I too think its a bad rule and the reasoning is also not ideal. Don't make the system worse just because some people play that way.
Imagine a more open-world sandbox scenario. there you have that said door with a dc of 25, which you don't intend to be opened yet, but there is a chance, but it's unlikely. under the new rules, that chance is increased a lot, unless you allow only one roll at all. the new roles take away options on how to handle situations.
Also, the range of DC 5-30 is bad.
So my rogue with +15 on thieves tools check can't beat that dc 30 lock while he could under current rules by rolling a 15+ or suddenly despite having a +15 he fails on a dc 8 lock if he rolls a 1?
and what about a check thats easy dc under 5 but a char with -1 or even -2 to that skill still normaly would have a decent chance of failure think of stealth at disadv due to armor with a dex of 8
To me, having things this way with 1DND will definitely make people feel less unique. What's the point of being the strong barbarian or the dexterous lock picking rogue, if the -2 str Bard can bust open a locked door too? The point of having some rolls be impossible for some characters is to reinforce the fact that each character is specialized and unique.
Saying "you don't succeed" isn't necessarily a feels bad moment - differences in character abilities is kind of a huge point in the game IMO. But if we build every encounter- combat otherwise - around the idea that every character could theoretically do it, then that just sets us up for homogeneity which I want to avoid in my games.
I see the argument for simply not allowing rolls, but that seems more like a bandaid than a solution. That's my 10 cp, at least.
We are talking about probabilities here. The Strong character with a +5 STR bonus + proficiency in Athletics is going to succeed at a DC 25 athletics check a LOT more often than a -2 STR Mod Bard that can only do it if they roll a nat 20, which is a 5% chance.
Giving one character a 5% chance to succeed when another character has a 50% chance, isn't taking anything away from the latter.
I too think its a bad rule and the reasoning is also not ideal. Don't make the system worse just because some people play that way.
Imagine a more open-world sandbox scenario. there you have that said door with a dc of 25, which you don't intend to be opened yet, but there is a chance, but it's unlikely. under the new rules, that chance is increased a lot, unless you allow only one roll at all. the new roles take away options on how to handle situations.
Also, the range of DC 5-30 is bad.
So my rogue with +15 on thieves tools check can't beat that dc 30 lock while he could under current rules by rolling a 15+ or suddenly despite having a +15 he fails on a dc 8 lock if he rolls a 1?
and what about a check thats easy dc under 5 but a char with -1 or even -2 to that skill still normaly would have a decent chance of failure think of stealth at disadv due to armor with a dex of 8
How is that any different than the current mechanics of a melee attack with a +10 to-hit bonus attacking something like an ooze that has 8AC, and missing because of a Nat 1?
Help me understand: If something is going to be impossible why ask for a roll. Narrate. If there's a chance then let them roll for it. On a 20 they succeed or meeting the DC they succeed.
At my tables a character must have proficiency to do something Extraordinary. A wizard, for instance, without athletics, would not be able to attempt to lift an iron gate that is somehow rusted, otherwise "stuck", or heavy.
Ultimately, I feel the UA rule is a great optional rule rather than making it the standard.
i agree with this if you dont want them to do something then don't ask for a roll and just tell them no and give a reason you shouldn't really be asking for rolls for something that's impossible.
also for those who are on about stats like someone with str 11 shouldnt be able to break down a dc 21 door then why should same person be able to crit punch ac 21 creature same difference really
I also think narratively people are viewing their character's + to rolls incorrectly.
Many people are saying things like"My 24 strength barbarian has a +15 to athletics and advantage while raging but he failed to break down a simple wooden door on a nat 1!". Yes he did. Because the die roll represents the nature of other variables outside of your control. Not your strength. Not your training. Not anything regarding your character.
What does that 1 represent? Your character didn't have proper footing and slipped, losing all the force of his charge. He had bad aim and slammed into the wall. The door was actually barred on the other side and him slamming into it broke the bar but not the door.
In an unknown vaccum success is not guaranteed and failure is always an option. If they are not then you should not be rolling at all.
(Most) Baseball Pitchers throw Strikes Most often. Then a ball, then a hit, then a wild pitch. A nat 1 is a wild pitch. It happens enough we talk about it. It still doesn't happen as much as everything else.
Characters can be distracted, slip on gravel, step on a banana peel, and a host of any other issues and problems that exist that screw up an attempt.
I will play test the new rules but this is one is see causing table issues.
