Man, I'm not sure how I feel about expanding critical success to skill checks. If you were a DM and someone asked to attempt something ridiculous, you could give them a roll and just set the DC stupidly high so they'd always fail. But with these rules, you kind of have to say "No, you can't do that" to avoid someone jumping a 50 ft chasm in a single bound, or other such 'impossible' feats because now there's always a 5% chance they'll succeed. Unless I've read the rules wrong, of course.
I also am not sure how to feel about removing critical hits from spells. One the one hand, most spells were saving throws anyway, so it doesn't matter as much and it helps provide some bonus for martials; one the other hand spells with spell attack rolls were already kinda bad in comparison to saving throw spells, so removing their ability to crit makes them even worse. Are they removing Spell Attack rolls from the game entirely?
Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll -- From the playtest entry for Rolling A 20
Things that are impossible are still impossible. I never got that argument against Crit Success/Fail in ability tests. YOU GET TO DECIDE IF THERE IS A ROLE. YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT THE ROLL IS FOR. It can be just as much a roll for levels of failure or levels of success. You, as DM, can decide that NO ROLL HAPPENS. If Crits guarantee success, then YOU agree to that when you allow a roll.
My concern with this playtest material is this line:
The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30
The way this is written, the onus of determining whether a d20 Test should be made is placed on the DM in the first line, which is fine, but then the second line specifies circumstances that must be met before the DM can make that call. Since a d20 Test does not occur unless the DM determines that it is warranted, a d20 Test does not occur if it is not warranted, so any test that would have a target number of less than 5 or greater than 30 is not made. Although it is not specified, it is reasonable to assume the intent is that a test that would have a target number of less than 5 would automatically succeed, while a test that would have a target number over 30 would automatically fail. Since you aren't making a check in these circumstances, it is impossible to critically succeed/fail, thus avoiding some ridiculous situations that might otherwise occur, like convincing a king to name a PC their heir then abdicate the throne because of a natural 20 on a Persuasion check.
However, this also means a ranger with expertise in Perception and +5 on WIS for a total bonus of +17 before adding in bonuses from bless/guidance is not even able to TRY to see the rogue that got a 32 on their Stealth check?
The Eldritch Knight wearing Plate +3 (AC 21), a Shield +3 (+5 AC) and has cast the shield spell (+5 AC) can't even be attacked because their AC is 31. And bear in mind, this is just one of many ways to get an AC over 30.
A monk that has had its DEX and WIS scores reduced to 4 (-3 on each) has an AC of 4, but by this wording, a wizard with a STR of 3 (-4 modifier) is still guaranteed to be able to hit them with a greatsword they aren't proficient with because the monk's AC (and thus the target number) is under 5, even if the wizard would be making the attack with disadvantage.
This wording could be fixed by changing "To be warranted" to just read "Typically", thus presenting it as the norm rather than presenting it as limitations on the target number range that the DM should stay within when calling for checks. With the existing wording, I would be making exceptions for target numbers over 30 if the PC has a bonus over 10 on the roll, and would only require checks on target numbers under 5 if the character has a negative roll modifier, does not have advantage on the roll, and it is in combat or a similar high-pressure situation where the character can't take their time to avoid making mistakes.
Also, there is the line about rolls with target numbers below 5 or over 30. If jumping a 50 ft chasm would have a DC of 50, then no roll is made, period. That line is there to limit the absurdity that can occur with crit fail/success, though it introduces its own problems, which I mentioned in a separate post.
I'm happy to see that they actually had a celestial equivalent to the tiefling right from the beginning this time, and the animal head thing actually makes it stand out more than the aasimar does. And seeing the default tiefling have a choice between devils, demons, and chthonic fiends (glad to finally have a group name for all those fiends that don't neatly fall into the devil, demon, and yugoloth categories, though yugoloths are included as chthonic) for their lineage is something I didn't even know I wanted.
I'm also glad that they buffed some of the feats that needed it.
