I'm going to offer some perspective from a different game:
Anyone who recognises my avatar probably already knows which one, but for the rest: Vampire the Masquerade.
Now... Rolling dice in VtM works very differently from D&D. Instead of rolling a single d20 and adding a modifier, the Storyteller System works with dice pools where you roll a pool of d10s determined by one's stats and any relevant bonuses and try to beat a difficulty set by the gamemaster (Storyteller or ST in the system's parlance). Various version of the game had different ways for determining said difficulty. Early on it was the number you had to roll on the die to make it count as a success (an easy task might require a 4 on a d10 for a success, an almost impossible task might require an 8) with any success on a single die meaning the action succeeded and the number of successes determining the magnitude of that success. Later on it moved to making the number required for a success static (a 6 or above) and making the difficulty determined by a minimum number of successes required.
In early versions of that system had a rule that regarded a '1' on a d10 to be a critical failure, which wouldn't simply not be a success on that die, but also negate one success on another die. The exception being a 10. A 10 was a guaranteed success that couldn't be negated by a 1 (so if you roll four dice and the results are 9,9, 1,1 you fail, because the two 1s cancel out the two 9s, but if you roll 10, 1, 1, 1 you succeed, because the three 1s can't cancel the automatic success of the 10).
So why does this matter?
That system was changed intentionally, because it felt bad to play with. Initially people couldn't really put into words why it felt bad, just that it did. So White Wolf did a lot of playtesting and gathered a lot of feedback and ultimately they reached a conclusion: Having any result on a roll be an automatic failure was more frustrating than it was beneficial.
The main way that a character would get stronger was to increase stats in order to increase the dice pool and therefore increasing the chance of getting at least one success in the roll.... But increasing dice pools also increased the chance of getting at least one 1. As your dice pool increased, the chance of succeeding did statistically increase, of course. But the psychological effect of knowing that a fluke could still ruin everything meant that it didn't feel like your character was getting stronger. The system had another mechanic for generating automatic successes, the willpower stat, which would grant you a limited pool of points you could spend to get one automatic success on a test that couldn't be negated by rolling a 1. And in playtesting they found that despite being far more expensive to raise than the stats that determine dice pools, most players would prefer to save up their xp points (VtM works on a system where instead of getting stat increases across the board when reaching a certain xp threshold, xp points can be spent directly to raise one's statistics) to buy more willpower.
Because with the looming spectre of your dice screwing you and causing you to automatically fail at something your character was supposed to be really, really good at, most players would prefer increasing their ability to enjoy the safety of that single, unspectacular success rather than making their character actually good at things.
Ultimately it was discovered that having the possibility of rolling 1s and negating their successes has a psychological effect far beyond the likelihood of it actually happening... Because when it did happen it felt so bad, because people felt cheated out of a success, that it outweighed the numerous instances where it didn't in the minds of the players. It made players afraid to roll their dice, because the mere chance that a straight roll could result in a complete failure even on a maximum dice pool felt so off puting that many players would just default to 'I spend a willpower, I'm not even going to bother rolling, tell me what my one success gets me'... And VtM already had far less emphasis on rolling than D&D does.
So they changed it. They still wanted to have the possibility of critical failures, because VtM is a drama game and nothing generates drama like an unmitigated failure. And when I say 'they' I don't just mean the designers. I mean the players as well. The players wanted a possibility of critical failure, just not the one they had. So they made it so that instead of subtracting successes from the rest of the roll, a 1 didn't matter if you rolled any successes, but triggered a critical failure if you didn't get at least one success.
And that felt a lot better. Because, sure, rolling a 1 could still be bad, but it would only be bad if the roll was a failure anyway. You were no longer 'cheated' out of a success by randomly rolling a 1. So rolling a 1 on a failure became almost as exciting as rolling six successes (VtM's version of a critical success).
Because the problem was never that a 1 could cause you to fail in and of itself, it was that rolling a 1 could turn what would otherwise have been a success into a failure.
The same is true for D&D. If you have a high enough modifier to succeed on a check regardless of what you roll then getting 'cheated' out of that success by rolling a 1 feels far worse than if you fail the check when you only had a middling chance to succeed in the first place.
