First off, I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the DM forum, but as I'm not a DM, figured this was the safest bet.
Second, I'm very new to D&D, having only had two and a bit campaigns so far, all with the same DM.
Natural 1s can be pretty contentious, but some of the calls my DM has been making recently concerned me, so I'd like some advice from more experienced players. No one enjoys getting Nat 1s, but we're all prepared to accept a blooper on an ability check or a whiffed strike in combat. On more than one occasion in our last session though, the DM declared results that felt like punishments, and sidetracked the campaign for 15-30 minutes to resolve. Some examples:
A fighter making his way from an inn through an unfamiliar town rolled an 18 Perception. Next round, he rolled a Nat 1, and the DM declared he got lost, gave up, marched back to the inn, got locked in the toilet, and the door handle broke. The door handle broke not as part of a subsequent low roll; just broke as part of that original Nat 1. Cue the rest of the players waiting while an increasingly frustrating scene resolved, with their characters waiting on the edge of town for another hour with no RP.
In combat, a Rogue Nat1ed a knife strike with sneak attack. DM declared the knife snapped, AND stabbed the Rogue. DM then declared the accidental stabbing be treated as a full strike WITH the additional sneak attack damage.
The session's final encounter was our three-man level 3 party vs a basilisk, in a 25x25 room with no cover. Despite the fighter engaging it in melee from one side with the rest of the party on the other, DM declared that the basilisk looked around the whole room every turn, forcing all the players to make CON saves regardless of position. This resulted in a near-TPK, with the Rogue and Bard frozen and the Fighter having to survive death saves.
DM then repeatedly insisted the party only won because DM forgot to apply poison damage from the basilisk bites.
This is session 2 of the current campaign.
So, is this acceptable DMing, or should I just get in the Wahmbulance?
Strictly speaking, it’s a simple miss or a simple failure when a natural 1 is rolled. There is nothing more to it RAW. That said, plenty of tables like to house rule “for more fun”. That said, this seems a bit much even for the most punitive interpretation of a critical failure, especially for the fighter.
Acceptable DM’ing is highly subjective. Are you having fun? How much are you willing to risk that fun for potential conflict with your DM? Do you think speaking to your DM about this matter will be constructive? These are questions only you know the answers to. Based on those, you’ll have to decide whether to say something or suck it up on the wahmbulance.
A further consideration, IMHO, is that DM’ing is much more difficult than playing. You may not be able to find a different DM. Even if you do, there’s no guarantee that DM will be much different or better. Are you prepared for the risk of no game at all? Are you prepared to DM if it’s a matter of no game at all otherwise? Many people will tell you no D&D is better than bad D&D. While I agree in principle, the challenge of DM’ing, the resultant dearth of DM’s and my utter unwillingness to DM mean that my bar for “bad D&D” is set accommodatingly low.
Your DM is taking away player agency and is making the game less fun.
When the fighter rolled a natural 1 it’s fine to say he’s completely lost and he can’t remember how to get back to the inn and ask what he’s doing. It’s not Ok for the DM to play the fighter, which is what he did. Player Agency where they control what their characters do is important for the game to be fun and it sounds like your DM is taking that away from you.
It also sounds like your DM has an adversarial “me against the players” style of DMing which I dislike when I’m playing instead of DMing. It’s easy for the DM to do a TPK, and making up rules on the fly that make the players feel helpless is just cheating. There’s no WAY a Basilisk is smart enough to circle the entire room to target every PC when the PCs are encircling it. They’re stupid and the DM should have been playing it that way!
Nat 1 with attack rolls just means automatic miss (nat 20 means auto hit and crit damage). Nat 1 (and nat 20) for any other roll is just the number you add your modifier to to determine results.
If you have a +20 stealth modifier (not impossible for a ranger with expertise and pass without trace) and roll a nat 1, that is a 21 stealth check, likely to succeed whatever it needed to. Normally, a nat 1 in an non-proficient skill will result in a 2-5 which is still a failure, but just a failure.
Critical success/failure for other rolls is a common house rule though. Ask your DM what all their house rules are.
It sounds like you also have a problem with needing to make multiple checks for 1 task. This is unusual unless it is to determine how long it takes to succeed.
As for the basilisk, that is actually how the monster works, your character can choose to not look at it (and the basilisk be treated as an unseen attacker/target for the round). Hopefully your DM volunteered this information or hinted at it.
It's questionable DMing to me for sure. While the DM is free to resolve the outcome of any attack roll, saving throw or ability check that is a natural 1, the rules don't have any consequences beyond missing or failing, and the DMG offer different variant rule for Hitting Cover, which never target the attacker itself. Also, if consequences are determined, i find it is a rather long stretch to have multiple bad lucks coming from it. Normally, the outcome of a check correspond to a task or activity alone, not subsequent ones. If a Wisdom (Perception) check to find your way result in a critical failure and end up lost, it should not have any incidence on wether an handle breaks or not when trying to open a door later. Such outcome would be more as a result from critically failing to pick the lock or force it open with a Strenght or Dexterity check when subsequently attemped for exemple.
As for the Basilisk, it affects any creature starting its turn within 30 ft. of it, but one can also avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw but won't be able to see it until the start of its next turn.
A fighter making his way from an inn through an unfamiliar town rolled an 18 Perception. Next round, he rolled a Nat 1, and the DM declared he got lost, gave up, marched back to the inn, got locked in the toilet, and the door handle broke. The door handle broke not as part of a subsequent low roll; just broke as part of that original Nat 1. Cue the rest of the players waiting while an increasingly frustrating scene resolved, with their characters waiting on the edge of town for another hour with no RP.
