I found a Nat 20 hit chart so I wanted to make my own Nat 1 attack chart incase my players or monsters rolled a 1 to hit. The purpose of the chart of course is to spice up combat, so I am posting it here for you all to use if you want.
Nat 1s in attack rolls. (1d6)
1: The attacker is disarmed and the weapon travels in the direction the attacker was attacking for 5ft x STR modifier. (Min of 0ft.)
2: The attack misses and instead hits a new target within 5ft of the origional target. Reroll to attack the new target.
3: A insect or peice of dust flies into the attackers eye. The attacker is now blinded until the start of their next turn.
4: The attack is so predictable that the target may make a unarmed Strike (or normal attack, depending on whether it has an attack that substitutes an unarmed strike, like a claw or tentacle) against the attacker as a reaction.
5: The attacker gets a flinch that causes them to waste their turn.
6: The attacker trips over their own feet and lands prone.
These sorts of house rules come up all the time, and my advice is the same: do not do this. For one, it is not fun for the players to end up looking like bumbling idiots rather than competent heroes. Second, it severely weakens weapon-users as contrasted with magic-users who usually don't make attack rolls (and the game is already stacked in favor of spellcasters). Third, it makes higher-level fighters extremely likely to fumble as they have more attacks per round.
A natural 1 is an automatic miss. That's penalty enough.
The fundamental problem with either of them is that natural 20s and 1s happen all the time. A 5% chance seems like a rare thing, but when you have multiple characters making multiple attack rolls over several rounds, on the average you're going to see at least one fumble per fight, no matter how skilled the characters are.
The natural 20 chart doesn't really balance it out. It just makes for more supposedly-unusual events happening each combat. (and natural 20s already have a significant boost by the rules.)
The other reason not to do this is because fumbles disproportionately hurt player characters. A random goblin fumbling and dropping its weapon doesn't really change a fight in any meaningful way. The paladin fumbling and dropping their Holy Avenger does, especially with this chart that would potentially force them to eat an opportunity attack getting it back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Valid point, but the inverse is also true. The final boss rolling a nat 1 could turn the tide in the parties favor, but still what you said is true. I already checked with my party, and they said they are cool with this rule. It hasn't come up much yet, but if it shows even a slight amount of being problematic, I'll drop it.
Fumbles also penalize martials way more than casters, as casters often force saves instead of making attack rolls. And it really screws fighters, and characters who dual wield, as they make even more attacks. The game is mathematically built to favor the PCs. Adding in an element of randomness punishes them far more than it does the monsters.
Just piling on, I agree with the others. Way back in the day, critical fumbles tables were all the rage - until people figured out they hurt the characters far more than the monsters, and just the characters that make attack rolls (weapon users). It's your game, you can do whatever you wish, and if your players are fine with it, then be my guest.
But there's a reason all of those charts and tables went the way of the dinosaurs in previous editions.
If you are going to use one, i would make a slight change. Have the chart simply give a reason WHY the nat 1 missed. i.e. a bug flew into the character's eye, and that's why they missed (describing the nat 1, but not adding any additional effects over and above the obvious miss), or your character momentarily loses their footing on the spilled blood on the smooth stone, they catch themself, but at the cost of missing.
I'm glad you all informed me that the chart is inherently flawed, but I would like to thank HarmAssassin and Platyboss for giving me advice on how to fix it. Anyhow, thanks for the warning, I'll keep it in mind.
Valid point, but the inverse is also true. The final boss rolling a nat 1 could turn the tide in the parties favor, but still what you said is true. I already checked with my party, and they said they are cool with this rule. It hasn't come up much yet, but if it shows even a slight amount of being problematic, I'll drop it.
The inverse situation isn't equivalent because the final boss only has to worry about one fight, while a PC has to worry about every fight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Critical failure effects tied to happenstance or attacker error can often end up unintentionally comedic or degrading which are most of what you listed except for 4 which has the defender act. I also generally think it's a bad idea to use allot of effects that completely prevent players from acting on their turn. It can often take a while to get around to your turn in combat and being skipped.
I personally prefer effects that emphasize competence and that shown with effects that let let the defending party act. That's effects like :
Allowing an attack of opportunity
Allowing free movement e.g 5ft, no attack of opportunity
Allowing the defender to make a shove , trip or disarm attack. In dnd those are athletic rolls
I also think you open yourself up to more design space if instead of it being a random table you instead assign a critical failure action to creatures. Then you have the option of a particularly skilled caster having a cantrip as their critical defence action. Of course as critical fails are so rare that this is more interesting when given to players than monsters.
Finally number 2. The ability to target a different creature can be a positive if another enemy is nearby. I'm not sure if this is intended.
In short a critical table for me would probably not be a random table but a set effect and probably wouldn't be universal but a feat, class or monster feature.
if you don't want to use Crit or Fumble tables that is your right as a DM the OP's Fumble table is laughably kind in comparison to some I have seen and used. To the OP if you want to use it go nuts it is a little tame for my tastes , but it your it is your table and your game . Thank you for sharing.
