Making a specific post to address this particular bag of manure...
My dude, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word 'consequence'.
In narratives a consequence is the (usually, but not always, bad) result of a choice or action. A negative result from a die roll isn't a freaking 'consequence' , it's just bad luck.
If the party rocks up to the local king and starts insulting him to his face and he orders their execution, that is a consequence.
If the party approaches the local king and the party face respectfully requests an audience and he rolls a 1 and auto-fails on his DC 10 persuasion check despite having +12 to Persuasion, that's not a consequence, that's just random bullshit.
Thats a storytelling moment, no you won't TPK the party straight away, but it does allow for a funny moment where you watch the party then try and correct the error, or the story goes in a great new direction.
Players fail dice rolls all the time, and that is what should direct the narriative, otherwise you might as well just stick a pair of tracks down and tell the players whatever they choose to do you will be making sure they succeed as long as they are not too crazy with there ideas.
I am not advocating for consequence free play, stop trying to attach falsehoods to my words; I already stated that I am fine with failing if the DC is high enough. I also stated I am fine with failing in other rolls that I did not specialize in. Stop trying to make me out as someone who wants to be able to automatically succeed on every single roll because that is not the case. It takes effort and investment to get a character to the point where they can succeed on a save with a nat 1; it sucks to have that effort and investment negated 5% of the time. If someone actually optimized their character to get to that point, they should be allowed to take full advantage of it and not have it be negated on them 5% of the time.
Saving Throws
A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm.
I can read that description of Saving Throws and think there shouldn't be at least a 5% chance of failure because it takes investment and effort to reach that point. Plus there is still a risk of harm if the effect has an effect on a successful save, usually half damage. Just because there is no chance of failure doesn't mean there is no saving throw. It has been working this way since 5E was released and it has been working fine. If it wasn't, then groups wouldn't be using the rule and having fun with it. I believe it is possible for someone to train themselves to trivialize a task to the point where it is akin to breathing to them.
In fact, I'll say it again. It is fine for a Saving Throw to have a 100% chance of success if the player has put in the effort made the necessary investments to optimize their saving throw to the point where they can succeed on a Nat 1.
5E's current rule for Nat 1/20 is not bad design. I'd honestly say it is good design.
If failing that save just causes you to be frightened for one turn before you get to roll the save again and you succeed and finish the combat, then sure, that'll give you a nice role play moment afterwards. But if it's a save against a Legendary action by the BBEG just as he's about to complete his grand ritual to end the world and spending a round Frightened causes you to not be able to move to where you need to to stop the ritual? That retroactively turns the entire campaign you just played into a pointless exercise. All the work the entire party did to get to that moment... The entire climax of the story... Ruined because someone decided you should always have at least an arbitrary 5% chance to fail anything you try.
And it doesn't matter that maybe only one in a thousand groups playing the game ever experiences that kind of situation once in their entire time playing D&D. Because what matters is that it can happen and it doesn't have to.
Tell us you haven't played Curse of Strahd without saying you haven't played Curse of Strahd. I've run it to multiple TPKs.
Failing to stop the BBEG doesn't mean the entire campaign was ruined or a pointless exercise. Stories are allowed to end on a dour note. Nobody owes you the win.
While yes no body owes you the win, losing to that 5% when without the auto fail rule you would have won, just sucks. It's anti-climatic and just feels like victory was stolen from you. If your actions directly lead to the lost then it would be fine, but in that situation it was just a 5% RNG screwing you over regardless of what you did. The issue is that 5% can just outright negate any and all preparation, it takes agency away from the player.
Also, I am pretty sure just because they think that way doesn't necessary mean they haven't played Curse of Strahd, at least the 5E version anyway.
So, that was excessive. You certainly didn't need to copy and same text I already had from the PHB. That's just redundant. I also think you aren't comprehending what's on the page.
It does not take effort and investment to get to at least a 5% chance of failing a saving throw. It does take effort and investment to reduce the likelihood, but only in the sense that you're leveling up. Your proficiency bonus improves, ability scores can improve, and the odd feat or class feature can grant a proficiency (Elegant Courtier) or a numerical bonus (Aura of Protection). And while reducing the likelihood of failure is desirable, even commendable, that doesn't mean it should be nothing. For every saving throw for half-damage, there are just as many without. Cantrips, like frostbite don't deal half-damage on a success without the odd class feature. (Only 11 wizard cantrips can be affected by the School of Evoction's Potent Cantrip feature, and of those only three are also evocation spells.) Never mind the plethora of leveled spells, like hold person and sleet storm, which cannot inflict damage at all.
Heck, remember the mind flayers you mentioned a few pages ago? Its Mind Blast doesn't deal half damage on a successful save. Did you forget about that, or did you intentionally make a bad argument?
