Sometimes a player should know how close they came to reaching the needed DC.
Imagine a player who rolls a 20 on his strength check, but still fails. Now, he can get one or two kinds of feedback. Either the door creaks and buckled under the strain of the PC or the door does the equivalent of figuratively saying, “I scoff at you, puny man.”
If it is the former, it encourages the PC to go look for something they can use as a battering ram. If it is the latter, then it encourages the PC to look for someway through that doesn’t depend on strength.
But, if 20s always succeed, then it encourages PCs to just keep rolling that d20.
If a natural 20 ALWAYS succeeds then there is a ALWAYS a chance of success for any check. How can you say a check is impossible if a natural 20 always succeeds? Same for a 1, if it is always a failure then you can't say that a player shouldn't roll if there is no chance of failure, because there is always a 5% chance.
If you have a door with a DC where half the party can succeed and half the party can't, then what's the point of telling one player, "your character can't, but his can." If it is possible to be opened because you allow a skill check, then that Nat 20 by the weakling character is a nice roleplay opportunity to one-up the other characters. In the end, the door being opened is a possibility that was intended from the start, so who cares who opened it?
As for the jumping example... impossible is impossible. If someone asks to be able to jump a mile, the answer is NO. There's even jumping rules defined in RAW. With a 10 foot running start, a character can jump their STR score in feet.
To me, having things this way with 1DND will definitely make people feel less unique. What's the point of being the strong barbarian or the dexterous lock picking rogue, if the -2 str Bard can bust open a locked door too? The point of having some rolls be impossible for some characters is to reinforce the fact that each character is specialized and unique.
Saying "you don't succeed" isn't necessarily a feels bad moment - differences in character abilities is kind of a huge point in the game IMO. But if we build every encounter- combat otherwise - around the idea that every character could theoretically do it, then that just sets us up for homogeneity which I want to avoid in my games.
I see the argument for simply not allowing rolls, but that seems more like a bandaid than a solution. That's my 10 cp, at least.
I’m inclined to agree with you. If this rule goes through as is I will be houseruling that the current 5e system is what gets used.
Memories can be selective, but basic math tells us 1/20 rolls on average will be a 1. Unless the die you use is severely flawed, you should be rolling a 1 once every 20 rolls. That is not how it works. It isn't like if you roll a 20 the first time that 20 is removed from the probability the next roll and so on. The probability of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is 1/20. The next roll is 1 in 20. The roll after that is the same. A deck a cards is different if you take that result out. Goes 1/52 to 1/51 and down the line.
How I described it is how it works. Note that I said "on average." If you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 appear 20% of the time. Never once did I say that a number is removed if you rolled it.
1 in 20 or 5% is how often you roll a Nat 1, assuming a large population of rolls. It is not that uncommon or unlikely, actually quite a bit more than how often it feels like it appears. That is partly why I don't like this auto fail/success rule to apply to Saving Throws and Ability Checks. 1/20 is actually quite significant statistically speaking. If you have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1 you should be allowed to do so.
Most of the time the auto fail on Nat 1 is meaningless as usually a 1 is a failure due to modifiers generally not being enough to succeed. However, if someone actually does put the effort and investment to get the modifier that high, they should be allowed to succeed on a nat 1.
Maybe this should be something done on a per play opt-in/out basis. Where each player decides if Nat 1/20 are auto fail/success for them. Downside with this though is that it requires the DM to keep track of who opt in/out.
However, I don't believe that everyone should be subject to a 5% auto fail chance if their modifier is enough to succeed on a nat 1.
That isn't how it works. Roll 1d20 there is 20 different permeations that can happen. Next die roll there is another 20 different permeations. The chance to roll a one doesn't go up or down. Roll it again, same thing. The chance to roll a 1 is the same as every other number.
I just don't get why people are so upset about failure. Again, the best at something can still fail at something. Even if it is simple. Again, my Rogue with a +10 has failed. I am OK with it. It happens. I laugh it off out of game and in game he will often laugh it off.
Never once did I say the chance of an individual roll goes up or down. However, if you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 5% of the time thus on average you see a 1 once every 20 rolls. This is because while the individual rolls do not change in probability, the probability of seeing at least a single 1 does change. You are misinterpretting what I am typing.
Also, while you may laugh it off, not everyone is like that. When someone builds their character to have a +19 con save, they are very likely not going to enjoy autofailing on a nat 1 on a DC10 concentration. D&D has a very diverse fan base with different preferences. Not everyone is going to enjoy the nat 1 autofail, nor are they wrong or invalid for that, especially when both RAW and RAI in the current 5E is that if you have a +19 and the DC is 10, you can't fail.
Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is already a variant rule in the DMG. I am of the opinion that the current 5E rule for nat 1/20 remain the default and the auto fail/success remains an optional rule, just maybe highlighted more than it currently is in the books.
Right now, for most people, nat 1 are failures and nat 20's are often successes due to modifiers often not being high enough to succeed on nat 1's and DC's usually not being 20+ especially at T1 and 2. So what this nat 1 auto fail does is take away from the people who put in the effort to get the modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
You may find it boring but I can assure you that there are people who do not find being able to succeed on a nat 1 to be boring, and they are not wrong nor invalid for that preference.
If a natural 20 ALWAYS succeeds then there is a ALWAYS a chance of success for any check. How can you say a check is impossible if a natural 20 always succeeds? Same for a 1, if it is always a failure then you can't say that a player shouldn't roll if there is no chance of failure, because there is always a 5% chance.
