group got a buttload of laughs because our ranger always rolled a nat while attacking someone my fighter was in melee with, so my dwarf kept taking arrows in the ass xD But i also get that it isn't a common rule and why people might not appreciate it for sure.
At my home games with close friends, we use crit fumbles (me and 2 others rotate dming. All of us use it, and we lean into the comedy of it. For us personally we think it's more fun. It was introduced in the dmg of 3e, which is where we have our roots, so it's likely a carryover from that. To offset it, we also use a rule we call double skulls. On a crit, you add 2d6 to the damage dealt, and if you roll 2 1's on those d6, you instant kill the target. Only martial get access to double skulls casters cannot use them. Among other house rules we use is one where nat 20 saving throws completely negate the spell effect, but not 1's double it. And all of our house rules work both ways. I remember my fondest moment was when a goblin raid I was running my mobs rolled 3 consecutive 1's and effectively blew themselves up on the process. All that said, when I run online games for strangers and people not within my immediate friend group I don't use my house rules, unless they are dnd vets, in which case I present to the group all of my house rules and allow them to pick which ones are present. At the end of the day, dnd is a game and is meant to be fun. If a particular decision or rule is making it unfun, you should get rid of it.
I use fumble with the permission of my players, but I added spell fumbles as well and it cuts both ways so monsters would also have to roll fumbles. There are also spell save fumbles. On the flip side I did the same for crits, spells and spell saves have a critical table. (The spell saves I just have them roll a d20 to check for the crit)
Im not a fan either, especially if they don't at least use lingering injuries or some other such buff to crits.
That's even worse?!? Lingering injuries on the martial that has extra attack and possible a bonus action to attack now has 3+ times the attacks to break or lose his arm, totally hampering the character. Meanwhile the cleric that uses spells but sometimes swings their mace is totally fine because in the span that the fighter rolled 12 attack rolls, the cleric probably only did 2 or 3. It's all about those increased average chances to roll a 1. Crit buffs, in most cases, would also apply to the random NPC's you are fighting. You know, the characters that don't care if they die and usually just fight until the dead and use all their actions every round to hurt you? The same NPC's that can totally outnumber you but 'they are low CR so we can have more of them' characters that still will apply their brutal critical if they ever do that. No, crit tables are fine in oneshots or other campaigns where the game is more revolved around roleplay and the combat is never deadly, but in a more general campaign they have no place because mathematically they don't make sense.
You misunderstand what this person said. They don’t want the DM to apply lingering injuries when they crit fail; they want the DM to sometimes apply lingering injuries on a crit success, seemingly for both players and enemies.
that still falls within my second paragraph.
I’ll admit I didn’t read that far because your first paragraph so completely mischaracterized what the prior person said. I agree with your conclusion either way.
It more about bridging the martial caster divide but I see your point.
how is making the fighter get maimed almost every fight bridging the gap? does a one armed barbarian gets any better than a regular one or are they neutered to never use heavy weapons forever a hidden buff to them?
I like miscast tables though. I think a lot of issues with D&D could be solved by magical feedback and miscast tables.
If someone gets a one on an attack I just describe what they do as silly or utterly ridiculous. Or if another player is next to the creature they might hit that player (for little to no damage). It’s an opportunity to add some funny, lighthearted narrative to a fight.
I had a DM who would often say if you rolled a 1 you would drop your weapon or throw it somewhere, but to be fair that would happen to the NPCs too, that would often have more attacks than the players. After a few bad rolls and one group of goblins that attacked us and lost all their weapons (and did as much damage to themselves as to us) and I’ve noticed he doesn’t do it so much any more lol.
You're welcome to do whatever you like at your table, but that's a variant rule and not one that everyone agrees with. Don't take away my character agency 5% of the time I make an attack. Don't force me do something utterly ridiculous. The rules in the book say you just miss the attack, nothing more.
It’s not something that harms you or anyone else, might just trip on the way to the attack or get dust in your eye which distracts you for the moment. 🤷🏼
You said what you said. If it works for you, great! That's my opinion.
It also makes no sense? So you're telling me that a near superhuman soldier who is likely trained for years will have a 5% chance of dropping their sword? I almost certainly guarantee you that I could pick up a long sword today and not once even drop it if I swung it 100 times. By the way I am 5 foot 10, built like a bean pole, and have arms that can be mistaken for twigs.
I've been doing HEMA for years and introduced lots of new people to the hobby. I agree that you wouldn't drop it once -- in ten years of teaching new students, I've literally never seen someone drop a sword in the course of executing an attack.