When you advocate for failure being impossible, you're arguing in favor of removing negative consequences. Don't pretend you're not. If a forced saving throw should always have an element of danger to them, then you cannot make yourself totally immune. Every saving throw has to have an element of danger. And if that means failure, because a success removes all harm, then so be it. Your position, and the current rule, is incongruous with the descriptive text. And that's been the case since 2014. Something has to give.
Specialization and system mastery are all well and good until they become disruptive. Yes, they can be disruptive, and that includes any total, passive immunity. It doesn't matter if the immunity is niche. Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon. And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
Give me a break. Malicious compliance has its place. Playing a munchkin isn't it.
Can someone explain to me why a character with +12 on their save should have the same chance of critical failure as someone with a +2?
Really, if that could be explained in a way that made sense to me, then I would feel better about this rule.
+12 represents their skill.
Dice rolls represent their luck.
The idea being no matter how skilled someone is, there is still a chance for an unlucky happenstance to befall them - and vice versa, there is a chance an unskilled person can get very lucky every now and again.
But, that’s the issue that’s a sticking point for me. Someone better skilled than I should be able to succeed even though they face a level of unluck that would leave me huddled in a corner sobbing.
If the target number is 18 and I have a +19 on the roll and they have a +22, they should still have an easier time succeeding.
Making a specific post to address this particular bag of manure...
My dude, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word 'consequence'.
In narratives a consequence is the (usually, but not always, bad) result of a choice or action. A negative result from a die roll isn't a freaking 'consequence' , it's just bad luck.
If the party rocks up to the local king and starts insulting him to his face and he orders their execution, that is a consequence.
If the party approaches the local king and the party face respectfully requests an audience and he rolls a 1 and auto-fails on his DC 10 persuasion check despite having +12 to Persuasion, that's not a consequence, that's just random bullshit.
The rolling of dice is an exercise in probability for a binary outcome: success or failure. You shouldn't be rolling dice if you aren't prepared for either outcome. We aren't talking about narrative consequences, though the results of the dice can inform the narrative. I'm talking purely the definition of consequence: "a result or effect of an action or condition."
Though, there is a second definition: "importance or relevance." A die roll should always be relevant. If the outcome is predetermined, whether a bonus or the DC is too high, then the roll is of no consequence. It's an exercise in futility. Both are bad.
Now, I don't know why you think a random adventurer with a Charisma (Persuasion) of +12 only has a routine chance of requesting an audience with the reigning monarch. If they're that far along, they've probably done something noteworthy to gain the king's attention. Or they just might not meet the king, but they can meet with an advisor. Failure is not the end. It's simply not getting what you want.
Likewise, success on a roll does not have to mean getting what you want. It means getting the best possible result. Rolling a Nat20 when you ask the same king to step down and surrender their crown to someone else isn't going to actually get that result. Let's not be silly, here. It means he won't execute you for doing something foolish.
I don't know where your expectations come from, and I surmise that's the big disconnect here. Everyone has a different idea of what the die rolls should be or when they should be rolled. That's beautiful, in a way, because it speaks to all the many different experiences we can have playing the game. But also frustrating to no end. It means we're struggling to find common ground.
Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon.
Or you can do it at level 5 if you're a dragonborn, iirc.
And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
I do! That sounds perfectly okay to me. You think that's absurd?
A natural one is Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note. No matter how natural their talent is; yes, it can still happen.
You don't realise this, but you've basically made an excellent argument for why a 1 shouldn't be an automatic fail with this.
Because, you know what? Musicians, including vocalists, miss notes all the time. Even the most talented, most skilled musicians do this.
But you know what separates the really good musicians from the merely adequate ones? When the good ones do it, you don't notice unless you're specifically listening for it. And when the absolutely great ones do it, you might not even notice then.
When someone who's just starting to get acquainted with their instrument misses a note, you notice because they notice and it throws them off and 9 times out of 10 it's not the missed note, but their distraction and inability to adjust that ruins the performance. When someone who's mastered their instrument misses a note, they know the instrument and they know the piece and instead of thinking 'wait, that's not right, what did I do wrong?' they just keep playing and hit the next note instead.
It does not take effort and investment to get to at least a 5% chance of failing a saving throw. It does take effort and investment to reduce the likelihood, but only in the sense that you're leveling up. Your proficiency bonus improves, ability scores can improve, and the odd feat or class feature can grant a proficiency (Elegant Courtier) or a numerical bonus (Aura of Protection). And while reducing the likelihood of failure is desirable, even commendable, that doesn't mean it should be nothing. For every saving throw for half-damage, there are just as many without. Cantrips, like frostbite don't deal half-damage on a success without the odd class feature. (Only 11 wizard cantrips can be affected by the School of Evoction's Potent Cantrip feature, and of those only three are also evocation spells.) Never mind the plethora of leveled spells, like hold person and sleet storm, which cannot inflict damage at all.