As a DM I never tell a player you can’t, I tell them you can try and I then have them roll a dice to do that, a one usually does result in a poor result (not always failure) for instance on searching a room a roll of a 1 for a total 13 investigation will find some treasure but not the really juicy stuff, alternatively a 20 might find something really shiny but this is not an auto success. If the DC for a task is 23 and a roll of a nat 20 gives a 22 then I might allow a partial success, that barred door has given a little, not broken down but you feel you have jarred something. But I won’t want a random lucky dice roll to throw myself off.
What this rule does is make DMs tell players no a lot more, something we should never do. Can I do this, you can try when as a dm I know the dc is far too high or even impossible, is different to simply having to say No, because you know as a dm the moment you say yes and a nat 20 is rolled the player knows that the rule book calls that an auto success.
But th e biggest impact will be in role-playing and social encounters. Can I persuade the king to give me his kingdom, as a dm I will now have to tell a player no you can’t, not, make a roll let’s see how bad you f this one up lol and the players have a giggle. It also turns the game far more into a dm vs players situation, players looking for every opportunity to force a dice roll so they can try and get a nat 20. But it will also lead to big arguments, a character with no real knowledge of a subject I would historically allow a dice roll and, on a nat 20 give some brief info. You remember the name of the capital city of that land you know nothing of, you remember the name of a battle, you know this artifact has been fought over for centsuries but have no idea what it does. Now a player rolls a nat 20 they will be expecting to know everything “that isn’t the information of a success, you have told me nothing, the book says a 20 is an auto success”.
There are so many pitfalls to this new ruling I really don’t like it. I would keep an auto failure for a 1 (even for reliable talent) but for a nat 20 I would give a far more nuanced mechanic allowing a dm wriggle room.
There are also some things that don’t call for a crit failure, how do you represent a nat 1 for making a persuasion test when shopping, what makes it a crit failure? Or a nat 20 player expects to get 100% off. It will lead to arguments and disappointment as the player idea of what crit success means will differ to the DM. It will also lead to dms shutting player ideas down more often, instead of role-playing out a bad idea that won’t work dms will now say “no you can’t do it it fails” making players feel there agency is being taken.
There appears to be a few recurring points brought up in this discussion (although these points seem to be issues about ability checks as a whole as opposed to resolving ability checks):
Players rolling for something when the DM didn't call for a roll.
Player expectation that anything is possible when they rolled a natural 20.
Pseudo-success and pseudo-failure: where the DM already determined that the outcome is a failure and a "success" in this case is not a disastrous outcome.
For points 1 and 2, this is more of a player behavior issue regarding ability checks as a whole as opposed to the new playtest rule. To foster a better gaming experience for both the DM and the players at the table, it's best to align the expectations that not everything is possible. These player behavior issues are going to occur regardless of whether the game is played under the current rule or the new playtest rule, as these issues are about expectations towards the ability check mechanism as a whole.
For point 3, the new playtest rule doesn't actually change anything in practice. Let's take a look at a recurring example: a player tries to seduce a dragon. The DM has already determined that this is an impossible task and that the roll to seduce the dragon is automatically a failure. Therefore, the roll that the player is making, in actuality, is for how the dragon reacts to the blasphemy of a mere mortal attempting to seduce one as great as itself. Using either the current rule or the new playtest rule, the DM can narrate, "The dragon scuffs at your attempt of seduction and seemed to take great offence. Roll to see how badly you have offended the dragon." Players who are dissatisfied with this outcome will most likely be equally offended under the current rule when their natural 20 still resulted in a failure to seduce the dragon. Again, these issues are about aligning expectations between the players and the DM more than the rules themselves.
I think the spirit behind this new playtesting rule is: don't allow for rolls when there are no way for the players to succeed.
In other words, it's about aligning expectations between the DM and the players regarding the outcome of a check. It's about having meaningful rolls and actual consequences in success or failure. I think almost all games are already played this way. I, for one, cannot recall the last time rolling a natural 20 still resulted in a failure, whether it's in a game that I am playing, or in a game that I am the DM, or a game that I am watching.
My take - albeit an unpopular one - would be to only allow the PC to roll only if they meet a certain criteria.
Example - the door is locked. It requires a PC with a minimum of 15 Strength or higher to bust it open.
Bard with 8 Strength tries to open the door? Narration kicks in, it does not work.
Barbararian with a 18 Strength score goes for it? I'll ask for the roll.
So now as a DM I need to set a DC for every ability check, plus I need to decide the ability score cutoff that players are even allowed to ask for a roll? I'd rather have them roll and just tell them it didn't work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
What I'm learning today is that the "don't roll if it's not supposed to be possible to succeed or possible to fail" method outlined in the 5e core books isn't how a lot of people play. Maybe the OneD rules should be built around that instead of trying to correct it. Thoughts?