Beyond that, though, there's another reason to keep '1 is critical miss, 20 is a critical success' only on attack rolls:
Failing a save is often far, far more devastating than failing an attack roll. With the exception of a desperate, hail-Mary attack on a creature that is close to death, but also about to wreck the party's sh... erhm poop, failing on an attack roll doesn't often have direct character ending consequences. You just... Miss one attack and did a little less damage a little less quickly this combat than if you'd succeeded. You'll make another next turn... Or if you have more than one attack per turn, you'll make another one right after (or made one already before on this turn).
But a save? Failing a save can be the difference between taking a lot of damage and taking an instantly lethal amount of damage. It can lead to a character suffering a debilitating condition that effectively takes them out of the running for the rest of the fight. A single failed save can result in widespread consequences that lead to a TPK in a way that a single failed attack almost never will.
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, suffering a TPK because one player failed a save due to getting an automatic failure by rolling a 1 on a roll that they would have succeeded at had they rolled any other number... including a 1 if that hadn't been an automatic failure... is the kind of utterly demoralising situation that can lead to the entire group just straight up giving up on the game.
Sure, objectively speaking it's just a fluke. It's not very likely to happen. But the fact that it can happen? That it does happen? That knowledge alone is enough to lead to people having anxiety attacks about a game that is, ultimately, supposed to be about telling a fun story with your friends (or, sometimes, people that you somewhat tolerate because they're the only people around you can play with).
So would people feel the same if it was on a percentile die and you only have a 1% chance of failure? What percentage failure is Ok with you? It can't be zero. If you are rolling a die to determine an outcome at something then there should be a fear of failure. I don't understand the feel bad argument. If that is the case then just let everyone succeed at everything. Can't have anyone feel bad.
Instead of thinking how bad it is your big high level perfect character should never fail think of it as a role-playing opportunity. Let's say your character has a +19 to fear roles and the DC is 20. You're going to suceed 95% of the time. Willing to bet it comes up so rarely that you're going to succeed the more than that (meaning you are rolling fear roles so rarely that you're going to succeed). You roll a 1. So now this character who rarely feels fear suddenly is afraid. What do they do?
It is simple. If you are bringing an element of chance into the game there needs to be a chance of failure.
Oh as the above poster brought of White Wolf, we played Vampire when it first came out. We had no problem with the die rolls. Sure even the most powerful may, on occasion, fail. We just went with it.
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.
Here is the problem and how it limits. Wizard doesn't have lockpicking skill some think they can never try. Of course they can. It will be harder but of course they can try. Don't have tavern brawler? You can still pick up a chair and hit someone over the head with it. Anyone can pick up a sword and swing it. Anyone can lie List goes on. DC may change though. People specialize and see it on their character sheet and then only see the things they are good at. That limits options. Then of course there is the problem of some people thinking the Wizard hanging out with a Rogue can't learn how to pick a lock without multiclassing
So would people feel the same if it was on a percentile die and you only have a 1% chance of failure? What percentage failure is Ok with you? It can't be zero. If you are rolling a die to determine an outcome at something then there should be a fear of failure. I don't understand the feel bad argument. If that is the case then just let everyone succeed at everything. Can't have anyone feel bad.
Instead of thinking how bad it is your big high level perfect character should never fail think of it as a role-playing opportunity. Let's say your character has a +19 to fear roles and the DC is 20. You're going to suceed 95% of the time. Willing to bet it comes up so rarely that you're going to succeed the more than that (meaning you are rolling fear roles so rarely that you're going to succeed). You roll a 1. So now this character who rarely feels fear suddenly is afraid. What do they do?
It is simple. If you are bringing an element of chance into the game there needs to be a chance of failure.
Oh as the above poster brought of White Wolf, we played Vampire when it first came out. We had no problem with the die rolls. Sure even the most powerful may, on occasion, fail. We just went with it.