Honestly I am not a fan of the Ardlings based on their description, but I think seeing a picture would really help, it's just hard to visualize since all I think about is Egyptian gods (Which I guess is the point, according to some reports) but I also wonder if they were fine cutting Half-Orcs/Half-Elves (meaning races are fine to be pivoted around), why not just make Aasimar a base game race to foil Tieflings out of the gate? Aasimar and Tieflings were originally from the same sourcebook anyways.
Honestly I think I'd have liked Aasimar being a PHB race, and then have a generic race to collapse "any humanoid animal creature" into, the way Ardlings can have the appearance of any animal, not just the ones on the suggestion list. But that's just my opinion, I'm going to reserve full Ardling judgement until we see more of them 🤔
Hard agree on both the Tiefling and feat changes though, those look great so far, I'm just leery about the Ardlings.
My concern with this playtest material is this line:
The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30
The way this is written, the onus of determining whether a d20 Test should be made is placed on the DM in the first line, which is fine, but then the second line specifies circumstances that must be met before the DM can make that call. Since a d20 Test does not occur unless the DM determines that it is warranted, a d20 Test does not occur if it is not warranted, so any test that would have a target number of less than 5 or greater than 30 is not made. Although it is not specified, it is reasonable to assume the intent is that a test that would have a target number of less than 5 would automatically succeed, while a test that would have a target number over 30 would automatically fail. Since you aren't making a check in these circumstances, it is impossible to critically succeed/fail, thus avoiding some ridiculous situations that might otherwise occur, like convincing a king to name a PC their heir then abdicate the throne because of a natural 20 on a Persuasion check.
However, this also means a ranger with expertise in Perception and +5 on WIS for a total bonus of +17 before adding in bonuses from bless/guidance is not even able to TRY to see the rogue that got a 32 on their Stealth check?
The Eldritch Knight wearing Plate +3 (AC 21), a Shield +3 (+5 AC) and has cast the shield spell (+5 AC) can't even be attacked because their AC is 31. And bear in mind, this is just one of many ways to get an AC over 30.
A monk that has had its DEX and WIS scores reduced to 4 (-3 on each) has an AC of 4, but by this wording, a wizard with a STR of 3 (-4 modifier) is still guaranteed to be able to hit them with a greatsword they aren't proficient with because the monk's AC (and thus the target number) is under 5, even if the wizard would be making the attack with disadvantage.
This wording could be fixed by changing "To be warranted" to just read "Typically", thus presenting it as the norm rather than presenting it as limitations on the target number range that the DM should stay within when calling for checks. With the existing wording, I would be making exceptions for target numbers over 30 if the PC has a bonus over 10 on the roll, and would only require checks on target numbers under 5 if the character has a negative roll modifier, does not have advantage on the roll, and it is in combat or a similar high-pressure situation where the character can't take their time to avoid making mistakes.
You are right that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but keep in mind we are seeing it out of context. We don't know how easy its going to be to get an AC 31, for example. Maybe it won't even be possible. We're really only seeing character generation, and some of the rules associated with that. We don't have combat rules, or skill check rules. At this point, we're only seeing part of the equation.
Gotta say I'm liking most of what's presented so far.
I like the addition of the Arcane, Divine, and Primal tags to spells. It's a bit like spell schools but more fundamental and with more rules relevance.
I feel like "D20 Test" is an awkward term to say... but it definitely takes up less text space than "attack roll, ability check, or saving throw."
I like the new rules on inspiration
Hell yes, Crafter feat. It's not even that strong but it's 100% the feat I want for a table that allows crafting.
Further there's also the Musician feat for granting "Tool Proficiency" with three tools of a particular category. All that's missing is something like a Gambler feat to grant "Tool Proficiency" in three gaming sets. Or a Driver feat to grant "Tool Proficiency" in three vehicle categories... granted there aren't a lot of vehicle categories so that'd more or less amount to "All Vehicles."
I like how the Tool Proficiency rule adds advantage from the "Tools and Skills Together" part of the optional/variant rules for tools in XGE. It's nice to make that a standard part of the PHB.