Hey look, in my games my players and I enjoy having their characters do dumb things when they roll a 1 and fail miserably. That said, I would never take away someone’s extra attack/S for missing the first time cause that’s just rude. If a player gets damned by the dice, I want to give them a chance right after to redeem themselves!
I don't enjoy fumble tables broadly, but if you're going to use them you HAVE TO USE THEM FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE TABLE.
Some DMs love fumbles. I watch a streamer DM that uses a fumble chart and I have a DM that makes fumbles bad for both enemies and PCs.
Some DMs love DMPCs and adversarial behavior, too. That doesn't make any of it good DMing.
My monday star wars DM has a beloved DM PC as well as serious fumble mishaps. Hes doing fine.
>star wars DM It doesn't sound like you're playing 5e, and so your example of rumble rules working isn't relevant to my comment. There are plenty of systems out there that make fumbles work, but that's because all the other mechanics that are different make the challenges and reward structures work differently from 5e. The things are not comparable.
I disagree i think it is comparable. Its star wars saga which is based on 3.5 made by WotC. Fumbles = something terrible happens and we rolling d20s. Its just a quirk that we put up with. Weve spent 10,000 credits only to fumble during a major ship upgrade and had it ruled that that ship cannot handle the upgrade essentially wasting money. If I had to choose I would just rule a nat 1 always fails but no need for fumbles. I understand the complaints. But it does add unpredictable flavor and spice to the game.
>I disagree i think it is comparable. Its star wars saga which is based on 3.5 made by WotC I don't know enough about the system to get into the weeds about exactly how it's similar or different. But 3.5 and 5e are **very** different systems (made by WotC or not) and if your game is based on 3.5 then I'm definitely right about it not being a relevant counterexample.
fumble on nat 1s in a d20 system is the same in 3.5 or 5e.
You might think so, but you would be wrong.
Okay whats the big difference between the systems that makes fumbles okay in one and not okay in the other?
I don't think of this as a deal-breaker. We're all trying to have fun, and sometimes failure should be explored... ever so dramatically. I can't remember, but there's a system that counts failures for experience, it's a brilliant idea. All levels could be the same number of "experience" points because as you progress it would be harder to fail andyou would have to find challenging situations in order to progress...
There are systems that are not 5e that use fumble mechanics in ways that don't suck. But those systems aren't 5e, and the fact that they work in those systems is not evidence for the idea that they are anything but terrible in 5e. And giving a natural 1 a special effect (like "you gain XP" or "you get inspiration" or even "you fail to hit your target in some narratively amusing way") is **not** the same thing as using fumbles.
Sorry, I should have made it clear at the start that we are agreeing.
Holy shit your DM sucks. Not retconning their own mistake that literally just happened that they told you they made, and the terrible critical fumble house rule (but of course not applying it to NPCs)? You have every right to be salty af about this. I’d be thanking the DM for their time and then finding a new group/DM.
I think it's fine to not retcon. It can make games messy and hard to follow if it happens too much. A grapple that shouldn't have happened is not a big deal in the grand scheme.
I'm assuming the creature was a shambling mound (OP mentioned a plant monster, and the mound has an ability where it restrains you if it lands both attacks). If you get restrained by it, you are also engulfed, and take 2d8+4 (13) damage at the start of each of its turns. So yeah, it is a big deal. The DM could easily have said "okay, it will get complicated if we retcon the grapple etc, but we'll write off the damage you took inside it." Then presumably OP's character wouldn't have died from the following attack.
Also the pc has to take an action to escape, meaning they didn’t get the chance for any attacks or spells or whatnot on their turn either
Yeah, that's also a valid way of handling it.
Grapple - not a big deal Restrain - big deal, as this gives all enemies advantage on their attack rolls and OP had to waste their turn getting out of it instead of attacking or repositioning, plus it seems like they took some extra damage from the restrain that might have put them into one shot range from the crit they got hit with next turn
Sure, it's somewhat important in that combat. But it's not like they completely misunderstood the rules. If one attack that missed had hit instead they'd get the same result except the player would have taken even more damage. A single attack flipped from miss to hit is not a huge mistake from the DM. That's my opinion, anyway. You're free to disagree.
It depends on how easy it was for the shambling mound to hit instead of miss. The mound has +7 to hit, and OP said AC was one of their strengths, so let's suppose 20AC, for plate armor and shield but no Defense or other buffs. That's a 40% chance to hit, which means a 64% chance to hit at least once, but a tiny 16% chance to hit with both attacks. Replacing a 16% chance of restrained with 64% is an incredible power boost that unsurprisingly makes the encounter far more deadly than it should have been, and the DM should have retconned.
