So one of my players, in our last session. Said that he couldn't find anywhere other than under combat rules that a Natural 1 would always be a failure. IMH that would be way to good for bards and rogues first of all. That means that an 11th lvl rogue can NEVER FAIL A CHECK (mostly). So my question is: Does a Natural 1 always fail? Like it has since 3.0 and maybe even before. Or does it just act as the lowest number?
A Natural 1, as with a Natural 20, only affects attack rolls and death saving throws. It affects nothing else.
A rogue with expertise, +5 ability mod and reliable talent can get a minimum of 20 + their proficiency. At level 20 this is, indeed, a minimum of 26 and their maximum is 36. In exchange for this, rogues' subclass abilities are often mediocre in comparison to others (useful? yes. As useful as instant-killing a creature like open-hand monks, commanding armies of undead like necromancers, or infinite-HP-resetting like Moon Druids, or the ****-you-megaton-bombs of radiance that any Paladin can dish out on a whim while saving against everything and spellcasting on top while riding gryphons (I hate the Mary-Sue Paladins)? Not so much.
Keep in mind that a DM can simply declare something impossible for a mortal and just like that, no roll attempts and nothing but instant-fails no matter their skill mods. Rogues and Bards are great skill monkeys, but they have other limits compared to other classes that make it balanced in the long run.
A Natural 1, as with a Natural 20, only affects attack rolls and death saving throws. It affects nothing else.
A rogue with expertise, +5 ability mod and reliable talent can get a minimum of 20 + their proficiency. At level 20 this is, indeed, a minimum of 26 and their maximum is 36. In exchange for this, rogues' subclass abilities are often mediocre in comparison to others (useful? yes. As useful as instant-killing a creature like open-hand monks, commanding armies of undead like necromancers, or infinite-HP-resetting like Moon Druids, or the ****-you-megaton-bombs of radiance that any Paladin can dish out on a whim while saving against everything and spellcasting on top while riding gryphons (I hate the Mary-Sue Paladins)? Not so much.
Keep in mind that a DM can simply declare something impossible for a mortal and just like that, no roll attempts and nothing but instant-fails no matter their skill mods. Rogues and Bards are great skill monkeys, but they have other limits compared to other classes that make it balanced in the long run.
Also. While they do get high skill bonuses and theoretically astronomical rolls on them rolling a 26 is not neccisarily a success. A common thing is players with skill bonuses that high get cocky and try to use that skill in superhuman ways. Persuading the king to give you his kingdom or sneaking up to an alert beholder in a brightly lit chamber are things you can try. But the dm can rule the goal isnt possible despite your bonuses. Or let you roll for it at a dc of 35 or 45. Meaning they would still need basically a natural 20 to pull off.
The nat 1 nat 20 auto fail or success is a common house rule however so its a good idea to check at the table.
Also. While they do get high skill bonuses and theoretically astronomical rolls on them rolling a 26 is not neccisarily a success. A common thing is players with skill bonuses that high get cocky and try to use that skill in superhuman ways. Persuading the king to give you his kingdom or sneaking up to an alert beholder in a brightly lit chamber are things you can try. But the dm can rule the goal isnt possible despite your bonuses. Or let you roll for it at a dc of 35 or 45. Meaning they would still need basically a natural 20 to pull off.
The nat 1 nat 20 auto fail or success is a common house rule however so its a good idea to check at the table.
Yeah. I ended up ruling that nat 1's and 20's are a thing. A big reason for that is that I come from 3.0, and also my ranger is going to dual class to rogue so very soon he is going to have +9 / +10 stealth. And I want there to be a chance of failure as well as success.
It's a good idea to consider whether something is trivially easy or impossibly hard as well. Then you can just say before any rolls are made that it's an auto pass or auto fail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Sometimes I prefer when my players can essentially auto-succeed on skills. Knowing that my bard player is very likely to have a high number on a knowledge check allows me to write out plenty of lore beforehand and know that my prep time won't be wasted by a low roll. Encounter building is easier because I can safely assume my rogue will be able to sneak, unlock doors, etc. Sure, players might try to abuse it as said above, but I'll either limit the ability to roll by telling them "Your PC knows he's good, but also knows he's not THAT good."
I also typically treat nat 1's as an auto-fail, but I would not recommend forcing this on a Rogue with Reliable Talent. They cannot roll lower than 10 on the die on their proficient skills; a nat 1 is still a 10 for them.
I think its mostly house rules that players assumed with time were the standard. Most people for a long time assumed that if a Nat 20 meant an auto success, then a Nat 1 meant the exact opposite in the worst way. Its led to some really fun or frantic things in games I've seen, ran or watched... but just like 'Free Parking' in Monopoly, its up to the discretion of the DM and players if they want to add that little flavor to their game.
I don't use nat 20 as an auto succeed, but a nat 1 is always a botch. If you're playing a halfling with a 9 strength, there is no way that trying really hard is going to let you lift the rusted portcullis that weighs 400 lbs. But, a half orc with a 20 strength could, for example, forget to lift with his knees, or not get a firm grip.
