It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that. Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I think that would be, overall, a bad move, but I can see some value in it.
It would certainly be a wasted effort if the game is going to introduce gosh-darned feat trees.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I think that would be, overall, a bad move, but I can see some value in it.
It would certainly be a wasted effort if the game is going to introduce gosh-darned feat trees.
Flattening the number curve after 3.X was one of the main goals of 5e. It probably remains so.
It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that. Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
No, it's not implied. It's explcitly stated that an ability check automatically succeeds. They're specifically included in all D20 Tests.
D20 TEST The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.
ROLLING A 1 If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20 If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Furthermore, a +33 modifier to a roll when the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run. It's just a bad-faith example. And the Dungeon Dudes regularly make basic mistakes, so (as should be the case with everyone you read or watch online) take their views with a healthy shake of salt.
These rules for character origins are player-facing. Knowing a 1 is an automatic failure is useful, as is knowing a 20 is an automatic success. And it does, rather explicitly, apply to Ability Checks. What the rule does is inform/remind players they don't choose when they roll, so nobody can "farm" rolls for a 20 and the advantage that comes along with it. The DM decides. That hasn't changed. The only thing which might be intended to change is rolls should happen more often. And if so, okay. That's cool because every roll would have still a consequence. None are meaningless, and it gives our games a way to have more positive and negative consequences. Failure and setback is always an option. By the same token, so is success. Being unable to save against a dragon's Frightful Presence sucks.
The DM can still decide a roll doesn't need to be made, but that cuts both ways. They can decide you automatically succeed or fail, regardless of your modifiers. Take that how you will.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I'm hoping they just kill most of the stacking bonuses.
Meteor Swarm has saves, not to hit, so it cannot crit. Rogues do not normally get extra attacks (and can only sneak attack once per turn regardless), so have both fewer chances to hit and rely more on fewer larger damage attacks to compete with other melee, despite likely using lighter lower damage weapons.
Missed that. (meteor swarm)
I mean, rogues still get heavy damage. Using a short sword (excluding modifiers): Even with all their actions an Assassin Rogue could do 154 damage per turn using sneak attack. plus another 1d6 if they dual wield. I've seen mixed reports but I don't think their sneak attack applies to that as well, if it does, double that number even more. Under the new rules they'd get 84 damage If we compare that to a fighter at level 20, 3 extra attacks, I'll throw in dual wield here. both with short swords for apples to apples. Short Swords: 28 average damage if all attacks hit, no critical. Across 8 attacks, there is still only a 34% chance that there is a critical (although, lets acknowledge there is also a 34% chance the fighter misses once). But lets give them 2 critical because they are lucky. That is still only an extra 2d6. Totaling 35 damage. Assuming that the critical damage falls on an average roll. (it could double a lower roll). Lets assume crazy luck and the fighter critical hits every attack. That would be 56 damage. Still under what an Assassin Rogue could do.
Ok, to throw in non assassin rogue, dual wielding, they would be at 42 damage for stealth attack, if they critical hit on both hits, that would be 46. So yes. A rogue would do less damage than a fighter IF the fighter critical hits on every attack of all their attacks.
Now you may argue that fighters can use more than short swords. OK, I'll do the math on that. Greatsword: 2d6. 2 attacks on a turn. that's.....14 damage, no critical hits. In this case there is only a 19% chance to land a critical hit but since they'll be rolling at advantage its basically the same odds as the fighter. So I'm giving them 2 critical hits here as well (yup both crits). That means they do a total of .....35 damage. OK, OK, lets roll all critical hits..... that's 4 attacks, all critical hits that would be ..... 56 damage.
Lets look at Barbarians, We'll skip to the greatsword: 2d6: 2 attacks 14 damage. pretty weak, but Barb is made for crits, right? ok, Lets say they crit on both attacks: that's 28 damage, now lets add the Brutal Critical: 10 extra damage dice (5 for each attack), 35 damage.
Lets look at a cool Dual Wielding Barbarian. I'll give them dual Battle Axes (i'm sure they have a feat) That's 4 attacks 1d8 each , 18 damage base, Because they are barbarians lets them them crit on all 4. 20 extra damage dice (nice), 90 damage....nice. Impossibly lucky, but nice. Realistically they'd crit a max of 2, leaving damage at 54.