Because the DM has discretion to not allow a roll at all if its not possible to succeed or not possible to fail the declared action.
5-30 is still not a great range for allowing rolls as 30 is a very low max cap and 5 is too low as a bottom cap. 10-40 would be a better coverage in my mind or a variable scale based on proficiencies or other factors.
Nah, a range of 5-30 is plenty good. A 20th-level character with a maxed statistic and expertise only has +17 bonus to their die roll. This means they need a 13 on the d20. That's a 40% chance of success; upped to 64% if they have advantage. But most players won't get that far, so it's fine for extreme challenges. A DC 40 check would be damn near insurmountable. You'd need specific magic items to overcome that, which isn't a guarantee.
Pass Without Trace adds a flat +10 to stealth rolls, no magic items needed. Throw in some Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, and a few other bonuses and you can pretty cleanly hit stealth rolls in the 50+ range.
Most Dexterity (Stealth)checks don't need to get that high. After all, you're rolling against someone else's Wisdom (Perception).
And that's only good for one person. The whole party can't benefit from guidance, so now you're looking at a contrived scenario where only one person needs to make this check no one else could possibly accomplish. It reeks of poor design.
How about picking a lock on a door? That's a Dexterity check with Thieves' tools. Some [magicitem]gloves of thievery[/item] will help, with a +5 bonus, but then you need Expertise and a high Dexterity. The best you can hope for is +22 before other bonuses come into play. And, again, that's for a high-level campaign. Most adventures don't need that. And if the idea is to have a DC where only very few people could ever hope to accomplish it, and only through the application of highly-specific magic, then...again...bad design.
It doesn't matter if a 50 or more is possible. You want it to be likely. You want your players to succeed. And they shouldn't need to be specialized to succeed. Yes, specialization can and should be rewarded. And the system will take care of that on its own. It does so already without gatekeeping.
It isn't contrived at all. I've personally had it happen a lot. Guidance only affects one person at a time but it's a cantrip and gets passed around like candy. Pass Without Trace is only a second level spell, and a pretty good one at that so it isn't going to be super rare to see it. And who the hell said only one person needed to make the check? I just said that it was pretty easy to get the check above 50. Though if you want to bring it up, scouting is a thing, and usually it isn't the entire party doing it, but the person who is best at stealth. Like, say, a shadow monk who can cast Pass Without Trace using ki.
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but you still do need to take into account high level campaigns. You and your group might not personally get there but that doesn't apply to everyone. If levels 10-20 exist, you've gotta take into considerations levels 10-20. And you do realize you don't need to be max level for it to be crazy high, right? You can start swinging into the 40's at around 9th level with minimal effort. The fact of the matter is that this is a cooperative game, and you're going to have a party. And your party is probably going to be able to contribute something to rolls that each other makes. That needs to be taken into account.
And it absolutely matters when you're talking about adding a cap. And sure, they shouldn't need to be specialized, but I don't think anyone here is talking about moving around the general DC breakpoints. But, if they are specialized, especially if they're competing against others that are also specialized, they should get to use that rather than handwaving it.
Memories can be selective, but basic math tells us 1/20 rolls on average will be a 1. Unless the die you use is severely flawed, you should be rolling a 1 once every 20 rolls. That is not how it works. It isn't like if you roll a 20 the first time that 20 is removed from the probability the next roll and so on. The probability of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is 1/20. The next roll is 1 in 20. The roll after that is the same. A deck a cards is different if you take that result out. Goes 1/52 to 1/51 and down the line.
How I described it is how it works. Note that I said "on average." If you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 appear 20% of the time. Never once did I say that a number is removed if you rolled it.
1 in 20 or 5% is how often you roll a Nat 1, assuming a large population of rolls. It is not that uncommon or unlikely, actually quite a bit more than how often it feels like it appears. That is partly why I don't like this auto fail/success rule to apply to Saving Throws and Ability Checks. 1/20 is actually quite significant statistically speaking. If you have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1 you should be allowed to do so.
Most of the time the auto fail on Nat 1 is meaningless as usually a 1 is a failure due to modifiers generally not being enough to succeed. However, if someone actually does put the effort and investment to get the modifier that high, they should be allowed to succeed on a nat 1.
Maybe this should be something done on a per play opt-in/out basis. Where each player decides if Nat 1/20 are auto fail/success for them. Downside with this though is that it requires the DM to keep track of who opt in/out.
However, I don't believe that everyone should be subject to a 5% auto fail chance if their modifier is enough to succeed on a nat 1.
That isn't how it works. Roll 1d20 there is 20 different permeations that can happen. Next die roll there is another 20 different permeations. The chance to roll a one doesn't go up or down. Roll it again, same thing. The chance to roll a 1 is the same as every other number.
I just don't get why people are so upset about failure. Again, the best at something can still fail at something. Even if it is simple. Again, my Rogue with a +10 has failed. I am OK with it. It happens. I laugh it off out of game and in game he will often laugh it off.
Never once did I say the chance of an individual roll goes up or down. However, if you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 5% of the time thus on average you see a 1 once every 20 rolls. This is because while the individual rolls do not change in probability, the probability of seeing at least a single 1 does change. You are misinterpretting what I am typing.
Also, while you may laugh it off, not everyone is like that. When someone builds their character to have a +19 con save, they are very likely not going to enjoy autofailing on a nat 1 on a DC10 concentration. D&D has a very diverse fan base with different preferences. Not everyone is going to enjoy the nat 1 autofail, nor are they wrong or invalid for that, especially when both RAW and RAI in the current 5E is that if you have a +19 and the DC is 10, you can't fail.
Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is already a variant rule in the DMG. I am of the opinion that the current 5E rule for nat 1/20 remain the default and the auto fail/success remains an optional rule, just maybe highlighted more than it currently is in the books.
Right now, for most people, nat 1 are failures and nat 20's are often successes due to modifiers often not being high enough to succeed on nat 1's and DC's usually not being 20+ especially at T1 and 2. So what this nat 1 auto fail does is take away from the people who put in the effort to get the modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
You may find it boring but I can assure you that there are people who do not find being able to succeed on a nat 1 to be boring, and they are not wrong nor invalid for that preference.
No. The chance of rolling a 1 does not increase. Guess what the chance of rolling a 20 in an infinite number of dice? 1/20. Same with a 1, 2,, 3, etc. The chance of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is always 1/20. Doesn't matter how many dice you roll. Two dice? There are 400 different possibilities. Each increase is multiplied by 20. Don't just say it is basic math show your work to prove that the probability does change
Just because you are OK with it doesn't change that some are OK with it. I am not wrong just as the people you agree with aren't
I would say I would quit any campaign that were with people who only found it enjoyable to succeed. Oh, and I have played with people who have high pluses and they were Ok with failing.
Memories can be selective, but basic math tells us 1/20 rolls on average will be a 1. Unless the die you use is severely flawed, you should be rolling a 1 once every 20 rolls. That is not how it works. It isn't like if you roll a 20 the first time that 20 is removed from the probability the next roll and so on. The probability of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is 1/20. The next roll is 1 in 20. The roll after that is the same. A deck a cards is different if you take that result out. Goes 1/52 to 1/51 and down the line.
How I described it is how it works. Note that I said "on average." If you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 appear 20% of the time. Never once did I say that a number is removed if you rolled it.
1 in 20 or 5% is how often you roll a Nat 1, assuming a large population of rolls. It is not that uncommon or unlikely, actually quite a bit more than how often it feels like it appears. That is partly why I don't like this auto fail/success rule to apply to Saving Throws and Ability Checks. 1/20 is actually quite significant statistically speaking. If you have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1 you should be allowed to do so.
Most of the time the auto fail on Nat 1 is meaningless as usually a 1 is a failure due to modifiers generally not being enough to succeed. However, if someone actually does put the effort and investment to get the modifier that high, they should be allowed to succeed on a nat 1.
Maybe this should be something done on a per play opt-in/out basis. Where each player decides if Nat 1/20 are auto fail/success for them. Downside with this though is that it requires the DM to keep track of who opt in/out.
However, I don't believe that everyone should be subject to a 5% auto fail chance if their modifier is enough to succeed on a nat 1.
That isn't how it works. Roll 1d20 there is 20 different permeations that can happen. Next die roll there is another 20 different permeations. The chance to roll a one doesn't go up or down. Roll it again, same thing. The chance to roll a 1 is the same as every other number.
I just don't get why people are so upset about failure. Again, the best at something can still fail at something. Even if it is simple. Again, my Rogue with a +10 has failed. I am OK with it. It happens. I laugh it off out of game and in game he will often laugh it off.
Never once did I say the chance of an individual roll goes up or down. However, if you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 5% of the time thus on average you see a 1 once every 20 rolls. This is because while the individual rolls do not change in probability, the probability of seeing at least a single 1 does change. You are misinterpretting what I am typing.
Also, while you may laugh it off, not everyone is like that. When someone builds their character to have a +19 con save, they are very likely not going to enjoy autofailing on a nat 1 on a DC10 concentration. D&D has a very diverse fan base with different preferences. Not everyone is going to enjoy the nat 1 autofail, nor are they wrong or invalid for that, especially when both RAW and RAI in the current 5E is that if you have a +19 and the DC is 10, you can't fail.
Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is already a variant rule in the DMG. I am of the opinion that the current 5E rule for nat 1/20 remain the default and the auto fail/success remains an optional rule, just maybe highlighted more than it currently is in the books.
Right now, for most people, nat 1 are failures and nat 20's are often successes due to modifiers often not being high enough to succeed on nat 1's and DC's usually not being 20+ especially at T1 and 2. So what this nat 1 auto fail does is take away from the people who put in the effort to get the modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
You may find it boring but I can assure you that there are people who do not find being able to succeed on a nat 1 to be boring, and they are not wrong nor invalid for that preference.
No. The chance of rolling a 1 does not increase. Guess what the chance of rolling a 20 in an infinite number of dice? 1/20. Same with a 1, 2,, 3, etc. The chance of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is always 1/20. Doesn't matter how many dice you roll. Two dice? There are 400 different possibilities. Each increase is multiplied by 20. Don't just say it is basic math show your work to prove that the probability does change
Just because you are OK with it doesn't change that some are OK with it. I am not wrong just as the people you agree with aren't
I would say I would quit any campaign that were with people who only found it enjoyable to succeed. Oh, and I have played with people who have high pluses and they were Ok with failing.
I think you two may be suffering from a breakdown in communication. Technically you are both correct. Yes, the chance of rolling any number on a single roll of a d20 is and always will be 1/20, aka 5%. However, given a high enough number of rolls, the likelihood of not rolling any number on at least one d20 does go down. Sooner or later you gonna roll a 1 (or a 20), it’s inevitable. It’s the difference between “odds” and “probability” (https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-odds-and-probability.html).