I disagree when you say it can't be 0. Part of the point of raising mod to +19 is so you don't have to roll when the DC is 20 or lower. Not everyone is looking for that role playing opportunity on a nat 1. When you are raising your mod so you can succeed on a nat 1, you are optimizing it so you are removing that element of chance for that specific type of roll. Reliable Talent does this for Rogues already, so it isn't a foreign concept to the game; even with the nat 1 auto fail, Reliable Talent supersedes that as it alters the die roll itself. So already in the game there is a mechanic that removes chance.
When you say it can't be 0, that is how you feel the game should be. However, current 5E allows people to guarantee certain rolls, and plenty of people have no issue and see it as a good thing. The fact that there are people who enjoy it and that this is actually heavily debated shows that there is merit in not having nat 1 autofails and there not always needing a chance of failure.
D&D has exploded in popularity and has gained an incredibly diverse group of players with all sorts of play styles and 5E has supported those variety of play styles very well. In those varying playstyles are those who optimize to reduce the element of randomness, to make their character more and more consistent, even reaching 100% for certain rolls if they invest enough. That kind of play style is not wrong or lesser than a player style that embraces the randomness. It is all preference. Just because they want to reduce the element of chance with their character doesn't mean D&D is not the game for them. Telling someone that D&D is not the game for them (as I have been told before in this very thread) is just rude, disingenuous, and goes against inclusivity of the 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.
Here is the problem and how it limits. Wizard doesn't have lockpicking skill some think they can never try. Of course they can. It will be harder but of course they can try. Don't have tavern brawler? You can still pick up a chair and hit someone over the head with it. Anyone can pick up a sword and swing it. Anyone can lie List goes on. DC may change though. People specialize and see it on their character sheet and then only see the things they are good at. That limits options. Then of course there is the problem of some people thinking the Wizard hanging out with a Rogue can't learn how to pick a lock without multiclassing
Optimization isn't limiting anything. It is simply the a thinking process and is based on parameters you set yourself and can adjust at any time. Just because they optimize doesn't mean they can't roll for things their characters is not good at. There is nothing in optimization that will forcibly limit someone.
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.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
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.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
There are just as many posts from people like me who have also played with Crit misses/hits on ability checks and were happy to see the back of them this edition. I have been playing D&D for just shy of 3 decades since 2e and was happy they had moved away from critical fumbles and successes on anything other than attack rolls. Yet folks like you are as equally dismissive of our voices as you accuse us of being to yours. It goes both ways.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
Next time I recommend that you actually quote the post so people can see that you didn't read or maybe didn't understand it.
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
Next time I recommend that you actually quote the post so people can see that you didn't read or maybe didn't understand it.
You mean the post where you say you “never” allowed it and say “I don’t like it” but never say “I don’t like it based on my experience”? YOU might think you were clear, but the simple reality is that you never actually assert what you say you do.
I’m glad you - and others - have come around to articulating that you have actually used the system - that’s actually helpful information for folks trying to make an informed decision, and exactly what I was hoping folks would do. Thus far, only one person in the entire thread actually articulated both dislike and that they used the system - having more people do so, and explain their reasons for disliking it is certainly more useful than, say, stating how addition works while not saying “in my experience, addition is more fun than failure.”
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.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Pretty sure I stated that I have played with Auto Fail/Success on Nat 1/20 in a previous post, and that it felt miserable failing on a nat 1 when the modifier was enough to succeed on a nat 1. I have plenty of experience with the Nat 1 Auto Fails, having used it for a few years before switching over to the RAW rule and my groups have preferred it this way. You may not see meaning to be able to make a roll 100% of the time, but I and the people I played with did.
So if we are acknowledging people with experience having valid insights then you should also be acknowledging those of us who are against the Nat 1 auto fails as well, because we do have experience with and without that rule. Just because someone had a different outlook and opinion from you does not mean they don't have experience or are having a knee-jerk reaction. Honestly, someone shouldn't need to state that they have experience, it should be assumed they have prior experience if they are posting here. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they don't have experience. Being able to succeed on a nat 1 is not an objectively bad design as someone else has attempted to purport it as, people can enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 and see meaning in it.
In fact, here is the snippet where I stated I had experience with nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in response to someone accusing me of having a knee-jerk reaction.
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.