To summarize. In the new system, rogues to slightly less than super lucky barbarians and impossibly lucky fighters. BUT they still can do this at will (i.e. not relying on the dice) each turn (potentially) NOTE: assassin Rogue would still equal or out damage them with sneak attack.
Let me know if I messed up the math.
Edit: Oh, I noticed I forgot to mention Action Surge. I suppose if a fighter burned that they would out damage, but its a limited resource unlike Sneak Attack so its hard to compare it. With that, and fair rate of miss / critical they'd just slightly out damage a rogue in the single instance, which they can only do twice per long rest. Assuming we double the Great sword attack of 35, take it to 60. Still I'd drop is down 2d6 since criting 4 times that would put it fairly in line with Rogue sneak attack.
I also ignored stat modifiers since both would likely be similar so they don't need to be factored.
It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that. Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
No, it's not implied. It's explcitly stated that an ability check automatically succeeds. They're specifically included in all D20 Tests.
D20 TEST The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.
ROLLING A 1 If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20 If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Furthermore, a +33 modifier to a roll when the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run. It's just a bad-faith example. And the Dungeon Dudes regularly make basic mistakes, so (as should be the case with everyone you read or watch online) take their views with a healthy shake of salt.
These rules for character origins are player-facing. Knowing a 1 is an automatic failure is useful, as is knowing a 20 is an automatic success. And it does, rather explicitly, apply to Ability Checks. What the rule does is inform/remind players they don't choose when they roll, so nobody can "farm" rolls for a 20 and the advantage that comes along with it. The DM decides. That hasn't changed. The only thing which might be intended to change is rolls should happen more often. And if so, okay. That's cool because every roll would have still a consequence. None are meaningless, and it gives our games a way to have more positive and negative consequences. Failure and setback is always an option. By the same token, so is success. Being unable to save against a dragon's Frightful Presence sucks.
The DM can still decide a roll doesn't need to be made, but that cuts both ways. They can decide you automatically succeed or fail, regardless of your modifiers. Take that how you will.
The only time that you are unable to save against a dragon's fear that I am aware of is if you lack a positive modifier against an ancient gold dragon. Everything else already would succeed on a nat 20 without the auto success.
In the vast majority if cases, a nat 20 is likely to succeed even without an auto success because DC's don't often go past 20, especially at T1-2 where most games are played. By the time you reach enemies with DC's that high, you should have some magic items on hand to help you deal with those situations.
It doesn't matter if it is a 10% or a 5% chance that the roll is out of a player's agency. The default should always have the roll be in the player's agency. A bardic inspiration, artificer's flash of genius, a paladin's aura of protection, a bless spell, etc, they should always be able to help. A nat 1 auto fail stops even your party members from helping you. Player agency should not have any chance to be removed.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I'm hoping they just kill most of the stacking bonuses.
Well this nat 1/20 isn't the way to do it. That requires revisiting the abilities that add bonuses. Though I am unsure if they would. I find that people enjoy stacking bonuses from my experience.
As for why they introduced this nat 1/20 autofail, there was no balancing reason or to deal with bonus stacking, it was because it was a popular house rule. That is the only reason why they made this change. Jeremy Crawford confirmed this in an interview.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
You are missing a lot in this. 30 has been the highest DC according to the DMG. That is nearly impossible. Until the UA for DM's and DCs come we still need to go that 30 is the highest. Then you miss the part of other things still apply like line of sight, cover, etc. So in a bright light room with no place to hide and the person looking right at you then you can't succeed. The DM is in the right to say no roll needed.
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible. As a practical example I'll haul out the "I want to persuade the king to give me his kingdom". By the new rule I'll just have to say no, it's not possible. As a GM I prefer to let them roll. If they get a 20 I'll say you don't get the kingdom, but the king is impressed with your earnest nature, or your ambition, or he now doesn't trust you and wants to keep an eye on you; so he gives you a task to defend a village from a ravaging troll. If you succeed, he'll knight you.
The bigger problem revolves around what to expect with a skill check. Many skill check problems can be solved with a quick set of questions:
1) What's your goal? (Then ask how do you want to accomplish this ie let them choose a skill or skills for the task. This defines success.
2) What's the consequence of a failure?
