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.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices.
Any time you build a character, you have to exclude a lot of choices, because there's a limit to how many you can put on your character. Excluding an option because it's inefficient is not different in kind from excluding an option because it doesn't fit your backstory or you just want another option more.
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.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
Optimization isn't always about picking the absolute best option. For example, optimizing a specific concept, like trying to recreate a character from another fandom, often has you pick overall suboptimal choices but optimal in the case of trying to recreate something.
No one is playing the wrong game. D&D is meant to be inclusive, including the people who don't like unpredictability because it offers mechanics to mitigate unpredictability, such as Reliable Talent for example.
Also, no one is saying optimization should be the standard under which we all play; what we are saying is that they should not be disregarded. Players have the freedom to make suboptimal choices under the current 5E rules without nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in fact, it generally doesn't even affect them if it exists or not. If someone is not the type to optimize, then they would normally fail with a nat 1 and likely succeed on a nat 20 (though that is less guaranteed, such as the DC being higher than what they can achieve). So quite literally for them, the nat 1 auto fail does not change anything for them at all; they would fail with a nat 1 before the rule change and they will fail with a nat 1 after the rule change. Rather than fighting tooth and nail to prevent optimization from being the standard, you are fighting tooth and nail to discourage optimization.
What the nat 1 auto fail does change things for are the people who do optimize and make characters capable of succeeding on a nat 1. The rule actually affects them as it can turn a 100% chance to a 95% chance. The people who optimize are actually affected by this rule while the people who don't are unlikely to be affected.
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.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
You have a very narrow restrictive view of optimisation. Optimisation can be done with any number of parameters including choices that might be viewed as suboptimal by some. It all depends on the parameters and end goal you're looking for when you decide to try and optimise.
Optimising without parameters is not super helpful really because obviously everyone will always end up with the same character. Limitations are where it gets interesting and where flavour gets introduced.
The best part is no more bullet proof concentration saves. It was a bad design to have saves that the PC couldn't fail or pass. I'd rather they just fix the scale rather than use auto 1/20 but it's a patch.
That is no issue with bullet proof concentration saves. The main balancing aspect (as in 99.9 repeating % of it) of concentration is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Furthermore, concentration can still be lost through incapacitation effects such as stun or paralysis.
It is not bad design to have saves that the PC can't fail as PC's have to invest into their saves to get to that point. Being able to succeed automatically through having a high enough bonus is not a flaw or a bug in the game's design nor does it negatively affect the game. PC's can't auto succeed on every save as you can't invest into every save, so they will always have a targetable weakness.
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.
The rule as written literally says the DM can not allow a roll. Whether or not to allow a roll is at the DMs discretion. If the DM thinks the declared action's DC is above 30 or below 5, there's no need for a roll. It's baked into the language of the rule to block exactly this concern.
"The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
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.
ROLLING A 1 If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20 If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. 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."
As far as how a rule makes people feel, the DM and players have to set expectations for each other. If a table can't come to an understanding on how rolls will work, there are going to be way bigger problems at the table than rules interpretation.
The best part is no more bullet proof concentration saves. It was a bad design to have saves that the PC couldn't fail or pass. I'd rather they just fix the scale rather than use auto 1/20 but it's a patch.
That is no issue with bullet proof concentration saves. The main balancing aspect (as in 99.9 repeating % of it) of concentration is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Furthermore, concentration can still be lost through incapacitation effects such as stun or paralysis.
It is not bad design to have saves that the PC can't fail as PC's have to invest into their saves to get to that point. Being able to succeed automatically through having a high enough bonus is not a flaw or a bug in the game's design nor does it negatively affect the game. PC's can't auto succeed on every save as you can't invest into every save, so they will always have a targetable weakness.
It a horrible design if you can only maintain a chance to pass saves if optional rules are in play (feats). If you want a certain NPC to have an effect that is guaranteed just do that and have a lower save/check on following turns.
I don’t know what game you are referring to. In 5e, it is fairly easy to make a concentration check.
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.
The rule as written literally says the DM can not allow a roll. Whether or not to allow a roll is at the DMs discretion. If the DM thinks the declared action's DC is above 30 or below 5, there's no need for a roll. It's baked into the language of the rule to block exactly this concern.
"The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
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.
ROLLING A 1 If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20 If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. 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."
As far as how a rule makes people feel, the DM and players have to set expectations for each other. If a table can't come to an understanding on how rolls will work, there are going to be way bigger problems at the table than rules interpretation.