First of, I suggest that we use another thread than this for our main thread on this topic.
Now to the post. It is not at all implied in the books that a nat20 is a success on a skill check.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
What this rule does is make DMs tell players no a lot more, something we should never do. Can I do this, you can try when as a dm I know the dc is far too high or even impossible, is different to simply having to say No, because you know as a dm the moment you say yes and a nat 20 is rolled the player knows that the rule book calls that an auto success.
I disagree. If something is impossible tell your player no. If you allow rolls for everything it is giving a false sense of possibility that skews their understanding of the world. I understand not wanting to take agency away from your players, but this moves in the opposite direction in giving them too much agency.
But th e biggest impact will be in role-playing and social encounters. Can I persuade the king to give me his kingdom, as a dm I will now have to tell a player no you can’t, not, make a roll let’s see how bad you f this one up lol and the players have a giggle. It also turns the game far more into a dm vs players situation, players looking for every opportunity to force a dice roll so they can try and get a nat 20. But it will also lead to big arguments, a character with no real knowledge of a subject I would historically allow a dice roll and, on a nat 20 give some brief info. You remember the name of the capital city of that land you know nothing of, you remember the name of a battle, you know this artifact has been fought over for centsuries but have no idea what it does. Now a player rolls a nat 20 they will be expecting to know everything “that isn’t the information of a success, you have told me nothing, the book says a 20 is an auto success”.
There are so many pitfalls to this new ruling I really don’t like it. I would keep an auto failure for a 1 (even for reliable talent) but for a nat 20 I would give a far more nuanced mechanic allowing a dm wriggle room.
If the outcome of the roll is inconsequential it should not be rolled. If you are rolling to see "how bad you f this up" that's no longer a dice test, it's rolling a die for random probability (two different things albeit similar).
For the knowledge thing, simple. Proficient in History? You know a tidbit. No roll needed and they get a success. You give them info (which is what they want), but not everything (which is what they expect).
And again, players don't force die rolls. If they are trying to do so for a 5% chance of impossible success you are being gamed by your players and need to listed to the advice that's being laid out and stop letting them roll.
First of, I suggest that we use another thread than this for our main thread on this topic.
Now to the post. It is not at all implied in the books that a nat20 is a success on a skill check.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
This implies that the DM is willing to go with the scenario where the skill check succeeds. So what does it matter who succeeds? If half the party has no hope of succeeding, and the other half CAN succeed if they roll well, the possibility that the check succeeds IS still a possibility. So what if a nat 20 provides a 5% chance to for someone unexpected to succeed?
There are also some things that don’t call for a crit failure, how do you represent a nat 1 for making a persuasion test when shopping, what makes it a crit failure? Or a nat 20 player expects to get 100% off. It will lead to arguments and disappointment as the player idea of what crit success means will differ to the DM. It will also lead to dms shutting player ideas down more often, instead of role-playing out a bad idea that won’t work dms will now say “no you can’t do it it fails” making players feel there agency is being taken.
As far as I know, there is no "critical success or critical failure" in 5e (as least not in the way that you described). Rolling a 1 on an attack roll with a bow doesn't mean you hit your ally with the arrow. I know some tables play it that way, but it is not in the rules to severely punish the players when they rolled a 1 (or vice-versa on a 20). It is up to each table to collectively decide whether rolling a 20 or a 1 should give the players more than a simple success or failure, and how extreme these extra should be.
Using your example of making a persuasion test when shopping, a success will result in a discount (maybe 10%) through bargaining. The DM might rule that rolling a natural 20 results in a 15% discount, but is in no way obligated to do so under both the current rule as well as the new playtest rule. A failure in this case would result in no discount. The DM might rule that rolling a natural 1 results in a strong negative attitude of the shopkeeper towards the party, but, again, is in no way obligated to do so.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I too think its a bad rule and the reasoning is also not ideal.
Don't make the system worse just because some people play that way.
Imagine a more open-world sandbox scenario. there you have that said door with a dc of 25, which you don't intend to be opened yet, but there is a chance, but it's unlikely.
under the new rules, that chance is increased a lot, unless you allow only one roll at all.
the new roles take away options on how to handle situations.
Also, the range of DC 5-30 is bad.