Heck, remember the mind flayers you mentioned a few pages ago? Its Mind Blast doesn't deal half damage on a successful save. Did you forget about that, or did you intentionally make a bad argument?
When you advocate for failure being impossible, you're arguing in favor of removing negative consequences. Don't pretend you're not. If a forced saving throw should always have an element of danger to them, then you cannot make yourself totally immune. Every saving throw has to have an element of danger. And if that means failure, because a success removes all harm, then so be it. Your position, and the current rule, is incongruous with the descriptive text. And that's been the case since 2014. Something has to give.
Specialization and system mastery are all well and good until they become disruptive. Yes, they can be disruptive, and that includes any total, passive immunity. It doesn't matter if the immunity is niche. Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon. And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
Give me a break. Malicious compliance has its place. Playing a munchkin isn't it.
A munchkin wouldn't play within the confine of the rules; I am. I am an optimizer not a munchkin. Just because I optimize beyond what you agree should be possible does not make me a munchkin as I make sure my optimization is not a disruption tot he game, which it is not.
My point in brining out saving throws with half damage on save is to point out that someone succeeding on a Nat 1 doesn't make them immune to everything that save offers. My example with Mind Blast is to show an example of a character that despite being immune to something was not disruptive and did not take away the challenge for a table. In fact, my character being immune to Mind Blast was a huge highlight for the table. The way you make out succeeding on a nat 1 to be, I should have not been cheered by the table but booed instead, yet that did not happen. The only bad argument I see is you trying to argue that my argument was a bad argument.
Also, yes, I do believe a 9th level wizard with 20 intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast as long as they are within 10 feet of a 20 Charisma Paladin's Aura of Protection. I do not see anything wrong with it, it's teamwork; mind flayers should have other options to deal with such situations (they are incredibly intelligent beings and should not be one trick ponies) and it requires the wizard to stay within 10 feet of the paladin, who is unlikely to be immune to Mind Blast themselves.
Furthermore, it does take effort and investment to get a save to a high enough modifier to succeed on a nat 1. Every option took to get a save that high means other options were forwent.
Optimizing a character to succeed on a nat 1 is not disruptive. If it was, then someone getting lucky and constantly succeeding their saves out of pure luck would be disruptive, but they are not.
When it comes to Saving throws my biggest issue with Not allowing a nat 1 is that as a DM it then instantly makes me meta game my own monsters and traps. But also, not allowing a nat 1 means that some classes are skewed to have better survivability when it comes to saving throws. Dex saving throws make up a vast majority of Trap saving throws, followed closely by Con. Is it right that the party rogue need never again be concerned about a trap because they will auto succeed the saving throw. I will also say that adding in that chance of extra failure isn't going to break the game. One of the biggest complaints from pretty much every DM is that Characters have it far too easy, the CR system in broken, characters can yoyo in combat, it is really difficult from level 6 or 7 onwards to really put the party in peril.
Those same DM's are now complaining that we are adding in an extra little bit of risk for those players who have made themselves literally bomb proof. Wizards have no risk of dropping concentration unless you attack them with monsters that are going to hit hard enough to do real damage for instance. Make up your mind, either you want the system fixed to make it a bit more balanced and give players a real challenge, or you are happy as is with your players just walking through high level dungeons with no real fear of actual death.
In a Binary D20 system, where all you have is success or failure removing the chance of failure makes the game really boring at times.
The main balancing factor in concentration is not that it can be broken, but that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Optimally played spellcasters should rarely if ever have their concentration broken. I believe it is right for the rogue to not be concerned about the trap, but they will still want to disarm the trap because someone else in their party may be harmed by it. If adding extra failure chance won't break the game, then keeping the current rules won't break it either. However, when you actually consider who this affects, it really only affects the people who enjoyed being able to raise modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1 because you have to build for it; otherwise, a nat 1 will be a failure because you won't have the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. This rule basically hurts the fun of those of us who enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 while doing absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't pump up their modifiers.
My table has allowed modifiers to make nat 1 succeed for years now and it has yet to make the game boring and we are still challenged and have suffered deaths.
For those who want auto fail on nat 1's, you would probably see no difference in gameplay even if you have been playing by the 5E RAW rules while the people who actually did build their characters to succeed on a nat 1 would see a difference as they now have a 5% fail chance forced upon them on the rolls they pumped up.
If the target number is 18 and I have a +19 on the roll and they have a +22, they should still have an easier time succeeding.
At a certain point, the cause of failure (even in reality) is external effects unrelated to skill. Now, a 5% is unrealistically high for a lot of activities, but that's when you apply advantage or multiple die rolls.
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. [...]
