Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
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.
This right here is why this rule should stay a house rule rather than an official one.
Because if it is official, you can't tell your players 'you can't roll, because you can't succeed'. Because there's always the chance that they'll roll a 20 and get that automatic success.
It'll lead to things like where if there is a door the players can't force or pick the lock, you have to tell your group 'no you can't roll, because the rules technically allow you to succeed if I allow you to roll and I don't want you to succeed', that makes players feel like they're being railroaded... And they are.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
This rule is not official yet, it is still UA so there is still a chance for feedback to make it so that it does not become RAW. Unless you can stop that, you can't stop my arguments.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
Then why are you playing a dice game? Why are you bothering to roll dice? Why not choose to play a game where dice are not needed and you just use your abilities that you have created for yourself. If there is no chance for failure, there is no point to roll, if there is no chance for success there is no point to roll.
Communicating that you are playing a dice game with chance of success and failure with EVERY ROLL solves the problem. It is really that easy.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
Then why are you playing a dice game? Why are you bothering to roll dice? Why not choose to play a game where dice are not needed and you just use your abilities that you have created for yourself. If there is no chance for failure, there is no point to roll, if there is no chance for success there is no point to roll.
Because it takes time and effort to reach that point. It is not like we start off at first level being able to succeed on a nat 1.
Furthermore, we aren't succeeding on a nat 1 if it is not in a roll we specialized in. A character may have +19 Con Saves but that won't help them in an int save for example.
We are also fine with failing on a nat 1 if the DC is high enough. If the DC is 21, and we rolled a nat 1 with a +19, we are fine with failing in that situation because we did not meet the DC. However if the DC is 10 and we have a +19, we should just succeed.
D&D uses Dice and Modifiers. You can optimize a character to increase their chance of succeeding. This is simply doing that, increasing the chance of success as high as we can.
Also, currently, if the minimum possible roll meets the DC, my group does not roll. It just succeeds as that is the current RAW and RAI in 5E.
We enjoy D&D 5E and we enjoy that by both RAW and RAI that we can build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 if they invest into making their character that good in that type of roll.
There is still a point for us to play a "dice game" even if you don't see it.
I've come around on this rule. At first I was like, "who cares, it's so rare anyway that you can basically ignore it." But now I'm thinking, putting it on the page makes people think about it. Makes people reference it, and use it as an example, and so on.
Furthermore, I don't think the tiny value add of having all the tests work the same way is worth the value loss of making ability checks really stupid.
…I don't think the tiny value add of having all the tests work the same way is worth the value loss of making ability checks really stupid.
Can I use this wording when I answer their survey later this week? I mean this exact wording?
Lol, be my guest. I will probably use a lot more words in mine.
I'm very curious about their survey methodology. On one hand, I hope they differentiate between people who played with the rules, and people who didn't. On the other hand, I hope they still listen to those of us who only read the rules, just... Maybe less? Idk. On a third hand (that's right, I have at least three), I hope they DON'T listen to people whose only brush with the rules was what their favorite YouTube drama person said about them. So, it's complicated.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
if you take away the incentive to stack skill rolls, then the Lore Bard loses about half it’s value.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Its hardly stacking stats to a ridiculous level if just having expertise in one of your skills will easily put you over +10 and mean you should be passing a number of checks on a nat 1.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
It isn’t about how the game should be played. It is about what should be in the book. Home brewing has been part of the game since almost the beginning.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game.
No it doesn't. Building a character is always about picking which of several options you'll use, and optimization is just a method of making that decision.
You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
This goes both ways. Your desires carry no more weight than anyone else's.
The entire point of the UA and Survey is to get a consensus of how people play and what they want. In the end we will see how the community as a whole feels about it and that will be that. I will be voicing my desire to toss this concept into the garbage bin when the survey is available. I encourage you to vote how you desire and in the end we will see where it all ends up.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
As others have stated, the statement that my enjoyment is niche goes both ways. The D&D fanbase is quite diverse and there is no invalid way of playing. Also, optimizing is not restrictive and does not need you to remove options from the game. It is a method of making decisions in the game. You are essentially saying optimization is bad and doing it is wrong, which is completely false as it is essentially saying that people are wrong to optimize, something that has been proven wrong since Stormwind's Fallacy was coined.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
This right here is why this rule should stay a house rule rather than an official one.
