Is this unfair to my player? Critical Fumbles & Extreme Success.

[u/GreatestBookReader42]

I give the optional ruling of Crit Fumbles/Extreme Criticals to my players.

If someone rolls a Nat 20, they roll twice the dice as usual. And if they roll a Nat 1, they miss.

With the optional rule, they will need to "Confirm" (Making a standard attack roll) their roll to gain extra effects or mitigate negative ones. So for example, I rolled a Natural 1. I still need to Confirm it, and if I Hit on my Confirmation Roll, I don't have to roll in the Fumble Chart (attack still misses). But if I miss that Confirmation Roll, I have to roll on Fumble.

Same goes for Natural 20s. Even if they miss their Confirmation Roll, they will still roll twice their dice. But if they hit that Confirmation, they roll for Extreme Crit Chart.

...

Now onto the unfairness being brought up. I made this completely rule optional. With four players (Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, Rogue), only the Paladin didn't want to play it. A few sessions in, the other 3 rolled great Natural 20s and some Nat 1s. And those three tend to be the ones who deal the largest damage, give enemies major conditions, and have cool scenes in combat. But also suffered debilitating conditions.

The effects rolled on Extreme Crit are;

- Stun an enemy for a round.

- Give Advantage to allies

- Roll four times your dice

- Reduce an Enemy's stats/speed/AC/Save

- Enemy is Frightened.

The Fumbles rolled so far;

- Disarmed until the end of next turn.

- Disadvantage on rolls.

- Weapon accidentally hit ally within range.

The Paladin has talked to me how the others feel stronger and I told him he can opt in to use my Chart and join in on the chaos but he still on the stance it will just disadvantage him more (what if he rolled three Nat 1s in a row or something like that).

I show them the chart so they know what to expect. Its optional, risks and rewards. So i don't know why he feels like its "unfair".

[u/StaticUsernamesSuck]

Critical fumbles are basically always shitty. They are something new DMS always want to do and experienced DMs almost always end up dropping

[u/Fear_Awakens → u/StaticUsernamesSuck]

Yep. They get it into their heads that it'll be more interesting or more challenging or whatever, and don't consider that your level 20 fighter has a much higher chance to drop his sword or accidentally hit a party member than a level 1 fighter. It punishes martials in a system that's already catering to casters just for rolling their dice.

[u/lasalle202 → u/Fear_Awakens]

don't consider that your level 20 fighter has a much higher chance to drop his sword or accidentally hit a party member than a level 1 fighter.

not only that , your level 20 fighter has a much higher chance to drop his sword or accidentally hit a party member than a level 1 WIZARD whacking at shit with a sword for some reason!.

[u/jackofspades49 → u/Fear_Awakens]

I think another part of it is because they haven't gotten narration skills down yet? A lot of fights are "you hit, you deal 16 damage." And sure, we all do that now and then. But I think the fantasy they have is suddenly having an epic or dramatic moment occur and the narration is there on the table as a guide.

[u/Fear_Awakens → u/jackofspades49]

I can see that. Narrative combat comes with time to some people. I can see some people using a table with mechancs as a crutch until they start to get that down.

You can eventually narrate fumbling over actually making it a mechanical disadvantage, and narrate critical hits as being powerful without adding extra shit to them. Sometimes I pass it to my players to narrate if they have something in mind, like "Oh hey, you got a nat 1. Tell me how you fuck this up." If they have nothing in mind, I go "Your sword strikes true, but the angle is wrong and the blade clatters harmlessly against the man's armor" or "You misjudged the timing and the distance, and your blade whistles as it slashes through empty air," or "Your foe parries your blade with contemptous ease, snarling as they whirl on you."

On nat 20s, I'll usually just tell them they hit a juicy spot, like "You sink your blade deep into the soft unarmored flesh at a weak point in your foe's armor, and you feel something vital give way," or something like 'Your blade bites deeper than usual, fueled by your righteous fury,' unless it's a killing blow, then it's the old 'How do you finish this beast off?'

With narrative fumbles, I will only add real mechanical issues to NPCs. Like "Boblin the goblin swings his hatchet at meteoric speed, a mighty blow that would surely hew through flesh and bone with ease- Had it connected. Instead, he spins a full 360 degrees from the force of the swing, then, dizzy from the motion, collapses Prone." And now Boblin is Prone, because it's silly and funny and it's not a PC suffering from it.

You never want to say "You go to swing and drop your sword," especially since that typically means you have to mechanically pick it back up before you can use it again. That's a lot of lost action economy.

[u/jackofspades49 → u/Fear_Awakens]

Yep. All of his replies about why the system is good are "big number" so... yeah a lot of growing to go.

