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.
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.
The situation Gospel is describing though is essentially someone making a performance or an instrument check in an actual performance rather than as a passive check. A successful check does not necessary mean you performed perfectly, but well enough for it to be considered a success. Which means, missing a note doesn't necessary mean they failed. So when looking at someone like Beethoven or any other highly skilled performer, sure each performance is not necessary perfect, but they are still successes. They don't fail to adequately perform 5% of the time.
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.
I didn't say routine test. I said easy. DC 10, which seems to be the main break point being discussed, is explicitly categorized as being easy. That's what DC 10 is. DC 15 is moderate difficulty.
It only takes a +9 to auto-succeed at concentration damage for hits of less than 22.
So? The only caster class that gets proficiency with constitution saves by default are Sorcerers, who also have the smallest spell selection and need some incentive to take concentration spells over just pure damage (and/or healing, for Divine Souls) and Artificers, who are utility casters whose spell list leans heavily towards concentration spells that buff other party members. In order to actually get to +9 at a point where you might be taking 22 damage from the average attack all other casters need to either dip into a different class or take a feat to get proficiency on constitution.
Besides, which, concentration checks are supposed to be somewhat lenient because it encourages DMs to have monsters hit casters hard if they want to break their concentration instead of just nickle-and-diming them with little bits of damage until they fail a roll. That's why it's DC 10 OR half the damage of the attack, whichever is higher.
Also, remember that Aura of Protection exist; a high level party with a paladin may have multiple people rolling against as much as +16.
Yeah, and that's a class feature that scales with Charisma, in order to make Paladins who focus on party support and spellcasting just as viable and useful to the party as Paladins who purely pump their combat abilities so they can be a frontline tank.
And eh... Creatures that suchs a high level party might encounter include such lovely examples as Liches (who have a spell DC of flippin' 20 and can force the entire party to make multiple saves per turn), and Ancient Dragons, even the weakest of which have DC 22 on their Breath attacks. And wouldn't you know it, in order to benefit from said aura the party has to stay neatly within breath weapon, fireball and cloudkill range from the Paladin.
Even getting a +5 to saves (on top of the +11 in their proficient saves and the much less than that in their non-proficient ones) thanks to the Paladin doesn't make the party immune to the DCs of attacks made by threats on their level. At best it protects them from stuff that shouldn't be a threat to them anyway (but with the '1 is an auto-fail' rule definitely still are), like a Banshee's Wail... (And even then only if they're already proficient in Constitution saves).
You know... The Banshee. That thing that can, if things go bad, instantly TPK a party because it instantly reduces everyone within 30ft who fails the save to 0 hitpoints and they're CR 4 so you'll usually be encountering them when your constitution save is, at the absolute best (if you maxed your con) +7? And the DC is 13, so even a the average level 20 character with max Constitution and proficiency in Constitution saves has a 10% chance to still fail that save. That Banshee.
Yes, god forbid players at level 20 might enjoy the benefit of a a specific class feature that comes with its own weaknesses to the AoE slinging threats at their own level to get some immunity against an CR 4 monster that STILL has the potential (though not a very high chance, let's not oversell Banshees here), on a bad roll day, to TPK the party solo without that feature.
You know... The Banshee. That thing that can, if things go bad, instantly TPK a party because it instantly reduces everyone within 30ft who fails the save to 0 hitpoints and they're CR 4 so you'll usually be encountering them when your wisdom save is, at the absolute best (if you maxed your wisdom) +7? And the DC is 13, so even a the average level 20 character with max Wisdom and proficiency in Wisdom saves has a 10% chance to still fail that save. That Banshee.
The Banshee is a stupidly designed monster, but not because of auto-fail on 1. It's stupidly designed because reduce to 0 on a fail is incompatible with the entire way they designed CR. The damage math works out about right if it does something like 9d6 (31) with its wail (which will one-shot plenty of level 4 PCs)
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.
Yeah, we're not going to even bother with the rest of that.
What would magnitudes of success or failure look like on a pass/fail saving throw? When you cannot fail, how do you succeed more than just succeeding? When the only possible outcome is some form of success, where is the risk of harm? Why force a roll against harm when there is no risk of harm? Why face what is intended to be a damaging or debilitating action or ability when the only possible outcomes are getting a cookie and getting a cookie with a glass of milk?
Because, to me, that sounds insane. It was a dumb change for 5th edition that never should have made it in.
And how in Ao's name is automatic success or failure a needless complication? Walk me through your thought process. Because, for the life of me, I cannot see how not needing to do math 10% of the time is a complication.
you should only ask for a roll of the player for things they're potentially able to do. If they won't absolutely be able to do a thing, don't ask for a roll. if the player rolls anyway, disregard it and ask politely for the player only to roll for the tests you ask them.
