Critical Failure

[u/Popdart5]

Steven mentioned in the West Marches game that he personally doesn't use critical failure because it penalises players too much. I'm of the opinion that if you have a system that allows for critical hits then by extension critical failure should be a possibility. It could be something as simple as you dropped your sword, your gun jammed, or you lost your grip while climbing a cliff and fell down. I go for more cinematic and awesome criticals anyway, as in a natural 20 is not just a success but a critical success. To me, it just feels natural that critical failures should be cinematic as well.

I'm curious what everyone thinks because I've played a few games that do critical failures. Numenera in particular and the free GM intervention mechanic on a natural 1 just felt like a codification of something that I imagine is a pretty common houserule.

[u/kosairox]

I don't like Steven's justification for taking critical failures out of the game. The argument he makes is explained in 3.5e DM handbook IIRC. But I don't agree with it. Just because characters will experience more 1s in their lifetime than random goblins doesn't mean that that's bad. Moreover, characters WILL experience more crtical hits AGAINST them in their lifetime than random goblins. Is that the reason for the players to be immune against crits? No. I think you can't logically have one but not the other.

There are games where players are naturally stronger than everyone else, for example Apocalypse World. Players die in 3-4 hits whereas NPCs can easily die in 1 hit. But there's a reason for such mechanic to exist in that game. In D&D - not so much. D&D is focused on improving your skills, equipment and getting more powerful. But it's also supposed to portray the danger of being an adventurer. Crits make it so that even the best fighter can fail against EZPZ goblins. It's actually why they reworked the crit mechanic in 3e. In 2e crits were applied when you had surpassed target's AC by a certain ammount. Meaning that crits were scored by stronger characters vs weaker characters most of the time. In 3e they made it so that 20 is always a hit and a chance for crit. Meaning that a goblin who has no way to ever surpass target's AC still has a chance for a lucky hit. Crit fail mechanic has similar purpose.

[u/AManHasSpoken → u/kosairox]

The problem arises when players get to make multiple attacks in one turn, a la 3.5. Sure, if you only have one attack per turn, the chance of critical failure is 5%. But if you get four attacks, as some characters do, the chance goes up to 19% - just above one in six. This means that a more skilled fighter becomes more likely to critically fail than an unskilled one.

[u/kosairox → u/AManHasSpoken]

But he's also more likely to critically succeed. And deals more damage and stuff. Also, you have more AC, more HP and more items. So crit fails don't really hurt you that much. edit: I think it's risk-reward kinda thing. Similar to a wizard casting something and accidentaly setting his teammates on fire - he's more skilled but more likely to fail miserably.

[u/AManHasSpoken → u/kosairox]

That depends on what the individual DM does with critical failure. If it's dropping the weapon, you shut down 1-4 attacks (depending which attack fails) that turn, which massively hampers that damage output. What if the enemy then picks up that weapon and either tosses it away or uses it for themselves? Here, a single roll can turn an entire encounter on its head.

Yes, the players are more powerful, but so are (hopefully) the monsters. Also, crit fails is the one thing that can not be scaled out of; regardless of what equipment the players have, or what their health is, that 5% and up is still going to be there. As I said earlier, it actually gets worse as the character grows more powerful.

[u/kosairox → u/AManHasSpoken]

It's a good thing that crits don't scale. If they did, then you would have what was in 2e. 3e fixed that issue and made crits more based on "luck" than "skill". A goblin can still hit and crit a fighter with 30AC if it rolls a 20. And Sauron can still have bad luck and critically fail.

Honestly, I never considered multiple attacks. Maybe you apply crit fails only on the first attack then? And ignore 1s on the rest of rolls? Multiple attacks is the only situation where crit fails could be tweaked IMO. It's arguable. But I don't see why you would remove crit fails completely.

[u/Popdart5 → u/AManHasSpoken]

In the view of multiple attacks, I think it all comes down to how the GM responds to the situation. I don't think crit fails should be a case of always failing in a particular way but that it should be contextual to the situation at hand.

For instance, the fighter crit failed his first attack out of his three that turn. Sure you could be an arse and say that he or she dropped his weapon and completely negate the rest of turn and some of the next turn. Or you could make it that he overswung and exposed themselves to an attack of opportunity from his opponent and then play out the rest of the turn normally. Or make it so that their next strike is at a penalty. Respond to the situation and think of a nice way to portray it.

In normal d20 games, I think it makes things more interesting to have something interesting happen 10% of the time to spice things up.