In combat, a Rogue Nat1ed a knife strike with sneak attack. DM declared the knife snapped, AND stabbed the Rogue. DM then declared the accidental stabbing be treated as a full strike WITH the additional sneak attack damage.
As Tim said, both these sound like a DM who is trying to make life miserable for their players and is trying to make them "lose", rather than collaborate with them on a story
The first example bothers me more than the second, really. Having them make multiple checks just to leave town and meet up at a rendezvous point is kind of nonsense out of the gate, no matter how "unfamiliar" the town is. It sounds like a DM who's going to keep forcing rolls until they get the result they want. Deciding the fighter got lost on a bad failure is fine; deciding for them what they do when they realize they're lost is, again, nonsense. Personally, I would likely have made a mental note at that point this would be my last session with that DM, regardless of what else happened
In the second example, if they have a house rule that a nat 1 in combat results in full damage... I mean it's sketchy, but fine, so long as it applies to the monsters too
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Agree with most, it seems the DM is being quite adversarial with you guys and I, personally think it's bad DM-ing. I do Nat 1 bloopers too usually, but mostly it's flavor, those "one of" situation, where the Fighter rolls a Nat 1 on an attack and maybe I move him to the adjacent square, as he stumbles a bit on the swing. I wouldn't do anything to slow the entire group (well, maybe a Nat 1 on Nature when traveling in the woods would delay them as a group) and I especially wouldn't get one character a half hour or so of solo play.
Might be time to ask about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
How long before it goes from "we're making extra rolls we shouldn't need to make," and "nat 1s result in the DM playing our characters," and turns into "we're just rolling pointless d20 rolls until we nat 1 so the DM can decide what we do"?
As ever, you should consider talking it out. Something like, "I don't expect to always win, but maintaining control over my character is important to me, even if I'm going to lose." No point setting it up as a "you're doing something objectively wrong, now fix it," even if that is basically how I feel about it. People don't respond well to that.
Self-destructive nat 1 attack rolls are a deal breaker for me. Everyone's allowed to have whatever deal breakers they want, whether other people think they're reasonable or not. These things you describe are pretty common deal breakers for people though. But I'm sure there must also be lots of people for whom they're not -- we just don't hear much from those folks, because they're not asking the internet what to do, because they're not bothered.
There are a few things to perhaps discuss with your DM.
First though - RAW - natural 1's automatically miss for attack rolls and have no special effects on skill checks. Similarly, a natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit and a natural 20 on a skill check also doesn't do anything special.
Anything beyond that is homebrew - which is perfectly ok but the DM should let the players know.
In this particular case, the DM appears to be be taking the fun out of the game for the players by imposing onerous consequences (which they likely think are funny but the players don't). For example, how can rolling a 1 on a perception check while walking around the town have ANY impact on whether the handle of a bathroom at the inn breaks? That entire sequence is just the DM narrating some unrelated and frankly stupid consequence for happening to roll a 1 on something totally separate.
In the basilisk case, the basilisk can affect every creature within 30' every turn but the characters have the option to close their eyes or look away from the basilisk and attack it with disadvantage. Alternatively, the easiest way to deal with one is to have a caster throw up a fog cloud in the room. RAW, since you can't see the basilisk and they can't see you, every attack is still a straight roll but the gaze attack is ineffective.
The attack roll by the rogue is just a DM being a bad DM. Why the DM would think the players might ever find it fun to accidentally sneak attack themselves - or how they imagine that could possibly happen in the first place - just makes it clear that the DM is missing the point in this case.
There are critical hit and miss tables that some folks have developed to apply special effects when a 1 or 20 is rolled. If the DM and players want the mechanic then I would go that route but having the DM make up consequences that harm characters just for the "fun" of it - is not "fun" at all for those suffering through it.
However, you mentioned playing 2 1/2 campaigns with the same DM - if they didn't run things this way before, you might want to see what has changed? Perhaps the DM is feeling burned out from having to DM all the time, would like to play but no one is stepping up, so they just mess with the game out of an urge towards frustration because they aren't having a good time but don't want to let everyone else down by explaining it all and ending the game.
My team and I have a fumble chart that we sometimes use in battle... and all the things that could happen aren't necessarily bad (nothing is fatal but damage to yourself or others could be a possibility) and to be clear this is for attacks not saving throws (you suffering whatever that is, is punishment enough).
Outside of combat normally just funny things happen... the most damage that has ever happened was one point of damage (cant quite remember someone was trying to do something super cool and ended up face planting instead)... and the characters were five or higher (which makes that less of an issue) and it's something our table is okay with.
Op's DM however does not seem like someone either myself or the majority of my table would ever consider playing with... just seems to have a him versus you mind set...
A fighter making his way from an inn through an unfamiliar town rolled an 18 Perception. Next round, he rolled a Nat 1, and the DM declared he got lost, gave up, marched back to the inn, got locked in the toilet, and the door handle broke.
The DM telling the player he gave up is bad DMing, full stop. The DM should never tell a player what decisions they make unless the PC is under a mind control effect. You address this by explaining to the DM that unless something in-character has robbed you of agency, you should always retain agency, and you won't continue to play if he continues to violate this tenet.
Having a player get lost on a bad Perception check is bad rules enforcement. The correct check for not getting lost is Survival. You address this by explaining the rules to the DM to make sure they're aware so when they choose to house rule, it's a deliberate choice.
The door handle broke not as part of a subsequent low roll; just broke as part of that original Nat 1. Cue the rest of the players waiting while an increasingly frustrating scene resolved, with their characters waiting on the edge of town for another hour with no RP.
