Critical Hits and Fumbles

[Evard's Small Tentacle]

Anyone have any fun critical hit and fumble charts? Back in the day we even had a fumble dice that could lead you into cutting off an arm or a head. Fun times.

 

[Beoric]

We never had any that lasted more than a few sessions. Except for my DM who liked to run Rolemaster.

 

[The1True]

We're still using the charts from 2.5e's Combat Skills and Tactics. We've combined them with 3e's critical multipliers (so a weapon that crits on a 19-20/x3) goes to the critical chart on a 19-20 as a weapon one size larger (x3 is 1 sz larger than the base x2). On a nat 20 we go an extra size larger (so a nat 20 with above weapon would be 2 sizes larger). It leads to big criticals which are fun and speed up combat. Definitely some gaming of the system occurs finding ways to crank up the frequency and magnitude of criticals (particularly on smaller weapons), which we all like since, as mentioned it speeds up combat but also leads to more cinematic combat. We've tinkered with making sneak attacks criticals as well, but the ease with which rogues can now make sneak attacks (basically all he needs is a flanking position and he's rolling multiple dice multiple times per round at intermediate+ levels) makes this a little crazy.

I played with a guy who used those crazy Rolemaster charts back in the day, which was time consuming but exciting until I got screwed out of a natural 00 improbably followed by a 98 by the vagaries of a low roll on a further nested charts. That was some game-defining bullshit for me.

We've got our own in-house critical fail chart legacied over from 1e as well. I'll see if I can dig that one up for the contempt and amusement of all.

 

[The1True]

Here's the Critical Fail Chart. Fails ALWAYS occur on a nat 1. There were complaints by players with high-level character that they were hitting a higher frequency of 1's due to having multiple attacks (especially with Weapon Grand Mastery in 2.5e) so we modified the chart to have some milder stuff the higher you roll and let people with multiple attacks add the number of remaining attacks in the round to their roll (thus making rolls of 20+ possible).

 

[Two orcs]

Instead of fumbles I let crit introduce the chaos, when the monsters trip you or breaks your weapon it adds credibility to their danger - if you trip over your own feet or break your weapon against the floor it makes your character seem incompenent. I don't want to punish an otherwise sound tactic (attacking a monster). PCs get to choose which critical effect they get, monster get a random one. Large, huge and giant monsters get saves against being tripped or pushed.

Melee:
1. Break shield/weapon (swords usually knocked out of hand instead of broken)
2. Break helm/armor (-1 AC, -1 to hit till armor is repaired (no penalty for broken helm, it just needs replacing)
3. Push/pull 1d6*5' forward or backward, if you push more than 5' you need to follow, you can push any number of opponents in a line and if you push into a wall deal extra damage equal to the d6 roll.
4. Knock down

Ranged (lasts till arrow is pulled out (1d6 damage quickly or no damage slowly), or 1d3 rounds if a blunt projectile):
1. Disable sword arm
2. Hamstring leg (half movement speed)
3. Partial blindness (blood dripping from forehead into the eyes usually, or minor eye damage for a big monster) -2 to hit
4. Mute (hit in throat or mouth)

 

[TerribleSorcery]

I use the Arduin critical hit chart. Best thing ever.

Great Random Charts from RPG History, vol IV.

I've had a heck of time formating this one for optimum online presentation. I eventually just said to hell with it and published as-it. The...

jrients.blogspot.com

 

[Beoric]

I suspect that I'm in a minority in that I have never liked critical hit tables. I wanted to like them, so at first I thought it was the execution of them that bothered me. But I think it is really the randomness of them that bothers me. It's one of the same things that bothers me about the 1e unarmed combat tables; I don't like a random table to co-opt my conception of the realities of combat.

For example, they never take into account the armor that somebody is wearing, and rarely take into account the type of weapon that is being used. So you get limbs being severed by a mace, for instance. Or you have weapons cutting through plate armor, instead of being wedged into unarmored areas or causing blunt force trauma. If a guy is in mail from head to toe, with his face exposed except for the nasal of his helm, why does a critical hit result in cutting his leg off instead of stabbing him in the face? EDIT: It would actually be easier if it was less specific; if it just started as a blow to the leg, and I knew if it was fatal or some lesser degree of debilitation, I would know that the blow to the leg just made the target stumble forward, and then the attacker hit him in the head which caused him to fall to the ground, AND THEN the attacker stabbed him in the face, killing him instantly.

 

[Beoric]

I'm spitballing here, but imagine a crit table that merely described the advantageous position that the attacker found himself in. Then the player describes how he attempts to take advantage of that, and the DM adjudicates the results based on the position, the weapon used, the armor of the victim, and maybe using whatever coup de grace rules there may be in the game system.