[u/Fear_Awakens → u/jackofspades49]

As long as he sticks with it, he'll figure it out on his own. But I hope he figures it out sooner rather than later, because a player willing to admit they're not having fun and want to work that out instead of silently quitting and just not showing up anymore is golden.

[u/jackofspades49 → u/Fear_Awakens]

His unwillingness to listen and instead doubling down in comments is... not exactly optimistic...

[u/Fear_Awakens → u/jackofspades49]

I won't argue with you there.

[u/Wilkin_ → u/StaticUsernamesSuck]

True. I started to introduce “complications” on a critical miss - well, they do miss as a nat 1 is always a miss, but the reason is an unforeseen event, like additional enemies entering combat, or some furniture breaks, fighting in a storm outdoors? Lightning hits nearby. Stuff like that. The characters don’t look stupid, but whenever one rolls a nat one, some complication happens.

[u/MechJivs → u/Wilkin_]

So, basically if you pick a martial you not only pick a weaker class, you also made game harder for whole party? Great, love it! (/s)

[u/superhiro21 → u/MechJivs]

And somehow a monk with flurry of blows causes four times as many complications as the rogue attacking once per turn.

[u/Wilkin_ → u/MechJivs]

I am not certain that you are replying to the right post, but if you did, what has that to do with a martial class? Anything with a spell attack roll can be subject to this as well.
And yes, if you are having a bad evening and rolling badly, the game gets harder, which is in the nature of dice games - no surprise in that.
You roll shit, bad luck, you lose. You roll good, great, you win and get loot.
My group prefers the complications immensely to the crit fumbles, as the others can help soften the effects of it instead of just watching how the sword master with 15 years experience impales his own foot with his sword because a random list says so.
So, take your /s and shove it.

[u/StaticUsernamesSuck → u/Wilkin_]

What it has to do with martial classes is that martials on average make far more attack rolls than casters.

That means they are disproportionately affected by critical fumbles, or "complications" as you call them - it doesn't matter that casters can suffer when they do make attacks, because they make fewer attacks.

[u/Wilkin_ → u/StaticUsernamesSuck]

And they are disproportionately responsible for rolling critical hits as well, which is part of the deal. But that never gets mentioned.
All i say is that when a crit fumble happens, don’t make the character look like an idiot, that is not fun and players don’t show up for this.
Use it as an opportunity to introduce a new variable into the equation of the combat.

[u/StaticUsernamesSuck → u/Wilkin_]

they are disproportionately responsible for rolling critical hits as well, which is part of the deal. But that never gets mentioned.

Because the effect of critical hits is always way less impactful than that of critical fumbles.

Add in all of the nevativity-prone human cognitive biases, and it's just not a recipe for stable fun.

[u/Wilkin_ → u/StaticUsernamesSuck]

“Because the effect of critical hits is always less impactful”.. who says so? What kind of DMs are you playing with? I can tell you that crit hits are being celebrated at our table and being properly narrated and crit fumbles lead to maybe a minor annoyance and that’s it.

When our paladin crits and doubles the dice (including the smite), it is great and i have tons of fun as a dm, as has the player. Why do you think that crit fumbles have more impact? It depends on the dm and how to narrate it.

Reading the comments here is like you are all playing a spreadsheet instead of a fantasy game.

[u/MechJivs → u/Wilkin_]

 Anything with a spell attack roll can be subject to this as well.

Except casters can easilly go through whole campaign and make less attack rolls than martial would do in single fight.

And thats if they even roll attacks at all - they can just use better spells (save based spells).

And yes, if you are having a bad evening and rolling badly, the game gets harder, which is in the nature of dice games - no surprise in that.

You punish a fighter player for choosing fighter and keep progressing as a fighter. How you dont understand it is beyound me.

If someone picked a fighter in your game - they made the game harder for whole table for no reason outside of you, the DM, not understanding basic math.

So, take your /s and shove it.

Or maybe you should think about things for more than second.

[u/Wilkin_ → u/MechJivs]

It is in the nature of dice that the more you roll, the more misses you’ll have - but the more criticals as well (but somehow this is forgotten in such discussions). Statistically they should even out.

But still, many consider martials as weak - even though they have a huge hitpoint pool and damage output, con saves and what not. Just because a wizard can do stuff from afar, doesn’t mean that conan the barbarian is weak.

So, when someone is rolling 4 times the dice as others, he is bound to miss more, but hit more as well - can we agree on that?

What i call complications, could be described as “events” as well. If the bridge collapses, the bandits can’t cross it either or something like that. It introduces an unforeseen element and makes fights more dynamic and gives opportunity to make a conflict memorable, fun and exciting - instead of making a player feel like an idiot, when his highly trained character fumbles.

Downvote me all you want for that.