In combat, a Rogue Nat1ed a knife strike with sneak attack. DM declared the knife snapped, AND stabbed the Rogue. DM then declared the accidental stabbing be treated as a full strike WITH the additional sneak attack damage.
Natural 1s on attack rolls causing negative consequences beyond a miss means that the more attacks you make the worse you are at combat - i.e. when your party's Fighter reaches level 5, he'll become worse at combat, because he'll nearly triple the number of times he rolls a natural 1 when he attacks (and the negative consequences will, apparently, generally mean losing his weapon and hurting a team-mate). This is only exacerbated when he reaches making 3 attacks and then 4 at higher levels - and that's without Action Surge. 5E is fundamentally built on the assumption that making more attacks is desirable, not undesirable. However, this is entirely a balance issue - there's nothing intrinsically wrong, from a roleplay perspective, from a natural 1 having dire consequences. You should explain to your DM that this is the natural result of the house rule, and ask if they're going to keep it. If your DM keeps it, demand to rebuild so you're no longer a martial who has to attack to credibly contribute in combat, and instead roll a caster with save-based offensive spells, so your enemies have to deal with natural 1s, not you.
The session's final encounter was our three-man level 3 party vs a basilisk, in a 25x25 room with no cover. Despite the fighter engaging it in melee from one side with the rest of the party on the other, DM declared that the basilisk looked around the whole room every turn, forcing all the players to make CON saves regardless of position. This resulted in a near-TPK, with the Rogue and Bard frozen and the Fighter having to survive death saves.
"Looking around the whole room" is indeed how 5E works - you don't lock in a direction you're looking in. A basilisk is CR 3, which means your party, starting fresh, is assumed to treat one as a "Hard" fight, worth 700 points out of your adventuring day's 3600 point budget. Any buffs to the basilisk would make it worth more. Here are the actual rules for your Fighter, Rogue, and Bard fighting one - I have no working knowledge of how you reached making death saves. This is taken from the basilisk entry I linked here, modified to be easier to read and leaving out additional text to emphasize how you fight one (read the actual link entry for a full and proper understanding).
If a PC starts its turn within 30 feet of the basilisk and the basilisk isn't incapacitated, the PC must make a DC 12 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the PC is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the PC is permanently petrified.
A PC that isn't surprised can avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw at the start of its turn. If it does so, it can't see the basilisk until the start of its next turn, when it can avert its eyes again. If it looks at the basilisk in the meantime, it must immediately make the save.
If the basilisk sees its reflection within 30 feet of it in bright light, it mistakes itself for a rival and targets itself with its gaze.
Restrained is very bad for you, but your DM should absolutely have explicitly mentioned that it was locking eyes with you, to at least hint that your eyes had to meet for the effect to happen, so you could work out that rendering yourself unable to see it would also block the petrification. Your DM had no reason to emphasize the range limitation on the gaze. Note that a basilisk trying to kill a petrified PC gets a bit weird: the basilisk attacks at advantage, and on a hit deals 2d6+3 piercing damage which is halved due you having resistance (you're immune to the poison damage it would also try to deal).
Without knowing more, it sounds a lot like you handled your basic tactics poorly and got punished for it. Assuming the party was as tapped as possible for this fight, basic tactics should have worked like this (ignoring subclasses, as you didn't specify):
The bard casts minor illusion to block line of sight - this isn't even basilisk-specific, it's fighting 101 when supporting a rogue in the party - and spams vicious mockery otherwise. This is generally good tactics that in particular will also ruin a basilisk's day. Remember not to rush into a room without a good reason; I don't know how large the entrance to this room was, but if it had a 5x5 doorway, you 100% should have concealed the doorway and inspected it from outside as a matter of course.
Your bard should have a +3 to Con saves, which should mean the basilisk's odds of petrifying them are 40% to land the restrained and then 40% to petrify fully.
Your bard should have a bare minimum of +0 to the relevant Animal Handling check to keep the Basilisk from getting angry and likewise +0 to the History/Nature/Arcana check (as the DM deems appropriate) to figure out that they're looking at a Basilisk and that Basilisk gazes are very dangerous. Your bard should also have a bare minimum of +4 to Stealth when sneaking up to examine the Basilisk.
The rogue should hide behind the illusion and snipe.
It's less weird if the Rogue hasn't got a +3 to Con saves than for the Bard, who needs to Concentrate, but even so, they should have a decent save.
The fighter should stand in front to tank. Prior to level 5 their DPR isn't worth discussing compared to a Rogue without Action Surge and remember, I'm assuming a tapped party. Hold up a shield and wait.
Special mention: once the fighter gets the basilisk in melee range - and this is basilisk-specific advice fueled by the DM explaining that gazes need to be met - the fighter should stop looking at the basilisk and grapple. If they can maintain the grapple - and if nothing else, the basilisk may choose to bite instead of contest once the grapple is up - they should shove the basilisk prone. So long as the basilisk can be held down, melee attacks against it can be made as flat rolls without looking at the thing - and you don't need to look at it to grapple or shove.
Final note: how didn't you TPK? If two of you were petrified and the third was rolling death saves, you all should have been lunch.
DM then repeatedly insisted the party only won because DM forgot to apply poison damage from the basilisk bites.
This is session 2 of the current campaign.
So, is this acceptable DMing, or should I just get in the Wahmbulance?
Depends. I outlined how Basilisks should work above - if your DM deviated from explaining the gaze mechanic that's a relatively serious narrative oversight in terms of combat balance, and I outlined how Basilisks should work. If they upgraded the petrification without correcting its CR, that's a potentially absolutely deadly mistake in encounter design.
