I understand that in 5E, a natural 1 is always a failure when rolling an attack roll, regardless of bonuses...but this is only for attack rolls.
Does rolling a natural 1 in melee automatically allow for any opponent within melee range to use their reaction to attack? That's what we've been doing but I can't find that rule in the PHB. Is this something my group (I joined three years ago, which is when I started playing 5E) carried over/house ruled, or is it official?
I understand that in 5E, a natural 1 is always a failure when rolling an attack roll, regardless of bonuses...but this is only for attack rolls.
Does rolling a natural 1 in melee automatically allow for any opponent within melee range to use their reaction to attack? That's what we've been doing but I can't find that rule in the PHB. Is this something my group (I joined three years ago, which is when I started playing 5E) carried over/house ruled, or is it official?
The reaction attack on an attack with a natural 1 is a house rule. Normally, reaction attacks only happen as a result of Attacks of opportunity (triggered off of movement) or in response to an ability or spell that grants other options. You could theoretically prepare an attack for when someone attacked you, but that would use the Ready Action on your turn and then your Reaction to attack after they attacked you.
The Orcish Fury feat from Xanathar's Guide to Everything does allow an attack to be made using a reaction, but the trigger is from the half-orc's racial ability Relentless Endurance triggering, not from the actual attack that triggered Relentless Endurance.
I understand that in 5E, a natural 1 is always a failure when rolling an attack roll, regardless of bonuses...but this is only for attack rolls.
Does rolling a natural 1 in melee automatically allow for any opponent within melee range to use their reaction to attack? That's what we've been doing but I can't find that rule in the PHB. Is this something my group (I joined three years ago, which is when I started playing 5E) carried over/house ruled, or is it official?
It's a house rule. By rules, the only effect of rolling a 1 is that it's an automatic miss on an attack roll. There are no other effects on attacks, and a 1 isn't necessarily a fail on anything other than an attack roll.
Yeah, what everyone else has said is correct. The only thing that rolling a natural 1 affects is when you're making an attack roll, and the only consequence of that is an automatic miss. No free hits, no dropping your weapons, no accidentally hitting a teammate, etc... those are all house rules that plenty of people use.
Rolling a 1 on anything other than an attack roll, such as skill/ability checks & saving throws, is just a 1, not an automatic failure... rolling a 1 on any of these just means it's unlikely, depending on the modifiers, to be a success. That's usually punishment enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
So that means rolling a natural 20 on anything except an attack roll is NOT an automatic success? A high enough DC could be impossible if the party is low enough.
So that means rolling a natural 20 on anything except an attack roll is NOT an automatic success? A high enough DC could be impossible if the party is low enough.
That is correct. A nat 20 for a saving throw or ability check could still mean failure, if the DC is high enough and the character's bonuses aren't enough to meet or exceed the DC.
So that means rolling a natural 20 on anything except an attack roll is NOT an automatic success? A high enough DC could be impossible if the party is low enough.
As Xukuri said, that is correct, and this is important. You should not call for rolls where the DC is so high that the player can't succeed. Especially on skill checks, you should not allow a player to roll if there is no chance of success. Then you should just tell tem, that is not possible! Players has a tendency to be disappointed and bitter if they roll a 20 and is told they failed (and frankly, so would probably I if I was the player).
So that means rolling a natural 20 on anything except an attack roll is NOT an automatic success? A high enough DC could be impossible if the party is low enough.
As Xukuri said, that is correct, and this is important. You should not call for rolls where the DC is so high that the player can't succeed. Especially on skill checks, you should not allow a player to roll if there is no chance of success. Then you should just tell tem, that is not possible! Players has a tendency to be disappointed and bitter if they roll a 20 and is told they failed (and frankly, so would probably I if I was the player).
The exception that I would have for this is if help or guidance would be enough to get them over the hump. Help only applies if the advantage gained is the flat +5 and not roll the d20 twice.