I am really curious of your experience on this matter. Is it possible for you to elaborate on the reason(s) why you don't like rolling a 20 on a d20 to automatically count as a success for ability checks?
Note that the UA is not bring back "critical" successes or fumbles (in the sense that players succeed or fail to a greater extend if they rolled a 20 or a 1, respectively). It simply states that the DM decides whether a roll is warranted and, if it is, rolling a 20 is automatically a success and rolling a 1 is automatically a failure. (I am stating this for clarification since a lot of posts in this thread is misrepresenting what is actually written in the UA.
My interpretation of the spirit behind the new rule is that: if rolling a 20 leads to the same outcome as rolling a 1, then just narrate the result.
Everyone has a different idea of what the die rolls should be or when they should be rolled.
That's the thing though.
Nearly everyone in this thread actually agrees on at least these two things about when a roll should be made:
A roll should be made if there is a chance of failure.
And a roll should not be made if there is no chance of success.
With some people, myself included, saying that a roll can also be made if either success or failure is guaranteed in order to determine the magnitude of the success or failure.
And for none of those situations does the 'auto-fail on 1, auto-success on 20' rule add anything, except needless complication.
Because in the current system a roll isn't necessary if a character has enough modifiers to succeed even on a 1 (there is no chance of failure) and it's also not necessary if even a 20 wouldn't meet the DC (there is no chance of success).
In the current system, there should only ever be a roll if there is a chance for failure (which is only possible if at roll of at least 1 wouldn't be a success), in which case it doesn't need to be a rule that a 1 always fails, because if a 1 didn't fail, there wouldn't be a roll, and if there is a chance of success (if at least a 20 does succeed), in which case it doesn't need to be a rule that a 20 always succeeds, because if a 20 didn't succeed, there wouldn't be a roll.
All that the 'auto-fail on 1, auto-success on 20' rule does is force you to roll for almost everything because it makes it so that there is always a chance for failure and (barring anything that is impossible due to other rules like range or requiring line of sight) always a chance for success. And all you end up getting in exchange for the increase in magnitude for the number of rolls you have to have your players make is that they usually still succeed at things that are ridiculously easy for them, but occasionally fail for no apparent reason and that they usually still fail at things that are ridiculously hard for them, but occasionally succeed for no apparent reason.
It's a pointless rule, it's a ridiculous rule, it's a rule that shouldn't set the standard for how and when to make a roll.
As for save DCs... There are very few instances where a player can get their saves high enough for the modifier to be enough for a 1 not to already be a failure without the assistance of a spell or magic item.
The highest possible save any character can achieve without the assistance of spells or magic items is +13 and even then specifically only on Str and Con saves. And that is with a level 20 Barbarian with their level 20 feature that gives them +4 to Str and Con and lets them go above the normal cap of 20 on stats to go to 24 on specifically those two stats. Technically, if we loosen up the definition of 'assistance of magic items' the highest possible saves can get without active effects from magic items or spells is +16 on Con and Int for a level 20 artificer, who get +1 to all their saves for each magic item they have attuned (and they have an earlier feature that lets them attune to up to 5 magic items rather than the normal limit of 3, for a total of 5 to all saves).
The maximum any other characters can get on saves without the assistance of spells and magic items (and that includes Barbarians for non-Str and Con saves) is +11 (+5 from having 20 in the stat and +6 from proficiency), starting at level 17.
So... Personally I feel like if a character has enough of a modifier on saves to automatically save even when rolling a 1 (without the 'auto-fail on 1' rule), they freaking deserve to not have to roll that save, because the lowest save DC. Because having a rule that a 1 still somehow fails, at that point, is basically telling the player 'hey, that special feature your class gets at level 20?/That magic item I gave you that enhances certain saves? Yeah, I'm just going to ignore that you have that and pretend your saves are about 5 points lower than they actually are.'
All that the 'auto-fail on 1, auto-success on 20' rule does is force you to roll for almost everything because it makes it so that there is always a chance for failure and (barring anything that is impossible due to other rules like range or requiring line of sight) always a chance for success. And all you end up getting in exchange for the increase in magnitude for the number of rolls you have to have your players make is that they usually still succeed at things that are ridiculously easy for them, but occasionally fail for no apparent reason and that they usually still fail at things that are ridiculously hard for them, but occasionally succeed for no apparent reason.
[...]
That is not what the new playtest rule states!
A lot of posts have assumed that under the new playtest rule, players will be able to roll for impossible tasks, but in the UA, it clearly states that "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance."
As I stated in the initial post, the new playtest rule doesn't actually change anything for ability checks. All the points that you stated for ability checks under the current rule, still applies the same way under the new playtest rule.
You might ask, "why bother updating the rules if nothing changes?" Well, since attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws are now being curated under the term "d20 Test", this rule is just updating the language. Saving throws are affected, but not ability checks. Nothing actually changes for ability checks.