You can add:
3. What do you get if you roll a 20?
4. What happens if you roll a 1?
The auto success/fail in the new rule doesn't really help communication. While 20s are fun (I'd argue they should create critical hits for everyone in combat) automatic success shouldn't be a requirement in the rules. I've seen new GMs run afoul of this mentality even before the rule existed (not realizing it didn't exist). It stands a good chance to derail adventures. It's not worth the risk.
Again, this is a solution looking for a problem. I haven't seen a compelling problem statement that this addresses. If some people are house ruling this anyway. Let them, but don't saddle the rules with house rules.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
So.... if I want to persuade a king to hand over his kingdom. I can just do an ability check get a nat 20 and get handed the kingdom? The DM has the right to say no.....oh boy do DMs struggle with this. It seems odd that the Nat20 rule would say a roll has to be between 5 and 30, if 30 is the highest. Wouldn't it just say "can't be below 5?" Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm referring to Skill Checks. Things like Persuasion and Stealth.
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible.
THIS. The example given is good.
Another example might be an attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. You can do some wonderful tension building if the player rolls a modified 23 (or 27 or 33) and still isn't successful. It can impress upon the party the difficulty of tasks in that place/situation in a way that simply telling them "It's impossible, don't roll" doesn't.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
So.... if I want to persuade a king to hand over his kingdom. I can just do an ability check get a nat 20 and get handed the kingdom? The DM has the right to say no.....oh boy do DMs struggle with this. It seems odd that the Nat20 rule would say a roll has to be between 5 and 30, if 30 is the highest. Wouldn't it just say "can't be below 5?" Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm referring to Skill Checks. Things like Persuasion and Stealth.
I have stated pages ago that is an issue with the DC. I would say they should have it between 20 or 25. If 30 is the highest The issue people have with it, it seems like an issue with DMs and not the rule. DMs have to learn that they set the DC and can also set what success and failure is. Not the player. Want to persuade the King to hand over the Kingdom? You roll a 20. The DM gets to decide that success is the King laughs it off and enjoys your humor. The DM can also not allow a roll. The player doesn't get to say they roll to do something. They don't get to decide what the success is. They tell the DM what they want to do. The DM decides the difficulty, asks them to roll the skill check. Then decides what happens based on the roll. The players don't know the DC.
Player: I want to try and persuade the evil warlord we have been fighting the entire campaign to just give up his evil ways and retire to a nice island. DM: Thinks about it. Sets the difficulty to the highest at 30. Asks to roll persuade Player: Nat 20 (since bonuses won't apply) Player cheers DM: Warlord. Laughs. What do you think I will do after I kill you all? I like you, I will kill you last
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible.
THIS. The example given is good.
Another example might be an attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. You can do some wonderful tension building if the player rolls a modified 23 (or 27 or 33) and still isn't successful. It can impress upon the party the difficulty of tasks in that place/situation in a way that simply telling them "It's impossible, don't roll" doesn't.
You can still do this though. Each roll is independent of each other. The don't roll is a way of getting rid of the stupid things like seducing the queen or they ask to leap 200 feet without use of magic. I heard one bad example of if everyone knows there is a 5% chance of success they will want to roll for everything. DM can say no. It is up to the DM to control the table. Again, if they do roll DM gets to decide what the success is. DM has control of when a roll happens.
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible.
THIS. The example given is good.
Another example might be an attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. You can do some wonderful tension building if the player rolls a modified 23 (or 27 or 33) and still isn't successful. It can impress upon the party the difficulty of tasks in that place/situation in a way that simply telling them "It's impossible, don't roll" doesn't.
You can still do this though. Each roll is independent of each other. The don't roll is a way of getting rid of the stupid things like seducing the queen or they ask to leap 200 feet without use of magic. I heard one bad example of if everyone knows there is a 5% chance of success they will want to roll for everything. DM can say no. It is up to the DM to control the table. Again, if they do roll DM gets to decide what the success is. DM has control of when a roll happens.
Problem is that adds a lot of friction at the table. People don't like the DM to say no and a lot of DMs have trouble with it. Since it inevitably comes with "why" or "don't railroad us etc."
My position is its far easier to get people to accept including an unofficial feature than removing an official one.
