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.
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.
Do you mean me? or Choir? For me, I am mostly against the Nat 1 auto fail. Nat 20 auto success isn't something I care too much about (though I lean more against it) partly because I do feel that impossible saves is a flaw at higher levels, but that is more due to Saves that you are not proficient in not scaling in anyway unless you have magic items or something else boosting it. Like I feel like there should be a way for you to always succeed, but I personally don't think the nat 20 auto success is the proper way to do it. In past editions, your level affected your saves, but it doesn't in 5E.
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.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance. In organized play, this level of variance should not exist. The default rule should be the current 5E rule while having nat 1/20 auto fail/success be an optional rule due to the rule is more likely to lead to more negative experience than positive as generally the people who are for it are probably unaffected by it as nat 1's would generally be fails for them with or without auto fail on nat 1's as I doubt they typically build characters with modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
Which is why it's likely best to simply roll all the time. I'd be shocked if that isn't the intent. But there are no instructions given to the DM. It's worded as a player-facing rule for the next PHB.
But some players don't like that because it means they can't make themselves immune to something. Just as some Dungeon Masters don't like it because they can't railroad their players with impossible tasks.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
Which is why it's likely best to simply roll all the time. I'd be shocked if that isn't the intent. But there are no instructions given to the DM. It's worded as a player-facing rule for the next PHB.
But some players don't like that because it means they can't make themselves immune to something. Just as some Dungeon Masters don't like it because they can't railroad their players with impossible tasks.
Your statement is simply disingenuous.
Some players and dungeon masters (I'm both by the way) don't like it because it just adds randomness for the sake of randomness. It's a 5-10% chance of removing agency and ignoring any mechanical investment characters put into their builds. You have a +20 to a save and the DC is 10? Nat 1 you fail. That just feels bad and miserable. You built for that +20, but 5% of the time, it doesn't matter at all.
And letting players try certain possible tasks can lead to other possibilities. They may not succeed in their intended task, but they can open up new doors by attempting. However, a nat 20 would suggest by raw that they simply succeed at the original task.
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
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
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
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
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
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
"As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting."
I wholly disagree with this, I do not believe they make the game more interesting, esp the Nat 1 side, that just makes the game more frustrating, straight up. It is the DM, not the game rules/mechanics that make Checks and Saves more interesting.
"If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky."
Should adventuring be risky? If you're an adventurer, you're still going to take the actions with the lowest risk or even no risk at all over the highly risk actions. It certainly isn't a career free from danger, so why increase the danger for no reason? suicidal?
"If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance."
But if there is no chance of success, even a nat 20 can not turn that into a success, yet the rules specifically contradict that.
"Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas."
I already did, you were just playing with your phone instead of paying attention to the lesson.
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
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
Do you mean me? or Choir? For me, I am mostly against the Nat 1 auto fail. Nat 20 auto success isn't something I care too much about (though I lean more against it) partly because I do feel that impossible saves is a flaw at higher levels, but that is more due to Saves that you are not proficient in not scaling in anyway unless you have magic items or something else boosting it. Like I feel like there should be a way for you to always succeed, but I personally don't think the nat 20 auto success is the proper way to do it. In past editions, your level affected your saves, but it doesn't in 5E.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance. In organized play, this level of variance should not exist. The default rule should be the current 5E rule while having nat 1/20 auto fail/success be an optional rule due to the rule is more likely to lead to more negative experience than positive as generally the people who are for it are probably unaffected by it as nat 1's would generally be fails for them with or without auto fail on nat 1's as I doubt they typically build characters with modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
Then we shouldn't be adding even more variance.
Which is why it's likely best to simply roll all the time. I'd be shocked if that isn't the intent. But there are no instructions given to the DM. It's worded as a player-facing rule for the next PHB.
But some players don't like that because it means they can't make themselves immune to something. Just as some Dungeon Masters don't like it because they can't railroad their players with impossible tasks.
Your statement is simply disingenuous.
Some players and dungeon masters (I'm both by the way) don't like it because it just adds randomness for the sake of randomness. It's a 5-10% chance of removing agency and ignoring any mechanical investment characters put into their builds. You have a +20 to a save and the DC is 10? Nat 1 you fail. That just feels bad and miserable. You built for that +20, but 5% of the time, it doesn't matter at all.
And letting players try certain possible tasks can lead to other possibilities. They may not succeed in their intended task, but they can open up new doors by attempting. However, a nat 20 would suggest by raw that they simply succeed at the original task.
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
"As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting."
I wholly disagree with this, I do not believe they make the game more interesting, esp the Nat 1 side, that just makes the game more frustrating, straight up. It is the DM, not the game rules/mechanics that make Checks and Saves more interesting.
"If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky."
Should adventuring be risky? If you're an adventurer, you're still going to take the actions with the lowest risk or even no risk at all over the highly risk actions. It certainly isn't a career free from danger, so why increase the danger for no reason? suicidal?
"If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance."
But if there is no chance of success, even a nat 20 can not turn that into a success, yet the rules specifically contradict that.
"Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas."
I already did, you were just playing with your phone instead of paying attention to the lesson.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed
100% chance others fail
No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20.
Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.