With a 1 always and without escape being a fail, any Rogue having Expertise in any skill is still liable for fail, albeit very rarely, adding a degree of realism (even if you are the best of messing with people/open a lock/hide etc., you could have a bad day) to the game.
Failing easy (DC 10) tasks 1 out of 20 times when you're skilled enough to reliably succeed at hard tasks isn't realistic. Yes, there's always a small chance that an expert will choke, but not that often.
Indeed, but it also opens up to interesting roleplaying and story situations if the resident face of the party swallows their own tongue every now and then when trying to convince the local merchant to give them a discount.
A trivial task certainly is not something that can create much problem if failed, so I do not personally see much of a problem in this case.
(I think we both know, statistics aside, the average real-life, in-game chance of rolling a 1 is much less than 1/20)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
(I think we both know, statistics aside, the average real-life, in-game chance of rolling a 1 is much less than 1/20)
Or much more. It depends on the session, in my experience.
Or the dice needs and exorcism :p
But you are right, there's a lot of chance going about, I never trust statistics too much, there are other factors that vary the actual chances of a number coming up in a real-life game (material of the dice, material and composition of the surface on which the dice is rolled, how long the dice rolls, how it is thrown etc.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Indeed, but it also opens up to interesting roleplaying and story situations if the resident face of the party swallows their own tongue every now and then when trying to convince the local merchant to give them a discount.
It's more likely the players will resent having a house rule pushed on them that causes them to fail at things they've heavily invested in, and that at any other table they would've succeeded at.
The already game provides plenty of opportunities to fail. There's far too many skills to cover with Expertise unless your party is all Rogues and Bards; a 1 is already going to be a failure on those skills. There's no need to punish characters for being good at things.
It's more likely the players will resent having a house rule pushed on them that causes them to fail at things they've heavily invested in, and that at any other table they would've succeeded at.
The already game provides plenty of opportunities to fail. There's far too many skills to cover with Expertise unless your party is all Rogues and Bards; a 1 is already going to be a failure on those skills. There's no need to punish characters for being good at things.
Are you saying have people fail on a roll of one is too extreme?
I know myself, and I think others who feel as though the rogue is to powerful's argument isn't that rogues should be worst at skills just that they should have a chance to fail. Take for example Sleight of Hand. Which can be extremely useful. A rogue with a Dex of 18 will have a modifier of will have 1d20 + 8 (Proficiency doubled) + 4 (Dex modifier). That is a plus 12. Since reliable talent means that a Rogue can't roll anything less then a 10, they would auto-succeed at 90% of Sleight of Hand Checks. Because their minimal roll could only ever be 22. The way 5e has designed skill checks, really they break down to 10, 15, 20, 25. There really isn't higher checks, because of who they designed skills to work, there was no reason for them.
Meaning if A DM wants to make a rogue Slight of Hand check he basically has to give everyone Extreme awareness. Which isn't very realist to roll playing. However, making it so a roll of 1 is still a fail, makes it so the DM can still give the rogue a reason to roll the die and even though he most likely well succeed there is a chance that he can still fail. Now you can blame it on bad luck, or just that the NPC just happened to spot the rogue coming up.
I think the rogue is very good, but I never liked the auto-succeed that they can do. So I think by making it so a 1 still fails, even for Reliable Talent is fairly balanced.
Also, you are limiting rogues over powerfulness to just their skills with expertise, but to be honest, any skill they are proficient in (Which I think the rogue in my game is proficient in 9 skills, that's half the skills) has a low rate of failure. Take for example a rogue that wanted to balance between Dex and CHA. Let's say the rouge has a 14 in CHA. That means his lowest roll is 10 + 2 + 4, which is a 16 minimum, that means he can persuade and intimidate most foes with ease. leaving the DM with a check of 20 or 25.
Do I think a rogue should be very good at skills, YES! That is their thing, however, I don't think they should be able to auto-succeed at anything. There should always be a chance for failure for any number of reasons.
Indeed, but it also opens up to interesting roleplaying and story situations if the resident face of the party swallows their own tongue every now and then when trying to convince the local merchant to give them a discount.
It's more likely the players will resent having a house rule pushed on them that causes them to fail at things they've heavily invested in, and that at any other table they would've succeeded at.