As Xukuri said, that is correct, and this is important. You should not call for rolls where the DC is so high that the player can't succeed. Especially on skill checks, you should not allow a player to roll if there is no chance of success. Then you should just tell tem, that is not possible! Players has a tendency to be disappointed and bitter if they roll a 20 and is told they failed (and frankly, so would probably I if I was the player).
I think you can mitigate or eliminate any potential disappointment in your Session Zero, wherein you can remind players that, according to the RAW, a natural 20 is only an automatic success for attack rolls, never for saving throws, ability checks, or other d20-based rolls.
Also, I do think it's sometimes OK to let players roll even when the DC is (for example) 30 and they simply don't have the bonuses to make it. It helps preserve some mystery - they only know a certain action is tough and requires a lot of strength/dexterity/etc. - and it prevents them from feeling like the DM's making arbitrary decisions or rulings. If they're trying to do something outlandish ("I'm going to jump off my horse and execute three perfect flips in the air before landing!") then, sure, tell them nah, you just fall down.
As Xukuri said, that is correct, and this is important. You should not call for rolls where the DC is so high that the player can't succeed. Especially on skill checks, you should not allow a player to roll if there is no chance of success. Then you should just tell tem, that is not possible! Players has a tendency to be disappointed and bitter if they roll a 20 and is told they failed (and frankly, so would probably I if I was the player).
I think you can mitigate or eliminate any potential disappointment in your Session Zero, wherein you can remind players that, according to the RAW, a natural 20 is only an automatic success for attack rolls, never for saving throws, ability checks, or other d20-based rolls.
Also, I do think it's sometimes OK to let players roll even when the DC is (for example) 30 and they simply don't have the bonuses to make it. It helps preserve some mystery - they only know a certain action is tough and requires a lot of strength/dexterity/etc. - and it prevents them from feeling like the DM's making arbitrary decisions or rulings. If they're trying to do something outlandish ("I'm going to jump off my horse and execute three perfect flips in the air before landing!") then, sure, tell them nah, you just fall down.
you don’t think an athletic or acrobatic enough gnome can do 3 flips off of a horse?
I think that doing so with only five vertical feet for space is asking a bit much to believe. Considering you fall at 6 feet per second and it only increases each second for a good while....a very flexible gnome or halfling might be able to pull off one and half. Not three.
I think that doing so with only five vertical feet for space is asking a bit much to believe. Considering you fall at 6 feet per second and it only increases each second for a good while....a very flexible gnome or halfling might be able to pull off one and half. Not three.
Nah, it's really not that unbelievable. Whether someone could do that is only going to depend on the creature's rotational acceleration, which is dramatically increased when the creature "tucks" (reducing the radius from core). There are a lot of principles of dynamics at play. Likely to happen? Nah. Reasonably possible? Yeah.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Considering that actual humans, trained and in excellent shape, have to use an elevated platform with bounce to successfully execute multiple complete flips, I'm not buying a 3 foot tall halfling can do three of them between the saddle and the ground.
Considering that actual humans, trained and in excellent shape, have to use an elevated platform with bounce to successfully execute multiple complete flips, I'm not buying a 3 foot tall halfling can do three of them between the saddle and the ground.
But a person 2x their height, using the same elevated platform can?
how tall do you think gymnastics equipment is?
i see dudes in public parks do double backflips off a park bench just to show off to random girls jogging by.
Not to get off topic, but three flips? That is what gymnasts do, therefore it stands to reason that an accomplished acrobatic artist would follow suit.
I understand that in 5E, a natural 1 is always a failure when rolling an attack roll, regardless of bonuses...but this is only for attack rolls.
Does rolling a natural 1 in melee automatically allow for any opponent within melee range to use their reaction to attack? That's what we've been doing but I can't find that rule in the PHB. Is this something my group (I joined three years ago, which is when I started playing 5E) carried over/house ruled, or is it official?
The reaction attack on an attack with a natural 1 is a house rule. Normally, reaction attacks only happen as a result of Attacks of opportunity (triggered off of movement) or in response to an ability or spell that grants other options. You could theoretically prepare an attack for when someone attacked you, but that would use the Ready Action on your turn and then your Reaction to attack after they attacked you.
