Recently in a game, I had a PC attempt a shove versus the monster. I as the DM rolled a nat. 20 and the player wanted to argue that since his character has a decent ability modifier if his total had been higher he should win the contest. I have been pretty consistent about if a PC rolls a 1 or 2 on an ability check it acts the same as in combat. The PC ended up with a lower total anyway so it was not a major issue but he did say he would argue it if he had been higher. How should I handle this should it come up again? Thanks
Rolling a 20 on a d20 is an automatic success only for an attack roll, not for an ability check or a save.
Using the Shove action in combat is not an attack (although it replaces one of your attacks) - it's a contest of Athletics and therefore rolling either 1 or 20 has no special consequence.
I agree that nat. 20 doesn't mean an auto-success for ability checks.
As I put it to one of my players - "If you declare that you're going to jump across the English Channel, and you roll a nat 20, you don't DO it" ( to be fair, you shouldn't allow skill rolls for impossible, or trivially simple, goals anyways )
What I tend to do it, if their adjusted score succeeds, and the rolled a nat 20, then they might have a great success, or pull it off with especially cool dramatic narrative flair.
Likewise, with natural 1, they might fail with special dramatic narrative flair.
All that, however, is totally house rules.
In your case, if the adjusted nat 20 of monster had caused in to win the competition, I would have described it dramatically.
If the adjusted nat 20 of the monster had failed, I would have had it fail, but again, describe it's efforts, and the player's success against it, dramatically "the monster hunkers down with a growl, it's claws biting into the stone floor of the cavern, but OG, with a gargantuan effort of straining muscles, still manages to push it back, the monsters claws gouging furrows in the cavern floor ..."
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Technically 20/1 only apply to attack rolls. I could see a strong argument for it in contested rolls during combat, but some amount of realism has to apply. If a gnome tried to push an elephant, no roll is going to help.
Whatever you decide, let everyone know and be consistent.
Out of combat ability checks, the natural 20/1 absolutely doesn't apply. I don't care if your raging barbarian has 30 strength, it still can't punch through a mountain.
On the shove I'd say the monster tripped if the player rolled a D20, but I might have the monster fall prone on the PC and deal damage. I'd probably roll a D4 outside of the DM screen to decide which direction the monster fell.
Basically if the players try to twist the rules I just twist them back.
I would ask why your player was informed of your nat 20. You as a GM are not obligated to announce the numbers you roll unless it's a damage roll. I just would have informed the player that they didn't succeed and describe the result.
On one hand, I consider a 1 a failure and a 20 a success, only because I should only be asking for rolls where there is a possibility of success or failure. Of course, in some cases, there is a progression from failure, to non-event, to success, and I should only ask for a roll if somewhere between 1-20 is the demarkation between failure and non-event, or non-event and success in those cases. Or perhaps abject failure, or slight failure.
I would ask why your player was informed of your nat 20. You as a GM are not obligated to announce the numbers you roll unless it's a damage roll. I just would have informed the player that they didn't succeed and describe the result.
Some of us roll out in the open. We might not be obligated to, but we're not obligated to keep our rolls hidden behind the arcane depths of the DM screen either. Some players appreciate knowing the DM is playing by the same rules, some prefer a certain amount of fudging for narrative flavor. As always, whatever works best for your table.
I would ask why your player was informed of your nat 20. You as a GM are not obligated to announce the numbers you roll unless it's a damage roll. I just would have informed the player that they didn't succeed and describe the result.
Some of us roll out in the open. We might not be obligated to, but we're not obligated to keep our rolls hidden behind the arcane depths of the DM screen either. Some players appreciate knowing the DM is playing by the same rules, some prefer a certain amount of fudging for narrative flavor. As always, whatever works best for your table.
This is true. And I have rolled in the open on occasion as well. But mostly, for the sake of not starting or entertaining potentially game derailing arguments, I keep my results secret from the players. I've been DMing for 26 years now. I find that keeping your rolls behind the screen and describing the success or failure without revealing the roll handles this best.
Been DMing just as long - I like the psychology of having the die on the table for all to see. I've never had a problem with players derailing the game with rules arguments where the actual rolls themselves are concerned - if anything the few derailments I experience are based on the more die-less aspects of the game (most recently I had a sorceror who took some explaining to get across that the distance spell does not double the AoE of a spell).