The already game provides plenty of opportunities to fail. There's far too many skills to cover with Expertise unless your party is all Rogues and Bards; a 1 is already going to be a failure on those skills. There's no need to punish characters for being good at things.
It's more likely when the houserule is not made clear and accepted from the beginning. I would never use the 1 auto-failure/20 auto-success rule without first letting my players know I intend to, that would make for a VERY poor DM.
It's all a matter of knowing with what rule you are playing with. As much as love the thrill of a possible fail due to a natural 1, I understand and can play with people who do not, therefore excluding this houserule. No one should ever impose anything to anyone around the table.
It is punishment only as far as there is no understanding of the rules one plays with, imho.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
It is punishment only as far as there is no understanding of the rules one plays with, imho.
Being informed of house rules before they come up in play and impact you or your character negatively does help make it less likely that a house-rule is a deal-breaker for a player.
However, it's not just that a house-rule can feel like punishment to a player because learning about it surprises them - a player can also feel punished if a house-rule makes an option they enjoy/desire to use deliberately less effective than if that house-rule weren't in place (such as this house-rule making a skill expert type of character less effective, or a house-rule making dwarves incapable of taking classes other than fighter, cleric, or rogue making a dwarf-enthusiast feel punished for not preferring some other race that can be any class they want to).
It is punishment only as far as there is no understanding of the rules one plays with, imho.
Being informed of house rules before they come up in play and impact you or your character negatively does help make it less likely that a house-rule is a deal-breaker for a player.
However, it's not just that a house-rule can feel like punishment to a player because learning about it surprises them - a player can also feel punished if a house-rule makes an option they enjoy/desire to use deliberately less effective than if that house-rule weren't in place (such as this house-rule making a skill expert type of character less effective, or a house-rule making dwarves incapable of taking classes other than fighter, cleric, or rogue making a dwarf-enthusiast feel punished for not preferring some other race that can be any class they want to).
I should have probably specified "understanding and acceptance" then, my apologies.
If upon explaining the optional rule everyone understands and agrees to them (and I do mean everyone), I personally fail to see how it can still be seen or felt as punishment. I am not saying it is a houserule everyone has to agree is good, and if someone does not I would not use it with that group, no one loses anything and the person/s that would feel uncomfortable with it in place are happy campers, simple as that, and that is valid for any houserule one can come up with.
Your dwarf-enthusiast player would certainly voice their discontent in knowing that you plan on having limitation on the available classes for their beloved dwarves, and you (impersonal you used here) talk and decide what is best for both your campaign and the player.
Without acceptance on top of understanding it is still imposition, and I would have thought my previous post made clear I would never impose anything to anyone around the table.
Are you saying have people fail on a roll of one is too extreme?
Yes, 5% failure is too high for an expert.
But more importantly, I'm saying that changing the rules to the detriment of the player isn't going to be appreciated. It's one thing when those are the rules of the game; it might be a dumb rule, but at least it's the same dumb rule everyone else is using. It's another thing when you personally shortchange players to satisfy a pet peeve.
Meaning if A DM wants to make a rogue Slight of Hand check he basically has to give everyone Extreme awareness. Which isn't very realist to roll playing.
Professional magicians practically never fail at sleight of hand tricks, except against other experts that know how those tricks are done. It's plenty realistic.
Are you saying have people fail on a roll of one is too extreme?
Yes, 5% failure is too high for an expert.
But more importantly, I'm saying that changing the rules to the detriment of the player isn't going to be appreciated. It's one thing when those are the rules of the game; it might be a dumb rule, but at least it's the same dumb rule everyone else is using. It's another thing when you personally shortchange players to satisfy a pet peeve.
It might just be me misinterpreting, but it sounds like you think the auto fail/auto success houserule would apply only to the players characters, in which case I would concur is not a really balanced or fair houserule. But I want to believe mouse0270, like myself, would apply it to any NPC and monster as well.
It still remains a rule not every DM and every group uses, but I am pretty confident every house game has its own quirks and rules modifications that might not be found in other house games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
What I find interesting to note is that, for all this discussion, I find it very interesting that no one has pointed out what I consider to be the elephant in this "room." Halfling luck. I mean, heck, halflings are the iconic rogues. Lightfoot halflings are literally built to be rogues from the ground up. If someone makes a houserule, such that I would only fail on a 1? Halflings won't suffer from that, making the entire houserule proposed to be utterly meaningless.