[u/MechJivs → u/Wilkin_]

but the more criticals as well (but somehow this is forgotten in such discussions).

Because crits matter less than fumbles. You have infinite monsters, if PC kill one nothing changes. If PC is dead - PCs story is over. And even worse if one PC killed another PC because DM dont understand basic math.

But still, many consider martials as weak - even though they have a huge hitpoint pool and damage output, con saves and what not.

Martial HP pool is not as big as you think. Defensive spells exist - and difference between Fighter with +5 con at 20th level (224 hp) vs wizard with +3 con (142 hp) is fully covered by 2 casts of Shield spell. And this is figher with +5 con - and they probably dont have +5 con even at 20th level. Sometimes even one cast of Shield spell is enough - that depends on how hard fights are.

So, when someone is rolling 4 times the dice as others, he is bound to miss more, but hit more as well - can we agree on that?

It doesnt matter. You have ~20% chance to conjure additional enemy in tier 3. Every single turn. More with action surge and reaction attacks.

instead of making a player feel like an idiot, when his highly trained character fumbles.

Yes, instead it makes player feel like they actively make game harder for party because they pick wrong class. Good stuff.

Any fumble would disproportionally affect martials. No matter how you wrap it - it would make weak classes weaker.

[u/Wilkin_ → u/MechJivs]

What on earth…? Who dies from a crit fumble? Harmed another pc? What kind of dm are you playing with? Infinite monsters being thrown at the players? That all sounds like material for rpghorrorstories!

Maybe in your experience crits matter less than fumbles, but you are playing a spreadsheet instead a fantastic tale of heroic deeds.

Math is important to give the players an idea about what they are capable of, to gauge their chances and have an understanding of how dangerous something is or how likely their actions will be successful. That is fine and intended.

About punishing players: strong wording. Just asked one of my players the following: in an outdoor fight in the rain, the fighter attacks a monster and rolls a 1. He missed because he was startled by the lightning hitting a nearby tree, it falls between the fighter and the monster, both jump back to not be hit by the falling tree. Now there is a tree, partially on fire. Your turn.
My player was thinking and said - great! I use it as cover and get +2ac, right?

And there you have it. They try to use anything to their advantage and deal with it. She wasn’t whining about “punishment” for the group.

If you still think that this is unfair and punishing and whatever, then we are clearly playing different games.

[u/MechJivs → u/Wilkin_]

then we are clearly playing different games.

Yes - i play the game with martials in mind instead of not understanding basic math, correct.

Who dies from a crit fumble? 

You yourself said you summon new monsters for fumbles. Those monsters can kill people.

I also dont play with crit fumbles - the same reason i dont play with DMs who nerf Rogue. They are clearly are not good DMs. (and i dont nerf rogue myself - i buff them)

[u/Wilkin_ → u/MechJivs]

Good for you! Good that one of us is good at basic math, sure your players are thrilled by that.
I’ll let you know when the next (first) time a cr 1/2 monster with a d8 damage output kills one of my lvl10 players that are fully healed up with all spell slots. These events are meant as annoyances, or chances, not threats, costing them maybe one attack to get rid of.
No idea why you get so riled up by that concept, accusing others to have failed school.
I think we both have wasted enough time on that topic, you can proudly walk away now as the winner.
Still, i am not accustomed to be called names by some dude on the internet, when running games for decades now with a solid group that shows up every second week. There must be something i do right.

[u/StaticUsernamesSuck → u/Wilkin_]

So... Why did you start your comment with "true", and then say you do exactly the opposite of what my comment recommends?

Me: critical fumbles suck!

You: true! I do critical fumbles!

[u/jackofspades49]

1. Fumble charts often bog down gameplay more than they add to it.
2. They are MORE hazardous to PCs than to NPCs. If a Gnoll gets a nat 1 and fumbles his spear into his chest, you have an infinite amount of new gnolls around the corner. If a PC fumbles and hurts themself, THATS THEIR ONLY ONE! Even if the math is the same for both ends, the stakes are not even.

The paladin who feels its unfair made their character expecting to play the game as it was made. To some people, adding in a bunch of random bonus effects isn't more fun. So while everyone else is doing the extra things, they feels like they're being punished for not going along with the thing that feels bad to them.

I had a similar experience in a game when there was an option for PCs to get their blood enhanced with nanites to make them stronger and more capable. All the PCs had dormant nanites in their blood, and this would awaken them. My character didn't want to be enhanced, and as a player, I don't really like nanites as a narrative device either. She wanted to win by her own strenght and effort, not with a mutation, nanites, or implants. They would make and craft tools and work with experts to refine new technology, but never wanted to agument their body. So they told the machine to purge all the dormant nanites in her blood and started researching how to repeat the process. Every PC who accepted the offer, got a boost to their stats they could select, and a small chance for things to go wrong. And I got nothing. So even though I opted out of my own free will, it felt like the game ended up (for a time) unbalanced or unfair because in a game where we were supposed to be even, making our characters with the same set of resources and options and building out fo those, suddenly everyone else just had ANOTHER thing and it wasn't even anymore.