I feel like Tavern Brawler lost a little something with taking out the improvised weapons proficiency but I suppose the DM could always rule that beer steins and wine bottles count as "Tiny Furniture" and let them be treated as clubs. And it now grants a benefit similar to the Crusher feat but loses the bonus action grapple. Also the Tavern Brawler version of "Shove" doesn't have any mention of size limitations. You can punch that Tarrasque backwards now assuming you can hit it.
Grappling and Shoving are now wrapped into Unarmed Strikes this adds to what a monk can do with their flurry of blows and can even add stunning strike to a grapple or shove. And now apparently grappling can just happen on a successful hit. I tend to like this development for simplicity's sake. Saving throws are simpler than contested checks and don't have to worry about things like expertise.
Grappling now imposes the "Slowed" condition on the grappler if the grappler tries to move another creature while grappling them. Interestingly, with the grappled condition giving you disadvantage on attacks against everyone but the grappler if you're being dragged it might be better to make an unarmed strike and attempt to shove the grappler, if they are size appropriate. Heck, apparently you can do this and still attempt to escape at the end of your turn.
I'm interested in what other ways they plan to use the slowed condition going forward.
I don't think I like the new rules for breaking a grapple. I don't like the idea of an Escape DC, I much prefer it as a contested roll. Plus, using Saving Throws instead of skill checks imposes more limits on who would be good at grappling or escaping. Whereas if they're skill-based, you can choose to be trained/expert in Athletics or Acrobatics(possibly because you specifically want to be good at grappling or escaping a grapple). Plus, abilities that give advantage/disadvantage on ability checks no longer affect grappling.
The new rules state that attack rolls, skill checks and saving throws are all considered d20 Tests, and anything that affects one of the items listed there affects all of them.
That's not what it says. It says that attacks, saves and ability checks all fall in the category of "D20 Tests", so if something affects "D20 Tests", that means it affects all three. That doesn't discount the possibility of something affecting only one of those three types of D20 Tests. Look at the new text for the Grappled and Slowed conditions, they mention advantage/disadvantage on specific types of D20 Tests, not D20 Tests in general.
I wasn't sure at first about Crit Hits only applying to martial attacks, but I suppose it does begin to address the imbalance between linear martials and quadratic casters.
I'm disappointed with the rules for half-races. Pick a race and pretend you're half something else? That's just flavoring and we could already do that.
Agreed, I wish these were more crunchy, especially if Half-Elf and Half-Orc are now being discontinued. I like the idea of hybrids in concept, especially for homebrew settings, but right now the rules for them are so barebones in this iteration of the playtest.
I think backwards compatibility helps here, though actually now that I think of it, what's to stop you from using the old, backwards compatible races from the current PHB and double dipping stat bonuses with the new backgrounds?
I suppose if they do intend to be fully backwards compatible, they need to include a blurb about how a character can only gain the benefits of the racial ASI or the background ASI but not both.
I suppose if they do intend to be fully backwards compatible, they need to include a blurb about how a character can only gain the benefits of the racial ASI or the background ASI but not both.
That is already included in the inset "Ability Score Increases From Elsewhere"
getting rid of crits for spell attacks seems unbalanced to me. 10% relative nerf to casters. you get inspiration but no crit... makes the game less fun for casters. critical roll... who cares... youre a caster...
i would say the game might move faster, but people will still crit fish since you get inspiration.
I get nerfing guiding bolt crits, or sneak dice... but nerfing anything that isnt a weapon or a fist seems like an overcorrection.
I suppose if they do intend to be fully backwards compatible, they need to include a blurb about how a character can only gain the benefits of the racial ASI or the background ASI but not both.
That is already included in the inset "Ability Score Increases From Elsewhere"
I don't think I like the new rules for breaking a grapple. I don't like the idea of an Escape DC, I much prefer it as a contested roll. Plus, using Saving Throws instead of skill checks imposes more limits on who would be good at grappling or escaping. Whereas if they're skill-based, you can choose to be trained/expert in Athletics or Acrobatics(possibly because you specifically want to be good at grappling or escaping a grapple). Plus, abilities that give advantage/disadvantage on ability checks no longer affect grappling.