I'm also kind of curious if these people also are annoyed at the Ranger and their auto-success pseudo-Survival abilities.
Sure, if James Bond rolled a 1 when attempting to defuse a bomb that would destroy the world, then I can see that being BAD. Tasslehoff Burrfoot on the other hand....he says "oops" and things get so much more interesting.....(Yes, it's still the most feared sound in Krynn though.)
Always failing on a 1 reminds you that you are in a game - for better or for worse. There is no such thing as an auto-success when a real-life, potentially grumpy/tired human is sitting across the table and can over-rule any die roll.....with the best of intentions of course. But we all know what road is paved with them. Evil Grin.
I am going to end by saying that I agree with Lek. That should confuse him.
But more importantly, I'm saying that changing the rules to the detriment of the player isn't going to be appreciated. It's one thing when those are the rules of the game; it might be a dumb rule, but at least it's the same dumb rule everyone else is using. It's another thing when you personally shortchange players to satisfy a pet peeve.
It might just be me misinterpreting, but it sounds like you think the auto fail/auto success houserule would apply only to the players characters, in which case I would concur is not a really balanced or fair houserule. But I want to believe mouse0270, like myself, would apply it to any NPC and monster as well.
It still remains a rule not every DM and every group uses, but I am pretty confident every house game has its own quirks and rules modifications that might not be found in other house games.
The problem I think I am having is I am calling a variant rule a house role, it's not its a variant roll in the game. The argument people could make is for a rogue, which rule takes place, the variant or the class rule. Which is really left up to the DM and their players. My rogue player and I have talked, I explained to him how I would handle it, it is okay with it. He barely ever rolls a one anyways. However, it does happen.
What I find interesting to note is that, for all this discussion, I find it very interesting that no one has pointed out what I consider to be the elephant in this "room." Halfling luck. I mean, heck, halflings are the iconic rogues. Lightfoot halflings are literally built to be rogues from the ground up. If someone makes a houserule, such that I would only fail on a 1? Halflings won't suffer from that, making the entire houserule proposed to be utterly meaningless.
I'm also kind of curious if these people also are annoyed at the Ranger and their auto-success pseudo-Survival abilities.
As for halfling luck, I would like to point out, if they roll a 1 they get to re-roll it and if they get a 1 again they can still fail. I have no problem with classes rarely ever failing, I have a problem with auto-succeed with no condition for failing when it comes to skill checks. You can mess up or just be off, you can be on top of your game 99% of the time, but there is still that 1% where the fate just takes things out of your hands.
As for the ranger, I will have to investigate that, none of my players play a ranger, so I actually don't know a lot about the class.
Professional magicians practically never fail at sleight of hand tricks, except against other experts that know how those tricks are done. It's plenty realistic.
That is my point, they practically never fail, having them fail on a 1 is them practically never failing, but still the possibility exists.
What I find interesting to note is that, for all this discussion, I find it very interesting that no one has pointed out what I consider to be the elephant in this "room." Halfling luck. I mean, heck, halflings are the iconic rogues. Lightfoot halflings are literally built to be rogues from the ground up. If someone makes a houserule, such that I would only fail on a 1? Halflings won't suffer from that, making the entire houserule proposed to be utterly meaningless.
I'm also kind of curious if these people also are annoyed at the Ranger and their auto-success pseudo-Survival abilities.
Personally speaking, I am actually not annoyed in the slightest by either Expertise or any other mechanic potentially making a character always succeeding, I just like the idea of always having the chance to fail in order to make every roll a bit more of a thrill. Expertise is not in the slightest the reason or part of the reason why I use this houserule, my argumentation here are simply due to this specific topic being centered around Expertise, and made me realise this houserule prevents the "always succeed" potentiality of the feature.
It's a houserule that I have always used in all my games, and I have yet to find someone telling me they hate it, to be honest. (But again, I understand someone might not like it, and it's perfectly fine)
As to Halflings Luck, it does not make it useless, it just makes it way harder for the to fail, but it would still be possible (half the chances, but still) as the racial feature states they must use the second result (unless I am missing some official ruling stating they can re-roll 1s indefinitely).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
The problem I think I am having is I am calling a variant rule a house role, it's not its a variant roll in the game. The argument people could make is for a rogue, which rule takes place, the variant or the class rule. Which is really left up to the DM and their players.