How your DM is treating natural 1s on attack rolls is bad game design, but is popular with DMs. I outlined how to address it.
How your DM is treating natural 1s on ability checks is absolutely unacceptable DMing and they should be confronted about it. Robbing of you of agency is wildly inappropriate.
The nat 1 thing bothers me a lot; personally I'm a fan of nat 1's as auto-fails on skill checks (even with reliable talent, silver tongue and similar) because no amount of experience at something means you can't mess it up, but that's 100% a house rule.
But for me a natural 1 is a failure with salt in the wound; it's a Persuasion check where your Bard con-man who can talk his way out of anything accidentally calls someone by the name of their worst enemy, it's where the nimble halfling Rogue who can backflip his way through a room of moving disintegration beams, doesn't quite manage to leap up onto a table. For attacks I'll sometimes expect things like a secondary roll to see if a weapon is dropped or was damaged (e.g- bowstring snapped, requiring repair out of combat), if the target had cover because of an ally in the path then maybe a roll to see if they got hit instead and so-on.
The whole "you got lost and then locked in a toilet" is way over the top, and sounds like a DM getting carried away with trying to be clever or funny, but forgetting that characters are personal things for players, the DM should never just take control of them (not without certain spells and effects, at least). You don't play D&D to feel like a jackass (unless that's the character you built I guess), you play to feel like a hero, like a smooth operator, a badass etc., a failure should be a reasonable mistake given the circumstances, a "critical failure" should be basically the same but a bit worse, but it should be something that a player can still deal with somehow (or try to style out, if they choose to). If something you thought would be cool doesn't go right, you can throw in your excuses, if an attack fails miserably you can steel yourself to do better next round etc.
But yeah, they this is all hypothetical "how the game should be run when using the common 'nat ones are extra bad' house-rule", as none of this is rules as written beyond the DM being the one who describes the outcome of a success or failure.
I'd try the second session to see if it's just a case of getting carried away the first time, but if anything similar happens, always feel free to say "but that's not what my character would do, they'd do X" or "you're playing my character for me" or whatever. You might also ask some of the other players privately if they feel the same about the first session was run; if something similar comes up again and several of you agree that it feels like the wrong way to handle it, then the DM should be more likely to accept that it's not just one player being difficult. The trick is avoiding trying to make it sound accusatory or confrontational; one technique you might try is if your DM says X happens to your character, suggest Y instead, they may accept a suggestion.
I feel your pain. Simply it was like one of my earliest D&D campaigns. The DM was constantly making things difficult for players to the point where nothing worked (most of us were newbies, so advance tactics someone else was writing...we weren't there).
From experience, if your DM is an approachable person, then go ahead and voice your opinions. Only a handful DMs I have met do that and keep that line of communication always open. That will get issues resolved quicker and things will be improving after that.
On the other hand, most likely as someone else mentioned, players will not tell the DM about that. Personally, that campaign did not end well. Players started to disappear, everybody then complained and made it obvious why they were not enjoying. All bubbles pop eventually.
Some people may say "NO DMs is the worst DM". But then NO DMs makes you a BETTER DM, simply now you know that's not an acceptable behaviour as a DM and you will avoid that.
What I can suggest: discuss with your group of players first, if they all find it troubling, then ask the DM politely to stop doing all those things. It does work a few times and we had fun in the end.
For me as a DM, CritFail can be settled with a table aka Fumble chart. Just create one and roll. Done. Just make sure, whatever the outcome will be, it's not damaging or devastating to a point beyond saving (one of my DMs did add something like you cut your other hand after the swing @1d2/4 or you hit too hard that your weapon stuck, you need to roll str check next turn and use action to retrieve your weapon etc.). Otherwise, if the group is rather relaxing, a CritFail is a moment of comedic failure: "Sadly, Adrian did not aim too carefully with his sling, it hits Cory by his balls, dealing 2 dmg. Cory cries out loud and falls to his feet. He is now prone and he has dropped his concentration." // "As Xerxi attempts to stab the orc from behind, she trips herself at the last few feet and her face lands right onto his butt cheek. On the way down, she pulls his pants off by accident and he is left with his underpants on." (OoC, a player made a joke: it deals 2 dmg to Cory, but it hurts like taking 20 dmg. Cory rolls side to side, with his hands covering his face and holding back his tears, as he drops to the ground. He screams, "MOMMY~~~~~~I can't give you the grandchildren you always wanted, I just got neutered~~~! AHHHHHHHHHHH!" XD)
As for the hour of no RP, personally I offer solo RP sessions in downtime so that players can RP as much and explore everything I have to offer in my world. I don't really recommend this approach unless you have MUCH time to free up for your players. Seriously, it was painful, but mostly enjoyable and satisfying.
As for the basilisk, I don't think normal monsters are that smart...unless the monsters have been trained or manipulated via a spell...that 360 death stare makes no sense. No animals give a 360 scan every time they do anything (except for the owls, certain insects and some other animals...but even they don't do that 360 perimeter sweep when they have a target locked on//a threat to deal with).
Whatever advice you will take, I hope you will find a more pleasant campaign from your next DM or that same DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Personal Signature should be creative and original:
Game: DD 5e
Group preferred: On the line
Experience: 2.5 yrs or so.
Location/Timezone: Iseikai Time//EMT (Emilia-tan), but not MIT.
Availability: When I sign up, I know I should be free.
Preferred role: Player. But honestly, I am into serious relationship.
Thanks to everyone who's responded, especially those giving the DM perspective.