Additionally, as the person pointed out, sometimes you want to let people try the impossible. You don't want to have a DC for everything your people come across. Either you'll have to say no a lot or risk allowing something that players will use in an unexpected way that had you known in advance would have said no to. Honestly the Jump 200 feet is a bit of a weird example everyone makes, since maximum jump distance is in the rules independent of any skill check.
By making it so this rule exists unless the DM says no it puts a lot of work on the DM's shoulders to know when to say no and when not to, which some will have trouble with. Additionally, it can result in everyone in the group just constantly rolling to see if someone eventually gets a nat20. They don't have to know the DC on it, they just roll. Since skill checks are often in RP situations, rather than combat, there are less rules involved with how often they can do it. To prevent that the DM would have to constantly come up with penalties when players fail (not even nat 1) these skill checks to prevent them from just attempting again. "I attempt to barter with the store to get the 1000gp item for free. Fail "I try again." fail, "I try again, "Nat 20, I get it for free" I mean sure the DM could have the store kick them out but how many stores would actually kick you out for asking for something for less or free? not many. Then can the player walk back in and try again? or are they banned forever, thus making that shop locked out for the rest of the campaign. A group of 4 could still have their party try 3 times and after getting kicked out just purchase everything through the 4th person. If the entire group gets kicked out for it then that sucks for a group if 1 person tries it.
With current Ability Checks players never know if the roll is even possible, so if they don't succeed they will just move on, with the Nat20 rule there will always be value to keep rolling, since regardless of the check, there is a known chance it will succeed. Also saying no frequently can lead to players asking "what can we do then" because you keep saying no.
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible.
THIS. The example given is good.
Another example might be an attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. You can do some wonderful tension building if the player rolls a modified 23 (or 27 or 33) and still isn't successful. It can impress upon the party the difficulty of tasks in that place/situation in a way that simply telling them "It's impossible, don't roll" doesn't.
Counterpoint: That's adversarial play, and one of the points of the rule is to quash it.
If you can't adequately build tension without sending your players up against an impossible task, then you aren't building tension. You're deflating the game by railroading the players. You're telling them their choices and actions don't matter.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
Umm I've been arguing that Nat 1's shouldn't be auto fail so I have basically essentially been saying that if you have a +20 and the DC is 12, then you shouldn't fail.
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible.
THIS. The example given is good.
Another example might be an attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. You can do some wonderful tension building if the player rolls a modified 23 (or 27 or 33) and still isn't successful. It can impress upon the party the difficulty of tasks in that place/situation in a way that simply telling them "It's impossible, don't roll" doesn't.
Counterpoint: That's adversarial play, and one of the points of the rule is to quash it.
If you can't adequately build tension without sending your players up against an impossible task, then you aren't building tension. You're deflating the game by railroading the players. You're telling them their choices and actions don't matter.
Counter Counter Point: It's not necessary adversarial play because even if they can't succeed at the task they are attempting, just the act of attempting it can cause other things to happen. They fail at the task at hand, but succeed at causing something else to happen. Or perhaps simply attempting and failing can make the next attempt easier based on how well they roll. DC could start impossibly high, but based on how close they get to success, the DC could go down as they wear it down.
So, are you against the Nat1/20 rule then? I'm confused. Since conversely, if something is a DC 30 and you have no bonus you shouldn't be able to auto succeed. It seems odd to be in favor of the success option but not the failure. Seems like you're just seeking out ways to make things easier.
So, are you against the Nat1/20 rule then? I'm confused. Since conversely, if something is a DC 30 and you have no bonus you shouldn't be able to auto succeed. It seems odd to be in favor of the success option but not the failure. Seems like you're just seeking out ways to make things easier.
Which is a common thread I keep seeing, unfortunately.
I like the proposed rule. Taken at face value, it's simply telling the player four things:
The DM will let you know if and when you roll
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
That's it. There's no farming. Saving throws aren't "forced" like they were before, so it's possible for the DM to simply say you cannot fail. But if you do roll, there will always be a chance of failure; just as there will always be a chance of success.
The only X-factor that people seem to be ignoring is, if the DM decides a roll isn't warranted, they can also predetermine the outcome. This is why I encourage rolling, no matter what. It keeps the outcome out of the DM's hands and in fate's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that.
Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I think that would be, overall, a bad move, but I can see some value in it.