Someone being able to succeed on a nat 1 goes beyond skilled; at that point the task at hand should be akin to breathing for them. Furthermore 5% is too high for a unlucky happenstance.
A natural one is Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note. No matter how natural their talent is; yes, it can still happen.
Whether 5% is too high; well I happen to agree; hence I'm more of a fan of such things being specifically tied to disadvantage rolls as opposed to standard rolls as well as other variant options that decrease the % such as threat/confirmation or use of 2d10 even.
Yes as you point out 5% is way too high I'd say even with disadvantage/advantage as they don't miss a key every 20 strokes or even close to it. Maybe if it was limited to both dice coming up 1s or 20s when you had advantage it would make some sense, 1 in 400 would be rare enough to be a crazy fluke where a master slips up. But, the thing is they already have a perfectly fine natural 20 thing built into the play test, inspiration. Just have a similar effect but negative built into the natural one, like the GM has a inspiration pool for the enemies and it adds to that. And that would be enough.
All that the 'auto-fail on 1, auto-success on 20' rule does is force you to roll for almost everything because it makes it so that there is always a chance for failure and (barring anything that is impossible due to other rules like range or requiring line of sight) always a chance for success. And all you end up getting in exchange for the increase in magnitude for the number of rolls you have to have your players make is that they usually still succeed at things that are ridiculously easy for them, but occasionally fail for no apparent reason and that they usually still fail at things that are ridiculously hard for them, but occasionally succeed for no apparent reason.
[...]
That is not what the new playtest rule states!
A lot of posts have assumed that under the new playtest rule, players will be able to roll for impossible tasks, but in the UA, it clearly states that "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance."
As I stated in the initial post, the new playtest rule doesn't actually change anything. All the points that you stated for ability checks under the current rule, still applies the same way under the new playtest rule.
Except they gave you the parameters for that, it should be considered warranted is the DC is between 5 and 30.
As for save DCs... There are very few instances where a player can get their saves high enough for the modifier to be enough for a 1 not to already be a failure without the assistance of a spell or magic item.
The highest possible save any character can achieve without the assistance of spells or magic items is +13 and even then specifically only on Str and Con saves.
It only takes a +9 to auto-succeed at concentration damage for hits of less than 22. Also, remember that Aura of Protection exist; a high level party with a paladin may have multiple people rolling against as much as +16.
Except they gave you the parameters for that, it should be considered warranted is the DC is between 5 and 30.
If the concern is the range of which a d20 Test is warranted, feel free to discuss. But a lot of posts are assuming that, under the new playtest rule, players will have a 5% chance of failing mundane every tasks or a 5% chance of succeeding the impossible. The playtest rule doesn't state that. The DM still determines when a roll is warranted exactly the same as the current rule.
So concerning the argument involving music, I would argue that missing a few notes doesn't necessarily constitute failure. Success doesn't mean you performed the action perfectly, it means you performed the action adequately. Failure implies you didn't even perform good enough to be considered adequate. So I would ask how many times do masters of the craft fail to perform even adequately when it comes to objectively easy tests of their mastered skill?
Except they gave you the parameters for that, it should be considered warranted is the DC is between 5 and 30.
If the concern is the range of which a d20 Test is warranted, feel free to discuss. But a lot of posts are assuming that, under the new playtest rule, players will have a 5% chance of failing mundane every tasks or a 5% chance of succeeding the impossible. The playtest rule doesn't state that. The DM still determines when a roll is warranted exactly the same as the current rule.
The issue is that the rules are contradictory in that sense. A lot of people consider attack rolls and saving throws to be something that is forced, so even if they are not truly forced, people will play it as such. As giving everything a 5% chance of failure or success regardless of the modifier will make a number of people feel like a roll is always needed.
This also causes variance in Adventurers League Organized Play where one DM may not call for saving throw rolls if the modifiers are high enough but another may for that 5% autofail chance.
So concerning the argument involving music, I would argue that missing a few notes doesn't necessarily constitute failure. Success doesn't mean you performed the action perfectly, it means you performed the action adequately. Failure implies you didn't even perform good enough to be considered adequate. So I would ask how many times do masters of the craft fail to perform even adequately when it comes to objectively easy tests of their mastered skill?
Unless they are seriously ill or are purposely trying to fail, I'd expect them to perform adequetely 100% of the time if it is an easy task.
A lot of posts have assumed that under the new playtest rule, players will be able to roll for impossible tasks, but in the UA, it clearly states that "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance."
As I stated in the initial post, the new playtest rule doesn't actually change anything for ability checks. All the points that you stated for ability checks under the current rule, still applies the same way under the new playtest rule.