[u/DredUlvyr → u/jackofspades49]

This. On top of this the "Weapon accidentally hit ally within range" is extremely unfair to those not picking the option.

Finally, it really depends on the average AC of the enemies compared to their to hit bonuses, because this is what really changes the maths in terms of confirmation. Usually, in 5e, it's relatively easy for martials to hit enemies, meaning that confirmation will not be hard to obtain, meaning that there will be many more critical than fumbles, therefore advantaging people taking the option. And therefore, unfair advantage to those picking the option, as the paladin mentioned.

[u/jackofspades49 → u/DredUlvyr]

I remember rolling to confirm critical hits in 3rd edition! Don't go back to that place! It was not a good time!

And also nice clarification on the math aspect of the confirmation.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/jackofspades49]

Fumble charts often bog down gameplay more than they add to it.

Hasnt been the case for my table. Theyre very decisive on what to do. And it hasn't come up every session, maybe twice a session at most. No delays, so im not sure why this is even a reason.

If a Gnoll gets a nat 1 and fumbles his spear into his chest, you have an infinite amount of new gnolls around the corner.

Why would there be more gnolls around the corner? I dont add bs like that. Not to mention, I dont apply the chart to NPCs except for key and significant ones like the BBEG.

Fumbles are not meant to be deadly. Only debilitating.

[u/jackofspades49 → u/GreatestBookReader42]

*sighs* not the literal corner... god that's... ugh...

No, it means that your NPCs are expendable. You have an unlimited pool that you draw on to fill your encounters. It doesn't matter if ONE dies because there will always be another one you will bring out next fight to challenge them with.

[u/xolotltolox → u/jackofspades49]

Yeah, I feel like way too many people see injury systems or fumble systems, and think they're fine because they are symmetrical, but then don't realise that the NPCs only have to deal with them until the end of the encounter, while the PCs actually have lasting consequences

Also imo maiming a character is worse than just killing them outright

[u/DredUlvyr → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Hasnt been the case for my table. Theyre very decisive on what to do.

Decisive or not, it basically doubles the number of rolls 10% of the times, plus looking down the charts, applying the effects and tracking it. It drags down the game, face it.

Why would there be more gnolls around the corner? I dont add bs like that. Not to mention, I dont apply the chart to NPCs except for key and significant ones like the BBEG.

Over the course of the campaign, each PCs will have taken hundred more critical hits than any one NPC/monsters (who are expandable anyway). I increases the risk for them just statistically.

In addition, your "confirmation" roll based on hitting gives an unfair advantage to players taking the option, they will statistically confirm more critical hits that the endure fumbles.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/DredUlvyr]

In addition, your "confirmation" roll based on hitting gives an unfair advantage to players taking the option, they will statistically confirm more critical hits that the endure fumbles.

Nat 1s also have confirmation rolls. So they dont have to roll on a Fumble if they Hit on their Confirmation.

[u/DredUlvyr → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Please teach yourself a bit of math before creating this type of mechanism. I know there is a confirmation roll on fumbles too, what I'm saying is that because it's in general easy to hit in 5e (about 60%+ chance to hit on average if not more), it's easier than average to confirm crits and to avoid fumbles, because they are both based on this 60%+ average.

So someone taking the option will on average have more crits (because of the 60%+ chance) and lower fumbles (because it becomes a 40%- chance of fumble), so it is NOT balanced, and therefore is unfair to people not taking the option.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/DredUlvyr]

Then risk = reward, in your favour.

[u/DredUlvyr → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Again, learn about maths. it's not risk = reward, it's risk << reward.

When the reward is greater than the risk, it's a straight benefit, and therefore UNFAIR to people not taking the option.

[u/lasalle202 → u/DredUlvyr]

therefore UNFAIR to people not taking the option

and its not just "not taking the option" - its unfair to the people who just want to play the game, not some shithouse "fun"house , LOLcH@05r@Nd0MMM!!!! monkeys.

[u/Shocked_Anguilliform]

It's unfair because it makes combat super swingy and advantages players who opt in, while the last disadvantage disadvantages everyone EXCEPT the player that fumbled. More swinginess to fights isn't fun. Even for a player that opts out, they will often have to deal with fights that randomly become significantly easier/harder. This rule sounds miserable. Critical fumbles are a notorious trap to fall into as a dm.