If a natural 20 ALWAYS succeeds then there is a ALWAYS a chance of success for any check. How can you say a check is impossible if a natural 20 always succeeds? Same for a 1, if it is always a failure then you can't say that a player shouldn't roll if there is no chance of failure, because there is always a 5% chance.
Don't think too hard on a deliberately hyperbolic adjective. When the DC says "Impossible" WotC doesn't actually mean nobody can ever achieve it. It's still within reach; more so for parties of specific combinations of classes and spells. Player characters, and this is going to sound weird, are exceptions to the rule. Even a 1st-level wizard can tank an arrow from a goblin when no commoner can. You start as exceptional people in this fictional world, and you only become more exceptional with time.
The best a vanilla PC can hope for is a +11 bonus to their roll, meaning a DC 30 has a mere 10% chance of succeeding. No mortal NPC can pull that off.
My 14th level bard (a real character that I’ve been running in a campaign for a long time) can hit a 56 with Advantage in Stealth.
Okay, it isn’t easy. It requires him making a nag 20, maxing out his bardic die, maxing out Guidance, and having Pass without Trace up.
The point is that he can do it. And he shouldn’t auto-fail on a 1. Instead, what he should be able to do is gamble on his die roll (e.g. he agrees to roll his d20 at a -10 in order to give up to x Allie’s advantage on their score).
This kind of gambling can make the truly skilled achieve something truly remarkable and add tension to every die roll.
The best a vanilla PC can hope for is a +11 bonus to their roll, meaning a DC 30 has a mere 10% chance of succeeding. No mortal NPC can pull that off.
Plenty of NPCs have expertise, starting with the CR 1/2 scout. However, being able to achieve a 56 on a check is mostly about 5e failing to actually implement bounded accuracy.
The best a vanilla PC can hope for is a +11 bonus to their roll, meaning a DC 30 has a mere 10% chance of succeeding. No mortal NPC can pull that off.
Plenty of NPCs have expertise, starting with the CR 1/2 scout. However, being able to achieve a 56 on a check is mostly about 5e failing to actually implement bounded accuracy.
Yeah, for a +6.
If you want to give them class levels, that changes the dynamic considerably.
Memories can be selective, but basic math tells us 1/20 rolls on average will be a 1. Unless the die you use is severely flawed, you should be rolling a 1 once every 20 rolls. That is not how it works. It isn't like if you roll a 20 the first time that 20 is removed from the probability the next roll and so on. The probability of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is 1/20. The next roll is 1 in 20. The roll after that is the same. A deck a cards is different if you take that result out. Goes 1/52 to 1/51 and down the line.
How I described it is how it works. Note that I said "on average." If you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 appear 20% of the time. Never once did I say that a number is removed if you rolled it.
1 in 20 or 5% is how often you roll a Nat 1, assuming a large population of rolls. It is not that uncommon or unlikely, actually quite a bit more than how often it feels like it appears. That is partly why I don't like this auto fail/success rule to apply to Saving Throws and Ability Checks. 1/20 is actually quite significant statistically speaking. If you have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1 you should be allowed to do so.
Most of the time the auto fail on Nat 1 is meaningless as usually a 1 is a failure due to modifiers generally not being enough to succeed. However, if someone actually does put the effort and investment to get the modifier that high, they should be allowed to succeed on a nat 1.
Maybe this should be something done on a per play opt-in/out basis. Where each player decides if Nat 1/20 are auto fail/success for them. Downside with this though is that it requires the DM to keep track of who opt in/out.
However, I don't believe that everyone should be subject to a 5% auto fail chance if their modifier is enough to succeed on a nat 1.
That isn't how it works. Roll 1d20 there is 20 different permeations that can happen. Next die roll there is another 20 different permeations. The chance to roll a one doesn't go up or down. Roll it again, same thing. The chance to roll a 1 is the same as every other number.
I just don't get why people are so upset about failure. Again, the best at something can still fail at something. Even if it is simple. Again, my Rogue with a +10 has failed. I am OK with it. It happens. I laugh it off out of game and in game he will often laugh it off.
Never once did I say the chance of an individual roll goes up or down. However, if you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 5% of the time thus on average you see a 1 once every 20 rolls. This is because while the individual rolls do not change in probability, the probability of seeing at least a single 1 does change. You are misinterpretting what I am typing.
Also, while you may laugh it off, not everyone is like that. When someone builds their character to have a +19 con save, they are very likely not going to enjoy autofailing on a nat 1 on a DC10 concentration. D&D has a very diverse fan base with different preferences. Not everyone is going to enjoy the nat 1 autofail, nor are they wrong or invalid for that, especially when both RAW and RAI in the current 5E is that if you have a +19 and the DC is 10, you can't fail.
Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is already a variant rule in the DMG. I am of the opinion that the current 5E rule for nat 1/20 remain the default and the auto fail/success remains an optional rule, just maybe highlighted more than it currently is in the books.
Right now, for most people, nat 1 are failures and nat 20's are often successes due to modifiers often not being high enough to succeed on nat 1's and DC's usually not being 20+ especially at T1 and 2. So what this nat 1 auto fail does is take away from the people who put in the effort to get the modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
You may find it boring but I can assure you that there are people who do not find being able to succeed on a nat 1 to be boring, and they are not wrong nor invalid for that preference.