Something like the OP is more along the lines of the DM having a house rule in place (perhaps unknowingly) about the effect a natural 20 might have on an ability check. Such house rules, if known as such and accepted by all the players involved, are fine, no matter which side of the screen you roll on (save in those cases where you get a player who feels that such rules should only work in their favor).
Had the DM not announced the roll, they would have not posted the topic here, where they could be shown that Nat 20=success is not a RAW part of 5e. If the roll had been secret, the DM might be unknowingly screwing over both his players and himself for the rest of his game. Now he can see that it is not a built - in aspect of the game, but if he desires it can be a house rule (though the day shall come when both player and opponent roll nat 20 on an opposed check).
(though the day shall come when both player and opponent roll nat 20 on an opposed check).
That's always fun. LOL! In that situation, I'd favor the player over my NPC. :)
The way I've run 5e, I'd favor whoever got higher on the roll plus bonuses. If it's a true tie (d20 plus applicable bonus) I go player. I play in favor of the player quite a bit - I'll remind them of inspiration and fudge DC if it's within a point or two of what I was looking for. I find rolling in the open (especially with a new group) helps build the trust required to really give leeway to DM calls.
Too often have I had to play therapist to groups that have the DM vs player mentality built in from previous DMs. The DM screen is there to remind me of what rules are easy to forget, it is not some holiest of holies where players fear to tread (never even used a screen in 2e. I use one now to avoid rule conflation from 3.5 previous editions - even avoiding 3 and 4e, some of those rules systems have seeped into the brain either via cultural osmosis or players who have been brought up on those editions).
Communication is, as always, the key. If I add house rules, I let my players know. If my players were expecting something to happen due to some quirk of the rules of a previous edition, I'll tell them the relevant citations and move on. If it's something that might derail the game beyond a quick lookup in the rules I'll make an in the moment ruling with the promise that I will look into it later.
Thanks to this communication, my players understand that if I'm rolling in secret it's (a) to help them avoid meta- gaming in a narrative situation or (b) it's to screw with their heads - though they can never be sure which :D
I've personally always hated this holdover from 2nd edition. In 3rd edition it was the same but my GM was from 2nd Edition and LOVE this Homebrew. The fact that you could *always* fail a Ride Check 5% of the time even on a simple task to be insane. I continually argued with my GM about how this was crazy. Like a lot of people who never spent time around horses he was convinced riding is a much harder task then it is. If you Homebrew 1 & 20 as success and failure that's fine if ppl agree, although I'm firmly in Gwalxavad camp for style of play, but as a GM and Player. It's actually a way I often determine if my play style and a GM's play style mixes... along this line. I think it's even more important in 5e then any previous edition because of abilities like Lucky, Shield, Arcane Deflection, Defensive Duelist, etc... Some are abilities that use up ReAction, Spell Slot, or Long Rest ability. I believe the Player should know if it will help the character or not. To me the game is about Cooperative Story telling and the Player has more knowledge then the character and with the GM help shape the world.
I've run into the same problem as a player. When you have a character with Shield Master and Expertise in Athletics at lvl 5 you're looking at your roll as 1d20 + 3 (Str) + 3 (Prof) + 3 (Expertise) - a roll between 10-30. This means you minimum roll is possibly better then the average roll of an average target. This Character has sunk a lot to be GOOD at this.
I have had a GM assign "improvised weapon damage" if the Shover makes a Nat20 or the Shovie makes a 1. As long as this is always consistent never feels bad.
I've personally always hated this holdover from 2nd edition. In 3rd edition it was the same but my GM was from 2nd Edition and LOVE this Homebrew. The fact that you could *always* fail a Ride Check 5% of the time even on a simple task to be insane.
I'm not sure this is a problem with the idea of critical successes / critical failures, but rather about when the DM calls for a skill roll.
Riding your horse isn't something that ever needs to be checked, if your character has some experience. Trying to stay on your horse while you and the horse are being carried down the mountain a short distance by a minor snow-slide - that calls for a roll. I'm with you that "failing a Ride Check 5% of the time" for simple tasks is ridiculous.