You might ask, "why bother updating the rules if nothing changes?" Well, since attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws are now being curated under the term "d20 Test", this rule is just updating the language. Saving throws are affected, but not ability checks. Nothing actually changes for ability checks.
This isn't true. Under current rules, a natural 1 is not a failure and a natural 20 is not a success when making Ability Checks or Saving Throws. Under the rules presented in the UA, that in fact would change.
So concerning the argument involving music, I would argue that missing a few notes doesn't necessarily constitute failure. Success doesn't mean you performed the action perfectly, it means you performed the action adequately. Failure implies you didn't even perform good enough to be considered adequate. So I would ask how many times do masters of the craft fail to perform even adequately when it comes to objectively easy tests of their mastered skill?
Routine tests use your passive skill, which can neither critically succeed nor critically fail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thats a storytelling moment, no you won't TPK the party straight away, but it does allow for a funny moment where you watch the party then try and correct the error, or the story goes in a great new direction.
Players fail dice rolls all the time, and that is what should direct the narriative, otherwise you might as well just stick a pair of tracks down and tell the players whatever they choose to do you will be making sure they succeed as long as they are not too crazy with there ideas.
So, that was excessive. You certainly didn't need to copy and same text I already had from the PHB. That's just redundant. I also think you aren't comprehending what's on the page.
It does not take effort and investment to get to at least a 5% chance of failing a saving throw. It does take effort and investment to reduce the likelihood, but only in the sense that you're leveling up. Your proficiency bonus improves, ability scores can improve, and the odd feat or class feature can grant a proficiency (Elegant Courtier) or a numerical bonus (Aura of Protection). And while reducing the likelihood of failure is desirable, even commendable, that doesn't mean it should be nothing. For every saving throw for half-damage, there are just as many without. Cantrips, like frostbite don't deal half-damage on a success without the odd class feature. (Only 11 wizard cantrips can be affected by the School of Evoction's Potent Cantrip feature, and of those only three are also evocation spells.) Never mind the plethora of leveled spells, like hold person and sleet storm, which cannot inflict damage at all.
Heck, remember the mind flayers you mentioned a few pages ago? Its Mind Blast doesn't deal half damage on a successful save. Did you forget about that, or did you intentionally make a bad argument?
When you advocate for failure being impossible, you're arguing in favor of removing negative consequences. Don't pretend you're not. If a forced saving throw should always have an element of danger to them, then you cannot make yourself totally immune. Every saving throw has to have an element of danger. And if that means failure, because a success removes all harm, then so be it. Your position, and the current rule, is incongruous with the descriptive text. And that's been the case since 2014. Something has to give.
Specialization and system mastery are all well and good until they become disruptive. Yes, they can be disruptive, and that includes any total, passive immunity. It doesn't matter if the immunity is niche. Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon. And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
Give me a break. Malicious compliance has its place. Playing a munchkin isn't it.
But, that’s the issue that’s a sticking point for me. Someone better skilled than I should be able to succeed even though they face a level of unluck that would leave me huddled in a corner sobbing.
If the target number is 18 and I have a +19 on the roll and they have a +22, they should still have an easier time succeeding.
The rolling of dice is an exercise in probability for a binary outcome: success or failure. You shouldn't be rolling dice if you aren't prepared for either outcome. We aren't talking about narrative consequences, though the results of the dice can inform the narrative. I'm talking purely the definition of consequence: "a result or effect of an action or condition."
Though, there is a second definition: "importance or relevance." A die roll should always be relevant. If the outcome is predetermined, whether a bonus or the DC is too high, then the roll is of no consequence. It's an exercise in futility. Both are bad.
Now, I don't know why you think a random adventurer with a Charisma (Persuasion) of +12 only has a routine chance of requesting an audience with the reigning monarch. If they're that far along, they've probably done something noteworthy to gain the king's attention. Or they just might not meet the king, but they can meet with an advisor. Failure is not the end. It's simply not getting what you want.
Likewise, success on a roll does not have to mean getting what you want. It means getting the best possible result. Rolling a Nat20 when you ask the same king to step down and surrender their crown to someone else isn't going to actually get that result. Let's not be silly, here. It means he won't execute you for doing something foolish.
I don't know where your expectations come from, and I surmise that's the big disconnect here. Everyone has a different idea of what the die rolls should be or when they should be rolled. That's beautiful, in a way, because it speaks to all the many different experiences we can have playing the game. But also frustrating to no end. It means we're struggling to find common ground.
Or you can do it at level 5 if you're a dragonborn, iirc.
I do! That sounds perfectly okay to me. You think that's absurd?
You don't realise this, but you've basically made an excellent argument for why a 1 shouldn't be an automatic fail with this.
Because, you know what? Musicians, including vocalists, miss notes all the time. Even the most talented, most skilled musicians do this.