Sure I may not have stated how long I played with the auto fail/success rules, so I am stated it now, it was for a few years if we are looking at 5E. If we look at the entirety of my D&D (and Pathfinder) experience, it is even longer. My posts are not made with 0 play experiences, but years of it.
You mean the post where you say you “never” allowed it and say “I don’t like it” but never say “I don’t like it based on my experience”? YOU might think you were clear, but the simple reality is that you never actually assert what you say you do.
I’m glad you - and others - have come around to articulating that you have actually used the system - that’s actually helpful information for folks trying to make an informed decision, and exactly what I was hoping folks would do. Thus far, only one person in the entire thread actually articulated both dislike and that they used the system - having more people do so, and explain their reasons for disliking it is certainly more useful than, say, stating how addition works while not saying “in my experience, addition is more fun than failure.”
I even quoted in here for you and you still failed to read it. Let me do it again.
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
It does say that I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success. Is that what you are misreading?
But here you go, just so it is very very clear to you.
When I first started playing D&D, we didn't really have skills as people know them today. We played with critical successes and failures in 3/3.5 and Pathfinder. In 5e we adopted the new rules and we like them.
Edit: by We, I mean the people that I have played with for many years.
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.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Pretty sure I stated that I have played with Auto Fail/Success on Nat 1/20 in a previous post, and that it felt miserable failing on a nat 1 when the modifier was enough to succeed on a nat 1. I have plenty of experience with the Nat 1 Auto Fails, having used it for a few years before switching over to the RAW rule and my groups have preferred it this way. You may not see meaning to be able to make a roll 100% of the time, but I and the people I played with did.
So if we are acknowledging people with experience having valid insights then you should also be acknowledging those of us who are against the Nat 1 auto fails as well, because we do have experience with and without that rule. Just because someone had a different outlook and opinion from you does not mean they don't have experience or are having a knee-jerk reaction.
In fact, here is the snippet where I stated I had experience with nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in response to someone accusing me of having a knee-jerk reaction.
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.
Sure I may not have stated how long I played with the auto fail/success rules, so I am stated it now, it was for a few years if we are looking at 5E. If we look at the entirety of my D&D (and Pathfinder) experience, it is even longer. My posts are not made with 0 play experiences, but years of it.
Yep - I’ll admit to missing you in my review, and, for that, I’ll apologise. But, general communicating tip - if you have tangible experience with something, put it in your first post…. Not in the middle of a 8 paragraph post on your ninth post in the thread. There’s been a lot of useless speculation - real world experiences are the most useful information and folks with actual experience should highlight that so they can provide that data to others.
—
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
—
Anyway, I am glad my (somewhat flippant) post managed to get folks to more clearly articulate their real experiences and dislike of the system based thereon. It seems a number of folks who are against it have experienced both systems - but failed to affirmatively state such.
Those experiences, on both sides, are far more useful than a bunch of folks talking past each other about math. The math is easy and should be intuitive; how that math feels in terms of gameplay, as experienced by those who have used both systems, is far more useful.
Yep - I’ll admit to missing you in my review, and, for that, I’ll apologise. But, general communicating tip - if you have tangible experience with something, put it in your first post…. Not in the middle of a 8 paragraph post on your ninth post in the thread. There’s been a lot of useless speculation - real world experiences are the most useful information and folks with actual experience should highlight that so they can provide that data to others.
—
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
—
Anyway, I am glad my (somewhat flippant) post managed to get folks to more clearly articulate their real experiences and dislike of the system based thereon. It seems a number of folks who are against it have experienced both systems - but failed to affirmatively state such.
I shouldn't need to state that I have experience. It should be assumed if someone is posting here that they have experience. Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is something that people can easily have prior experience with. Out of all of the rules in the UA, this rule is the one that people can immediately comment on as they likely already have experience with it.
Honestly, I am concerned with the assumption that just because someone is against nat 1/20 auto fail/success that they never played with those rules. I saw it on reddit as well. Is it really that baffling that someone does not like nat 1/20 auto fail/success?