The only reason this rule is being suggested in the first place is because people didn't seem to understand current RAW (at least that is what Crawford said in the video) so WotC wanted to test to see if people actually wanted peoples misunderstanding of the rules to become the new RAW.
I don't
I know there are several people on both sides of this issue, on Friday we all get to tell WotC whether we like it or not.
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.
The rule as written literally says the DM can not allow a roll. Whether or not to allow a roll is at the DMs discretion. If the DM thinks the declared action's DC is above 30 or below 5, there's no need for a roll. It's baked into the language of the rule to block exactly this concern.
"The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
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.
ROLLING A 1 If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20 If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. 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."
As far as how a rule makes people feel, the DM and players have to set expectations for each other. If a table can't come to an understanding on how rolls will work, there are going to be way bigger problems at the table than rules interpretation.
The only reason this rule is being suggested in the first place is because people didn't seem to understand current RAW (at least that is what Crawford said in the video) so WotC wanted to test to see if people actually wanted peoples misunderstanding of the rules to become the new RAW.
I don't
I know there are several people on both sides of this issue, on Friday we all get to tell WotC whether we like it or not.
Yeah that's totally fair. The only thing I was trying to say at first is that this rule isn't that different than they rules as written now if the DM and players are all on the same page and OK with slightly fewer rolls. The DM's just telling people they succeed for fail without the need for a roll a few times every session. It's fine either way. This way probably is clearer and gives the illusion of a bit more power for the players, because they know if they get to roll, they always at least have a chance at success.
The best part is no more bullet proof concentration saves. It was a bad design to have saves that the PC couldn't fail or pass. I'd rather they just fix the scale rather than use auto 1/20 but it's a patch.
That is no issue with bullet proof concentration saves. The main balancing aspect (as in 99.9 repeating % of it) of concentration is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Furthermore, concentration can still be lost through incapacitation effects such as stun or paralysis.
It is not bad design to have saves that the PC can't fail as PC's have to invest into their saves to get to that point. Being able to succeed automatically through having a high enough bonus is not a flaw or a bug in the game's design nor does it negatively affect the game. PC's can't auto succeed on every save as you can't invest into every save, so they will always have a targetable weakness.
It a horrible design if you can only maintain a chance to pass saves if optional rules are in play (feats). If you want a certain NPC to have an effect that is guaranteed just do that and have a lower save/check on following turns.
Well feats are no longer going to be optional; they shouldn't have been optional to begin with. Also, magic items and spells like bless are other ways for PC's to pass saves that their modifier alone would not be able to pass. However, the question here is not that the only chance to pass saves is if you use feats; it is whether PC's being able to pass saves on a nat 1, which I don't think is bad design at all since it requires investment on the PC's part to be able to do that.
Having played most of my DnD career (40+ years) with a Nat 1 being not only a fail but a critical fail and a Nat 20 being a critical success I don’t have a problem with the rule. Not having DM crits is going to make party survival much more likely much of the time but I know several ways to deal with that. What having crit fails and hits does is indeed remove the “ you can’t make the roll needed so don’t bother trying”. That can slow play somewhat but typically doesn’t and when you get a chain of crits it makes the result truly memorable and game/character changing. The longest one I ever saw was a crit hit followed by 10 crit fails in a row.
The best part is no more bullet proof concentration saves. It was a bad design to have saves that the PC couldn't fail or pass. I'd rather they just fix the scale rather than use auto 1/20 but it's a patch.
That is no issue with bullet proof concentration saves. The main balancing aspect (as in 99.9 repeating % of it) of concentration is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Furthermore, concentration can still be lost through incapacitation effects such as stun or paralysis.
It is not bad design to have saves that the PC can't fail as PC's have to invest into their saves to get to that point. Being able to succeed automatically through having a high enough bonus is not a flaw or a bug in the game's design nor does it negatively affect the game. PC's can't auto succeed on every save as you can't invest into every save, so they will always have a targetable weakness.
It a horrible design if you can only maintain a chance to pass saves if optional rules are in play (feats). If you want a certain NPC to have an effect that is guaranteed just do that and have a lower save/check on following turns.
Well feats are no longer going to be optional; they shouldn't have been optional to begin with. Also, magic items and spells like bless are other ways for PC's to pass saves that their modifier alone would not be able to pass. However, the question here is not that the only chance to pass saves is if you use feats; it is whether PC's being able to pass saves on a nat 1, which I don't think is bad design at all since it requires investment on the PC's part to be able to do that.