Hopefully this is all part of the party finding their feet, and these "alarm bells" quieten down as the DM adapts. Our DM is a 'lad' and can be obnoxious, so right now I'm wary approaching them directly about these feelings. It may also be exaggerated by poor choice of words - instead the luck of the dice not going our way, the DM often mumbled something like "you are rolling so sh!t..." which added to the confrontational vibe.
Our next session is in two weeks, so we'll see how things go then.
Thanks to everyone who's responded, especially those giving the DM perspective.
Hopefully this is all part of the party finding their feet, and these "alarm bells" quieten down as the DM adapts. Our DM is a 'lad' and can be obnoxious, so right now I'm wary approaching them directly about these feelings. It may also be exaggerated by poor choice of words - instead the luck of the dice not going our way, the DM often mumbled something like "you are rolling so sh!t..." which added to the confrontational vibe.
Our next session is in two weeks, so we'll see how things go then.
Thanks again.
If you are wary about confronting him, do you feel strong enough to do a check in with the rest of the group to see how they are feeling about it? If more than one player feels this way perhaps either the group, or whichever folks in the group who feel this way, can approach the DM together.
I mean it's not just a lethal mindset that has me wary, it's the fact that a natural one made him take control of someone's character while exploring. The DM could have just made the person trip and fall (taking either no damage, 1 point, or a d4, depending on your guys level), get lost and eventually find it (but you've wasted a bunch of in game time), or a few other things if he wanted to make the one entertaining.
1) Lots of groups have used "critical fumble" type mechanics, but the ones you're describing seem excessive. This feels like a DM who views their role as being "against" the party, and abusing their power to make up penalties. And taking control over a player character's actions? That DM needs to learn that the rest of you are not just his action figures that he can smash together.
2) I am a firm believer that established house rules like critical fumbles should be communicated to the group BEFORE starting the campaign. The common ground everyone at the table has is the Rules As Written. Every group can of course change the rules to suit their play, but they should at least KNOW about the changes they'll be playing with and have a chance to object to them
You'll have to decide what's best for you, but I can definitely say that if the DM was unwilling to change the way they're doing things, I personally would be withdrawing from the group.
A fighter making his way from an inn through an unfamiliar town rolled an 18 Perception. Next round, he rolled a Nat 1, and the DM declared he got lost, gave up, marched back to the inn, got locked in the toilet, and the door handle broke. The door handle broke not as part of a subsequent low roll; just broke as part of that original Nat 1. Cue the rest of the players waiting while an increasingly frustrating scene resolved, with their characters waiting on the edge of town for another hour with no RP.
Declaring the fighter got a little lost is one thing, I could buy that. Declaring the PC’s actions for the player is unacceptable. Under no circumstances would I want to play with that DM. No D&D is better than bad D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First off, I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the DM forum, but as I'm not a DM, figured this was the safest bet.
Second, I'm very new to D&D, having only had two and a bit campaigns so far, all with the same DM.
Natural 1s can be pretty contentious, but some of the calls my DM has been making recently concerned me, so I'd like some advice from more experienced players. No one enjoys getting Nat 1s, but we're all prepared to accept a blooper on an ability check or a whiffed strike in combat. On more than one occasion in our last session though, the DM declared results that felt like punishments, and sidetracked the campaign for 15-30 minutes to resolve. Some examples:
A fighter making his way from an inn through an unfamiliar town rolled an 18 Perception. Next round, he rolled a Nat 1, and the DM declared he got lost, gave up, marched back to the inn, got locked in the toilet, and the door handle broke. The door handle broke not as part of a subsequent low roll; just broke as part of that original Nat 1. Cue the rest of the players waiting while an increasingly frustrating scene resolved, with their characters waiting on the edge of town for another hour with no RP.
In combat, a Rogue Nat1ed a knife strike with sneak attack. DM declared the knife snapped, AND stabbed the Rogue. DM then declared the accidental stabbing be treated as a full strike WITH the additional sneak attack damage.
The session's final encounter was our three-man level 3 party vs a basilisk, in a 25x25 room with no cover. Despite the fighter engaging it in melee from one side with the rest of the party on the other, DM declared that the basilisk looked around the whole room every turn, forcing all the players to make CON saves regardless of position. This resulted in a near-TPK, with the Rogue and Bard frozen and the Fighter having to survive death saves.
DM then repeatedly insisted the party only won because DM forgot to apply poison damage from the basilisk bites.
This is session 2 of the current campaign.
So, is this acceptable DMing, or should I just get in the Wahmbulance?
Strictly speaking, it’s a simple miss or a simple failure when a natural 1 is rolled. There is nothing more to it RAW. That said, plenty of tables like to house rule “for more fun”. That said, this seems a bit much even for the most punitive interpretation of a critical failure, especially for the fighter.
Acceptable DM’ing is highly subjective. Are you having fun? How much are you willing to risk that fun for potential conflict with your DM? Do you think speaking to your DM about this matter will be constructive? These are questions only you know the answers to. Based on those, you’ll have to decide whether to say something or suck it up on the wahmbulance.
A further consideration, IMHO, is that DM’ing is much more difficult than playing. You may not be able to find a different DM. Even if you do, there’s no guarantee that DM will be much different or better. Are you prepared for the risk of no game at all? Are you prepared to DM if it’s a matter of no game at all otherwise? Many people will tell you no D&D is better than bad D&D. While I agree in principle, the challenge of DM’ing, the resultant dearth of DM’s and my utter unwillingness to DM mean that my bar for “bad D&D” is set accommodatingly low.
Your DM is taking away player agency and is making the game less fun.