But you know what separates the really good musicians from the merely adequate ones? When the good ones do it, you don't notice unless you're specifically listening for it. And when the absolutely great ones do it, you might not even notice then.
When someone who's just starting to get acquainted with their instrument misses a note, you notice because they notice and it throws them off and 9 times out of 10 it's not the missed note, but their distraction and inability to adjust that ruins the performance. When someone who's mastered their instrument misses a note, they know the instrument and they know the piece and instead of thinking 'wait, that's not right, what did I do wrong?' they just keep playing and hit the next note instead.
A munchkin wouldn't play within the confine of the rules; I am. I am an optimizer not a munchkin. Just because I optimize beyond what you agree should be possible does not make me a munchkin as I make sure my optimization is not a disruption tot he game, which it is not.
My point in brining out saving throws with half damage on save is to point out that someone succeeding on a Nat 1 doesn't make them immune to everything that save offers. My example with Mind Blast is to show an example of a character that despite being immune to something was not disruptive and did not take away the challenge for a table. In fact, my character being immune to Mind Blast was a huge highlight for the table. The way you make out succeeding on a nat 1 to be, I should have not been cheered by the table but booed instead, yet that did not happen. The only bad argument I see is you trying to argue that my argument was a bad argument.
Also, yes, I do believe a 9th level wizard with 20 intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast as long as they are within 10 feet of a 20 Charisma Paladin's Aura of Protection. I do not see anything wrong with it, it's teamwork; mind flayers should have other options to deal with such situations (they are incredibly intelligent beings and should not be one trick ponies) and it requires the wizard to stay within 10 feet of the paladin, who is unlikely to be immune to Mind Blast themselves.
Furthermore, it does take effort and investment to get a save to a high enough modifier to succeed on a nat 1. Every option took to get a save that high means other options were forwent.
Optimizing a character to succeed on a nat 1 is not disruptive. If it was, then someone getting lucky and constantly succeeding their saves out of pure luck would be disruptive, but they are not.
The main balancing factor in concentration is not that it can be broken, but that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Optimally played spellcasters should rarely if ever have their concentration broken. I believe it is right for the rogue to not be concerned about the trap, but they will still want to disarm the trap because someone else in their party may be harmed by it. If adding extra failure chance won't break the game, then keeping the current rules won't break it either. However, when you actually consider who this affects, it really only affects the people who enjoyed being able to raise modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1 because you have to build for it; otherwise, a nat 1 will be a failure because you won't have the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. This rule basically hurts the fun of those of us who enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 while doing absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't pump up their modifiers.
My table has allowed modifiers to make nat 1 succeed for years now and it has yet to make the game boring and we are still challenged and have suffered deaths.
For those who want auto fail on nat 1's, you would probably see no difference in gameplay even if you have been playing by the 5E RAW rules while the people who actually did build their characters to succeed on a nat 1 would see a difference as they now have a 5% fail chance forced upon them on the rolls they pumped up.
At a certain point, the cause of failure (even in reality) is external effects unrelated to skill. Now, a 5% is unrealistically high for a lot of activities, but that's when you apply advantage or multiple die rolls.
I am really curious of your experience on this matter. Is it possible for you to elaborate on the reason(s) why you don't like rolling a 20 on a d20 to automatically count as a success for ability checks?
Note that the UA is not bring back "critical" successes or fumbles (in the sense that players succeed or fail to a greater extend if they rolled a 20 or a 1, respectively). It simply states that the DM decides whether a roll is warranted and, if it is, rolling a 20 is automatically a success and rolling a 1 is automatically a failure. (I am stating this for clarification since a lot of posts in this thread is misrepresenting what is actually written in the UA.
My interpretation of the spirit behind the new rule is that: if rolling a 20 leads to the same outcome as rolling a 1, then just narrate the result.
That's the thing though.
Nearly everyone in this thread actually agrees on at least these two things about when a roll should be made:
A roll should be made if there is a chance of failure.
And a roll should not be made if there is no chance of success.
With some people, myself included, saying that a roll can also be made if either success or failure is guaranteed in order to determine the magnitude of the success or failure.
And for none of those situations does the 'auto-fail on 1, auto-success on 20' rule add anything, except needless complication.
Because in the current system a roll isn't necessary if a character has enough modifiers to succeed even on a 1 (there is no chance of failure) and it's also not necessary if even a 20 wouldn't meet the DC (there is no chance of success).
In the current system, there should only ever be a roll if there is a chance for failure (which is only possible if at roll of at least 1 wouldn't be a success), in which case it doesn't need to be a rule that a 1 always fails, because if a 1 didn't fail, there wouldn't be a roll, and if there is a chance of success (if at least a 20 does succeed), in which case it doesn't need to be a rule that a 20 always succeeds, because if a 20 didn't succeed, there wouldn't be a roll.