No. The chance of rolling a 1 does not increase. Guess what the chance of rolling a 20 in an infinite number of dice? 1/20. Same with a 1, 2,, 3, etc. The chance of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is always 1/20. Doesn't matter how many dice you roll. Two dice? There are 400 different possibilities. Each increase is multiplied by 20. Don't just say it is basic math show your work to prove that the probability does change
Just because you are OK with it doesn't change that some are OK with it. I am not wrong just as the people you agree with aren't
I would say I would quit any campaign that were with people who only found it enjoyable to succeed. Oh, and I have played with people who have high pluses and they were Ok with failing.
The probability of not rolling a 1 is 19/20 or 95%, then if you rolled again, it is another 19/20 chance that you still don't roll a 1, but the probability not seeing AT LEAST A SINGLE 1 is not 19/20. The probability of not seeing a single 1 is 19/20 * 19/20 or 90.25%. This is not looking at an individual roll, which I am assuming you are mistakenly thinking is what I am referring to, but looking at the probability of seeing a number at least once. This is why the probability of roll a 1 when you have advantage is 1/400, because you have to roll a 1 twice in a row. This is basic math.
First, I am not talking about just high plusses, I am taking about high enough pluses where under the current 5E rules you would succeed on a nat 1, like having a +19 on a DC10 check. Second, not everyone is like your group, because I know people who do not like having a constant 5% fail chance regardless of your modifiers even if it exceeds the DC. Furthermore, it is not that they only enjoy to succeed, but that they want to be able to build character that can always succeed in their specialty. They will fail in rolls that are not in their specialty and they will fail in their specialty getting their modifier high enough to succeed, and they are fine at failing if the DC is high enough where their modifier is not high enough to succeed on a nat 1. However, if it is a case where the DC is 10 and their modifier is a +19 and they would quite literally have a high enough roll to succeed twice over on a nat 1, they do not find it enjoyable to fail a DC 10 check when they have a +19. If they fail on a nat 1 against a DC25 or DC30, that is fine because 1+19 is not equal to or greater to 25 nor 30, but 1+19 is definitely greater than 10. Are you saying it is wrong to not enjoy failing when your modifier alone is enough to surpass the DC?
The probability of not rolling a 1 is 19/20 or 95%, then if you rolled again, it is another 19/20 chance that you still don't roll a 1, but the probability not seeing AT LEAST A SINGLE 1 is not 19/20. The probability of not seeing a single 1 is 19/20 * 19/20 or 90.25%. This is not looking at an individual roll, which I am assuming you are mistakenly thinking is what I am referring to, but looking at the probability of seeing a number at least once. This is why the probability of roll a 1 when you have advantage is 1/400, because you have to roll a 1 twice in a row. This is basic math.
First, I am not talking about just high plusses, I am taking about high enough pluses where under the current 5E rules you would succeed on a nat 1, like having a +19 on a DC10 check. Second, not everyone is like your group, because I know people who do not like having a constant 5% fail chance regardless of your modifiers even if it exceeds the DC. Furthermore, it is not that they only enjoy to succeed, but that they want to be able to build character that can always succeed in their specialty. They will fail in rolls that are not in their specialty and they will fail in their specialty getting their modifier high enough to succeed, and they are fine at failing if the DC is high enough where their modifier is not high enough to succeed on a nat 1. However, if it is a case where the DC is 10 and their modifier is a +19 and they would quite literally have a high enough roll to succeed twice over on a nat 1, they do not find it enjoyable to fail a DC 10 check when they have a +19. If they fail on a nat 1 against a DC25 or DC30, that is fine because 1+19 is not equal to or greater to 25 nor 30, but 1+19 is definitely greater than 10. Are you saying it is wrong to not enjoy failing when your modifier alone is enough to surpass the DC?
Yes, it is wrong. Builds don't matter. Playing the game matters. You honestly want a +19 bonus to Constitution saving throws for concentration? Okay, you need proficiency, 20 Constitution, a paladin's Aura of Protection with 20 Charisma, and enough magic items to net the final three points. And, hey, if you want someone that specialized then more power to you. Or maybe not. You're giving up something else in the process.
You were talking statistics, not basic mathematics. Keep that in mind going forward.
The proposed promotion of Critical Failure and Critical Success from an optional rule to a standard rule isn't a terrible idea. It's how things worked in the past and serves as a decent abstraction for luck. It is possible to do everything right and still lose. That's just how life is sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that. If you remove the chance of failure completely, then there's no tension. There's no point to even rolling the dice, and if we're not rolling dice, then what are we even doing playing the game? Rolling dice is fun!
And it's always been possible to have a Critical Fail on an attack roll. You can have a +12 modifier to your roll and still miss against a commoner with an armor class of 10. Crap happens. If you haven't learned to live with that by now, then someone failed you when you were growing up.
Resist the knee-jerk reaction. No one is going to force you to play One D&D or whatever the next iteration is called. People still play 4E, 3.5, and AD&D. Your animated response isn't helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else here.
The probability of not rolling a 1 is 19/20 or 95%, then if you rolled again, it is another 19/20 chance that you still don't roll a 1, but the probability not seeing AT LEAST A SINGLE 1 is not 19/20. The probability of not seeing a single 1 is 19/20 * 19/20 or 90.25%. This is not looking at an individual roll, which I am assuming you are mistakenly thinking is what I am referring to, but looking at the probability of seeing a number at least once. This is why the probability of roll a 1 when you have advantage is 1/400, because you have to roll a 1 twice in a row. This is basic math.