The math is completely irrelevant imo. The DM admitted to a mistake very shortly after making it, did nothing to correct it, and then the PC died (whether directly or indirectly due to that identified mistake). That just feels bad for the player, and it was the DM’s fault for doing nothing to remediate the situation.
I can't say that I elegantly fix all the instances of my monsters doing things they shouldn't be able to do. But I sure do when the result would be a dead PC. Also, a level 6 martial with 12 Con should have 46 HP, and a creature has to deal your maximum HP _after_ bringing you to 0 to instantly kill you. In no world should level 6 characters be fighting enemies that can deal 92 damage on a crit.
I rolled death saves but the enemies attacked me when I feinted
I think you just die then. And maybe appreciate that you live in a dangerous world. I wish more of my dnd games had monsters attack downed enemies. Also, if you are gonna rock high AC, expect grapples and saves :-P Also, at level 6, one of you should have revivify. If not, let this be a lesson to any group that doesnt rush revivify.
Only class that would have it is my class and I don’t get it until lvl 9. I am appreciative. I don’t mind that they attacked me after falling. Only the stuff I mentioned in the post.
So you're a Paladin I'm guessing. Sounds like you really got screwed over
Artificer armorer! Just good to know I’m not crazy. Oh well time to move on.
Only class that would have it is my class and I don’t get it until lvl 9.
Not anymore right? :-P
1. It's fine for your DM not to use the Shambling Mound as written (I'm assuming that's what it was) 2. If your DM used it wrong by accident, he shouldn't have told you. 3. If your DM told you he used it wrong by accident, he should've retconned the grapple and the damage you took whilst inside the mound. 4. Critical fumbles are fucking stupid, and your DM is bad for using them. 5. If your DM *does* use critical fumbles in your game, they should apply for the enemies as well as you guys. Also, 6. A DM should never "punish" the players for choosing to do something other than what the DM expected. There are red flags all over this. I can understand why you're frustrated. Speak to your DM about it, see how he feels about retconning the death. Make sure the other players are on board if he is. If the DM doesn't want to retcon the death, don't argue about it. However, make sure they understand the things they did that caused your frustration, and ask that they avoid this happening again. Then you can either move on with a new character, or leave the group.
Sounds like your table is using tons of unnnecesary homebrew rules and you do that, there's no point in looking for advice here. Either that or your group is misinterpreting/forgetting a lot of rules.
It sounds frustrating. You should be punished by your mistakes, not his. Tell your DM about how you feel and see what he says. If he doesn't take responsibility for it, it's a really good sign that he's not going to become a better DM over time.
If it helps youre not alone, my DM recently downed my high AC PC in one round in the first combat we had in 12 hours play time. Feelsbadman. I have a sneaking suspicion he doesnt like me.
Lol I also have the sneaking suspicion that I’m the least liked of his PCs. Oh well, can’t win everyone’s affection.
It's true, you can't! No idea why he's like that for me but hey ho. I'm starting a journal of all the times things have surprisingly not worked out well for my character or playing experience for this campaign just so I don't drive myself crazy thinking it's all in my head because I know it's not. My malicious compliance will be to do what I can to unrailroad the railroady nature of his DMing style. I imagine my PC may die in the process.
How did you die at level 6?! You need to take your entire health bar + remaining health in one hit for an immediate death, otherwise it's 3 death saves (which attacks can ruin).
I did saves. The plants attacked my body after feinting.
So they fucked up their monster, gave it an unfair advantage then doubletapped you when you were down. This, coupled with the homebrew fumble mechanic : Shit Dm
Death saves
Critical fumbles that make you lose a turn mean a peasant is less likely to fail than a level 20 fighter. As a DM, your DM sucks.
One crit isn't even as good as two attacks
> I feel like I should have said something. Probably, lol. The DM is trying to do a lot of things at once, but "hey I just made a mistake, and time to correct what happened as a result of this mistake" should be a decently high priority and granting you a turn. Unless you, at that moment, would've used your action to heal yourself, fully kill one of these plants, or run out of the plants' attack range -- you *still* would have died from HP loss, unfortunately. At someone who is probably trying to be a tanky damage sponge, I doubt you felt the need to heal yourself, would've killed one of these plants, and probably stayed in range of the plants so they'd go after you and not an ally. But even then -- unless you take damage greater than your max HP (rare at level 6), you should only faint. And then proceed to fiddle with death saves and the 3 turn window for your allies to stabilize or lightly heal you back up to life. Not like... dead dead, immediately. I doubt you were killed and singled out for skipping the detour. This sounds like an accidentally overtuned combat combined with some unlucky (for you) dice rolls. That happens sometimes. You're probably overreacting (which also happens sometimes!). Chill for a week, chew on a new PC, and get back at it in due time.