The new rules state that attack rolls, skill checks and saving throws are all considered d20 Tests, and anything that affects one of the items listed there affects all of them.
That's not what it says. It says that attacks, saves and ability checks all fall in the category of "D20 Tests", so if something affects "D20 Tests", that means it affects all three. That doesn't discount the possibility of something affecting only one of those three types of D20 Tests. Look at the new text for the Grappled and Slowed conditions, they mention advantage/disadvantage on specific types of D20 Tests, not D20 Tests in general.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I'm surprised they're buffing the Lucky feat. It was already a feat most of my players took, because it is so useful at all times, for all characters. This will make players less concerned about their actions. A 13th level fighter could use action surge to make 6 attacks, 5 of which with advantage, on the same turn. This can destroy a high level enemy or multiple medium level threats.
I would be ok with 1 luck point that you recover on a short or long rest, or at least limiting the use of 1 luck point per round.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
That seems to be the intent, but we don't have the complete picture as of yet. Its possible the classes may be limited to certain schools of magic or otherwise may not have access to all of the spells on a list.
On a related note, I always thought it was weird that sorcerers and wizards had different spell lists previously. The other arcane casters having different spell lists made sense, though.
Bards had originally been a prestige class using the druid spell list, but transitioned to being an arcane caster in later editions, though they still had some druid spells on their list. Warlocks are kind of their own thing and I liked them having some spells that were specific to them.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I get that, but the distinction being "official" is still effectively meaningless since there is plenty of overlap of spells appearing on multiple lists. What's the point of saying the Light cantrip is Arcane or divine when it's both? What's the point of Cure Wounds being Divine or Primal when it's both?
Man, I'm not sure how I feel about expanding critical success to skill checks. If you were a DM and someone asked to attempt something ridiculous, you could give them a roll and just set the DC stupidly high so they'd always fail. But with these rules, you kind of have to say "No, you can't do that" to avoid someone jumping a 50 ft chasm in a single bound, or other such 'impossible' feats because now there's always a 5% chance they'll succeed. Unless I've read the rules wrong, of course.
I believe this is why they explicitly state that a “D20 Test” should never exceed 30. If you, as the DM, feel that the DC should be higher than 30 (such as jumping a 50 foot gap, as you suggested) you simply tell the player that it’s impossible and that they can’t roll (unless they have a modifier higher than +10). It really just puts more responsibility on the DM to make sure they only let the player roll if there is a chance of success, which I, honestly, approve if.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Things that are impossible are still impossible. I never got that argument against Crit Success/Fail in ability tests. YOU GET TO DECIDE IF THERE IS A ROLE. YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT THE ROLL IS FOR. It can be just as much a roll for levels of failure or levels of success. You, as DM, can decide that NO ROLL HAPPENS. If Crits guarantee success, then YOU agree to that when you allow a roll.
My concern with this playtest material is this line:
The way this is written, the onus of determining whether a d20 Test should be made is placed on the DM in the first line, which is fine, but then the second line specifies circumstances that must be met before the DM can make that call. Since a d20 Test does not occur unless the DM determines that it is warranted, a d20 Test does not occur if it is not warranted, so any test that would have a target number of less than 5 or greater than 30 is not made. Although it is not specified, it is reasonable to assume the intent is that a test that would have a target number of less than 5 would automatically succeed, while a test that would have a target number over 30 would automatically fail. Since you aren't making a check in these circumstances, it is impossible to critically succeed/fail, thus avoiding some ridiculous situations that might otherwise occur, like convincing a king to name a PC their heir then abdicate the throne because of a natural 20 on a Persuasion check.
However, this also means a ranger with expertise in Perception and +5 on WIS for a total bonus of +17 before adding in bonuses from bless/guidance is not even able to TRY to see the rogue that got a 32 on their Stealth check?