Otherwise I could say "I lift the castle over my shoulders and throw it away", roll a 20 and I succeed.
So, don't ask of your players rolls for things they can't do. Just tell them it's not going to happen.
Just make the difference between things you don't want to happen and things they can't do. Like lifting up a castle, fitting inside a drawer, etc.
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.
It's a difference without a distinction. The DM, not the player, decide when and how to roll an ability check. And the DM should only be calling for ability checks when there's a real chance of success or failure. Under this paradigm, a 1 or 20 would still result in a failure or a success. The has not changed. What has changed is a 20 also grants inspiration to the character.
The change is also check against adversarial DMs. There are some out there who, in an effort to be deceptive, call for inconsequential ability checks where the players cannot hope to succeed. WotC doesn't agree. Their underlying principle is every roll should be meaningful. Ability checks, and how they work, haven't actually changed. Attack rolls haven't actually changed. The only real change is to how saving throws work, and that's what's getting the most pushback.
And I think they're wrong for pushing back. The principle is sound. In a game where every cast of the die is a binary outcome, both success and failure needs to always be options. Anything is possible. Nothing is impossible.
Some of this is just growing pains from clumsily lumping everything together into a D20 Test. I get wanting to unify everything, and some systems pull it off, but I don't think it's necessary here. It reads like an attempt to save ink and page space. And if anyone out there has a better execution for this principle, then I'd love to see it. If they disagree with this principle, I'd like to see a justification beyond simply rewarding players for stacking numbers. That's a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question.
Why do we seem to be pretending that more appropriately difficult challenges don't exist? Yes, player characters can get strong/skilled enough that easy challenges (DC 10) are no longer a threat to someone who has dedicated a non-insubstantial amount of their resources towards being good at overcoming that particular avenue of difficulty. That isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's a clear indicator that their character is better than they were before, and that their efforts have paid off.
So yes, they can (with sufficient dedication) make overcoming the simplest of challenges casual. The scale of difficulty goes up as high as the DM feels it needs to. If you want to challenge that character in the arena of their specialty then you have the freedom to do so with higher difficulty challenges. And if your argument is that it makes it more difficult for those who haven't dedicated their resources into that one particular point of skill, I'd argue that that is working as intended. The rest of the party shouldn't be able to compare to a characters specialty without dedicating a similar amount of effort/resources.
What would magnitudes of success or failure look like on a pass/fail saving throw?
You wouldn't roll magnitude for a saving throw. You'd roll magnitude when a player insists on trying something that requires an ability check that will fail anyway, but it could just simply fail or it could fail spectacularly. The same for success.
And how in Ao's name is automatic success or failure a needless complication? Walk me through your thought process.
I just did, in the part you didn't quote. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself...
Well, not any more than I already do regularly, any way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
The situation Gospel is describing though is essentially someone making a performance or an instrument check in an actual performance rather than as a passive check. A successful check does not necessary mean you performed perfectly, but well enough for it to be considered a success. Which means, missing a note doesn't necessary mean they failed. So when looking at someone like Beethoven or any other highly skilled performer, sure each performance is not necessary perfect, but they are still successes. They don't fail to adequately perform 5% of the time.
I didn't say routine test. I said easy. DC 10, which seems to be the main break point being discussed, is explicitly categorized as being easy. That's what DC 10 is. DC 15 is moderate difficulty.
So? The only caster class that gets proficiency with constitution saves by default are Sorcerers, who also have the smallest spell selection and need some incentive to take concentration spells over just pure damage (and/or healing, for Divine Souls) and Artificers, who are utility casters whose spell list leans heavily towards concentration spells that buff other party members. In order to actually get to +9 at a point where you might be taking 22 damage from the average attack all other casters need to either dip into a different class or take a feat to get proficiency on constitution.
Besides, which, concentration checks are supposed to be somewhat lenient because it encourages DMs to have monsters hit casters hard if they want to break their concentration instead of just nickle-and-diming them with little bits of damage until they fail a roll. That's why it's DC 10 OR half the damage of the attack, whichever is higher.
Yeah, and that's a class feature that scales with Charisma, in order to make Paladins who focus on party support and spellcasting just as viable and useful to the party as Paladins who purely pump their combat abilities so they can be a frontline tank.
And eh... Creatures that suchs a high level party might encounter include such lovely examples as Liches (who have a spell DC of flippin' 20 and can force the entire party to make multiple saves per turn), and Ancient Dragons, even the weakest of which have DC 22 on their Breath attacks. And wouldn't you know it, in order to benefit from said aura the party has to stay neatly within breath weapon, fireball and cloudkill range from the Paladin.