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
Allowed a system where rolls a player could not succeed in - I read that as not allowing rolls where a player with a low modifier can natural 20 to success. I suppose that could also be “jump to the moon” kind of rolls. Regardless, as I said - you never stated actual experience with the system, and, as I have also said, I am glad you have now clarified.
When the DM calls for an ability check, there should to be a chance of success or failure. If there isn't, then they're just wasting time. They're either padding egos or throwing their players up against literally impossible tasks. The DM can, and should, refrain from calling for die rolls when the outcome is already predetermined. So the critical failure/success rule shouldn't matter here. If it does, then all it does is encourage rolling more dice. Failures suck, but they aren't the end of the world. We can still learn something in our failures. And a success doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we get the best possible outcome. Attempting to seduce the dragon doesn't have to mean you actually seduce the dragon. It can just mean they find you amusing and won't eat you.
Attacks and saving throws are different. Those are forced by actions. There's no avoiding them; the DM can't just waive them. And because there's no choice, the solution should be painfully obvious. I get that y'all don't like it, but that's only because of perceived weakness. The die roll needs a consequence. Bringing up Legendary Resistance is a cop out. That's a finite resource the DM decides when to use. They don't have to use it on the first failed saving throw. Or the second. Or the third.
The best solution is probably something to take that edge off. I suggest shifting the Inspiration awarded for a Nat20 to the Nat1. The Nat20 is already a guaranteed success. It doesn't need a cherry on top. And learning something from a failure, pushing yourself to do better next time, makes sense.
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
Allowed a system where rolls a player could not succeed in - I read that as not allowing rolls where a player with a low modifier can natural 20 to success. I suppose that could also be “jump to the moon” kind of rolls. Regardless, as I said - you never stated actual experience with the system, and, as I have also said, I am glad you have now clarified.
That isn't what I said at all. There is a quote function, you can cut and paste, you can just retype the words, yet some how, you have proven completely incapable of not only reading what I said, but repeating it as well. Even after I have provided you the EXACT words multiple times. I have to assume that you are just trolling at this point.
I'm going to offer some perspective from a different game:
Anyone who recognises my avatar probably already knows which one, but for the rest: Vampire the Masquerade.
Now... Rolling dice in VtM works very differently from D&D. Instead of rolling a single d20 and adding a modifier, the Storyteller System works with dice pools where you roll a pool of d10s determined by one's stats and any relevant bonuses and try to beat a difficulty set by the gamemaster (Storyteller or ST in the system's parlance). Various version of the game had different ways for determining said difficulty. Early on it was the number you had to roll on the die to make it count as a success (an easy task might require a 4 on a d10 for a success, an almost impossible task might require an 8) with any success on a single die meaning the action succeeded and the number of successes determining the magnitude of that success. Later on it moved to making the number required for a success static (a 6 or above) and making the difficulty determined by a minimum number of successes required.
In early versions of that system had a rule that regarded a '1' on a d10 to be a critical failure, which wouldn't simply not be a success on that die, but also negate one success on another die. The exception being a 10. A 10 was a guaranteed success that couldn't be negated by a 1 (so if you roll four dice and the results are 9,9, 1,1 you fail, because the two 1s cancel out the two 9s, but if you roll 10, 1, 1, 1 you succeed, because the three 1s can't cancel the automatic success of the 10).
So why does this matter?
That system was changed intentionally, because it felt bad to play with. Initially people couldn't really put into words why it felt bad, just that it did. So White Wolf did a lot of playtesting and gathered a lot of feedback and ultimately they reached a conclusion: Having any result on a roll be an automatic failure was more frustrating than it was beneficial.
The main way that a character would get stronger was to increase stats in order to increase the dice pool and therefore increasing the chance of getting at least one success in the roll.... But increasing dice pools also increased the chance of getting at least one 1. As your dice pool increased, the chance of succeeding did statistically increase, of course. But the psychological effect of knowing that a fluke could still ruin everything meant that it didn't feel like your character was getting stronger.