When the fighter rolled a natural 1 it’s fine to say he’s completely lost and he can’t remember how to get back to the inn and ask what he’s doing. It’s not Ok for the DM to play the fighter, which is what he did. Player Agency where they control what their characters do is important for the game to be fun and it sounds like your DM is taking that away from you.
It also sounds like your DM has an adversarial “me against the players” style of DMing which I dislike when I’m playing instead of DMing. It’s easy for the DM to do a TPK, and making up rules on the fly that make the players feel helpless is just cheating. There’s no WAY a Basilisk is smart enough to circle the entire room to target every PC when the PCs are encircling it. They’re stupid and the DM should have been playing it that way!
Professional computer geek
Nat 1 with attack rolls just means automatic miss (nat 20 means auto hit and crit damage). Nat 1 (and nat 20) for any other roll is just the number you add your modifier to to determine results.
If you have a +20 stealth modifier (not impossible for a ranger with expertise and pass without trace) and roll a nat 1, that is a 21 stealth check, likely to succeed whatever it needed to. Normally, a nat 1 in an non-proficient skill will result in a 2-5 which is still a failure, but just a failure.
Critical success/failure for other rolls is a common house rule though. Ask your DM what all their house rules are.
It sounds like you also have a problem with needing to make multiple checks for 1 task. This is unusual unless it is to determine how long it takes to succeed.
As for the basilisk, that is actually how the monster works, your character can choose to not look at it (and the basilisk be treated as an unseen attacker/target for the round). Hopefully your DM volunteered this information or hinted at it.
It's questionable DMing to me for sure. While the DM is free to resolve the outcome of any attack roll, saving throw or ability check that is a natural 1, the rules don't have any consequences beyond missing or failing, and the DMG offer different variant rule for Hitting Cover, which never target the attacker itself. Also, if consequences are determined, i find it is a rather long stretch to have multiple bad lucks coming from it. Normally, the outcome of a check correspond to a task or activity alone, not subsequent ones. If a Wisdom (Perception) check to find your way result in a critical failure and end up lost, it should not have any incidence on wether an handle breaks or not when trying to open a door later. Such outcome would be more as a result from critically failing to pick the lock or force it open with a Strenght or Dexterity check when subsequently attemped for exemple.
As for the Basilisk, it affects any creature starting its turn within 30 ft. of it, but one can also avert its eyes to avoid the saving throw but won't be able to see it until the start of its next turn.
As Tim said, both these sound like a DM who is trying to make life miserable for their players and is trying to make them "lose", rather than collaborate with them on a story
The first example bothers me more than the second, really. Having them make multiple checks just to leave town and meet up at a rendezvous point is kind of nonsense out of the gate, no matter how "unfamiliar" the town is. It sounds like a DM who's going to keep forcing rolls until they get the result they want. Deciding the fighter got lost on a bad failure is fine; deciding for them what they do when they realize they're lost is, again, nonsense. Personally, I would likely have made a mental note at that point this would be my last session with that DM, regardless of what else happened
In the second example, if they have a house rule that a nat 1 in combat results in full damage... I mean it's sketchy, but fine, so long as it applies to the monsters too
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Agree with most, it seems the DM is being quite adversarial with you guys and I, personally think it's bad DM-ing. I do Nat 1 bloopers too usually, but mostly it's flavor, those "one of" situation, where the Fighter rolls a Nat 1 on an attack and maybe I move him to the adjacent square, as he stumbles a bit on the swing. I wouldn't do anything to slow the entire group (well, maybe a Nat 1 on Nature when traveling in the woods would delay them as a group) and I especially wouldn't get one character a half hour or so of solo play.
Might be time to ask about it.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
How long before it goes from "we're making extra rolls we shouldn't need to make," and "nat 1s result in the DM playing our characters," and turns into "we're just rolling pointless d20 rolls until we nat 1 so the DM can decide what we do"?
As ever, you should consider talking it out. Something like, "I don't expect to always win, but maintaining control over my character is important to me, even if I'm going to lose." No point setting it up as a "you're doing something objectively wrong, now fix it," even if that is basically how I feel about it. People don't respond well to that.
Self-destructive nat 1 attack rolls are a deal breaker for me. Everyone's allowed to have whatever deal breakers they want, whether other people think they're reasonable or not. These things you describe are pretty common deal breakers for people though. But I'm sure there must also be lots of people for whom they're not -- we just don't hear much from those folks, because they're not asking the internet what to do, because they're not bothered.
There are a few things to perhaps discuss with your DM.
First though - RAW - natural 1's automatically miss for attack rolls and have no special effects on skill checks. Similarly, a natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit and a natural 20 on a skill check also doesn't do anything special.
Anything beyond that is homebrew - which is perfectly ok but the DM should let the players know.
In this particular case, the DM appears to be be taking the fun out of the game for the players by imposing onerous consequences (which they likely think are funny but the players don't). For example, how can rolling a 1 on a perception check while walking around the town have ANY impact on whether the handle of a bathroom at the inn breaks? That entire sequence is just the DM narrating some unrelated and frankly stupid consequence for happening to roll a 1 on something totally separate.
In the basilisk case, the basilisk can affect every creature within 30' every turn but the characters have the option to close their eyes or look away from the basilisk and attack it with disadvantage. Alternatively, the easiest way to deal with one is to have a caster throw up a fog cloud in the room. RAW, since you can't see the basilisk and they can't see you, every attack is still a straight roll but the gaze attack is ineffective.
The attack roll by the rogue is just a DM being a bad DM. Why the DM would think the players might ever find it fun to accidentally sneak attack themselves - or how they imagine that could possibly happen in the first place - just makes it clear that the DM is missing the point in this case.