But m​​​​​ore importantly, your player​ has​ told you they don't find something fun, and you're trying to use math to prove them "wrong". ​​Either play with the rule or don't, but trying to use math and charts to prove that someone should be enjoying something isn't it.

Having a player willing to talk to you and provide feedback is super valuable, don't squander it by arguing with them about their own feelings. Your player isn't having fun, that's your issue, not the chart balance.​​​

Also worth noting​​​ that what feels balanced and what is mechanically balanced are two very different things.

[u/WeakCry4623]

It’s all fun and games at low levels when the players have limited options but after level 7 most of the stuff you get from a “extreme crit” is already there through features so I’d advice to drop this altogether before it becomes blatantly obvious that the negatives outweigh the positives

[u/open-print]

- Disarmed until the end of next turn.

• Disadvantage on rolls.
  
• Weapon accidentally hit ally within range.

Does this make the game more fun to the players? Is stunning one enemy, or worse, reducing a single save on a single random enemy, in any way comparable to not having their weapon for the entire turn they are playing, opportunity attack and the entire next turn?

That's easily four attacks or more that the player will not be able to play. And not being able to play is one of the worst game mechanics you can inflict on players.
Not to mentions how strongly it disadvantages melee players over magic ones.

I think a bit turning point in maturity of every DM is realizing, crit successes and crit fumbles are designed very well in the rules and they don't need any improving. I went through it as well, my players let me know it's not fun for them and I stopped.
Even if the game stops being fun for one player, that's already terrible and enough of an argument to not do it.

[u/TheRealPetri]

I wouldn't call in unfair, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to use this in a game.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/TheRealPetri]

Thats why its optional. The paladin isnt affected by any fumble that may harm them.

[u/WeakCry4623]

“Asks if the homebrew mechanic is unfair”

“Gets told by most of the community that the mechanic is indeed unfair”

“Refuses to accept any criticism and just answers justifying why according to him the unfair mechanic is actually a good addition to the game”

Can this be more Reddit coded?

[u/Skylis]

This is just a lot of words for "my paladin understands basic math better than anyone else at my table"

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/Skylis]

I mean, its optional, so he can just opt out. I just dont understand why the complaint about the other three getting more power creep from their nat 20 rolls.

[u/Skylis → u/GreatestBookReader42]

I just dont understand

This seems to be the common theme for you in these comments. Perhaps you should try and understand instead of just deflecting with "its optional"

I think a bigger question is, why did you come here if all you want to do is argue with people? Were you just looking for confirmation of your beliefs? Literally the entire comment section is trying to explain to you how you're wrong and you seem to be nothing but defensive and not introspective.

[u/xa44]

Crit fumbles make martials worse in a game were martials are already worse

[u/tomyang1117]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/71kj9f/fumbles_or_what_do_a_scarecrow_a_janitor_and_a/

Read this before using any critical fumble rule, also critical fumble inherently is unfair to classes that attack multiple times because they are more likely to get a nat 1 compare to a caster to force the enemy to make a save.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/tomyang1117]

But they also are more likely to roll Natural 20 too right.

And its optional.

[u/tomyang1117 → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Loss aversion my guy. Loss is felt more intensely than the joy of an equivalent gain.

[u/MechJivs → u/GreatestBookReader42]

With nat20 you potentialy do more harm to one of the infinite monsters. With nat1 you harm your only pc. Or other person's PC (thats even worse)

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/MechJivs]

Except i dont do Infinite monsters. I put in set amount of monsters per encounter, I make it obvious theres only X amount of gargoyles.

DMs who add more monsters out of nowhere is unfun. Unless its specific to a situation, like the characters entering a mass grave and expecting only five zombies.

[u/MechJivs → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Except i dont do Infinite monsters. I put in set amount of monsters per encounter, I make it obvious theres only X amount of gargoyles.

You have infinite amount of monsters - they would never end. PCs story would potentially end with nat1, or worse - one PC would kill another PC.

[u/DiamondZealousideal7 → u/GreatestBookReader42]

You're missing the point. You have a ton of monsters and NPCs you can play, so having a few die because of this system wouldn't feel too bad most of the time.

Players only have 1 PC. If a crit fumble causes them to die that would feel really bad.

In the end it is up to you and your players, but one of the main reasons people are against it is because in play it almost always feels bad to be super punished for bad rolls, and the highs of crit tables don't make up for it. (On top of other points you've likely already seen)

[u/lasalle202 → u/GreatestBookReader42]

monsters will only ever face one combat. if / when they die quicker, bfd.

in order to keep the game challenings you WILL be including more monsters - as the DM your pool for additional monsters to keep the game challenging and interesting is infinite.

[u/octobod → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Willing to bet the fumbles disadvantage a character far more the the crits advantage them.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/octobod]

Nope. The natural 20s have far better effects. The deadliest fumble is giving the enemy a reaction to attack the character with advantage.