The system had another mechanic for generating automatic successes, the willpower stat, which would grant you a limited pool of points you could spend to get one automatic success on a test that couldn't be negated by rolling a 1. And in playtesting they found that despite being far more expensive to raise than the stats that determine dice pools, most players would prefer to save up their xp points (VtM works on a system where instead of getting stat increases across the board when reaching a certain xp threshold, xp points can be spent directly to raise one's statistics) to buy more willpower.
Because with the looming spectre of your dice screwing you and causing you to automatically fail at something your character was supposed to be really, really good at, most players would prefer increasing their ability to enjoy the safety of that single, unspectacular success rather than making their character actually good at things.
Ultimately it was discovered that having the possibility of rolling 1s and negating their successes has a psychological effect far beyond the likelihood of it actually happening... Because when it did happen it felt so bad, because people felt cheated out of a success, that it outweighed the numerous instances where it didn't in the minds of the players. It made players afraid to roll their dice, because the mere chance that a straight roll could result in a complete failure even on a maximum dice pool felt so off puting that many players would just default to 'I spend a willpower, I'm not even going to bother rolling, tell me what my one success gets me'... And VtM already had far less emphasis on rolling than D&D does.
So they changed it. They still wanted to have the possibility of critical failures, because VtM is a drama game and nothing generates drama like an unmitigated failure. And when I say 'they' I don't just mean the designers. I mean the players as well. The players wanted a possibility of critical failure, just not the one they had. So they made it so that instead of subtracting successes from the rest of the roll, a 1 didn't matter if you rolled any successes, but triggered a critical failure if you didn't get at least one success.
And that felt a lot better. Because, sure, rolling a 1 could still be bad, but it would only be bad if the roll was a failure anyway. You were no longer 'cheated' out of a success by randomly rolling a 1. So rolling a 1 on a failure became almost as exciting as rolling six successes (VtM's version of a critical success).
Because the problem was never that a 1 could cause you to fail in and of itself, it was that rolling a 1 could turn what would otherwise have been a success into a failure.
The same is true for D&D. If you have a high enough modifier to succeed on a check regardless of what you roll then getting 'cheated' out of that success by rolling a 1 feels far worse than if you fail the check when you only had a middling chance to succeed in the first place.
Beyond that, though, there's another reason to keep '1 is critical miss, 20 is a critical success' only on attack rolls:
Failing a save is often far, far more devastating than failing an attack roll. With the exception of a desperate, hail-Mary attack on a creature that is close to death, but also about to wreck the party's sh... erhm poop, failing on an attack roll doesn't often have direct character ending consequences. You just... Miss one attack and did a little less damage a little less quickly this combat than if you'd succeeded. You'll make another next turn... Or if you have more than one attack per turn, you'll make another one right after (or made one already before on this turn).
But a save? Failing a save can be the difference between taking a lot of damage and taking an instantly lethal amount of damage. It can lead to a character suffering a debilitating condition that effectively takes them out of the running for the rest of the fight. A single failed save can result in widespread consequences that lead to a TPK in a way that a single failed attack almost never will.
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, suffering a TPK because one player failed a save due to getting an automatic failure by rolling a 1 on a roll that they would have succeeded at had they rolled any other number... including a 1 if that hadn't been an automatic failure... is the kind of utterly demoralising situation that can lead to the entire group just straight up giving up on the game.
Sure, objectively speaking it's just a fluke. It's not very likely to happen. But the fact that it can happen? That it does happen? That knowledge alone is enough to lead to people having anxiety attacks about a game that is, ultimately, supposed to be about telling a fun story with your friends (or, sometimes, people that you somewhat tolerate because they're the only people around you can play with).
So would people feel the same if it was on a percentile die and you only have a 1% chance of failure? What percentage failure is Ok with you?
It can't be zero.
If you are rolling a die to determine an outcome at something then there should be a fear of failure.
I don't understand the feel bad argument. If that is the case then just let everyone succeed at everything. Can't have anyone feel bad.
Instead of thinking how bad it is your big high level perfect character should never fail think of it as a role-playing opportunity.
Let's say your character has a +19 to fear roles and the DC is 20. You're going to suceed 95% of the time. Willing to bet it comes up so rarely that you're going to succeed the more than that (meaning you are rolling fear roles so rarely that you're going to succeed). You roll a 1. So now this character who rarely feels fear suddenly is afraid. What do they do?