All that the 'auto-fail on 1, auto-success on 20' rule does is force you to roll for almost everything because it makes it so that there is always a chance for failure and (barring anything that is impossible due to other rules like range or requiring line of sight) always a chance for success. And all you end up getting in exchange for the increase in magnitude for the number of rolls you have to have your players make is that they usually still succeed at things that are ridiculously easy for them, but occasionally fail for no apparent reason and that they usually still fail at things that are ridiculously hard for them, but occasionally succeed for no apparent reason.
It's a pointless rule, it's a ridiculous rule, it's a rule that shouldn't set the standard for how and when to make a roll.
As for save DCs... There are very few instances where a player can get their saves high enough for the modifier to be enough for a 1 not to already be a failure without the assistance of a spell or magic item.
The highest possible save any character can achieve without the assistance of spells or magic items is +13 and even then specifically only on Str and Con saves. And that is with a level 20 Barbarian with their level 20 feature that gives them +4 to Str and Con and lets them go above the normal cap of 20 on stats to go to 24 on specifically those two stats. Technically, if we loosen up the definition of 'assistance of magic items' the highest possible saves can get without active effects from magic items or spells is +16 on Con and Int for a level 20 artificer, who get +1 to all their saves for each magic item they have attuned (and they have an earlier feature that lets them attune to up to 5 magic items rather than the normal limit of 3, for a total of 5 to all saves).
The maximum any other characters can get on saves without the assistance of spells and magic items (and that includes Barbarians for non-Str and Con saves) is +11 (+5 from having 20 in the stat and +6 from proficiency), starting at level 17.
So... Personally I feel like if a character has enough of a modifier on saves to automatically save even when rolling a 1 (without the 'auto-fail on 1' rule), they freaking deserve to not have to roll that save, because the lowest save DC. Because having a rule that a 1 still somehow fails, at that point, is basically telling the player 'hey, that special feature your class gets at level 20?/That magic item I gave you that enhances certain saves? Yeah, I'm just going to ignore that you have that and pretend your saves are about 5 points lower than they actually are.'
That is not what the new playtest rule states!
A lot of posts have assumed that under the new playtest rule, players will be able to roll for impossible tasks, but in the UA, it clearly states that "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance."
As I stated in the initial post, the new playtest rule doesn't actually change anything for ability checks. All the points that you stated for ability checks under the current rule, still applies the same way under the new playtest rule.
You might ask, "why bother updating the rules if nothing changes?" Well, since attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws are now being curated under the term "d20 Test", this rule is just updating the language. Saving throws are affected, but not ability checks. Nothing actually changes for ability checks.
Yes as you point out 5% is way too high I'd say even with disadvantage/advantage as they don't miss a key every 20 strokes or even close to it. Maybe if it was limited to both dice coming up 1s or 20s when you had advantage it would make some sense, 1 in 400 would be rare enough to be a crazy fluke where a master slips up. But, the thing is they already have a perfectly fine natural 20 thing built into the play test, inspiration. Just have a similar effect but negative built into the natural one, like the GM has a inspiration pool for the enemies and it adds to that. And that would be enough.
Except they gave you the parameters for that, it should be considered warranted is the DC is between 5 and 30.
It only takes a +9 to auto-succeed at concentration damage for hits of less than 22. Also, remember that Aura of Protection exist; a high level party with a paladin may have multiple people rolling against as much as +16.
If the concern is the range of which a d20 Test is warranted, feel free to discuss. But a lot of posts are assuming that, under the new playtest rule, players will have a 5% chance of failing mundane every tasks or a 5% chance of succeeding the impossible. The playtest rule doesn't state that. The DM still determines when a roll is warranted exactly the same as the current rule.
So concerning the argument involving music, I would argue that missing a few notes doesn't necessarily constitute failure. Success doesn't mean you performed the action perfectly, it means you performed the action adequately. Failure implies you didn't even perform good enough to be considered adequate. So I would ask how many times do masters of the craft fail to perform even adequately when it comes to objectively easy tests of their mastered skill?
The issue is that the rules are contradictory in that sense. A lot of people consider attack rolls and saving throws to be something that is forced, so even if they are not truly forced, people will play it as such. As giving everything a 5% chance of failure or success regardless of the modifier will make a number of people feel like a roll is always needed.
This also causes variance in Adventurers League Organized Play where one DM may not call for saving throw rolls if the modifiers are high enough but another may for that 5% autofail chance.
Unless they are seriously ill or are purposely trying to fail, I'd expect them to perform adequetely 100% of the time if it is an easy task.
This isn't true. Under current rules, a natural 1 is not a failure and a natural 20 is not a success when making Ability Checks or Saving Throws. Under the rules presented in the UA, that in fact would change.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Routine tests use your passive skill, which can neither critically succeed nor critically fail.