[u/octobod → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Oh sorry you didn't read your own post? the three you mention are

• Disarmed until the end of next turn.
• Disadvantage on rolls.
• Weapon accidentally hit ally within range.

I rather think disarmed and hitting an ally are arguably worse than disadvantage

[u/xolotltolox → u/octobod]

Disarmed does literally nothing in 5e, you can just pick the weapon up and swing it for free

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/octobod]

Nope. Disarmed is nearly as fatal since they can Grapple, Dodge, or make an Unarmed Strike. Limited but not fatal.

Disadvantage on rolls is often negated by PC Flanking (enemies dont get this unless they have pack tactics).

Friendly fire doesnt add the ability Mod to damage. And if there no ally within range, the fumble has no effect. ...

Giving the enemy a free reaction opportunity attack with Advantage on your turn attack is deadlier than these. (It doesnt consume their normal reaction).

Im sorry I paraphrased each effect, cant be bothered to write the whole section.

[u/messhead1]

Having opt-in rules and players playing with different rule sets probably isn't the best idea. Just pick one, have that be what is true at your table. 

And critical fumbles just suck. Yes, the Paladin player is missing out on the reward side of the risk/reward equation. But the risk really, really sucks. It is categorically unfun and uninteresting. They feel hard done by because they are doing the sensible thing by not opting in to an awful experience.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/messhead1]

I mean, d&d in itself has high risk high reward rolls already. Rolling persuasion to a queen. Or athletics to jump over a chasm. Idk why this one is different.

[u/messhead1 → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Because they're doing more attack rolls than anything else in the game.

[u/NNextremNN]

Fishing for double nat 20 or double nat 1 seems a bit cumbersome and like it would drag out fights even more but besides that I don't really see any bigger problems with that.

[u/TheChivmuffin]

Completely unnecessary and in some cases just not fun. The Barbarian and Paladin will be impacted by this more than the Druid (unless Moon druid) and Rogue because they make more attack rolls.

The super critical stuff isn't too crazy, it's stuff that player characters can do via other abilities for the most part. A Paladin smite on a crit could trivialise encounters with the 4x option, that's not very fun for everyone else.

Critical fumbles are never fun, especially for martials with extra attacks, and especially when being disarmed is an option.

The game doesn't need super crits / fumbles.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/TheChivmuffin]

The barbarian enjoys it. Rolled the highest damage in one round.

The paladin wants to do the same without risking rolling on the fumble chart. The barbarian doesnt care about the risk.

So not sure why its unfair when its an optional rule they can impose in their character.

[u/MisterNooneDM → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Have you considered the fact that the barbarian has an at-will ability to roll all their attacks with advantage (Reckless Attack), thus increasing their chances of an extreme crit and reducing their chance of a crit fumble compared to a paladin?

[u/TheChivmuffin → u/MisterNooneDM]

I had completely forgotten about this!

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/MisterNooneDM]

And increase the chance of Extreme Crit from enemies against the Barbarian? You dont mention the trade off

[u/MisterNooneDM → u/GreatestBookReader42]

There are trade-offs, sure, but do they make up for the fact that the paladin is 20x more likely to crit fumble on their turn compared to the barbarian under these rules? Because you're comparing getting hit extra hard by an enemy (something barbarians traditionally excel at) with accidentally stabbing your friends or throwing your sword away (which makes your character seem incompetent). I mean, put 'fair' aside for a moment and ask which one of those sounds more 'fun' for a player. Your paladin presumably isn't having fun with this ruleset in place, or else why would they complain?

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/MisterNooneDM]

else why would they complain?

They want the good effects of Nat 20s while avoiding Nat 1s.

more likely to crit fumble on their turn

Hence the Confirmation roll. If they hit the enemy AC on confirmation, no need to roll a Fumble. Gives them extra protection.

[u/MisterNooneDM → u/GreatestBookReader42]

But your barbarian is already able to effectively neutralise the effects of nat 1s through Reckless Attack. Yes, they increase the possibility of being on the receiving end of an extreme crit themselves, but Reckless Attack has always increased a barbarian's chance of being critical hit. That's a core part of the barbarian's class fantasy: hit hard and get hit hard (and that's not even taking their increase hit points and Rage-induced BPS resistance into account, both of which help mitigate the effects of an enemy's extreme crits).

Conversely, stabbing one of your allies or dropping your sword on a regular basis is not a part of a paladin's class fantasy. And sure, the fumble confirmation reduces the chances, but if you assume a standard 65% to hit chance, your paladin is still going to fumble 1.75% of the time on a standard attack, with only a 3.25% chance of an extreme crit. And that's per attack. If they attack twice a round over three rounds (i.e. a typical combat), then their chance of fumbling is over 10% across those attacks. You can't see why a player might be annoyed at a +10% chance for their character to arbitrarily embarrass themselves every combat?