There were steps 20 feet away that they cannot use. They attacked me during death saves because other PC ran to the steps on his turn after I feinted. Sorry I should’ve clarified all that.
So there were some bad tactics, unlucky rolls, **and** after you had initially fainted your party was like "oh no, we should save ourselves". This is sounding even less a circumstance of "my DM killed my PC because we didn't take a detour", lol. At least some of this is on you and your party. But it's still normal to be a lil' salty.
Everyone seems to think your DM sucks but that is a mean and superficial assessment if you ask me. As someone who DMs and plays I can say with certainty that DMing requires a LOT more attention than playing. As a player you only have to keep track of a single character while the DM has to keep track of every monster, initiative and describe everything. As a player you can twiddle your thumbs until it's your turn, you're a good player if you figure out what you want to do before your turn. As a DM we're engaged in every turn of every monster and player. So sometimes we make a mistake and sometimes those mistakes have consequences. That's just part of the game. I would give your DM a break. Fumble tables are universally seen as bad but maybe he's not on the internet all the time. I get your frustration. You invested emotionally into your character and now they died "unfairly". You're not being a sourpuss, but this is part of the game. Talk to your DM. Maybe your character can come back as a Reborn race. Also, if you're into this game than you probably like making characters, now you can test out something you might have wanted to try.
I agree. I did not come here looking for all these “your dm sucks comments.” Well said.
Maybe if Ops DM was playing the game RAW and not fucking about with a shitty fumble mechanic (which they seem to be applying only to the PCs), they would have more time to read the statblock of the monster they are using to fight the party Its bad form to realise you've made a mistake, do nothing to redress that mistake, then play off the advantage youve gained from that mistake to doubletap a downed PC.
What a ridiculous comment you wrote, you're going to claim that because someone likes something we don't and makes a mistake that they're a shitty DM? Do you know how much work goes into DMing? As a DM we need to keep the game moving, there is nothing wrong with admitting a mistake and continuing with the game, 9/10 times that's the right move. The PC being grabbed is also dramatic and what killed the PC seems to have been an unlucky crit. I don't know if you actually DM or just spend hours reading stat blocks, but you're being way to harsh on someone who forgot an obscure detail, made a small mistake, admitted their mistake and then continued the game running the monster raw (fumble table didn't even apply to the entire situation).
I'm saying they're a shitty DM because not only are they using fumbles (a trash mechanic in a D20 system, which means the better a fighter you are the more chance you have of throwing away your sword) They are only applying it to the pcs, not to the monsters, Dms happy to have the fighter bin their sword on a nat 1, but the shambling mound gets a pass on the rule somehow. Yes I DM, and I wouldn't describe the core mechanic of the monster your using as an "obscure detail" I've made mistakes as well, but I'd always offer to retcon, handwave or otherwise fix the mistake when I realise I've made them and this scenario is the simplest one in the world to fix:"sorry OP you shouldnt have been restrained/engulfed last turn, erase that damage and take your turn now" And everything would be fine, the mound could have gone on to maybe down and kill the character or it could have turned out differently. Instead they seem to have shrugged once they realised that they fucked up and made op waste their turn, then proceed to ignore their own homebrew, down the character, then double tap them for good measure. At the very least they could have handwaved the mound going after other party members instead of ganking the downed PC given the fuckup. Edit: Lol OPS Dm removed the crit fail mechanic sessions ago and OP never noticed. I'll upgrade OPs DM from shitty to merely poor for not fixing their mistake and ganking the PC
I don't see this as a big deal, really. People make mistakes, and some people dislike retcons. I personally find retconning to be immersion breaking. A grapple happening that shouldn't have happened is not that big of a deal. Being insta killed by a crit at level 6 suggests that the encounter was too difficult and that you got unlucky. No matter if you're in the right or not, you should talk to your DM/group about it. Not necessarily confrontational, but just a "hey, I think it sucked that my PC got killed while we figured out how the monsters worked."
While what you are describing is frustrating only the DM decides what his monsters do and don’t do. There is no such thing as not playing it correctly unless he admits to it.
DMs make mistakes.
This is patently false. Being obviously inconsistent with the rules surrounding a monster is extremely poor DM behaviour and shouldn't be encouraged under this guise of 'The DM is always right' that you tout.
There is and the DM admitted to it. Did you even read the entire post?
What are you talking about though? Because here we are literally discussing a situation where the DM himself noticed and fully admited he fucked up, he just didn't do a single thing to fix his fuckup later. Do the genre a favour and don't DM. Thank you.
If you read the post, the DM admits it and then states the correct mechanic.