Even getting a +5 to saves (on top of the +11 in their proficient saves and the much less than that in their non-proficient ones) thanks to the Paladin doesn't make the party immune to the DCs of attacks made by threats on their level. At best it protects them from stuff that shouldn't be a threat to them anyway (but with the '1 is an auto-fail' rule definitely still are), like a Banshee's Wail... (And even then only if they're already proficient in Constitution saves).
You know... The Banshee. That thing that can, if things go bad, instantly TPK a party because it instantly reduces everyone within 30ft who fails the save to 0 hitpoints and they're CR 4 so you'll usually be encountering them when your constitution save is, at the absolute best (if you maxed your con) +7? And the DC is 13, so even a the average level 20 character with max Constitution and proficiency in Constitution saves has a 10% chance to still fail that save. That Banshee.
Yes, god forbid players at level 20 might enjoy the benefit of a a specific class feature that comes with its own weaknesses to the AoE slinging threats at their own level to get some immunity against an CR 4 monster that STILL has the potential (though not a very high chance, let's not oversell Banshees here), on a bad roll day, to TPK the party solo without that feature.
The Banshee is a stupidly designed monster, but not because of auto-fail on 1. It's stupidly designed because reduce to 0 on a fail is incompatible with the entire way they designed CR. The damage math works out about right if it does something like 9d6 (31) with its wail (which will one-shot plenty of level 4 PCs)
Yeah, we're not going to even bother with the rest of that.
What would magnitudes of success or failure look like on a pass/fail saving throw? When you cannot fail, how do you succeed more than just succeeding? When the only possible outcome is some form of success, where is the risk of harm? Why force a roll against harm when there is no risk of harm? Why face what is intended to be a damaging or debilitating action or ability when the only possible outcomes are getting a cookie and getting a cookie with a glass of milk?
Because, to me, that sounds insane. It was a dumb change for 5th edition that never should have made it in.
And how in Ao's name is automatic success or failure a needless complication? Walk me through your thought process. Because, for the life of me, I cannot see how not needing to do math 10% of the time is a complication.
you should only ask for a roll of the player for things they're potentially able to do. If they won't absolutely be able to do a thing, don't ask for a roll. if the player rolls anyway, disregard it and ask politely for the player only to roll for the tests you ask them.
Otherwise I could say "I lift the castle over my shoulders and throw it away", roll a 20 and I succeed.
So, don't ask of your players rolls for things they can't do. Just tell them it's not going to happen.
Just make the difference between things you don't want to happen and things they can't do. Like lifting up a castle, fitting inside a drawer, etc.
It's a difference without a distinction. The DM, not the player, decide when and how to roll an ability check. And the DM should only be calling for ability checks when there's a real chance of success or failure. Under this paradigm, a 1 or 20 would still result in a failure or a success. The has not changed. What has changed is a 20 also grants inspiration to the character.
The change is also check against adversarial DMs. There are some out there who, in an effort to be deceptive, call for inconsequential ability checks where the players cannot hope to succeed. WotC doesn't agree. Their underlying principle is every roll should be meaningful. Ability checks, and how they work, haven't actually changed. Attack rolls haven't actually changed. The only real change is to how saving throws work, and that's what's getting the most pushback.
And I think they're wrong for pushing back. The principle is sound. In a game where every cast of the die is a binary outcome, both success and failure needs to always be options. Anything is possible. Nothing is impossible.
Some of this is just growing pains from clumsily lumping everything together into a D20 Test. I get wanting to unify everything, and some systems pull it off, but I don't think it's necessary here. It reads like an attempt to save ink and page space. And if anyone out there has a better execution for this principle, then I'd love to see it. If they disagree with this principle, I'd like to see a justification beyond simply rewarding players for stacking numbers. That's a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question.
So yes, they can (with sufficient dedication) make overcoming the simplest of challenges casual. The scale of difficulty goes up as high as the DM feels it needs to. If you want to challenge that character in the arena of their specialty then you have the freedom to do so with higher difficulty challenges. And if your argument is that it makes it more difficult for those who haven't dedicated their resources into that one particular point of skill, I'd argue that that is working as intended. The rest of the party shouldn't be able to compare to a characters specialty without dedicating a similar amount of effort/resources.
You wouldn't roll magnitude for a saving throw. You'd roll magnitude when a player insists on trying something that requires an ability check that will fail anyway, but it could just simply fail or it could fail spectacularly. The same for success.
I just did, in the part you didn't quote. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself...
Well, not any more than I already do regularly, any way.