 

[The1True]

I suspect that I'm in a minority in that I have never liked critical hit tables. I wanted to like them, so at first I thought it was the execution of them that bothered me. But I think it is really the randomness of them that bothers me. It's one of the same things that bothers me about the 1e unarmed combat tables; I don't like a random table to co-opt my conception of the realities of combat.

For example, they never take into account the armor that somebody is wearing, and rarely take into account the type of weapon that is being used. So you get limbs being severed by a mace, for instance. Or you have weapons cutting through plate armor, instead of being wedged into unarmored areas or causing blunt force trauma. If a guy is in mail from head to toe, with his face exposed except for the nasal of his helm, why does a critical hit result in cutting his leg off instead of stabbing him in the face? EDIT: It would actually be easier if it was less specific; if it just started as a blow to the leg, and I knew if it was fatal or some lesser degree of debilitation, I would know that the blow to the leg just made the target stumble forward, and then the attacker hit him in the head which caused him to fall to the ground, AND THEN the attacker stabbed him in the face, killing him instantly.

Maybe check out the Combat Skills and Tactics charts. There's different charts for different weapons (blunt/piercing/slashing) and each of these is split into Humanoid/Animal/Monster. You roll a d10 for location on the creature (if you call the shot and score a crit, you skip this step). and then roll a number of d4's based on your weapon size vs the target's size (which is the only part that isn't great, since there's no hope of something like say a dagger doing anything other a minor scratch to anything larger than a human which I counter to good narrative (the old dagger in the dragon's eye saving the day)). I dunno. It's worth a look anyway...

 

[squeen]

I suspect that I'm in a minority in that I have never liked critical hit tables. I wanted to like them, so at first I thought it was the execution of them that bothered me. But I think it is really the randomness of them that bothers me. It's one of the same things that bothers me about the 1e unarmed combat tables; I don't like a random table to co-opt my conception of the realities of combat.

I backed a kickstarter when I first resumed playing that produced two critical hit dice. Never use them. All we do is '1' is a dropped weapon or broken bow string (lose a round to recover)...and a 20 always hits.

Unsurprisingly, neither I nor my players care for them.

 

[Beoric]

Maybe check out the Combat Skills and Tactics charts. There's different charts for different weapons (blunt/piercing/slashing) and each of these is split into Humanoid/Animal/Monster. You roll a d10 for location on the creature (if you call the shot and score a crit, you skip this step). and then roll a number of d4's based on your weapon size vs the target's size (which is the only part that isn't great, since there's no hope of something like say a dagger doing anything other a minor scratch to anything larger than a human which I counter to good narrative (the old dagger in the dragon's eye saving the day)). I dunno. It's worth a look anyway...

Googled that, couldn't find it (many, many hits for various sites).

In any event, I don't personally need it. I have a simple houseruled system that scratches the same itch but reacts entirely to player choices. No point in explaining it, it is designed for 4e mechanics.

Hmm, maybe parts of it would work with 5e, I might come back to it if I ever learn 5e well enough to properly evaluate it.

 

[Evard's Small Tentacle]

Well, crits and fumbles are very swingy, the same way old school D&D is (traps, spells, effects all can randomly kill characters). I can certainly see why people don't like them since a lot of campaigns and modern D&D espouse and need character longevity to function and tell stories.

On the whole, statistically, they are a lot less swingy than spells, traps, effects etc.

 

[The1True]

Both myself and the other DM in our group only roll critical hits from Boss monsters. At mid to high level there are a lot of mobs which statistically leads to more 20's. Getting beheaded by a rando goblin that couldn't otherwise hit you is boooo.

'Swingy' I like that word. I play with guys who enjoy being presented with high odds, high rewards options and situations.

 

[Beoric]

Well, crits and fumbles are very swingy, the same way old school D&D is (traps, spells, effects all can randomly kill characters). I can certainly see why people don't like them since a lot of campaigns and modern D&D espouse and need character longevity to function and tell stories.

On the whole, statistically, they are a lot less swingy than spells, traps, effects etc.

To be clear, when I say I don't like the randomness of them, it isn't the randomness of the danger they pose, it's the randomness of the baked-in narration.

 

[TerribleSorcery]

Yeah, recently one of my players wearing chainmail got a critical hit in the spine from a monster with a scimitar. Not realistic. But it was fun! Half his body was paralyzed and another player had to carry him around.

But they are fun. I roll to confirm criticals, a la 3rd edition, which makes them a bit less common. On a confirmation, monsters do double damage and players can choose double damage or some kind of trick shot/special move. Only rolling another 20 to confirm (1 in 400) draws the Arduin chart, so it rarely happens (maybe 2 times in the last 13-14 sessions that I can think of).

I decided against critical fumbles on a 1, because they sort of make combat into slapstick. The players will make the game funny anyway without any help from me. I do reserve the right to adjudicate some mishap on a 1, but I will give the PCs a saving throw - so it doesn't happen very often, but adds a small extra element of danger.