The Orcish Fury feat from Xanathar's Guide to Everything does allow an attack to be made using a reaction, but the trigger is from the half-orc's racial ability Relentless Endurance triggering, not from the actual attack that triggered Relentless Endurance.
It's a house rule. By rules, the only effect of rolling a 1 is that it's an automatic miss on an attack roll. There are no other effects on attacks, and a 1 isn't necessarily a fail on anything other than an attack roll.
No.
Thanks, all! I appreciate the clarification/confirmation.
Yeah, what everyone else has said is correct. The only thing that rolling a natural 1 affects is when you're making an attack roll, and the only consequence of that is an automatic miss. No free hits, no dropping your weapons, no accidentally hitting a teammate, etc... those are all house rules that plenty of people use.
Rolling a 1 on anything other than an attack roll, such as skill/ability checks & saving throws, is just a 1, not an automatic failure... rolling a 1 on any of these just means it's unlikely, depending on the modifiers, to be a success. That's usually punishment enough.
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.
Well, also Death Saving Throws. 1 and 20 have special meanings for those as well.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yep, knew the latter part (natural 1 on any other score does not equal automatic failure; bonuses apply).
So that means rolling a natural 20 on anything except an attack roll is NOT an automatic success? A high enough DC could be impossible if the party is low enough.
That is correct. A nat 20 for a saving throw or ability check could still mean failure, if the DC is high enough and the character's bonuses aren't enough to meet or exceed the DC.
As Xukuri said, that is correct, and this is important. You should not call for rolls where the DC is so high that the player can't succeed. Especially on skill checks, you should not allow a player to roll if there is no chance of success. Then you should just tell tem, that is not possible! Players has a tendency to be disappointed and bitter if they roll a 20 and is told they failed (and frankly, so would probably I if I was the player).
Ludo ergo sum!
The exception that I would have for this is if help or guidance would be enough to get them over the hump. Help only applies if the advantage gained is the flat +5 and not roll the d20 twice.
I think you can mitigate or eliminate any potential disappointment in your Session Zero, wherein you can remind players that, according to the RAW, a natural 20 is only an automatic success for attack rolls, never for saving throws, ability checks, or other d20-based rolls.
Also, I do think it's sometimes OK to let players roll even when the DC is (for example) 30 and they simply don't have the bonuses to make it. It helps preserve some mystery - they only know a certain action is tough and requires a lot of strength/dexterity/etc. - and it prevents them from feeling like the DM's making arbitrary decisions or rulings. If they're trying to do something outlandish ("I'm going to jump off my horse and execute three perfect flips in the air before landing!") then, sure, tell them nah, you just fall down.
you don’t think an athletic or acrobatic enough gnome can do 3 flips off of a horse?
Blank
I think that doing so with only five vertical feet for space is asking a bit much to believe. Considering you fall at 6 feet per second and it only increases each second for a good while....a very flexible gnome or halfling might be able to pull off one and half. Not three.
Nah, it's really not that unbelievable. Whether someone could do that is only going to depend on the creature's rotational acceleration, which is dramatically increased when the creature "tucks" (reducing the radius from core). There are a lot of principles of dynamics at play. Likely to happen? Nah. Reasonably possible? Yeah.
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.
Not to get off track, but three flips? Gymnasts do that, so not unreasonable for someone with proficiency or expertise in acrobatics.
Five flips? That's another question.
Considering that actual humans, trained and in excellent shape, have to use an elevated platform with bounce to successfully execute multiple complete flips, I'm not buying a 3 foot tall halfling can do three of them between the saddle and the ground.
But a person 2x their height, using the same elevated platform can?
how tall do you think gymnastics equipment is?
i see dudes in public parks do double backflips off a park bench just to show off to random girls jogging by.
Blank
Not to get off topic, but three flips? That is what gymnasts do, therefore it stands to reason that an accomplished acrobatic artist would follow suit.
geometry dash lite