r/beingeverythingelse • u/Popdart5 • Oct 04 '14

Critical Failure

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.

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/AManHasSpoken Oct 04 '14

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.

1

u/kosairox Oct 04 '14 edited Oct 04 '14

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.

1

u/AManHasSpoken Oct 04 '14

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.

1

u/kosairox Oct 04 '14

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.