It would certainly be a wasted effort if the game is going to introduce gosh-darned feat trees.
Flattening the number curve after 3.X was one of the main goals of 5e. It probably remains so.
I'm not sure how feats enter into it, though.
No, it's not implied. It's explcitly stated that an ability check automatically succeeds. They're specifically included in all D20 Tests.
Furthermore, a +33 modifier to a roll when the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run. It's just a bad-faith example. And the Dungeon Dudes regularly make basic mistakes, so (as should be the case with everyone you read or watch online) take their views with a healthy shake of salt.
These rules for character origins are player-facing. Knowing a 1 is an automatic failure is useful, as is knowing a 20 is an automatic success. And it does, rather explicitly, apply to Ability Checks. What the rule does is inform/remind players they don't choose when they roll, so nobody can "farm" rolls for a 20 and the advantage that comes along with it. The DM decides. That hasn't changed. The only thing which might be intended to change is rolls should happen more often. And if so, okay. That's cool because every roll would have still a consequence. None are meaningless, and it gives our games a way to have more positive and negative consequences. Failure and setback is always an option. By the same token, so is success. Being unable to save against a dragon's Frightful Presence sucks.
The DM can still decide a roll doesn't need to be made, but that cuts both ways. They can decide you automatically succeed or fail, regardless of your modifiers. Take that how you will.
I'm hoping they just kill most of the stacking bonuses.
Missed that. (meteor swarm)
I mean, rogues still get heavy damage.
Using a short sword (excluding modifiers):
Even with all their actions an Assassin Rogue could do 154 damage per turn using sneak attack. plus another 1d6 if they dual wield. I've seen mixed reports but I don't think their sneak attack applies to that as well, if it does, double that number even more.
Under the new rules they'd get 84 damage
If we compare that to a fighter at level 20, 3 extra attacks, I'll throw in dual wield here. both with short swords for apples to apples.
Short Swords: 28 average damage if all attacks hit, no critical. Across 8 attacks, there is still only a 34% chance that there is a critical (although, lets acknowledge there is also a 34% chance the fighter misses once). But lets give them 2 critical because they are lucky. That is still only an extra 2d6. Totaling 35 damage. Assuming that the critical damage falls on an average roll. (it could double a lower roll).
Lets assume crazy luck and the fighter critical hits every attack. That would be 56 damage. Still under what an Assassin Rogue could do.
Ok, to throw in non assassin rogue, dual wielding, they would be at 42 damage for stealth attack, if they critical hit on both hits, that would be 46. So yes. A rogue would do less damage than a fighter IF the fighter critical hits on every attack of all their attacks.
Now you may argue that fighters can use more than short swords. OK, I'll do the math on that.
Greatsword: 2d6. 2 attacks on a turn. that's.....14 damage, no critical hits. In this case there is only a 19% chance to land a critical hit but since they'll be rolling at advantage its basically the same odds as the fighter. So I'm giving them 2 critical hits here as well (yup both crits). That means they do a total of .....35 damage.
OK, OK, lets roll all critical hits..... that's 4 attacks, all critical hits that would be ..... 56 damage.
Lets look at Barbarians,
We'll skip to the greatsword: 2d6: 2 attacks 14 damage. pretty weak, but Barb is made for crits, right? ok, Lets say they crit on both attacks: that's 28 damage, now lets add the Brutal Critical: 10 extra damage dice (5 for each attack), 35 damage.
Lets look at a cool Dual Wielding Barbarian. I'll give them dual Battle Axes (i'm sure they have a feat) That's 4 attacks 1d8 each , 18 damage base, Because they are barbarians lets them them crit on all 4. 20 extra damage dice (nice), 90 damage....nice. Impossibly lucky, but nice. Realistically they'd crit a max of 2, leaving damage at 54.
To summarize. In the new system, rogues to slightly less than super lucky barbarians and impossibly lucky fighters. BUT they still can do this at will (i.e. not relying on the dice) each turn (potentially) NOTE: assassin Rogue would still equal or out damage them with sneak attack.
Let me know if I messed up the math.
Edit: Oh, I noticed I forgot to mention Action Surge. I suppose if a fighter burned that they would out damage, but its a limited resource unlike Sneak Attack so its hard to compare it. With that, and fair rate of miss / critical they'd just slightly out damage a rogue in the single instance, which they can only do twice per long rest. Assuming we double the Great sword attack of 35, take it to 60. Still I'd drop is down 2d6 since criting 4 times that would put it fairly in line with Rogue sneak attack.