First, I am not talking about just high plusses, I am taking about high enough pluses where under the current 5E rules you would succeed on a nat 1, like having a +19 on a DC10 check. Second, not everyone is like your group, because I know people who do not like having a constant 5% fail chance regardless of your modifiers even if it exceeds the DC. Furthermore, it is not that they only enjoy to succeed, but that they want to be able to build character that can always succeed in their specialty. They will fail in rolls that are not in their specialty and they will fail in their specialty getting their modifier high enough to succeed, and they are fine at failing if the DC is high enough where their modifier is not high enough to succeed on a nat 1. However, if it is a case where the DC is 10 and their modifier is a +19 and they would quite literally have a high enough roll to succeed twice over on a nat 1, they do not find it enjoyable to fail a DC 10 check when they have a +19. If they fail on a nat 1 against a DC25 or DC30, that is fine because 1+19 is not equal to or greater to 25 nor 30, but 1+19 is definitely greater than 10. Are you saying it is wrong to not enjoy failing when your modifier alone is enough to surpass the DC?
Yes, it is wrong. Builds don't matter. Playing the game matters. You honestly want a +19 bonus to Constitution saving throws for concentration? Okay, you need proficiency, 20 Constitution, a paladin's Aura of Protection with 20 Charisma, and enough magic items to net the final three points. And, hey, if you want someone that specialized then more power to you. Or maybe not. You're giving up something else in the process.
You were talking statistics, not basic mathematics. Keep that in mind going forward.
The proposed promotion of Critical Failure and Critical Success from an optional rule to a standard rule isn't a terrible idea. It's how things worked in the past and serves as a decent abstraction for luck. It is possible to do everything right and still lose. That's just how life is sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that. If you remove the chance of failure completely, then there's no tension. There's no point to even rolling the dice, and if we're not rolling dice, then what are we even doing playing the game? Rolling dice is fun!
And it's always been possible to have a Critical Fail on an attack roll. You can have a +12 modifier to your roll and still miss against a commoner with an armor class of 10. Crap happens. If you haven't learned to live with that by now, then someone failed you when you were growing up.
Resist the knee-jerk reaction. No one is going to force you to play One D&D or whatever the next iteration is called. People still play 4E, 3.5, and AD&D. Your animated response isn't helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else here.
Actually, in past editions, Nat 1 and Nat 20 did not mean auto fail/success for skill checks and saving throws.
Someone on reddit actually went and did the research.
Also, builds do matter. For a number of people, half the fun comes from builds. Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds. That's why optimization is an actual thing. Saying that I am wrong, that my fun is wrong, is wrong in of itself. People can enjoy the game for a variety of reasons and they can dislike aspects for a variety of reasons. It is not wrong to dislike the nat 1/20 auto fail/success. To say it is wrong is akin to saying your way of playing D&D is objectively better.
The consequence for missing an attack is generally far less severe than failing a save. That is the only reason why I am personally tolerant of nat 1 auto miss. Also Nat 20 being an auto hit and providing critical hits is sort of the counter balance. However, the nat 20 auto success is meaningless if you have the modifier to succeed on a nat 1 and the nat auto fail is meaningless if you lacked the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. The only it does is slap a 5% auto fail chance that negates build investment.
Furthermore, this is not a knee-jerk reaction. I have experienced the rule in my group in the past as we used to use this rule. However, we found it miserable to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier would have allowed you to succeed otherwise and it sped up the game to see if your minimum roll would give you a success. Also, this type of response is very much helpful as One D&D is currently UA, meaning this is the time to be posting this type of response as it is discussion on the UA material. There are likely people on the fence with some aspects of the UA and they read dicussion to help form an opinion. To say that this type of discussion is not helpful is incorrect. I find making the auto fail/success rule the standard to be a terrible idea so there is no reason why I shouldn't debate against this rule and potentially turn the opinion of those on the fence towards my viewpoint as feedback on the UA will affect whether or not it makes it to the release version.
In addition, implying that I should remain quiet just because I can continue playing 5E is disingeniuous. I want to enjoy One D&D and RAW rules do matter to me because I do play in AL, where things are ran RAW, in addition to home groups. So I am going to actively take part in the UA process for One D&D.
Also, the idea that if you flip a coin twice, you are less likely to see heads twice than the 3 other possibilities is basic math. I believe fhe vast majority of people know that if you roll twice in a row, you are less likely to see the same number than you are to see different numbers.
For things like Concentration, they are going to know the DC unless you don't tell them how much damage they took. So that won't always work. Honestly, I don't see how hiding the DC will solve anything. Playeds can begin recognizing patterns and what numbers gave successes in past rolls for similar tasks. They can recognize inconsistencies.
Sometimes a player should know how close they came to reaching the needed DC.
Imagine a player who rolls a 20 on his strength check, but still fails. Now, he can get one or two kinds of feedback. Either the door creaks and buckled under the strain of the PC or the door does the equivalent of figuratively saying, “I scoff at you, puny man.”
If it is the former, it encourages the PC to go look for something they can use as a battering ram. If it is the latter, then it encourages the PC to look for someway through that doesn’t depend on strength.
But, if 20s always succeed, then it encourages PCs to just keep rolling that d20.
In general you shouldn't be rolling when there's no consequences to failure; routine checks are what passive scores are for.