Yeah, in my experience critical fumble tables are often made in an attempt to be "dark", "serious" or " realistic" resulting in them being very graphic and punishing but that often ends up unintentionally funny. They result in butterfingers, monty python-esque dismemberment and characters crawling around on the floor looking for their weapon like Velma from scooby doo.
There is a reason many of the random tables in dnd are full of joke effects and references. Random tables aren't a serious mechanic, they give you the unexpected they don't give you consequence or tension. If you want to avoid it ending up funny you have to keep the effects pretty muted. They can still be impact full but you should be thinking things like " your grip is misaligned" as opposed to " you weapon flies out of your hand" or you " you hit yourself in your confusion" . Pokemon isn't grim dark
Bit of an off-the-wall idea here but what if you have a fairly punishing nat1 table, but where you also say that a nat 1 always hits?
Seems odd I know, but if you say "You hit, but..." to a nat 1, then the punishment is at least countered a little. So it might be "you hit, but the weapon becomes lodged in your opponent" or something like that. IDK if it would work or not...
Valid point, but the inverse is also true. The final boss rolling a nat 1 could turn the tide in the parties favor, but still what you said is true. I already checked with my party, and they said they are cool with this rule. It hasn't come up much yet, but if it shows even a slight amount of being problematic, I'll drop it.
Even if it did, is that fun? The players winning a fight against BBEG not because of anything they did but because he happened to roll a nat 1 and got a very bad fumble isn't a satisfying conclusion to an epic adventure. Imagine if Harry Potter ended with Voldmort tripping and falling onto his own wand and dying.. would anyone be happy with that conclusion?
Maybe if you are playing a surrealist-comedy game it would work, but outside of that it really isn't fun.
Bit of an off-the-wall idea here but what if you have a fairly punishing nat1 table, but where you also say that a nat 1 always hits?
Seems odd I know, but if you say "You hit, but..." to a nat 1, then the punishment is at least countered a little. So it might be "you hit, but the weapon becomes lodged in your opponent" or something like that. IDK if it would work or not...
Good idea, but I'd say if the player just misses the AC by 1 then you use that. However if you wish to make a table where it happens due to a nat one feel free too.
Valid point, but the inverse is also true. The final boss rolling a nat 1 could turn the tide in the parties favor, but still what you said is true. I already checked with my party, and they said they are cool with this rule. It hasn't come up much yet, but if it shows even a slight amount of being problematic, I'll drop it.
Even if it did, is that fun? The players winning a fight against BBEG not because of anything they did but because he happened to roll a nat 1 and got a very bad fumble isn't a satisfying conclusion to an epic adventure. Imagine if Harry Potter ended with Voldmort tripping and falling onto his own wand and dying.. would anyone be happy with that conclusion?
Maybe if you are playing a surrealist-comedy game it would work, but outside of that it really isn't fun.
I, for one, would be quite happy if Lord Voldemort accidentally ended up dying before Harry Potter had to go through all the trouble of getting the horcruxes.
Jokes aside, I think that this table doesn't have anything too destructive for the BBEG, but it has enough to possibly turn the tide of a losing battle.
(Oh yeah, you might also want to make a spellcaster critical fumble table, just so that they are going through the same stuff as the martials.)
I found a Nat 20 hit chart so I wanted to make my own Nat 1 attack chart incase my players or monsters rolled a 1 to hit. The purpose of the chart of course is to spice up combat, so I am posting it here for you all to use if you want.
Nat 1s in attack rolls. (1d6)
1: The attacker is disarmed and the weapon travels in the direction the attacker was attacking for 5ft x STR modifier. (Min of 0ft.)
2: The attack misses and instead hits a new target within 5ft of the origional target. Reroll to attack the new target.
3: A insect or peice of dust flies into the attackers eye. The attacker is now blinded until the start of their next turn.
4: The attack is so predictable that the target may make a unarmed Strike (or normal attack, depending on whether it has an attack that substitutes an unarmed strike, like a claw or tentacle) against the attacker as a reaction.
5: The attacker gets a flinch that causes them to waste their turn.
6: The attacker trips over their own feet and lands prone.
These sorts of house rules come up all the time, and my advice is the same: do not do this. For one, it is not fun for the players to end up looking like bumbling idiots rather than competent heroes. Second, it severely weakens weapon-users as contrasted with magic-users who usually don't make attack rolls (and the game is already stacked in favor of spellcasters). Third, it makes higher-level fighters extremely likely to fumble as they have more attacks per round.
A natural 1 is an automatic miss. That's penalty enough.
I also use a nat 20 chart to even it out, but thanks for the advice.
The fundamental problem with either of them is that natural 20s and 1s happen all the time. A 5% chance seems like a rare thing, but when you have multiple characters making multiple attack rolls over several rounds, on the average you're going to see at least one fumble per fight, no matter how skilled the characters are.
The natural 20 chart doesn't really balance it out. It just makes for more supposedly-unusual events happening each combat. (and natural 20s already have a significant boost by the rules.)