Except it is objectively bad design. The point of a die roll, like many other elements of the game, is to showcase risk versus reward. An ability check isn't rolled until the DM says so. If the DM decides a task is routine enough that your character cannot fail, then that's it. They just pass, no die roll necessary.
But saving throws are forced. The die must be cast. If the result on the die is ever irrelevant, then there's no point to the roll. And whatever forced the saving throw was utterly wasted. And that cuts both ways across the table. Anything the players can do, the DM can do. And if you can automatically pass some saving throws, so can the DM.
The best part is no more bullet proof concentration saves. It was a bad design to have saves that the PC couldn't fail or pass. I'd rather they just fix the scale rather than use auto 1/20 but it's a patch.
That is no issue with bullet proof concentration saves. The main balancing aspect (as in 99.9 repeating % of it) of concentration is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Furthermore, concentration can still be lost through incapacitation effects such as stun or paralysis.
It is not bad design to have saves that the PC can't fail as PC's have to invest into their saves to get to that point. Being able to succeed automatically through having a high enough bonus is not a flaw or a bug in the game's design nor does it negatively affect the game. PC's can't auto succeed on every save as you can't invest into every save, so they will always have a targetable weakness.
It a horrible design if you can only maintain a chance to pass saves if optional rules are in play (feats). If you want a certain NPC to have an effect that is guaranteed just do that and have a lower save/check on following turns.
Well feats are no longer going to be optional; they shouldn't have been optional to begin with. Also, magic items and spells like bless are other ways for PC's to pass saves that their modifier alone would not be able to pass. However, the question here is not that the only chance to pass saves is if you use feats; it is whether PC's being able to pass saves on a nat 1, which I don't think is bad design at all since it requires investment on the PC's part to be able to do that.
Except it is objectively bad design. The point of a die roll, like many other elements of the game, is to showcase risk versus reward. An ability check isn't rolled until the DM says so. If the DM decides a task is routine enough that your character cannot fail, then that's it. They just pass, no die roll necessary.
But saving throws are forced. The die must be cast. If the result on the die is ever irrelevant, then there's no point to the roll. And whatever forced the saving throw was utterly wasted. And that cuts both ways across the table. Anything the players can do, the DM can do. And if you can automatically pass some saving throws, so can the DM.
Sorry, not sorry, but no.
It is not objectively bad design. It would be objectively bad design if a character could start out with it. However because a character has to build for it, it is a perfectly valid design. There is nothing wrong with being able to put in the investment to guarantee something.
There is nothing wrong with the DM not calling for a saving throw if your character has the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. It gives a sense of satisfaction of how strong the character has come and can make their enemies have an oh crap moment. That said, they have other saves that can be targetted and are not invincible.
In a campaign I am currently in, despite having a +14 int save and thus am immune to a mind flayer's mind blast, my artificer still had several close calls when going into a mind flayer hive to kill an Elder Brain. Me being immune to mind blast did not detract any fun from the rest of the party, in fact they cheered that I was able to pull it off. If it was objectively bad design then it would have ruined the encounters, but it didn't.
Just because a DM can do it doesn't mean they should. Enemy stat blocks rarely if ever can succeed on a nat 1. Besides, the DM already has legendary Resistances for guaranteeing successes. It is more of something a player can do if they build for it.
Sorry, not sorry, but just because you don't like it does not make it objectively bad, especially when it has been working well for the past few years. You are wrong on it being objectively bad design. It sounds more like you don't like players being able to optimize than anything despite saying you had no issue with optimization.
It is not objectively bad design. It would be objectively bad design if a character could start out with it. However because a character has to build for it, it is a perfectly valid design. There is nothing wrong with being able to put in the investment to guarantee something.
Saves always failing on a 1 is the same situation as attacks always hitting on a 20. Immunity should be achieved by a feature that says you're immune, not by bonus stacking.
It is not objectively bad design. It would be objectively bad design if a character could start out with it. However because a character has to build for it, it is a perfectly valid design. There is nothing wrong with being able to put in the investment to guarantee something.
Saves always failing on a 1 is the same situation as attacks always hitting on a 20. Immunity should be achieved by a feature that says you're immune, not by bonus stacking.
It's not. Missing an attack often has a lesser consequence than failing a save. For example, failing against a disinitigrate spell can spell instant death if it brings you to 0; missing an attack just means you don't deal any damage from an attack you just dealt. Or failing against a Hold Person means you are paralyzed and will lose your next turn and any attacks that hit you are criticals and you can lose subsequent turns.