I also ignored stat modifiers since both would likely be similar so they don't need to be factored.
The only time that you are unable to save against a dragon's fear that I am aware of is if you lack a positive modifier against an ancient gold dragon. Everything else already would succeed on a nat 20 without the auto success.
In the vast majority if cases, a nat 20 is likely to succeed even without an auto success because DC's don't often go past 20, especially at T1-2 where most games are played. By the time you reach enemies with DC's that high, you should have some magic items on hand to help you deal with those situations.
It doesn't matter if it is a 10% or a 5% chance that the roll is out of a player's agency. The default should always have the roll be in the player's agency. A bardic inspiration, artificer's flash of genius, a paladin's aura of protection, a bless spell, etc, they should always be able to help. A nat 1 auto fail stops even your party members from helping you. Player agency should not have any chance to be removed.
Well this nat 1/20 isn't the way to do it. That requires revisiting the abilities that add bonuses. Though I am unsure if they would. I find that people enjoy stacking bonuses from my experience.
As for why they introduced this nat 1/20 autofail, there was no balancing reason or to deal with bonus stacking, it was because it was a popular house rule. That is the only reason why they made this change. Jeremy Crawford confirmed this in an interview.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
You are missing a lot in this.
30 has been the highest DC according to the DMG. That is nearly impossible. Until the UA for DM's and DCs come we still need to go that 30 is the highest.
Then you miss the part of other things still apply like line of sight, cover, etc. So in a bright light room with no place to hide and the person looking right at you then you can't succeed. The DM is in the right to say no roll needed.
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible. As a practical example I'll haul out the "I want to persuade the king to give me his kingdom". By the new rule I'll just have to say no, it's not possible. As a GM I prefer to let them roll. If they get a 20 I'll say you don't get the kingdom, but the king is impressed with your earnest nature, or your ambition, or he now doesn't trust you and wants to keep an eye on you; so he gives you a task to defend a village from a ravaging troll. If you succeed, he'll knight you.
The bigger problem revolves around what to expect with a skill check. Many skill check problems can be solved with a quick set of questions:
1) What's your goal? (Then ask how do you want to accomplish this ie let them choose a skill or skills for the task. This defines success.
2) What's the consequence of a failure?
You can add:
3. What do you get if you roll a 20?
4. What happens if you roll a 1?
The auto success/fail in the new rule doesn't really help communication. While 20s are fun (I'd argue they should create critical hits for everyone in combat) automatic success shouldn't be a requirement in the rules. I've seen new GMs run afoul of this mentality even before the rule existed (not realizing it didn't exist). It stands a good chance to derail adventures. It's not worth the risk.
Again, this is a solution looking for a problem. I haven't seen a compelling problem statement that this addresses. If some people are house ruling this anyway. Let them, but don't saddle the rules with house rules.
So.... if I want to persuade a king to hand over his kingdom. I can just do an ability check get a nat 20 and get handed the kingdom?
The DM has the right to say no.....oh boy do DMs struggle with this.
It seems odd that the Nat20 rule would say a roll has to be between 5 and 30, if 30 is the highest. Wouldn't it just say "can't be below 5?"
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm referring to Skill Checks. Things like Persuasion and Stealth.
THIS. The example given is good.
Another example might be an attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. You can do some wonderful tension building if the player rolls a modified 23 (or 27 or 33) and still isn't successful. It can impress upon the party the difficulty of tasks in that place/situation in a way that simply telling them "It's impossible, don't roll" doesn't.
I have stated pages ago that is an issue with the DC. I would say they should have it between 20 or 25. If 30 is the highest
The issue people have with it, it seems like an issue with DMs and not the rule. DMs have to learn that they set the DC and can also set what success and failure is. Not the player.
Want to persuade the King to hand over the Kingdom? You roll a 20. The DM gets to decide that success is the King laughs it off and enjoys your humor. The DM can also not allow a roll.
The player doesn't get to say they roll to do something. They don't get to decide what the success is. They tell the DM what they want to do. The DM decides the difficulty, asks them to roll the skill check. Then decides what happens based on the roll. The players don't know the DC.