But you can't crit on a passive score! ;)
If a natural 20 ALWAYS succeeds then there is a ALWAYS a chance of success for any check. How can you say a check is impossible if a natural 20 always succeeds? Same for a 1, if it is always a failure then you can't say that a player shouldn't roll if there is no chance of failure, because there is always a 5% chance.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I’m inclined to agree with you. If this rule goes through as is I will be houseruling that the current 5e system is what gets used.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Never once did I say the chance of an individual roll goes up or down. However, if you rolled an infinite number of times, you will see a 1 5% of the time thus on average you see a 1 once every 20 rolls. This is because while the individual rolls do not change in probability, the probability of seeing at least a single 1 does change. You are misinterpretting what I am typing.
Also, while you may laugh it off, not everyone is like that. When someone builds their character to have a +19 con save, they are very likely not going to enjoy autofailing on a nat 1 on a DC10 concentration. D&D has a very diverse fan base with different preferences. Not everyone is going to enjoy the nat 1 autofail, nor are they wrong or invalid for that, especially when both RAW and RAI in the current 5E is that if you have a +19 and the DC is 10, you can't fail.
Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is already a variant rule in the DMG. I am of the opinion that the current 5E rule for nat 1/20 remain the default and the auto fail/success remains an optional rule, just maybe highlighted more than it currently is in the books.
Right now, for most people, nat 1 are failures and nat 20's are often successes due to modifiers often not being high enough to succeed on nat 1's and DC's usually not being 20+ especially at T1 and 2. So what this nat 1 auto fail does is take away from the people who put in the effort to get the modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
You may find it boring but I can assure you that there are people who do not find being able to succeed on a nat 1 to be boring, and they are not wrong nor invalid for that preference.
Because the DM has discretion to not allow a roll at all if its not possible to succeed or not possible to fail the declared action.
It isn't contrived at all. I've personally had it happen a lot. Guidance only affects one person at a time but it's a cantrip and gets passed around like candy. Pass Without Trace is only a second level spell, and a pretty good one at that so it isn't going to be super rare to see it. And who the hell said only one person needed to make the check? I just said that it was pretty easy to get the check above 50. Though if you want to bring it up, scouting is a thing, and usually it isn't the entire party doing it, but the person who is best at stealth. Like, say, a shadow monk who can cast Pass Without Trace using ki.
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but you still do need to take into account high level campaigns. You and your group might not personally get there but that doesn't apply to everyone. If levels 10-20 exist, you've gotta take into considerations levels 10-20. And you do realize you don't need to be max level for it to be crazy high, right? You can start swinging into the 40's at around 9th level with minimal effort. The fact of the matter is that this is a cooperative game, and you're going to have a party. And your party is probably going to be able to contribute something to rolls that each other makes. That needs to be taken into account.
And it absolutely matters when you're talking about adding a cap. And sure, they shouldn't need to be specialized, but I don't think anyone here is talking about moving around the general DC breakpoints. But, if they are specialized, especially if they're competing against others that are also specialized, they should get to use that rather than handwaving it.
Correct. If there's no tension, critical success and failure should be impossible.
No. The chance of rolling a 1 does not increase. Guess what the chance of rolling a 20 in an infinite number of dice? 1/20. Same with a 1, 2,, 3, etc.
The chance of rolling a number on a 20 sided die is always 1/20. Doesn't matter how many dice you roll. Two dice? There are 400 different possibilities. Each increase is multiplied by 20. Don't just say it is basic math show your work to prove that the probability does change
Just because you are OK with it doesn't change that some are OK with it. I am not wrong just as the people you agree with aren't
I would say I would quit any campaign that were with people who only found it enjoyable to succeed. Oh, and I have played with people who have high pluses and they were Ok with failing.
I think you two may be suffering from a breakdown in communication. Technically you are both correct. Yes, the chance of rolling any number on a single roll of a d20 is and always will be 1/20, aka 5%. However, given a high enough number of rolls, the likelihood of not rolling any number on at least one d20 does go down. Sooner or later you gonna roll a 1 (or a 20), it’s inevitable. It’s the difference between “odds” and “probability” (https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-odds-and-probability.html).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As long as "sooner or later you gonna" means "the chances of not doing that becomes diminishingly small."
Don't think too hard on a deliberately hyperbolic adjective. When the DC says "Impossible" WotC doesn't actually mean nobody can ever achieve it. It's still within reach; more so for parties of specific combinations of classes and spells. Player characters, and this is going to sound weird, are exceptions to the rule. Even a 1st-level wizard can tank an arrow from a goblin when no commoner can. You start as exceptional people in this fictional world, and you only become more exceptional with time.
The best a vanilla PC can hope for is a +11 bonus to their roll, meaning a DC 30 has a mere 10% chance of succeeding. No mortal NPC can pull that off.
My 14th level bard (a real character that I’ve been running in a campaign for a long time) can hit a 56 with Advantage in Stealth.
Okay, it isn’t easy. It requires him making a nag 20, maxing out his bardic die, maxing out Guidance, and having Pass without Trace up.
The point is that he can do it. And he shouldn’t auto-fail on a 1. Instead, what he should be able to do is gamble on his die roll (e.g. he agrees to roll his d20 at a -10 in order to give up to x Allie’s advantage on their score).
This kind of gambling can make the truly skilled achieve something truly remarkable and add tension to every die roll.
Plenty of NPCs have expertise, starting with the CR 1/2 scout. However, being able to achieve a 56 on a check is mostly about 5e failing to actually implement bounded accuracy.