For a task that actually take skill and luck, then sometimes novices get lucky ( beginners luck ), and sometimes veterans just can't catch a break.
But the complement to not checking for trivially simple tasks, is that you shouldn't ever check for impossible tasks. No amount of beginners luck is going to let you jump over a river - even with a nat 20.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Hi guys, I also am new to DMing and I was wondering if as a house rule I would make it that a nat 20 on saving throws and ability checks I would give them +2 to +5 on top of all modifiers automatically ruling out the impossible and vise versa for a nat 1 -2 to -5. What do you guys think?
So, this is why I now establish my rulings in session zero.
What I mean by that is to make it very clear that at Nat 1 is not auto failure, and a Nat 20 is not auto success. I do this for other rules like clarifying that flanking is not used as an optional rule, and that I don't use diagonal travel rules. I clarify that the reason for the last two are because combat can already drag and so adding additional stuff in really doesn't help. As for the 1/20 issue here the problem with auto success/failure:
PC 1 has a modifier of -1, PC 2 has a modifier of +6
PC 1 rolls a 6, PC 2 rolls a 1.
By rights PC 2's natural skills (their modifier) means that they're going to have a higher baseline chance of success. That nat one shouldn't rob the skill player of the chance to succeed a task over a character who has no baseline skill at all. If the creature they're attacking has a 6 AC (though can't think of one that springs to mind right now) the player with the nat one should hit. End of.
Likewise at the top end, the PCs are facing a creature with 22 AC. A nat 20 with a +1 modifier is not going to cut it. The modifiers indicate at baseline skill in my mind, and the roll is how lucky/accurate the hit attempt is. To then give the hit to that PC just simply feels wrong. Said PC just has too little experience, or practice with their weapon to land a hit, crit of not. Story-wise I'd say that the PC would be looking at this heavily armoured foe and cannot see any visible weakness or avenue of attack. Of course a PC with higher baseline skills (modifiers) might have encounter this type of armour previously and know to aim for a particular spot.
Now sure, everyone loves getting crits, and this is where I personally do tend to house rule that Nat20s bring storytelling bonuses, and extra damage. It won't always mean a hit, and despite the changes proposed in the One D&D UA, I would simply ignore that change if I were to run the new version of the rules (when they eventually get released.)
I can see however why you might want to consider the shove an attack. There are plenty of situations where despite what Stormknight rightly put, where a shove could be considered an attack. Maybe the PC is trying to shove a foe off a ledge, maybe they're shoving the foe onto a set of spikes, or other environmental damage dealing object. So, I understand why the temptation would be to treat it like an attack.
This then comes back to your session zero (or if midway through a campaign) a check-in/refresher session. Take some time before a session to discuss with your players that as time has gone on we're naturally strayed from the rules and you want to establish the recently contested rules so that there is a clear precedent moving forward. Setting this precedent and making it clear what variants, and what optional rules you're following and not following. This allows you to listen to your player's thoughts on them and hear any objections. It's also a good way of checking in to see what (even core rules) just aren't working for the group or the game. There are several of the core rules in D&D that have been muddied over the years by actual plays, by different DM interpretations and even by the writers behind the rules themselves. Taking the time to refresh everyone's expectations, to establish that yes, maybe DM made a mistake but having gone and reread DMG this is how you now interpret the rule and how you'll rule it from here on out.
Doing this refresher has in my experience really helped my players and been appreciated. It's showing that yes I'm on their side, I'm not trying to find an obscure rule just to deny their fun.
Recently in a game, I had a PC attempt a shove versus the monster. I as the DM rolled a nat. 20 and the player wanted to argue that since his character has a decent ability modifier if his total had been higher he should win the contest. I have been pretty consistent about if a PC rolls a 1 or 2 on an ability check it acts the same as in combat. The PC ended up with a lower total anyway so it was not a major issue but he did say he would argue it if he had been higher. How should I handle this should it come up again? Thanks
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersRolls of 1 or 20 are not automatic fails or success in 5th edition D&D, other than:
Note also Jeremy Crawford's ruling on this in his tweets states:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/20/does-a-natural-20-mean-an-automatic-success/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/13/does-a-natural-20-on-a-skill-check-a-critical-automatic-success/
Using the Shove action in combat is not an attack (although it replaces one of your attacks) - it's a contest of Athletics and therefore rolling either 1 or 20 has no special consequence.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I agree that nat. 20 doesn't mean an auto-success for ability checks.