The Eldritch Knight wearing Plate +3 (AC 21), a Shield +3 (+5 AC) and has cast the shield spell (+5 AC) can't even be attacked because their AC is 31. And bear in mind, this is just one of many ways to get an AC over 30.
A monk that has had its DEX and WIS scores reduced to 4 (-3 on each) has an AC of 4, but by this wording, a wizard with a STR of 3 (-4 modifier) is still guaranteed to be able to hit them with a greatsword they aren't proficient with because the monk's AC (and thus the target number) is under 5, even if the wizard would be making the attack with disadvantage.
This wording could be fixed by changing "To be warranted" to just read "Typically", thus presenting it as the norm rather than presenting it as limitations on the target number range that the DM should stay within when calling for checks. With the existing wording, I would be making exceptions for target numbers over 30 if the PC has a bonus over 10 on the roll, and would only require checks on target numbers under 5 if the character has a negative roll modifier, does not have advantage on the roll, and it is in combat or a similar high-pressure situation where the character can't take their time to avoid making mistakes.
Also, there is the line about rolls with target numbers below 5 or over 30. If jumping a 50 ft chasm would have a DC of 50, then no roll is made, period. That line is there to limit the absurdity that can occur with crit fail/success, though it introduces its own problems, which I mentioned in a separate post.
Honestly I am not a fan of the Ardlings based on their description, but I think seeing a picture would really help, it's just hard to visualize since all I think about is Egyptian gods (Which I guess is the point, according to some reports) but I also wonder if they were fine cutting Half-Orcs/Half-Elves (meaning races are fine to be pivoted around), why not just make Aasimar a base game race to foil Tieflings out of the gate? Aasimar and Tieflings were originally from the same sourcebook anyways.
Honestly I think I'd have liked Aasimar being a PHB race, and then have a generic race to collapse "any humanoid animal creature" into, the way Ardlings can have the appearance of any animal, not just the ones on the suggestion list. But that's just my opinion, I'm going to reserve full Ardling judgement until we see more of them 🤔
Hard agree on both the Tiefling and feat changes though, those look great so far, I'm just leery about the Ardlings.
You are right that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but keep in mind we are seeing it out of context. We don't know how easy its going to be to get an AC 31, for example. Maybe it won't even be possible. We're really only seeing character generation, and some of the rules associated with that. We don't have combat rules, or skill check rules. At this point, we're only seeing part of the equation.
Gotta say I'm liking most of what's presented so far.
I like the addition of the Arcane, Divine, and Primal tags to spells. It's a bit like spell schools but more fundamental and with more rules relevance.
I feel like "D20 Test" is an awkward term to say... but it definitely takes up less text space than "attack roll, ability check, or saving throw."
I like the new rules on inspiration
Hell yes, Crafter feat. It's not even that strong but it's 100% the feat I want for a table that allows crafting.
Further there's also the Musician feat for granting "Tool Proficiency" with three tools of a particular category. All that's missing is something like a Gambler feat to grant "Tool Proficiency" in three gaming sets. Or a Driver feat to grant "Tool Proficiency" in three vehicle categories... granted there aren't a lot of vehicle categories so that'd more or less amount to "All Vehicles."
I like how the Tool Proficiency rule adds advantage from the "Tools and Skills Together" part of the optional/variant rules for tools in XGE. It's nice to make that a standard part of the PHB.
I feel like Tavern Brawler lost a little something with taking out the improvised weapons proficiency but I suppose the DM could always rule that beer steins and wine bottles count as "Tiny Furniture" and let them be treated as clubs. And it now grants a benefit similar to the Crusher feat but loses the bonus action grapple. Also the Tavern Brawler version of "Shove" doesn't have any mention of size limitations. You can punch that Tarrasque backwards now assuming you can hit it.
Grappling and Shoving are now wrapped into Unarmed Strikes this adds to what a monk can do with their flurry of blows and can even add stunning strike to a grapple or shove. And now apparently grappling can just happen on a successful hit. I tend to like this development for simplicity's sake. Saving throws are simpler than contested checks and don't have to worry about things like expertise.