It is simple. If you are bringing an element of chance into the game there needs to be a chance of failure.
Oh as the above poster brought of White Wolf, we played Vampire when it first came out. We had no problem with the die rolls. Sure even the most powerful may, on occasion, fail. We just went with it.
Here is the problem and how it limits.
Wizard doesn't have lockpicking skill some think they can never try. Of course they can. It will be harder but of course they can try.
Don't have tavern brawler? You can still pick up a chair and hit someone over the head with it.
Anyone can pick up a sword and swing it. Anyone can lie
List goes on.
DC may change though.
People specialize and see it on their character sheet and then only see the things they are good at. That limits options.
Then of course there is the problem of some people thinking the Wizard hanging out with a Rogue can't learn how to pick a lock without multiclassing
I disagree when you say it can't be 0. Part of the point of raising mod to +19 is so you don't have to roll when the DC is 20 or lower. Not everyone is looking for that role playing opportunity on a nat 1. When you are raising your mod so you can succeed on a nat 1, you are optimizing it so you are removing that element of chance for that specific type of roll. Reliable Talent does this for Rogues already, so it isn't a foreign concept to the game; even with the nat 1 auto fail, Reliable Talent supersedes that as it alters the die roll itself. So already in the game there is a mechanic that removes chance.
When you say it can't be 0, that is how you feel the game should be. However, current 5E allows people to guarantee certain rolls, and plenty of people have no issue and see it as a good thing. The fact that there are people who enjoy it and that this is actually heavily debated shows that there is merit in not having nat 1 autofails and there not always needing a chance of failure.
D&D has exploded in popularity and has gained an incredibly diverse group of players with all sorts of play styles and 5E has supported those variety of play styles very well. In those varying playstyles are those who optimize to reduce the element of randomness, to make their character more and more consistent, even reaching 100% for certain rolls if they invest enough. That kind of play style is not wrong or lesser than a player style that embraces the randomness. It is all preference. Just because they want to reduce the element of chance with their character doesn't mean D&D is not the game for them. Telling someone that D&D is not the game for them (as I have been told before in this very thread) is just rude, disingenuous, and goes against inclusivity of the game.
Optimization isn't limiting anything. It is simply the a thinking process and is based on parameters you set yourself and can adjust at any time. Just because they optimize doesn't mean they can't roll for things their characters is not good at. There is nothing in optimization that will forcibly limit someone.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
There are just as many posts from people like me who have also played with Crit misses/hits on ability checks and were happy to see the back of them this edition. I have been playing D&D for just shy of 3 decades since 2e and was happy they had moved away from critical fumbles and successes on anything other than attack rolls. Yet folks like you are as equally dismissive of our voices as you accuse us of being to yours. It goes both ways.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
I've played with it. For close to a decade. I'm happier without it and do not anticipate its return with any enthusiasm.
Next time I recommend that you actually quote the post so people can see that you didn't read or maybe didn't understand it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You mean the post where you say you “never” allowed it and say “I don’t like it” but never say “I don’t like it based on my experience”? YOU might think you were clear, but the simple reality is that you never actually assert what you say you do.
I’m glad you - and others - have come around to articulating that you have actually used the system - that’s actually helpful information for folks trying to make an informed decision, and exactly what I was hoping folks would do. Thus far, only one person in the entire thread actually articulated both dislike and that they used the system - having more people do so, and explain their reasons for disliking it is certainly more useful than, say, stating how addition works while not saying “in my experience, addition is more fun than failure.”
Pretty sure I stated that I have played with Auto Fail/Success on Nat 1/20 in a previous post, and that it felt miserable failing on a nat 1 when the modifier was enough to succeed on a nat 1. I have plenty of experience with the Nat 1 Auto Fails, having used it for a few years before switching over to the RAW rule and my groups have preferred it this way. You may not see meaning to be able to make a roll 100% of the time, but I and the people I played with did.