So one of my players, in our last session. Said that he couldn't find anywhere other than under combat rules that a Natural 1 would always be a failure. IMH that would be way to good for bards and rogues first of all. That means that an 11th lvl rogue can NEVER FAIL A CHECK (mostly). So my question is: Does a Natural 1 always fail? Like it has since 3.0 and maybe even before. Or does it just act as the lowest number?
The natural 1/20 rule didn't apply to skill checks in 3rd edition, either, just attacks and saving throws.
In 5e, it only applies to attacks (and death saves, but they have their own rules about it).
So one of my players, in our last session. Said that he couldn't find anywhere other than under combat rules that a Natural 1 would always be a failure. IMH that would be way to good for bards and rogues first of all. That means that an 11th lvl rogue can NEVER FAIL A CHECK (mostly). So my question is: Does a Natural 1 always fail? Like it has since 3.0 and maybe even before. Or does it just act as the lowest number?
The natural 1/20 rule didn't apply to skill checks in 3rd edition, either, just attacks and saving throws.
In 5e, it only applies to attacks (and death saves, but they have their own rules about it).
Huh. I've just always played w/ it so it came natural to me. XD
I use the auto crit/auto fail for all checks. House rules always trump RAW at your table and as the DM you have the final say. With using be auto crit/fail, I also don’t have them check on things that are laughably simple or impossibly hard. I wouldn’t have a character do a dexterity check every time they walked, nor would I even bother setting a DC for them to attempt to jump a 400 foot wide gorge. As for the high modifiers of higher level characters, as they level up, they will be handling things that will have higher DC’s to overcome.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
With using be auto crit/fail, I also don’t have them check on things that are laughably simple or impossibly hard. I wouldn’t have a character do a dexterity check every time they walked, nor would I even bother setting a DC for them to attempt to jump a 400 foot wide gorge.
While this sounds reasonable, it's actually very inconsistent. Tasks that are normal, or difficult, for someone of average skill can be "laughably simple" for someone of high enough skill. To a master Rogue, highly trained and experienced in moving stealthily, Hiding (i.e. a Dexterity (Stealth) check) is as "laughably simple" as walking is to you or me. In fact, walking, a "laughably simple" task for you or me, and presumably all PCs, is a decidedly non-trivial task for a toddler. While there are no toddlers in D&D (well, at least not played by players... well, at least not in most standard games!), there are master Rogues.
In fact, it would seem that what decides whether something is "laughably simple" (or "impossible") for a particular creature is defined precisely by their minimum and maximum rolls compared to the DC of the task. For someone with a minimum roll of 15 and a maximum roll of 34, any task with DC 15 or below is "laughably simple", and any task with DC 35 or higher is "impossible".
The official rule is that critical success/failure is only applicable to attack rolls & death saves.
A significant portion of tables use the common house rule expanding critical success/failure to ability (skill) checks.
Which is what I've done. Else it very quickly gets out of hand with skill checks.
How does that stop things from 'getting out of hand'?
Because if there is no chance of failure, they can always succeed in the end. There needs to be a possiblity to always fail. It doesn't stop it complete yeah but it helps.
My understanding is that he's saying he does, so that nat1 can still be a failure.
But I don't really see, with the way 5e works, how that's an issue. Rolling a nat 1 on a skill or saving throw will (almost?) never succeed, unless you invested very heavily into it (as in, high-level character, expertise, and a 20 in a relevant stat), and even in that case, only for DC of around ~15, which the game designs as "moderate". A lv17 character with that setup could guarantee a result of 18 on a nat1, but that's not even a "Hard" DC. So there should still be a fair chance of failure for DC25+.
So one of my players, in our last session. Said that he couldn't find anywhere other than under combat rules that a Natural 1 would always be a failure. IMH that would be way to good for bards and rogues first of all. That means that an 11th lvl rogue can NEVER FAIL A CHECK (mostly). So my question is: Does a Natural 1 always fail? Like it has since 3.0 and maybe even before. Or does it just act as the lowest number?
A Natural 1, as with a Natural 20, only affects attack rolls and death saving throws. It affects nothing else.
A rogue with expertise, +5 ability mod and reliable talent can get a minimum of 20 + their proficiency. At level 20 this is, indeed, a minimum of 26 and their maximum is 36. In exchange for this, rogues' subclass abilities are often mediocre in comparison to others (useful? yes. As useful as instant-killing a creature like open-hand monks, commanding armies of undead like necromancers, or infinite-HP-resetting like Moon Druids, or the ****-you-megaton-bombs of radiance that any Paladin can dish out on a whim while saving against everything and spellcasting on top while riding gryphons (I hate the Mary-Sue Paladins)? Not so much.