So my rogue with +15 on thieves tools check can't beat that dc 30 lock while he could under current rules by rolling a 15+
or suddenly despite having a +15 he fails on a dc 8 lock if he rolls a 1?
and what about a check thats easy dc under 5 but a char with -1 or even -2 to that skill still normaly would have a decent chance of failure
think of stealth at disadv due to armor with a dex of 8
We are talking about probabilities here. The Strong character with a +5 STR bonus + proficiency in Athletics is going to succeed at a DC 25 athletics check a LOT more often than a -2 STR Mod Bard that can only do it if they roll a nat 20, which is a 5% chance.
Giving one character a 5% chance to succeed when another character has a 50% chance, isn't taking anything away from the latter.
How is that any different than the current mechanics of a melee attack with a +10 to-hit bonus attacking something like an ooze that has 8AC, and missing because of a Nat 1?
Help me understand: If something is going to be impossible why ask for a roll. Narrate. If there's a chance then let them roll for it. On a 20 they succeed or meeting the DC they succeed.
At my tables a character must have proficiency to do something Extraordinary. A wizard, for instance, without athletics, would not be able to attempt to lift an iron gate that is somehow rusted, otherwise "stuck", or heavy.
Ultimately, I feel the UA rule is a great optional rule rather than making it the standard.
i agree with this if you dont want them to do something then don't ask for a roll and just tell them no and give a reason you shouldn't really be asking for rolls for something that's impossible.
also for those who are on about stats like someone with str 11 shouldnt be able to break down a dc 21 door then why should same person be able to crit punch ac 21 creature same difference really
This new rule allow anyone to succeed at a very hard task that's not impossible and to fail at very easy task that still has a risk of failure.
I also think narratively people are viewing their character's + to rolls incorrectly.
Many people are saying things like"My 24 strength barbarian has a +15 to athletics and advantage while raging but he failed to break down a simple wooden door on a nat 1!". Yes he did. Because the die roll represents the nature of other variables outside of your control. Not your strength. Not your training. Not anything regarding your character.
What does that 1 represent? Your character didn't have proper footing and slipped, losing all the force of his charge. He had bad aim and slammed into the wall. The door was actually barred on the other side and him slamming into it broke the bar but not the door.
In an unknown vaccum success is not guaranteed and failure is always an option. If they are not then you should not be rolling at all.
Hmm,
My take - albeit an unpopular one - would be to only allow the PC to roll only if they meet a certain criteria.
Example - the door is locked. It requires a PC with a minimum of 15 Strength or higher to bust it open.
Bard with 8 Strength tries to open the door? Narration kicks in, it does not work.
Barbararian with a 18 Strength score goes for it? I'll ask for the roll.
(Most) Baseball Pitchers throw Strikes Most often. Then a ball, then a hit, then a wild pitch. A nat 1 is a wild pitch. It happens enough we talk about it. It still doesn't happen as much as everything else.
Characters can be distracted, slip on gravel, step on a banana peel, and a host of any other issues and problems that exist that screw up an attempt.
Practice actually makes permanent, not perfect.
I will play test the new rules but this is one is see causing table issues.
As a DM I never tell a player you can’t, I tell them you can try and I then have them roll a dice to do that, a one usually does result in a poor result (not always failure) for instance on searching a room a roll of a 1 for a total 13 investigation will find some treasure but not the really juicy stuff, alternatively a 20 might find something really shiny but this is not an auto success. If the DC for a task is 23 and a roll of a nat 20 gives a 22 then I might allow a partial success, that barred door has given a little, not broken down but you feel you have jarred something. But I won’t want a random lucky dice roll to throw myself off.
What this rule does is make DMs tell players no a lot more, something we should never do. Can I do this, you can try when as a dm I know the dc is far too high or even impossible, is different to simply having to say No, because you know as a dm the moment you say yes and a nat 20 is rolled the player knows that the rule book calls that an auto success.
But th e biggest impact will be in role-playing and social encounters.
Can I persuade the king to give me his kingdom, as a dm I will now have to tell a player no you can’t, not, make a roll let’s see how bad you f this one up lol and the players have a giggle. It also turns the game far more into a dm vs players situation, players looking for every opportunity to force a dice roll so they can try and get a nat 20. But it will also lead to big arguments, a character with no real knowledge of a subject I would historically allow a dice roll and, on a nat 20 give some brief info. You remember the name of the capital city of that land you know nothing of, you remember the name of a battle, you know this artifact has been fought over for centsuries but have no idea what it does. Now a player rolls a nat 20 they will be expecting to know everything “that isn’t the information of a success, you have told me nothing, the book says a 20 is an auto success”.
There are so many pitfalls to this new ruling I really don’t like it. I would keep an auto failure for a 1 (even for reliable talent) but for a nat 20 I would give a far more nuanced mechanic allowing a dm wriggle room.