Yeah, for a +6.
If you want to give them class levels, that changes the dynamic considerably.
The probability of not rolling a 1 is 19/20 or 95%, then if you rolled again, it is another 19/20 chance that you still don't roll a 1, but the probability not seeing AT LEAST A SINGLE 1 is not 19/20. The probability of not seeing a single 1 is 19/20 * 19/20 or 90.25%. This is not looking at an individual roll, which I am assuming you are mistakenly thinking is what I am referring to, but looking at the probability of seeing a number at least once. This is why the probability of roll a 1 when you have advantage is 1/400, because you have to roll a 1 twice in a row. This is basic math.
First, I am not talking about just high plusses, I am taking about high enough pluses where under the current 5E rules you would succeed on a nat 1, like having a +19 on a DC10 check. Second, not everyone is like your group, because I know people who do not like having a constant 5% fail chance regardless of your modifiers even if it exceeds the DC. Furthermore, it is not that they only enjoy to succeed, but that they want to be able to build character that can always succeed in their specialty. They will fail in rolls that are not in their specialty and they will fail in their specialty getting their modifier high enough to succeed, and they are fine at failing if the DC is high enough where their modifier is not high enough to succeed on a nat 1. However, if it is a case where the DC is 10 and their modifier is a +19 and they would quite literally have a high enough roll to succeed twice over on a nat 1, they do not find it enjoyable to fail a DC 10 check when they have a +19. If they fail on a nat 1 against a DC25 or DC30, that is fine because 1+19 is not equal to or greater to 25 nor 30, but 1+19 is definitely greater than 10. Are you saying it is wrong to not enjoy failing when your modifier alone is enough to surpass the DC?
Dont tell your players the DC problem solved.
Yes, it is wrong. Builds don't matter. Playing the game matters. You honestly want a +19 bonus to Constitution saving throws for concentration? Okay, you need proficiency, 20 Constitution, a paladin's Aura of Protection with 20 Charisma, and enough magic items to net the final three points. And, hey, if you want someone that specialized then more power to you. Or maybe not. You're giving up something else in the process.
You were talking statistics, not basic mathematics. Keep that in mind going forward.
The proposed promotion of Critical Failure and Critical Success from an optional rule to a standard rule isn't a terrible idea. It's how things worked in the past and serves as a decent abstraction for luck. It is possible to do everything right and still lose. That's just how life is sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that. If you remove the chance of failure completely, then there's no tension. There's no point to even rolling the dice, and if we're not rolling dice, then what are we even doing playing the game? Rolling dice is fun!
And it's always been possible to have a Critical Fail on an attack roll. You can have a +12 modifier to your roll and still miss against a commoner with an armor class of 10. Crap happens. If you haven't learned to live with that by now, then someone failed you when you were growing up.
Resist the knee-jerk reaction. No one is going to force you to play One D&D or whatever the next iteration is called. People still play 4E, 3.5, and AD&D. Your animated response isn't helpful. Not to you, and not to anyone else here.
Actually, in past editions, Nat 1 and Nat 20 did not mean auto fail/success for skill checks and saving throws.
https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/wwrj2y/earlier_editions_what_editions_of_dd_have_had_the/
Someone on reddit actually went and did the research.
Also, builds do matter. For a number of people, half the fun comes from builds. Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds. That's why optimization is an actual thing. Saying that I am wrong, that my fun is wrong, is wrong in of itself. People can enjoy the game for a variety of reasons and they can dislike aspects for a variety of reasons. It is not wrong to dislike the nat 1/20 auto fail/success. To say it is wrong is akin to saying your way of playing D&D is objectively better.
The consequence for missing an attack is generally far less severe than failing a save. That is the only reason why I am personally tolerant of nat 1 auto miss. Also Nat 20 being an auto hit and providing critical hits is sort of the counter balance. However, the nat 20 auto success is meaningless if you have the modifier to succeed on a nat 1 and the nat auto fail is meaningless if you lacked the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. The only it does is slap a 5% auto fail chance that negates build investment.
Furthermore, this is not a knee-jerk reaction. I have experienced the rule in my group in the past as we used to use this rule. However, we found it miserable to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier would have allowed you to succeed otherwise and it sped up the game to see if your minimum roll would give you a success. Also, this type of response is very much helpful as One D&D is currently UA, meaning this is the time to be posting this type of response as it is discussion on the UA material. There are likely people on the fence with some aspects of the UA and they read dicussion to help form an opinion. To say that this type of discussion is not helpful is incorrect. I find making the auto fail/success rule the standard to be a terrible idea so there is no reason why I shouldn't debate against this rule and potentially turn the opinion of those on the fence towards my viewpoint as feedback on the UA will affect whether or not it makes it to the release version.
In addition, implying that I should remain quiet just because I can continue playing 5E is disingeniuous. I want to enjoy One D&D and RAW rules do matter to me because I do play in AL, where things are ran RAW, in addition to home groups. So I am going to actively take part in the UA process for One D&D.
Also, the idea that if you flip a coin twice, you are less likely to see heads twice than the 3 other possibilities is basic math. I believe fhe vast majority of people know that if you roll twice in a row, you are less likely to see the same number than you are to see different numbers.
For things like Concentration, they are going to know the DC unless you don't tell them how much damage they took. So that won't always work. Honestly, I don't see how hiding the DC will solve anything. Playeds can begin recognizing patterns and what numbers gave successes in past rolls for similar tasks. They can recognize inconsistencies.