Keep in mind that a DM can simply declare something impossible for a mortal and just like that, no roll attempts and nothing but instant-fails no matter their skill mods. Rogues and Bards are great skill monkeys, but they have other limits compared to other classes that make it balanced in the long run.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Alright. Thank you for the clarification. ^^
Also. While they do get high skill bonuses and theoretically astronomical rolls on them rolling a 26 is not neccisarily a success. A common thing is players with skill bonuses that high get cocky and try to use that skill in superhuman ways. Persuading the king to give you his kingdom or sneaking up to an alert beholder in a brightly lit chamber are things you can try. But the dm can rule the goal isnt possible despite your bonuses. Or let you roll for it at a dc of 35 or 45. Meaning they would still need basically a natural 20 to pull off.
The nat 1 nat 20 auto fail or success is a common house rule however so its a good idea to check at the table.
Yeah. I ended up ruling that nat 1's and 20's are a thing. A big reason for that is that I come from 3.0, and also my ranger is going to dual class to rogue so very soon he is going to have +9 / +10 stealth. And I want there to be a chance of failure as well as success.
It's a good idea to consider whether something is trivially easy or impossibly hard as well. Then you can just say before any rolls are made that it's an auto pass or auto fail.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Sometimes I prefer when my players can essentially auto-succeed on skills. Knowing that my bard player is very likely to have a high number on a knowledge check allows me to write out plenty of lore beforehand and know that my prep time won't be wasted by a low roll. Encounter building is easier because I can safely assume my rogue will be able to sneak, unlock doors, etc. Sure, players might try to abuse it as said above, but I'll either limit the ability to roll by telling them "Your PC knows he's good, but also knows he's not THAT good."
I also typically treat nat 1's as an auto-fail, but I would not recommend forcing this on a Rogue with Reliable Talent. They cannot roll lower than 10 on the die on their proficient skills; a nat 1 is still a 10 for them.
I think its mostly house rules that players assumed with time were the standard. Most people for a long time assumed that if a Nat 20 meant an auto success, then a Nat 1 meant the exact opposite in the worst way. Its led to some really fun or frantic things in games I've seen, ran or watched... but just like 'Free Parking' in Monopoly, its up to the discretion of the DM and players if they want to add that little flavor to their game.
I don't use nat 20 as an auto succeed, but a nat 1 is always a botch. If you're playing a halfling with a 9 strength, there is no way that trying really hard is going to let you lift the rusted portcullis that weighs 400 lbs. But, a half orc with a 20 strength could, for example, forget to lift with his knees, or not get a firm grip.
The natural 1/20 rule didn't apply to skill checks in 3rd edition, either, just attacks and saving throws.
In 5e, it only applies to attacks (and death saves, but they have their own rules about it).
Huh. I've just always played w/ it so it came natural to me. XD
I use the auto crit/auto fail for all checks. House rules always trump RAW at your table and as the DM you have the final say. With using be auto crit/fail, I also don’t have them check on things that are laughably simple or impossibly hard. I wouldn’t have a character do a dexterity check every time they walked, nor would I even bother setting a DC for them to attempt to jump a 400 foot wide gorge. As for the high modifiers of higher level characters, as they level up, they will be handling things that will have higher DC’s to overcome.
The official rule is that critical success/failure is only applicable to attack rolls & death saves.
A significant portion of tables use the common house rule expanding critical success/failure to ability (skill) checks.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Which is what I've done. Else it very quickly gets out of hand with skill checks.
While this sounds reasonable, it's actually very inconsistent. Tasks that are normal, or difficult, for someone of average skill can be "laughably simple" for someone of high enough skill. To a master Rogue, highly trained and experienced in moving stealthily, Hiding (i.e. a Dexterity (Stealth) check) is as "laughably simple" as walking is to you or me. In fact, walking, a "laughably simple" task for you or me, and presumably all PCs, is a decidedly non-trivial task for a toddler. While there are no toddlers in D&D (well, at least not played by players... well, at least not in most standard games!), there are master Rogues.
In fact, it would seem that what decides whether something is "laughably simple" (or "impossible") for a particular creature is defined precisely by their minimum and maximum rolls compared to the DC of the task. For someone with a minimum roll of 15 and a maximum roll of 34, any task with DC 15 or below is "laughably simple", and any task with DC 35 or higher is "impossible".
How does that stop things from 'getting out of hand'?
Because if there is no chance of failure, they can always succeed in the end. There needs to be a possiblity to always fail. It doesn't stop it complete yeah but it helps.
I think I'm misunderstanding you here, Daergiel. Are you saying that you do, or do not, apply the 1/20 rule to skill checks?
My understanding is that he's saying he does, so that nat1 can still be a failure.
But I don't really see, with the way 5e works, how that's an issue. Rolling a nat 1 on a skill or saving throw will (almost?) never succeed, unless you invested very heavily into it (as in, high-level character, expertise, and a 20 in a relevant stat), and even in that case, only for DC of around ~15, which the game designs as "moderate". A lv17 character with that setup could guarantee a result of 18 on a nat1, but that's not even a "Hard" DC. So there should still be a fair chance of failure for DC25+.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!