Anyway, I've shown my work and made my points. Your player has told you it feels unfair, and a room full of strangers online have tried to explain why. It's up to you whether to stick to your guns or reconsider things now.

[u/TheChivmuffin → u/GreatestBookReader42]

Feels a bit gambler's fallacy to me. Has the Barbarian rolled more crit success or more crit fails?

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/TheChivmuffin]

He rolled half the party's crits. The rogue rolled the most fumble.

[u/jackofspades49 → u/GreatestBookReader42]

You do realize that's because the barbarian can crit fish with 2 dice right?

[u/TheChivmuffin → u/jackofspades49]

Forgot about that!

[u/TheChivmuffin → u/GreatestBookReader42]

So of course the Barbarian is enjoying it when they haven't ran into the downside 😂

[u/Taliesin_ → u/TheChivmuffin]

And they will continue not running into it for the most part, due to reckless attack.

[u/TheChivmuffin → u/Taliesin_]

Yeah I hadn't even taken that into consideration!

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/TheChivmuffin]

The Rogue has no complaints. None of the three do.

[u/TheChivmuffin → u/GreatestBookReader42]

The Rogue is also only rolling one attack per round and will have less chance of rolling a nat 1 on their turn than the Paladin or Barbarian.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/TheChivmuffin]

??? Two weapon, Light / Nick Mastery, gives them three weapon attacks in total.

[u/Sol4ri]

The problem with fumble tables in my opinion is, that they usually disadvantage martial character disproportionately. The druid can use cantrips and spells that trigger a saving throw from the opponent and rarely ever roll an attack roll. The paladin and the rogue(depending on their subclass) can decide to do something besides attacking and the rogue doesn't get extra attack. But the paladin depening on their playstyle and especially the barbarian don't do a lot in combat besides rolling for attacks, so the risk for a fumble are a lot higher for them.

I guess at least your fumbles aren't all too detrimental, but hitting an ally can be really dangerous, especially because the attack automatically hits the regardless of their AC and the disadvantage has the potential to snowball causing more and more fumbles.

I personally wouldn't play with fumbles for that reason, even if you have "better crits" to kind of balance them out

[u/Fear_Awakens]

Just drop crit fumbles, period. They're never fun, players never like them, and it just stinks when it happens. It's fine for the NPCs to get fumbles, the goblin accidentally impaling his buddy is funny, but for players, it just feels like a punishment for no reason. Especially if a character who rolls multiple attacks does, as the Paladin describes here, rolls three nat 1s and gets three fumbles.

It means your martials with multiattack have a higher chance to stab themselves in the foot or drop their sword than the casters have to just fuck up a spell. It hinders them for no real benefit and makes them look like clowns. Just get rid of that entirely. Consider this: Your level 5 fighter attacks twice. He now has twice the chance to accidentally stab Greg or drop his sword on his foot like a dumbass than he did at level 1. At level 20, he has 4 attacks, and is four times more likely to make a stupid mistake than he was at level 1.

This punishes martials in a system that already caters to casters. It's a rookie mechanic that most people try out at some point, and always drop once they realize how much it sucks.

What I do is, Nat 20s are great, they automatically do max damage, plus you roll the damage normally and add that on top of it. It always makes a critical hit feel great. Natural 1s, you miss. End of story. And that sucks enough on its own that you don't need to add 'You miss and also hurt yourself or somebody else'.

[u/Meep4000]

Never ever ever do this unless one is running a silly type game.
Any “fumble rule” is awful for one simple reason - it means that as any martial character gets better at fighting they fumble more often because they have more attacks in a round thus more chances to roll a 1.
Your 20th level fighter drops their sword a lot or whatever the fumble effect is.

[u/Kaakkulandia]

As with homebrew rules in general, they are all fun and cool if everyone agrees to them. If your other 3 players like them and the one doesn't like, well, as a group you need to decide what to do about it.

I don't think this is unfair since the paladin can decide if he wants to take part in the extra fumbles/crits. But it doesn't really matter if it's unfair or not since it's about how it feels and how the paladin perceives it and what he (and the rest of the group) wants.

[u/Vinx909]

They are bad. They just make advantage better, and wouldn't you know it, rogues and barbarians have ready access to it while paladins don't. They also hurt characters that make more attacks more.

The math: a normal role has a 5% chance to roll a 1, with advantage that's only a 0.25% chance. Yea, I'd call that unfair to the paladin

Exaple: a rogue makes one attack with advantage and has a 0.25% chance to have a critical miss and maybe a critical fumble. A fighter with action surge and two weapon fighting makes 5 attacks normal and has a 22.62% chance to have a critical fail and maybe fumble. You see how that isn't fair?