Grappling now imposes the "Slowed" condition on the grappler if the grappler tries to move another creature while grappling them. Interestingly, with the grappled condition giving you disadvantage on attacks against everyone but the grappler if you're being dragged it might be better to make an unarmed strike and attempt to shove the grappler, if they are size appropriate. Heck, apparently you can do this and still attempt to escape at the end of your turn.
I'm interested in what other ways they plan to use the slowed condition going forward.
That's not what it says. It says that attacks, saves and ability checks all fall in the category of "D20 Tests", so if something affects "D20 Tests", that means it affects all three. That doesn't discount the possibility of something affecting only one of those three types of D20 Tests. Look at the new text for the Grappled and Slowed conditions, they mention advantage/disadvantage on specific types of D20 Tests, not D20 Tests in general.
I wasn't sure at first about Crit Hits only applying to martial attacks, but I suppose it does begin to address the imbalance between linear martials and quadratic casters.
I think backwards compatibility helps here, though actually now that I think of it, what's to stop you from using the old, backwards compatible races from the current PHB and double dipping stat bonuses with the new backgrounds?
I suppose if they do intend to be fully backwards compatible, they need to include a blurb about how a character can only gain the benefits of the racial ASI or the background ASI but not both.
That is already included in the inset "Ability Score Increases From Elsewhere"
getting rid of crits for spell attacks seems unbalanced to me. 10% relative nerf to casters. you get inspiration but no crit... makes the game less fun for casters. critical roll... who cares... youre a caster...
i would say the game might move faster, but people will still crit fish since you get inspiration.
I get nerfing guiding bolt crits, or sneak dice... but nerfing anything that isnt a weapon or a fist seems like an overcorrection.
Ah, good catch
You are correct. I retract my prior statement.
I'm not sure how I feel about the division between divine/arcane/primal spells. Those were already divided by class, idk why they need a new clarification unless they're planning on just letting all divine/arcane/primal classes use those spell lists without class distinction, which I also don't like.
Because those kinds of classes are routinely group together in many aspects of the game, with feats, magic items, and so on. And there has always been a categorization behind the scenes with divine and arcane casters; this is just making it official now. Also it paves the way for more elegant descriptions and effects pertaining to divine magic vs arcane magic vs nature magic than we had before, because before we had to resort to clunky wording.
I'm surprised they're buffing the Lucky feat. It was already a feat most of my players took, because it is so useful at all times, for all characters. This will make players less concerned about their actions. A 13th level fighter could use action surge to make 6 attacks, 5 of which with advantage, on the same turn. This can destroy a high level enemy or multiple medium level threats.
I would be ok with 1 luck point that you recover on a short or long rest, or at least limiting the use of 1 luck point per round.
I
That seems to be the intent, but we don't have the complete picture as of yet. Its possible the classes may be limited to certain schools of magic or otherwise may not have access to all of the spells on a list.
On a related note, I always thought it was weird that sorcerers and wizards had different spell lists previously. The other arcane casters having different spell lists made sense, though.
Bards had originally been a prestige class using the druid spell list, but transitioned to being an arcane caster in later editions, though they still had some druid spells on their list. Warlocks are kind of their own thing and I liked them having some spells that were specific to them.
I get that, but the distinction being "official" is still effectively meaningless since there is plenty of overlap of spells appearing on multiple lists. What's the point of saying the Light cantrip is Arcane or divine when it's both? What's the point of Cure Wounds being Divine or Primal when it's both?
I believe this is why they explicitly state that a “D20 Test” should never exceed 30. If you, as the DM, feel that the DC should be higher than 30 (such as jumping a 50 foot gap, as you suggested) you simply tell the player that it’s impossible and that they can’t roll (unless they have a modifier higher than +10). It really just puts more responsibility on the DM to make sure they only let the player roll if there is a chance of success, which I, honestly, approve if.