Only reason why I can tolerate nat 1 automiss is because the consequence is rather minor and because the math works out with you generally missing on nat 1's even if auto miss was not a thing, even if you had a magic weapon boosting your attack bonus.
Players should be able to succeed on a nat 1 if they have the modifier to do so. Plus, it doesn't always mean you are immune; if there is an effect on success such as half damage, you still suffer that. My artificer was immune to mind blasts because it had no effect on a successful save, but if there was something like half damage on save she would have suffered that.
Failing a save is not the same as missing an attack; they should not be compared like that.
The rule isn't even being changed for balancing reasons. It is just because some people didn't read the actual rule and thought that nat 1's were autofails and nat 20's are autosuccess.
It is not objectively bad design. It would be objectively bad design if a character could start out with it. However because a character has to build for it, it is a perfectly valid design. There is nothing wrong with being able to put in the investment to guarantee something.
Saves always failing on a 1 is the same situation as attacks always hitting on a 20. Immunity should be achieved by a feature that says you're immune, not by bonus stacking.
To be honest, both are bad imo. And auto hitting on a 20 is already functionally useless since if you roll a 20 you're already going to hit the AC of everything below CR30 on die anyways with nothing but your proficiency bonus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
Any time you build a character, you have to exclude a lot of choices, because there's a limit to how many you can put on your character. Excluding an option because it's inefficient is not different in kind from excluding an option because it doesn't fit your backstory or you just want another option more.
Optimization isn't always about picking the absolute best option. For example, optimizing a specific concept, like trying to recreate a character from another fandom, often has you pick overall suboptimal choices but optimal in the case of trying to recreate something.
No one is playing the wrong game. D&D is meant to be inclusive, including the people who don't like unpredictability because it offers mechanics to mitigate unpredictability, such as Reliable Talent for example.
Also, no one is saying optimization should be the standard under which we all play; what we are saying is that they should not be disregarded. Players have the freedom to make suboptimal choices under the current 5E rules without nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in fact, it generally doesn't even affect them if it exists or not. If someone is not the type to optimize, then they would normally fail with a nat 1 and likely succeed on a nat 20 (though that is less guaranteed, such as the DC being higher than what they can achieve). So quite literally for them, the nat 1 auto fail does not change anything for them at all; they would fail with a nat 1 before the rule change and they will fail with a nat 1 after the rule change. Rather than fighting tooth and nail to prevent optimization from being the standard, you are fighting tooth and nail to discourage optimization.
What the nat 1 auto fail does change things for are the people who do optimize and make characters capable of succeeding on a nat 1. The rule actually affects them as it can turn a 100% chance to a 95% chance. The people who optimize are actually affected by this rule while the people who don't are unlikely to be affected.
You have a very narrow restrictive view of optimisation. Optimisation can be done with any number of parameters including choices that might be viewed as suboptimal by some. It all depends on the parameters and end goal you're looking for when you decide to try and optimise.
Optimising without parameters is not super helpful really because obviously everyone will always end up with the same character. Limitations are where it gets interesting and where flavour gets introduced.
Relying on a fail on one wont balance concentration checks if that is your concern.
That is no issue with bullet proof concentration saves. The main balancing aspect (as in 99.9 repeating % of it) of concentration is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Furthermore, concentration can still be lost through incapacitation effects such as stun or paralysis.
It is not bad design to have saves that the PC can't fail as PC's have to invest into their saves to get to that point. Being able to succeed automatically through having a high enough bonus is not a flaw or a bug in the game's design nor does it negatively affect the game. PC's can't auto succeed on every save as you can't invest into every save, so they will always have a targetable weakness.
The rule as written literally says the DM can not allow a roll. Whether or not to allow a roll is at the DMs discretion. If the DM thinks the declared action's DC is above 30 or below 5, there's no need for a roll. It's baked into the language of the rule to block exactly this concern.
__________________________________________________________________________________
"The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
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.
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20
If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. 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."
____________________________________________________________________________________
As far as how a rule makes people feel, the DM and players have to set expectations for each other. If a table can't come to an understanding on how rolls will work, there are going to be way bigger problems at the table than rules interpretation.
I don’t know what game you are referring to. In 5e, it is fairly easy to make a concentration check.
The only reason this rule is being suggested in the first place is because people didn't seem to understand current RAW (at least that is what Crawford said in the video) so WotC wanted to test to see if people actually wanted peoples misunderstanding of the rules to become the new RAW.