There are also some things that don’t call for a crit failure, how do you represent a nat 1 for making a persuasion test when shopping, what makes it a crit failure? Or a nat 20 player expects to get 100% off. It will lead to arguments and disappointment as the player idea of what crit success means will differ to the DM. It will also lead to dms shutting player ideas down more often, instead of role-playing out a bad idea that won’t work dms will now say “no you can’t do it it fails” making players feel there agency is being taken.
There appears to be a few recurring points brought up in this discussion (although these points seem to be issues about ability checks as a whole as opposed to resolving ability checks):
For points 1 and 2, this is more of a player behavior issue regarding ability checks as a whole as opposed to the new playtest rule. To foster a better gaming experience for both the DM and the players at the table, it's best to align the expectations that not everything is possible. These player behavior issues are going to occur regardless of whether the game is played under the current rule or the new playtest rule, as these issues are about expectations towards the ability check mechanism as a whole.
For point 3, the new playtest rule doesn't actually change anything in practice. Let's take a look at a recurring example: a player tries to seduce a dragon. The DM has already determined that this is an impossible task and that the roll to seduce the dragon is automatically a failure. Therefore, the roll that the player is making, in actuality, is for how the dragon reacts to the blasphemy of a mere mortal attempting to seduce one as great as itself. Using either the current rule or the new playtest rule, the DM can narrate, "The dragon scuffs at your attempt of seduction and seemed to take great offence. Roll to see how badly you have offended the dragon." Players who are dissatisfied with this outcome will most likely be equally offended under the current rule when their natural 20 still resulted in a failure to seduce the dragon. Again, these issues are about aligning expectations between the players and the DM more than the rules themselves.
I think the spirit behind this new playtesting rule is: don't allow for rolls when there are no way for the players to succeed.
In other words, it's about aligning expectations between the DM and the players regarding the outcome of a check. It's about having meaningful rolls and actual consequences in success or failure. I think almost all games are already played this way. I, for one, cannot recall the last time rolling a natural 20 still resulted in a failure, whether it's in a game that I am playing, or in a game that I am the DM, or a game that I am watching.
So now as a DM I need to set a DC for every ability check, plus I need to decide the ability score cutoff that players are even allowed to ask for a roll? I'd rather have them roll and just tell them it didn't work.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Sure.
What I'm learning today is that the "don't roll if it's not supposed to be possible to succeed or possible to fail" method outlined in the 5e core books isn't how a lot of people play. Maybe the OneD rules should be built around that instead of trying to correct it. Thoughts?
First of, I suggest that we use another thread than this for our main thread on this topic.
Now to the post. It is not at all implied in the books that a nat20 is a success on a skill check.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I disagree. If something is impossible tell your player no. If you allow rolls for everything it is giving a false sense of possibility that skews their understanding of the world. I understand not wanting to take agency away from your players, but this moves in the opposite direction in giving them too much agency.
If the outcome of the roll is inconsequential it should not be rolled. If you are rolling to see "how bad you f this up" that's no longer a dice test, it's rolling a die for random probability (two different things albeit similar).
For the knowledge thing, simple. Proficient in History? You know a tidbit. No roll needed and they get a success. You give them info (which is what they want), but not everything (which is what they expect).
And again, players don't force die rolls. If they are trying to do so for a 5% chance of impossible success you are being gamed by your players and need to listed to the advice that's being laid out and stop letting them roll.
This implies that the DM is willing to go with the scenario where the skill check succeeds. So what does it matter who succeeds? If half the party has no hope of succeeding, and the other half CAN succeed if they roll well, the possibility that the check succeeds IS still a possibility. So what if a nat 20 provides a 5% chance to for someone unexpected to succeed?
As far as I know, there is no "critical success or critical failure" in 5e (as least not in the way that you described). Rolling a 1 on an attack roll with a bow doesn't mean you hit your ally with the arrow. I know some tables play it that way, but it is not in the rules to severely punish the players when they rolled a 1 (or vice-versa on a 20). It is up to each table to collectively decide whether rolling a 20 or a 1 should give the players more than a simple success or failure, and how extreme these extra should be.
Using your example of making a persuasion test when shopping, a success will result in a discount (maybe 10%) through bargaining. The DM might rule that rolling a natural 20 results in a 15% discount, but is in no way obligated to do so under both the current rule as well as the new playtest rule. A failure in this case would result in no discount. The DM might rule that rolling a natural 1 results in a strong negative attitude of the shopkeeper towards the party, but, again, is in no way obligated to do so.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?