So if we are acknowledging people with experience having valid insights then you should also be acknowledging those of us who are against the Nat 1 auto fails as well, because we do have experience with and without that rule. Just because someone had a different outlook and opinion from you does not mean they don't have experience or are having a knee-jerk reaction. Honestly, someone shouldn't need to state that they have experience, it should be assumed they have prior experience if they are posting here. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they don't have experience. Being able to succeed on a nat 1 is not an objectively bad design as someone else has attempted to purport it as, people can enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 and see meaning in it.
In fact, here is the snippet where I stated I had experience with nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in response to someone accusing me of having a knee-jerk reaction.
Sure I may not have stated how long I played with the auto fail/success rules, so I am stated it now, it was for a few years if we are looking at 5E. If we look at the entirety of my D&D (and Pathfinder) experience, it is even longer. My posts are not made with 0 play experiences, but years of it.
I even quoted in here for you and you still failed to read it. Let me do it again.
It does say that I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success. Is that what you are misreading?
But here you go, just so it is very very clear to you.
When I first started playing D&D, we didn't really have skills as people know them today. We played with critical successes and failures in 3/3.5 and Pathfinder. In 5e we adopted the new rules and we like them.
Edit: by We, I mean the people that I have played with for many years.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yep - I’ll admit to missing you in my review, and, for that, I’ll apologise. But, general communicating tip - if you have tangible experience with something, put it in your first post…. Not in the middle of a 8 paragraph post on your ninth post in the thread. There’s been a lot of useless speculation - real world experiences are the most useful information and folks with actual experience should highlight that so they can provide that data to others.
—
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
—
Anyway, I am glad my (somewhat flippant) post managed to get folks to more clearly articulate their real experiences and dislike of the system based thereon. It seems a number of folks who are against it have experienced both systems - but failed to affirmatively state such.
Those experiences, on both sides, are far more useful than a bunch of folks talking past each other about math. The math is easy and should be intuitive; how that math feels in terms of gameplay, as experienced by those who have used both systems, is far more useful.
I shouldn't need to state that I have experience. It should be assumed if someone is posting here that they have experience. Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is something that people can easily have prior experience with. Out of all of the rules in the UA, this rule is the one that people can immediately comment on as they likely already have experience with it.
Honestly, I am concerned with the assumption that just because someone is against nat 1/20 auto fail/success that they never played with those rules. I saw it on reddit as well. Is it really that baffling that someone does not like nat 1/20 auto fail/success?
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Allowed a system where rolls a player could not succeed in - I read that as not allowing rolls where a player with a low modifier can natural 20 to success. I suppose that could also be “jump to the moon” kind of rolls. Regardless, as I said - you never stated actual experience with the system, and, as I have also said, I am glad you have now clarified.
A die roll needs to have consequences.
When the DM calls for an ability check, there should to be a chance of success or failure. If there isn't, then they're just wasting time. They're either padding egos or throwing their players up against literally impossible tasks. The DM can, and should, refrain from calling for die rolls when the outcome is already predetermined. So the critical failure/success rule shouldn't matter here. If it does, then all it does is encourage rolling more dice. Failures suck, but they aren't the end of the world. We can still learn something in our failures. And a success doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we get the best possible outcome. Attempting to seduce the dragon doesn't have to mean you actually seduce the dragon. It can just mean they find you amusing and won't eat you.
Attacks and saving throws are different. Those are forced by actions. There's no avoiding them; the DM can't just waive them. And because there's no choice, the solution should be painfully obvious. I get that y'all don't like it, but that's only because of perceived weakness. The die roll needs a consequence. Bringing up Legendary Resistance is a cop out. That's a finite resource the DM decides when to use. They don't have to use it on the first failed saving throw. Or the second. Or the third.
The best solution is probably something to take that edge off. I suggest shifting the Inspiration awarded for a Nat20 to the Nat1. The Nat20 is already a guaranteed success. It doesn't need a cherry on top. And learning something from a failure, pushing yourself to do better next time, makes sense.
That isn't what I said at all. There is a quote function, you can cut and paste, you can just retype the words, yet some how, you have proven completely incapable of not only reading what I said, but repeating it as well. Even after I have provided you the EXACT words multiple times. I have to assume that you are just trolling at this point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master