There are critical hit and miss tables that some folks have developed to apply special effects when a 1 or 20 is rolled. If the DM and players want the mechanic then I would go that route but having the DM make up consequences that harm characters just for the "fun" of it - is not "fun" at all for those suffering through it.
However, you mentioned playing 2 1/2 campaigns with the same DM - if they didn't run things this way before, you might want to see what has changed? Perhaps the DM is feeling burned out from having to DM all the time, would like to play but no one is stepping up, so they just mess with the game out of an urge towards frustration because they aren't having a good time but don't want to let everyone else down by explaining it all and ending the game.
My team and I have a fumble chart that we sometimes use in battle... and all the things that could happen aren't necessarily bad (nothing is fatal but damage to yourself or others could be a possibility) and to be clear this is for attacks not saving throws (you suffering whatever that is, is punishment enough).
Outside of combat normally just funny things happen... the most damage that has ever happened was one point of damage (cant quite remember someone was trying to do something super cool and ended up face planting instead)... and the characters were five or higher (which makes that less of an issue) and it's something our table is okay with.
Op's DM however does not seem like someone either myself or the majority of my table would ever consider playing with... just seems to have a him versus you mind set...
Natural 1s on attack rolls causing negative consequences beyond a miss means that the more attacks you make the worse you are at combat - i.e. when your party's Fighter reaches level 5, he'll become worse at combat, because he'll nearly triple the number of times he rolls a natural 1 when he attacks (and the negative consequences will, apparently, generally mean losing his weapon and hurting a team-mate). This is only exacerbated when he reaches making 3 attacks and then 4 at higher levels - and that's without Action Surge. 5E is fundamentally built on the assumption that making more attacks is desirable, not undesirable. However, this is entirely a balance issue - there's nothing intrinsically wrong, from a roleplay perspective, from a natural 1 having dire consequences. You should explain to your DM that this is the natural result of the house rule, and ask if they're going to keep it. If your DM keeps it, demand to rebuild so you're no longer a martial who has to attack to credibly contribute in combat, and instead roll a caster with save-based offensive spells, so your enemies have to deal with natural 1s, not you.
"Looking around the whole room" is indeed how 5E works - you don't lock in a direction you're looking in. A basilisk is CR 3, which means your party, starting fresh, is assumed to treat one as a "Hard" fight, worth 700 points out of your adventuring day's 3600 point budget. Any buffs to the basilisk would make it worth more. Here are the actual rules for your Fighter, Rogue, and Bard fighting one - I have no working knowledge of how you reached making death saves. This is taken from the basilisk entry I linked here, modified to be easier to read and leaving out additional text to emphasize how you fight one (read the actual link entry for a full and proper understanding).
Restrained is very bad for you, but your DM should absolutely have explicitly mentioned that it was locking eyes with you, to at least hint that your eyes had to meet for the effect to happen, so you could work out that rendering yourself unable to see it would also block the petrification. Your DM had no reason to emphasize the range limitation on the gaze. Note that a basilisk trying to kill a petrified PC gets a bit weird: the basilisk attacks at advantage, and on a hit deals 2d6+3 piercing damage which is halved due you having resistance (you're immune to the poison damage it would also try to deal).
Without knowing more, it sounds a lot like you handled your basic tactics poorly and got punished for it. Assuming the party was as tapped as possible for this fight, basic tactics should have worked like this (ignoring subclasses, as you didn't specify):
Final note: how didn't you TPK? If two of you were petrified and the third was rolling death saves, you all should have been lunch.
Depends. I outlined how Basilisks should work above - if your DM deviated from explaining the gaze mechanic that's a relatively serious narrative oversight in terms of combat balance, and I outlined how Basilisks should work. If they upgraded the petrification without correcting its CR, that's a potentially absolutely deadly mistake in encounter design.
How your DM is treating natural 1s on attack rolls is bad game design, but is popular with DMs. I outlined how to address it.
How your DM is treating natural 1s on ability checks is absolutely unacceptable DMing and they should be confronted about it. Robbing of you of agency is wildly inappropriate.
The nat 1 thing bothers me a lot; personally I'm a fan of nat 1's as auto-fails on skill checks (even with reliable talent, silver tongue and similar) because no amount of experience at something means you can't mess it up, but that's 100% a house rule.
But for me a natural 1 is a failure with salt in the wound; it's a Persuasion check where your Bard con-man who can talk his way out of anything accidentally calls someone by the name of their worst enemy, it's where the nimble halfling Rogue who can backflip his way through a room of moving disintegration beams, doesn't quite manage to leap up onto a table. For attacks I'll sometimes expect things like a secondary roll to see if a weapon is dropped or was damaged (e.g- bowstring snapped, requiring repair out of combat), if the target had cover because of an ally in the path then maybe a roll to see if they got hit instead and so-on.
The whole "you got lost and then locked in a toilet" is way over the top, and sounds like a DM getting carried away with trying to be clever or funny, but forgetting that characters are personal things for players, the DM should never just take control of them (not without certain spells and effects, at least). You don't play D&D to feel like a jackass (unless that's the character you built I guess), you play to feel like a hero, like a smooth operator, a badass etc., a failure should be a reasonable mistake given the circumstances, a "critical failure" should be basically the same but a bit worse, but it should be something that a player can still deal with somehow (or try to style out, if they choose to). If something you thought would be cool doesn't go right, you can throw in your excuses, if an attack fails miserably you can steel yourself to do better next round etc.
But yeah, they this is all hypothetical "how the game should be run when using the common 'nat ones are extra bad' house-rule", as none of this is rules as written beyond the DM being the one who describes the outcome of a success or failure.