As I put it to one of my players - "If you declare that you're going to jump across the English Channel, and you roll a nat 20, you don't DO it" ( to be fair, you shouldn't allow skill rolls for impossible, or trivially simple, goals anyways )
What I tend to do it, if their adjusted score succeeds, and the rolled a nat 20, then they might have a great success, or pull it off with especially cool dramatic narrative flair.
Likewise, with natural 1, they might fail with special dramatic narrative flair.
All that, however, is totally house rules.
In your case, if the adjusted nat 20 of monster had caused in to win the competition, I would have described it dramatically.
If the adjusted nat 20 of the monster had failed, I would have had it fail, but again, describe it's efforts, and the player's success against it, dramatically "the monster hunkers down with a growl, it's claws biting into the stone floor of the cavern, but OG, with a gargantuan effort of straining muscles, still manages to push it back, the monsters claws gouging furrows in the cavern floor ..."
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To put it in one simple question:
Do you want nat20 for your NPCs' ability checks to be auto-success, or does this rule only apply to player rolls?
Technically 20/1 only apply to attack rolls. I could see a strong argument for it in contested rolls during combat, but some amount of realism has to apply. If a gnome tried to push an elephant, no roll is going to help.
Whatever you decide, let everyone know and be consistent.
Out of combat ability checks, the natural 20/1 absolutely doesn't apply. I don't care if your raging barbarian has 30 strength, it still can't punch through a mountain.
On the shove I'd say the monster tripped if the player rolled a D20, but I might have the monster fall prone on the PC and deal damage. I'd probably roll a D4 outside of the DM screen to decide which direction the monster fell.
Basically if the players try to twist the rules I just twist them back.
I would ask why your player was informed of your nat 20. You as a GM are not obligated to announce the numbers you roll unless it's a damage roll. I just would have informed the player that they didn't succeed and describe the result.
Dungeonmastering since 1992!
On one hand, I consider a 1 a failure and a 20 a success, only because I should only be asking for rolls where there is a possibility of success or failure. Of course, in some cases, there is a progression from failure, to non-event, to success, and I should only ask for a roll if somewhere between 1-20 is the demarkation between failure and non-event, or non-event and success in those cases. Or perhaps abject failure, or slight failure.
Formatting Tooltips, because I always forget
Dungeonmastering since 1992!
Been DMing just as long - I like the psychology of having the die on the table for all to see. I've never had a problem with players derailing the game with rules arguments where the actual rolls themselves are concerned - if anything the few derailments I experience are based on the more die-less aspects of the game (most recently I had a sorceror who took some explaining to get across that the distance spell does not double the AoE of a spell).
Something like the OP is more along the lines of the DM having a house rule in place (perhaps unknowingly) about the effect a natural 20 might have on an ability check. Such house rules, if known as such and accepted by all the players involved, are fine, no matter which side of the screen you roll on (save in those cases where you get a player who feels that such rules should only work in their favor).
Had the DM not announced the roll, they would have not posted the topic here, where they could be shown that Nat 20=success is not a RAW part of 5e. If the roll had been secret, the DM might be unknowingly screwing over both his players and himself for the rest of his game. Now he can see that it is not a built - in aspect of the game, but if he desires it can be a house rule (though the day shall come when both player and opponent roll nat 20 on an opposed check).
Dungeonmastering since 1992!
I've personally always hated this holdover from 2nd edition. In 3rd edition it was the same but my GM was from 2nd Edition and LOVE this Homebrew. The fact that you could *always* fail a Ride Check 5% of the time even on a simple task to be insane. I continually argued with my GM about how this was crazy. Like a lot of people who never spent time around horses he was convinced riding is a much harder task then it is.
If you Homebrew 1 & 20 as success and failure that's fine if ppl agree, although I'm firmly in Gwalxavad camp for style of play, but as a GM and Player. It's actually a way I often determine if my play style and a GM's play style mixes... along this line.