Because if it is official, you can't tell your players 'you can't roll, because you can't succeed'. Because there's always the chance that they'll roll a 20 and get that automatic success.
It'll lead to things like where if there is a door the players can't force or pick the lock, you have to tell your group 'no you can't roll, because the rules technically allow you to succeed if I allow you to roll and I don't want you to succeed', that makes players feel like they're being railroaded... And they are.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
This rule is not official yet, it is still UA so there is still a chance for feedback to make it so that it does not become RAW. Unless you can stop that, you can't stop my arguments.
Then why are you playing a dice game? Why are you bothering to roll dice? Why not choose to play a game where dice are not needed and you just use your abilities that you have created for yourself. If there is no chance for failure, there is no point to roll, if there is no chance for success there is no point to roll.
Communicating that you are playing a dice game with chance of success and failure with EVERY ROLL solves the problem. It is really that easy.
Because it takes time and effort to reach that point. It is not like we start off at first level being able to succeed on a nat 1.
Furthermore, we aren't succeeding on a nat 1 if it is not in a roll we specialized in. A character may have +19 Con Saves but that won't help them in an int save for example.
We are also fine with failing on a nat 1 if the DC is high enough. If the DC is 21, and we rolled a nat 1 with a +19, we are fine with failing in that situation because we did not meet the DC. However if the DC is 10 and we have a +19, we should just succeed.
D&D uses Dice and Modifiers. You can optimize a character to increase their chance of succeeding. This is simply doing that, increasing the chance of success as high as we can.
Also, currently, if the minimum possible roll meets the DC, my group does not roll. It just succeeds as that is the current RAW and RAI in 5E.
We enjoy D&D 5E and we enjoy that by both RAW and RAI that we can build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 if they invest into making their character that good in that type of roll.
There is still a point for us to play a "dice game" even if you don't see it.
I've come around on this rule. At first I was like, "who cares, it's so rare anyway that you can basically ignore it." But now I'm thinking, putting it on the page makes people think about it. Makes people reference it, and use it as an example, and so on.
Furthermore, I don't think the tiny value add of having all the tests work the same way is worth the value loss of making ability checks really stupid.
Would not use this rule if it was made official.
Can I use this wording when I answer their survey later this week? I mean this exact wording?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Lol, be my guest. I will probably use a lot more words in mine.
I'm very curious about their survey methodology. On one hand, I hope they differentiate between people who played with the rules, and people who didn't. On the other hand, I hope they still listen to those of us who only read the rules, just... Maybe less? Idk. On a third hand (that's right, I have at least three), I hope they DON'T listen to people whose only brush with the rules was what their favorite YouTube drama person said about them. So, it's complicated.
if you take away the incentive to stack skill rolls, then the Lore Bard loses about half it’s value.
Hopefully, they won’t _all_ be four letters long.
Its hardly stacking stats to a ridiculous level if just having expertise in one of your skills will easily put you over +10 and mean you should be passing a number of checks on a nat 1.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
It isn’t about how the game should be played. It is about what should be in the book. Home brewing has been part of the game since almost the beginning.
No it doesn't. Building a character is always about picking which of several options you'll use, and optimization is just a method of making that decision.
This goes both ways. Your desires carry no more weight than anyone else's.
The entire point of the UA and Survey is to get a consensus of how people play and what they want. In the end we will see how the community as a whole feels about it and that will be that. I will be voicing my desire to toss this concept into the garbage bin when the survey is available. I encourage you to vote how you desire and in the end we will see where it all ends up.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As others have stated, the statement that my enjoyment is niche goes both ways. The D&D fanbase is quite diverse and there is no invalid way of playing. Also, optimizing is not restrictive and does not need you to remove options from the game. It is a method of making decisions in the game. You are essentially saying optimization is bad and doing it is wrong, which is completely false as it is essentially saying that people are wrong to optimize, something that has been proven wrong since Stormwind's Fallacy was coined.