I don't
I know there are several people on both sides of this issue, on Friday we all get to tell WotC whether we like it or not.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah that's totally fair. The only thing I was trying to say at first is that this rule isn't that different than they rules as written now if the DM and players are all on the same page and OK with slightly fewer rolls. The DM's just telling people they succeed for fail without the need for a roll a few times every session. It's fine either way. This way probably is clearer and gives the illusion of a bit more power for the players, because they know if they get to roll, they always at least have a chance at success.
Well feats are no longer going to be optional; they shouldn't have been optional to begin with. Also, magic items and spells like bless are other ways for PC's to pass saves that their modifier alone would not be able to pass. However, the question here is not that the only chance to pass saves is if you use feats; it is whether PC's being able to pass saves on a nat 1, which I don't think is bad design at all since it requires investment on the PC's part to be able to do that.
Having played most of my DnD career (40+ years) with a Nat 1 being not only a fail but a critical fail and a Nat 20 being a critical success I don’t have a problem with the rule. Not having DM crits is going to make party survival much more likely much of the time but I know several ways to deal with that. What having crit fails and hits does is indeed remove the “ you can’t make the roll needed so don’t bother trying”. That can slow play somewhat but typically doesn’t and when you get a chain of crits it makes the result truly memorable and game/character changing. The longest one I ever saw was a crit hit followed by 10 crit fails in a row.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Except it is objectively bad design. The point of a die roll, like many other elements of the game, is to showcase risk versus reward. An ability check isn't rolled until the DM says so. If the DM decides a task is routine enough that your character cannot fail, then that's it. They just pass, no die roll necessary.
But saving throws are forced. The die must be cast. If the result on the die is ever irrelevant, then there's no point to the roll. And whatever forced the saving throw was utterly wasted. And that cuts both ways across the table. Anything the players can do, the DM can do. And if you can automatically pass some saving throws, so can the DM.
Sorry, not sorry, but no.
It is not objectively bad design. It would be objectively bad design if a character could start out with it. However because a character has to build for it, it is a perfectly valid design. There is nothing wrong with being able to put in the investment to guarantee something.
There is nothing wrong with the DM not calling for a saving throw if your character has the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. It gives a sense of satisfaction of how strong the character has come and can make their enemies have an oh crap moment. That said, they have other saves that can be targetted and are not invincible.
In a campaign I am currently in, despite having a +14 int save and thus am immune to a mind flayer's mind blast, my artificer still had several close calls when going into a mind flayer hive to kill an Elder Brain. Me being immune to mind blast did not detract any fun from the rest of the party, in fact they cheered that I was able to pull it off. If it was objectively bad design then it would have ruined the encounters, but it didn't.
Just because a DM can do it doesn't mean they should. Enemy stat blocks rarely if ever can succeed on a nat 1. Besides, the DM already has legendary Resistances for guaranteeing successes. It is more of something a player can do if they build for it.
Sorry, not sorry, but just because you don't like it does not make it objectively bad, especially when it has been working well for the past few years. You are wrong on it being objectively bad design. It sounds more like you don't like players being able to optimize than anything despite saying you had no issue with optimization.
Saves always failing on a 1 is the same situation as attacks always hitting on a 20. Immunity should be achieved by a feature that says you're immune, not by bonus stacking.
It's not. Missing an attack often has a lesser consequence than failing a save. For example, failing against a disinitigrate spell can spell instant death if it brings you to 0; missing an attack just means you don't deal any damage from an attack you just dealt. Or failing against a Hold Person means you are paralyzed and will lose your next turn and any attacks that hit you are criticals and you can lose subsequent turns.
Only reason why I can tolerate nat 1 automiss is because the consequence is rather minor and because the math works out with you generally missing on nat 1's even if auto miss was not a thing, even if you had a magic weapon boosting your attack bonus.
Players should be able to succeed on a nat 1 if they have the modifier to do so. Plus, it doesn't always mean you are immune; if there is an effect on success such as half damage, you still suffer that. My artificer was immune to mind blasts because it had no effect on a successful save, but if there was something like half damage on save she would have suffered that.
Failing a save is not the same as missing an attack; they should not be compared like that.
The rule isn't even being changed for balancing reasons. It is just because some people didn't read the actual rule and thought that nat 1's were autofails and nat 20's are autosuccess.
To be honest, both are bad imo. And auto hitting on a 20 is already functionally useless since if you roll a 20 you're already going to hit the AC of everything below CR30 on die anyways with nothing but your proficiency bonus.