The other reason not to do this is because fumbles disproportionately hurt player characters. A random goblin fumbling and dropping its weapon doesn't really change a fight in any meaningful way. The paladin fumbling and dropping their Holy Avenger does, especially with this chart that would potentially force them to eat an opportunity attack getting it back.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Valid point, but the inverse is also true. The final boss rolling a nat 1 could turn the tide in the parties favor, but still what you said is true. I already checked with my party, and they said they are cool with this rule. It hasn't come up much yet, but if it shows even a slight amount of being problematic, I'll drop it.
Fumbles also penalize martials way more than casters, as casters often force saves instead of making attack rolls. And it really screws fighters, and characters who dual wield, as they make even more attacks.
The game is mathematically built to favor the PCs. Adding in an element of randomness punishes them far more than it does the monsters.
A 1 is already a miss. That’s punishment enough.
Just piling on, I agree with the others. Way back in the day, critical fumbles tables were all the rage - until people figured out they hurt the characters far more than the monsters, and just the characters that make attack rolls (weapon users). It's your game, you can do whatever you wish, and if your players are fine with it, then be my guest.
But there's a reason all of those charts and tables went the way of the dinosaurs in previous editions.
If you are going to use one, i would make a slight change. Have the chart simply give a reason WHY the nat 1 missed. i.e. a bug flew into the character's eye, and that's why they missed (describing the nat 1, but not adding any additional effects over and above the obvious miss), or your character momentarily loses their footing on the spilled blood on the smooth stone, they catch themself, but at the cost of missing.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Just rework the chart so that it's like this:
On a nat 1, you roll a d6. On another 1, you roll on the chart.
For monsters, rolling a 1 on the d20 is enough.
KOBOLDS WITH CANNONS! A RP thread about Small humanoids with Huge weapons.
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
I agree with literally every other commentator and say that this is a bad idea generally. But it all depends on your table, I suppose.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I'm glad you all informed me that the chart is inherently flawed, but I would like to thank HarmAssassin and Platyboss for giving me advice on how to fix it. Anyhow, thanks for the warning, I'll keep it in mind.
The inverse situation isn't equivalent because the final boss only has to worry about one fight, while a PC has to worry about every fight.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Critical failure effects tied to happenstance or attacker error can often end up unintentionally comedic or degrading which are most of what you listed except for 4 which has the defender act. I also generally think it's a bad idea to use allot of effects that completely prevent players from acting on their turn. It can often take a while to get around to your turn in combat and being skipped.
I personally prefer effects that emphasize competence and that shown with effects that let let the defending party act. That's effects like :
I also think you open yourself up to more design space if instead of it being a random table you instead assign a critical failure action to creatures. Then you have the option of a particularly skilled caster having a cantrip as their critical defence action. Of course as critical fails are so rare that this is more interesting when given to players than monsters.
Finally number 2. The ability to target a different creature can be a positive if another enemy is nearby. I'm not sure if this is intended.
In short a critical table for me would probably not be a random table but a set effect and probably wouldn't be universal but a feat, class or monster feature.
if you don't want to use Crit or Fumble tables that is your right as a DM the OP's Fumble table is laughably kind in comparison to some I have seen and used. To the OP if you want to use it go nuts it is a little tame for my tastes , but it your it is your table and your game . Thank you for sharing.
Yeah, in my experience critical fumble tables are often made in an attempt to be "dark", "serious" or " realistic" resulting in them being very graphic and punishing but that often ends up unintentionally funny. They result in butterfingers, monty python-esque dismemberment and characters crawling around on the floor looking for their weapon like Velma from scooby doo.
There is a reason many of the random tables in dnd are full of joke effects and references. Random tables aren't a serious mechanic, they give you the unexpected they don't give you consequence or tension. If you want to avoid it ending up funny you have to keep the effects pretty muted. They can still be impact full but you should be thinking things like " your grip is misaligned" as opposed to " you weapon flies out of your hand" or you " you hit yourself in your confusion" . Pokemon isn't grim dark
Bit of an off-the-wall idea here but what if you have a fairly punishing nat1 table, but where you also say that a nat 1 always hits?
Seems odd I know, but if you say "You hit, but..." to a nat 1, then the punishment is at least countered a little. So it might be "you hit, but the weapon becomes lodged in your opponent" or something like that. IDK if it would work or not...
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Even if it did, is that fun? The players winning a fight against BBEG not because of anything they did but because he happened to roll a nat 1 and got a very bad fumble isn't a satisfying conclusion to an epic adventure. Imagine if Harry Potter ended with Voldmort tripping and falling onto his own wand and dying.. would anyone be happy with that conclusion?
Maybe if you are playing a surrealist-comedy game it would work, but outside of that it really isn't fun.
Good idea, but I'd say if the player just misses the AC by 1 then you use that. However if you wish to make a table where it happens due to a nat one feel free too.
I, for one, would be quite happy if Lord Voldemort accidentally ended up dying before Harry Potter had to go through all the trouble of getting the horcruxes.
Jokes aside, I think that this table doesn't have anything too destructive for the BBEG, but it has enough to possibly turn the tide of a losing battle.
(Oh yeah, you might also want to make a spellcaster critical fumble table, just so that they are going through the same stuff as the martials.)
KOBOLDS WITH CANNONS! A RP thread about Small humanoids with Huge weapons.
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
or make it 1d10 7-10 nothing happens.