I'm sorry, but, again, there is no "variant rule" that makes 1s auto-fail on ability checks. There's a variant rule that makes 1s that are also failures into "critial failures" (and 20s that are also successes into "critical successes").
And that's why I find it interesting. A 0.25% chance of failure is negligible. That, to me, is a very strong indication that this has nothing to do with power or balance, but just style preferences; a desire for dice rolling, no matter how skewed, than it is about someone succeeding or failing.
I'm sorry, but, again, there is no "variant rule" that makes 1s auto-fail on ability checks. There's a variant rule that makes 1s that are also failures into "critial failures" (and 20s that are also successes into "critical successes").
Some of the text, trying to avoid posting it all because its part of the DMG which is a paid book, so I don't want to have my post removed.
Rolling a 20 or a 1 on an ability check or a saving throw doesn’t normally have any special effect. However, you can choose to take such an exceptional roll into account when adjudicating the outcome. It’s up to you to determine how this manifests in the game.
It then gives you examples saying you can reward players for critical success or failures, but those are examples of what you can do. You could also just treat the roll as a failure. if you have the DMG you can click on the following link to see the exact text Critical Success or Failure
I'm sorry, but, again, there is no "variant rule" that makes 1s auto-fail on ability checks. There's a variant rule that makes 1s that are also failures into "critial failures" (and 20s that are also successes into "critical successes").
Some of the text, trying to avoid posting it all because its part of the DMG which is a paid book, so I don't want to have my post removed.
Rolling a 20 or a 1 on an ability check or a saving throw doesn’t normally have any special effect. However, you can choose to take such an exceptional roll into account when adjudicating the outcome. It’s up to you to determine how this manifests in the game.
It then gives you examples saying you can reward players for critical success or failures, but those are examples of what you can do. You could also just treat the roll as a failure. if you have the DMG you can click on the following link to see the exact text Critical Success or Failure
Please visit the link you posted, and read the last sentence there. "Rolling 1 on a failed attempt..." If the attempt didn't fail, the 1 does nothing. It does not say "rolling 1 on an attempt...", it specifically says rolling a 1 on a failed attempt. That rule variant gives you options for what to do with "spectacular" failures or successes, not for turning successes into failures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
What I find interesting to note is that, for all this discussion, I find it very interesting that no one has pointed out what I consider to be the elephant in this "room." Halfling luck. I mean, heck, halflings are the iconic rogues. Lightfoot halflings are literally built to be rogues from the ground up. If someone makes a houserule, such that I would only fail on a 1? Halflings won't suffer from that, making the entire houserule proposed to be utterly meaningless.
I'm also kind of curious if these people also are annoyed at the Ranger and their auto-success pseudo-Survival abilities.
Failure is not always a punishment.
Sure, if James Bond rolled a 1 when attempting to defuse a bomb that would destroy the world, then I can see that being BAD.
Tasslehoff Burrfoot on the other hand....he says "oops" and things get so much more interesting.....(Yes, it's still the most feared sound in Krynn though.)
Always failing on a 1 reminds you that you are in a game - for better or for worse. There is no such thing as an auto-success when a real-life, potentially grumpy/tired human is sitting across the table and can over-rule any die roll.....with the best of intentions of course. But we all know what road is paved with them. Evil Grin.
I am going to end by saying that I agree with Lek.
That should confuse him.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I suggest a house rule where you auto-fail if the Die rolls off the table.
Ours is probably 4' x 3', with obstacles to slow a bouncing die down, and yet people still miss the target from barely 3 inches away!
Bladder control +8 : 37 days without an accident.......That die is going to curse me soon, I just know it!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I'm sorry, but, again, there is no "variant rule" that makes 1s auto-fail on ability checks. There's a variant rule that makes 1s that are also failures into "critial failures" (and 20s that are also successes into "critical successes").
And that's why I find it interesting. A 0.25% chance of failure is negligible. That, to me, is a very strong indication that this has nothing to do with power or balance, but just style preferences; a desire for dice rolling, no matter how skewed, than it is about someone succeeding or failing.