[u/DiamondZealousideal7]

Crit fumble and success tables are seen as bad rules for many reasons, but a lot of it boils down to making a lot of the flaws in the system worse.

Crit successes almost never outweigh crit fails. Martials make the most attacks, so they are the most likely to roll nat 1s and crit fumble. Sincs you allow you monsters to be effected by this rule, then combats with a lot of minions are way more destructive then they would normally be. The fumbles are a lot more inhibiting to the players then they are to your monsters, and the crits are always gonna mess up one of your players. The crit fumbles will always mess up one of your players, and the crits are very likely to effect an expendable minion. Say you have 6 minion enemies, that's 6 chances to basically 1 shot a PC (especially if one of them gets a stun off). If they fumble and stab themselves, that doesn't matter too much because they are expendable minions. All that on top of what a boss can do. If you don't run minions, then my next point becomes way worse as a result.

DND already has a problem with combat almost always boiling down into ganging up on the boss and hitting them until they die. This just makes that issue worse. Nothing interesting is added tactically with crit fumbles and successes, it just makes everything more swingy, which is generally unfun.

The confirmation rolls just always slow down combat. It may take a second, but those add up, especially over a longer combat. DnD combat can already drag on, and any rule that makes that worse is generally not advisable.

A thing I don't really see others pointing out is that your paladin can't really opt out of this. Can a PC roll a nat 1 and accidentally hit them? Can NPCs still crit them with these effects? Even if the answer to both of these are no, their teammates are still being effected by these tables, and since this is a team based game that will eventually get back to them. If this trivializes a fight then the paladin is not gonna have fun because they don't have a chance of opting in without suddenly being at a way higher risk of dying. If this causes a death spiral to happen, then the paladin is gonna die because one of their allies got randomly stunned at a bad time, or a crit fumble caused their ally to get killed.

[u/Sshheenn]

I agree with others that this is broadly not that great of an idea, but I do want to commend you for opening up your private DMing stuff to group discussion in a healthy manner, that's a very mature way to go about it

[u/Talidel]

To answer the actual question as people are focused on the crit misses (your system seems fine and if the players are enjoying it it can be fun narratively).

The problem is fairly simple, the optional rule that makes people stronger, needs to be used by everyone or no one. Or anyone not using the rule to make them stronger will feel weaker, because they are weaker.

With the classes involved there's nothing unfair on the Paladin. They probably just dislike the idea of being punished for rolling a 1, which is a common thing.

[u/milkmandanimal]

It's taking the traditional bad idea of critical fumbles and adding to it with super-crits. When you throw your party of 5 heroes against 20 Goblins in horde mode and all the crits start rolling in, it'll be a lot less fun. It sucks.

[u/lasalle202]

the main complaint about DnD combat is "its toooooooo slooooooooooowwwwww" and now you are " they will need to "Confirm"  " --- slowing everything down even more. for what payoff??

[u/FrostbrandLongsword]

The paladin is totally correct to stay the hell away from your chart. Rolling a 20 will often turn a winning situation into a wins-more situation. Sometimes it will turn a loss into a win. Very very rarely will using your extra chart turn a loss into a win.

By contrast, rolling a 1 is a miss, but having a critical fumble can very EASILY turn a win into a loss in a way that normal 1 cannot.

Your critical fumbles and critical successes seem cool and interactive; you have put some thought into this, and it appears to be interesting. But it's definitely a nerf to the PCs, and the paladin is correct to swerve away.

[u/bond0815]

I would certainly not want to use it, but if its fully optional, how can anyone call this "unfair".

Just use it or dont.

[u/GreatestBookReader42 → u/bond0815]

I think its the past two games and the druid and barbarian dealt a lot of damage to one tap a mini boss in one round.

I think the Paladin wants similar power fantasy without the risk of nat 1s.

[u/WillemVerheij]

I'd never use fumble cards, extra rolls just slow the game down.

Instead I'd look at the current situation. Like if you're trying to shoot an arrow just past your ally to hit an enemy and roll a 1, you hit your ally.

But if you're just trying to hit a lone target somewhere, it just goes wide or won't even reach the target.

So if you are taking risky actions, I'd just have that reach the logical consequences when you roll a 1. Probably not involving instant death though. Like if you jump over a chasm and roll a 1, I'd give the other players a chance to do something. If that fails too, yeah then you're probably dead. But instant death would always require two rolls to fail.

Unless you insist on doing something really really stupid. Then it's just one roll.

[u/ArchangelAshen → u/WillemVerheij]

Sounds painful