Player: I want to try and persuade the evil warlord we have been fighting the entire campaign to just give up his evil ways and retire to a nice island.
DM: Thinks about it. Sets the difficulty to the highest at 30. Asks to roll persuade
Player: Nat 20 (since bonuses won't apply) Player cheers
DM: Warlord. Laughs. What do you think I will do after I kill you all? I like you, I will kill you last
You can still do this though. Each roll is independent of each other.
The don't roll is a way of getting rid of the stupid things like seducing the queen or they ask to leap 200 feet without use of magic. I heard one bad example of if everyone knows there is a 5% chance of success they will want to roll for everything. DM can say no. It is up to the DM to control the table.
Again, if they do roll DM gets to decide what the success is.
DM has control of when a roll happens.
Problem is that adds a lot of friction at the table. People don't like the DM to say no and a lot of DMs have trouble with it. Since it inevitably comes with "why" or "don't railroad us etc."
My position is its far easier to get people to accept including an unofficial feature than removing an official one.
Additionally, as the person pointed out, sometimes you want to let people try the impossible. You don't want to have a DC for everything your people come across. Either you'll have to say no a lot or risk allowing something that players will use in an unexpected way that had you known in advance would have said no to. Honestly the Jump 200 feet is a bit of a weird example everyone makes, since maximum jump distance is in the rules independent of any skill check.
By making it so this rule exists unless the DM says no it puts a lot of work on the DM's shoulders to know when to say no and when not to, which some will have trouble with. Additionally, it can result in everyone in the group just constantly rolling to see if someone eventually gets a nat20. They don't have to know the DC on it, they just roll. Since skill checks are often in RP situations, rather than combat, there are less rules involved with how often they can do it. To prevent that the DM would have to constantly come up with penalties when players fail (not even nat 1) these skill checks to prevent them from just attempting again. "I attempt to barter with the store to get the 1000gp item for free. Fail "I try again." fail, "I try again, "Nat 20, I get it for free" I mean sure the DM could have the store kick them out but how many stores would actually kick you out for asking for something for less or free? not many. Then can the player walk back in and try again? or are they banned forever, thus making that shop locked out for the rest of the campaign. A group of 4 could still have their party try 3 times and after getting kicked out just purchase everything through the 4th person. If the entire group gets kicked out for it then that sucks for a group if 1 person tries it.
With current Ability Checks players never know if the roll is even possible, so if they don't succeed they will just move on, with the Nat20 rule there will always be value to keep rolling, since regardless of the check, there is a known chance it will succeed.
Also saying no frequently can lead to players asking "what can we do then" because you keep saying no.
Counterpoint: That's adversarial play, and one of the points of the rule is to quash it.
If you can't adequately build tension without sending your players up against an impossible task, then you aren't building tension. You're deflating the game by railroading the players. You're telling them their choices and actions don't matter.
Umm I've been arguing that Nat 1's shouldn't be auto fail so I have basically essentially been saying that if you have a +20 and the DC is 12, then you shouldn't fail.
Counter Counter Point: It's not necessary adversarial play because even if they can't succeed at the task they are attempting, just the act of attempting it can cause other things to happen. They fail at the task at hand, but succeed at causing something else to happen. Or perhaps simply attempting and failing can make the next attempt easier based on how well they roll. DC could start impossibly high, but based on how close they get to success, the DC could go down as they wear it down.
And once again, "you can't roll" isn't the same thing as "your character can't try."
So, are you against the Nat1/20 rule then? I'm confused. Since conversely, if something is a DC 30 and you have no bonus you shouldn't be able to auto succeed.
It seems odd to be in favor of the success option but not the failure. Seems like you're just seeking out ways to make things easier.
Which is a common thread I keep seeing, unfortunately.
I like the proposed rule. Taken at face value, it's simply telling the player four things:
That's it. There's no farming. Saving throws aren't "forced" like they were before, so it's possible for the DM to simply say you cannot fail. But if you do roll, there will always be a chance of failure; just as there will always be a chance of success.
The only X-factor that people seem to be ignoring is, if the DM decides a roll isn't warranted, they can also predetermine the outcome. This is why I encourage rolling, no matter what. It keeps the outcome out of the DM's hands and in fate's.