I think it's even more important in 5e then any previous edition because of abilities like Lucky, Shield, Arcane Deflection, Defensive Duelist, etc... Some are abilities that use up ReAction, Spell Slot, or Long Rest ability. I believe the Player should know if it will help the character or not.
To me the game is about Cooperative Story telling and the Player has more knowledge then the character and with the GM help shape the world.
I've run into the same problem as a player. When you have a character with Shield Master and Expertise in Athletics at lvl 5 you're looking at your roll as 1d20 + 3 (Str) + 3 (Prof) + 3 (Expertise) - a roll between 10-30. This means you minimum roll is possibly better then the average roll of an average target. This Character has sunk a lot to be GOOD at this.
I have had a GM assign "improvised weapon damage" if the Shover makes a Nat20 or the Shovie makes a 1. As long as this is always consistent never feels bad.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You obviously haven't seen some of the "rivers" they have out West. "This ain't exactly the Mississippi!"
Hi guys, I also am new to DMing and I was wondering if as a house rule I would make it that a nat 20 on saving throws and ability checks I would give them +2 to +5 on top of all modifiers automatically ruling out the impossible and vise versa for a nat 1 -2 to -5. What do you guys think?
Page 242 of the dmg lists nat 20s and nat 1s. it's technically not a house rule but a variant rule.
So, this is why I now establish my rulings in session zero.
What I mean by that is to make it very clear that at Nat 1 is not auto failure, and a Nat 20 is not auto success. I do this for other rules like clarifying that flanking is not used as an optional rule, and that I don't use diagonal travel rules. I clarify that the reason for the last two are because combat can already drag and so adding additional stuff in really doesn't help. As for the 1/20 issue here the problem with auto success/failure:
PC 1 has a modifier of -1, PC 2 has a modifier of +6
PC 1 rolls a 6, PC 2 rolls a 1.
By rights PC 2's natural skills (their modifier) means that they're going to have a higher baseline chance of success. That nat one shouldn't rob the skill player of the chance to succeed a task over a character who has no baseline skill at all. If the creature they're attacking has a 6 AC (though can't think of one that springs to mind right now) the player with the nat one should hit. End of.
Likewise at the top end, the PCs are facing a creature with 22 AC. A nat 20 with a +1 modifier is not going to cut it. The modifiers indicate at baseline skill in my mind, and the roll is how lucky/accurate the hit attempt is. To then give the hit to that PC just simply feels wrong. Said PC just has too little experience, or practice with their weapon to land a hit, crit of not. Story-wise I'd say that the PC would be looking at this heavily armoured foe and cannot see any visible weakness or avenue of attack. Of course a PC with higher baseline skills (modifiers) might have encounter this type of armour previously and know to aim for a particular spot.
Now sure, everyone loves getting crits, and this is where I personally do tend to house rule that Nat20s bring storytelling bonuses, and extra damage. It won't always mean a hit, and despite the changes proposed in the One D&D UA, I would simply ignore that change if I were to run the new version of the rules (when they eventually get released.)
I can see however why you might want to consider the shove an attack. There are plenty of situations where despite what Stormknight rightly put, where a shove could be considered an attack. Maybe the PC is trying to shove a foe off a ledge, maybe they're shoving the foe onto a set of spikes, or other environmental damage dealing object. So, I understand why the temptation would be to treat it like an attack.
This then comes back to your session zero (or if midway through a campaign) a check-in/refresher session. Take some time before a session to discuss with your players that as time has gone on we're naturally strayed from the rules and you want to establish the recently contested rules so that there is a clear precedent moving forward. Setting this precedent and making it clear what variants, and what optional rules you're following and not following. This allows you to listen to your player's thoughts on them and hear any objections. It's also a good way of checking in to see what (even core rules) just aren't working for the group or the game. There are several of the core rules in D&D that have been muddied over the years by actual plays, by different DM interpretations and even by the writers behind the rules themselves. Taking the time to refresh everyone's expectations, to establish that yes, maybe DM made a mistake but having gone and reread DMG this is how you now interpret the rule and how you'll rule it from here on out.
Doing this refresher has in my experience really helped my players and been appreciated. It's showing that yes I'm on their side, I'm not trying to find an obscure rule just to deny their fun.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.