I'd try the second session to see if it's just a case of getting carried away the first time, but if anything similar happens, always feel free to say "but that's not what my character would do, they'd do X" or "you're playing my character for me" or whatever. You might also ask some of the other players privately if they feel the same about the first session was run; if something similar comes up again and several of you agree that it feels like the wrong way to handle it, then the DM should be more likely to accept that it's not just one player being difficult. The trick is avoiding trying to make it sound accusatory or confrontational; one technique you might try is if your DM says X happens to your character, suggest Y instead, they may accept a suggestion.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
I feel your pain. Simply it was like one of my earliest D&D campaigns. The DM was constantly making things difficult for players to the point where nothing worked (most of us were newbies, so advance tactics someone else was writing...we weren't there).
From experience, if your DM is an approachable person, then go ahead and voice your opinions. Only a handful DMs I have met do that and keep that line of communication always open. That will get issues resolved quicker and things will be improving after that.
On the other hand, most likely as someone else mentioned, players will not tell the DM about that. Personally, that campaign did not end well. Players started to disappear, everybody then complained and made it obvious why they were not enjoying. All bubbles pop eventually.
Some people may say "NO DMs is the worst DM". But then NO DMs makes you a BETTER DM, simply now you know that's not an acceptable behaviour as a DM and you will avoid that.
What I can suggest: discuss with your group of players first, if they all find it troubling, then ask the DM politely to stop doing all those things. It does work a few times and we had fun in the end.
For me as a DM, CritFail can be settled with a table aka Fumble chart. Just create one and roll. Done. Just make sure, whatever the outcome will be, it's not damaging or devastating to a point beyond saving (one of my DMs did add something like you cut your other hand after the swing @1d2/4 or you hit too hard that your weapon stuck, you need to roll str check next turn and use action to retrieve your weapon etc.). Otherwise, if the group is rather relaxing, a CritFail is a moment of comedic failure: "Sadly, Adrian did not aim too carefully with his sling, it hits Cory by his balls, dealing 2 dmg. Cory cries out loud and falls to his feet. He is now prone and he has dropped his concentration." // "As Xerxi attempts to stab the orc from behind, she trips herself at the last few feet and her face lands right onto his butt cheek. On the way down, she pulls his pants off by accident and he is left with his underpants on." (OoC, a player made a joke: it deals 2 dmg to Cory, but it hurts like taking 20 dmg. Cory rolls side to side, with his hands covering his face and holding back his tears, as he drops to the ground. He screams, "MOMMY~~~~~~I can't give you the grandchildren you always wanted, I just got neutered~~~! AHHHHHHHHHHH!" XD)
As for the hour of no RP, personally I offer solo RP sessions in downtime so that players can RP as much and explore everything I have to offer in my world. I don't really recommend this approach unless you have MUCH time to free up for your players. Seriously, it was painful, but mostly enjoyable and satisfying.
As for the basilisk, I don't think normal monsters are that smart...unless the monsters have been trained or manipulated via a spell...that 360 death stare makes no sense. No animals give a 360 scan every time they do anything (except for the owls, certain insects and some other animals...but even they don't do that 360 perimeter sweep when they have a target locked on//a threat to deal with).
Whatever advice you will take, I hope you will find a more pleasant campaign from your next DM or that same DM.
Personal Signature should be creative and original:
Game: DD 5e
Group preferred: On the line
Experience: 2.5 yrs or so.
Location/Timezone: Iseikai Time//EMT (Emilia-tan), but not MIT.
Availability: When I sign up, I know I should be free.
Preferred role: Player. But honestly, I am into serious relationship.
Game style: I don't fill the chat with ooc.
Thanks to everyone who's responded, especially those giving the DM perspective.
Hopefully this is all part of the party finding their feet, and these "alarm bells" quieten down as the DM adapts. Our DM is a 'lad' and can be obnoxious, so right now I'm wary approaching them directly about these feelings. It may also be exaggerated by poor choice of words - instead the luck of the dice not going our way, the DM often mumbled something like "you are rolling so sh!t..." which added to the confrontational vibe.
Our next session is in two weeks, so we'll see how things go then.
Thanks again.
If you are wary about confronting him, do you feel strong enough to do a check in with the rest of the group to see how they are feeling about it? If more than one player feels this way perhaps either the group, or whichever folks in the group who feel this way, can approach the DM together.
I mean it's not just a lethal mindset that has me wary, it's the fact that a natural one made him take control of someone's character while exploring. The DM could have just made the person trip and fall (taking either no damage, 1 point, or a d4, depending on your guys level), get lost and eventually find it (but you've wasted a bunch of in game time), or a few other things if he wanted to make the one entertaining.
I see two issues with the DM's actions:
1) Lots of groups have used "critical fumble" type mechanics, but the ones you're describing seem excessive. This feels like a DM who views their role as being "against" the party, and abusing their power to make up penalties. And taking control over a player character's actions? That DM needs to learn that the rest of you are not just his action figures that he can smash together.
2) I am a firm believer that established house rules like critical fumbles should be communicated to the group BEFORE starting the campaign. The common ground everyone at the table has is the Rules As Written. Every group can of course change the rules to suit their play, but they should at least KNOW about the changes they'll be playing with and have a chance to object to them
You'll have to decide what's best for you, but I can definitely say that if the DM was unwilling to change the way they're doing things, I personally would be withdrawing from the group.
Declaring the fighter got a little lost is one thing, I could buy that. Declaring the PC’s actions for the player is unacceptable. Under no circumstances would I want to play with that DM. No D&D is better than bad D&D.