Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
This rule is not official yet, it is still UA so there is still a chance for feedback to make it so that it does not become RAW. Unless you can stop that, you can't stop my arguments.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
Then why are you playing a dice game? Why are you bothering to roll dice? Why not choose to play a game where dice are not needed and you just use your abilities that you have created for yourself. If there is no chance for failure, there is no point to roll, if there is no chance for success there is no point to roll.
Communicating that you are playing a dice game with chance of success and failure with EVERY ROLL solves the problem. It is really that easy.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
Then why are you playing a dice game? Why are you bothering to roll dice? Why not choose to play a game where dice are not needed and you just use your abilities that you have created for yourself. If there is no chance for failure, there is no point to roll, if there is no chance for success there is no point to roll.
Because it takes time and effort to reach that point. It is not like we start off at first level being able to succeed on a nat 1.
Furthermore, we aren't succeeding on a nat 1 if it is not in a roll we specialized in. A character may have +19 Con Saves but that won't help them in an int save for example.
We are also fine with failing on a nat 1 if the DC is high enough. If the DC is 21, and we rolled a nat 1 with a +19, we are fine with failing in that situation because we did not meet the DC. However if the DC is 10 and we have a +19, we should just succeed.
D&D uses Dice and Modifiers. You can optimize a character to increase their chance of succeeding. This is simply doing that, increasing the chance of success as high as we can.
Also, currently, if the minimum possible roll meets the DC, my group does not roll. It just succeeds as that is the current RAW and RAI in 5E.
We enjoy D&D 5E and we enjoy that by both RAW and RAI that we can build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 if they invest into making their character that good in that type of roll.
There is still a point for us to play a "dice game" even if you don't see it.
I've come around on this rule. At first I was like, "who cares, it's so rare anyway that you can basically ignore it." But now I'm thinking, putting it on the page makes people think about it. Makes people reference it, and use it as an example, and so on.
Furthermore, I don't think the tiny value add of having all the tests work the same way is worth the value loss of making ability checks really stupid.
…I don't think the tiny value add of having all the tests work the same way is worth the value loss of making ability checks really stupid.
Can I use this wording when I answer their survey later this week? I mean this exact wording?
Lol, be my guest. I will probably use a lot more words in mine.
I'm very curious about their survey methodology. On one hand, I hope they differentiate between people who played with the rules, and people who didn't. On the other hand, I hope they still listen to those of us who only read the rules, just... Maybe less? Idk. On a third hand (that's right, I have at least three), I hope they DON'T listen to people whose only brush with the rules was what their favorite YouTube drama person said about them. So, it's complicated.
Tell the players at the start of the game that a nat 1 is a failure, and a nat 20 is a success. now they know to expect to fail on a 1 and maybe won't pump their constitution save that high. Problem solved.... again.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Its hardly stacking stats to a ridiculous level if just having expertise in one of your skills will easily put you over +10 and mean you should be passing a number of checks on a nat 1.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game.
No it doesn't. Building a character is always about picking which of several options you'll use, and optimization is just a method of making that decision.
You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
This goes both ways. Your desires carry no more weight than anyone else's.
The entire point of the UA and Survey is to get a consensus of how people play and what they want. In the end we will see how the community as a whole feels about it and that will be that. I will be voicing my desire to toss this concept into the garbage bin when the survey is available. I encourage you to vote how you desire and in the end we will see where it all ends up.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
As others have stated, the statement that my enjoyment is niche goes both ways. The D&D fanbase is quite diverse and there is no invalid way of playing. Also, optimizing is not restrictive and does not need you to remove options from the game. It is a method of making decisions in the game. You are essentially saying optimization is bad and doing it is wrong, which is completely false as it is essentially saying that people are wrong to optimize, something that has been proven wrong since Stormwind's Fallacy was coined.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
As others have stated, the statement that my enjoyment is niche goes both ways. The D&D fanbase is quite diverse and there is no invalid way of playing. Also, optimizing is not restrictive and does not need you to remove options from the game. It is a method of making decisions in the game. You are essentially saying optimization is bad and doing it is wrong, which is completely false as it is essentially saying that people are wrong to optimize, something that has been proven wrong since Stormwind's Fallacy was coined.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices.
Any time you build a character, you have to exclude a lot of choices, because there's a limit to how many you can put on your character. Excluding an option because it's inefficient is not different in kind from excluding an option because it doesn't fit your backstory or you just want another option more.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
As others have stated, the statement that my enjoyment is niche goes both ways. The D&D fanbase is quite diverse and there is no invalid way of playing. Also, optimizing is not restrictive and does not need you to remove options from the game. It is a method of making decisions in the game. You are essentially saying optimization is bad and doing it is wrong, which is completely false as it is essentially saying that people are wrong to optimize, something that has been proven wrong since Stormwind's Fallacy was coined.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
Optimization isn't always about picking the absolute best option. For example, optimizing a specific concept, like trying to recreate a character from another fandom, often has you pick overall suboptimal choices but optimal in the case of trying to recreate something.
No one is playing the wrong game. D&D is meant to be inclusive, including the people who don't like unpredictability because it offers mechanics to mitigate unpredictability, such as Reliable Talent for example.
Also, no one is saying optimization should be the standard under which we all play; what we are saying is that they should not be disregarded. Players have the freedom to make suboptimal choices under the current 5E rules without nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in fact, it generally doesn't even affect them if it exists or not. If someone is not the type to optimize, then they would normally fail with a nat 1 and likely succeed on a nat 20 (though that is less guaranteed, such as the DC being higher than what they can achieve). So quite literally for them, the nat 1 auto fail does not change anything for them at all; they would fail with a nat 1 before the rule change and they will fail with a nat 1 after the rule change. Rather than fighting tooth and nail to prevent optimization from being the standard, you are fighting tooth and nail to discourage optimization.
What the nat 1 auto fail does change things for are the people who do optimize and make characters capable of succeeding on a nat 1. The rule actually affects them as it can turn a 100% chance to a 95% chance. The people who optimize are actually affected by this rule while the people who don't are unlikely to be affected.
Optimization is a huge part of why I enjoy builds.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
As others have stated, the statement that my enjoyment is niche goes both ways. The D&D fanbase is quite diverse and there is no invalid way of playing. Also, optimizing is not restrictive and does not need you to remove options from the game. It is a method of making decisions in the game. You are essentially saying optimization is bad and doing it is wrong, which is completely false as it is essentially saying that people are wrong to optimize, something that has been proven wrong since Stormwind's Fallacy was coined.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
You have a very narrow restrictive view of optimisation. Optimisation can be done with any number of parameters including choices that might be viewed as suboptimal by some. It all depends on the parameters and end goal you're looking for when you decide to try and optimise.
Optimising without parameters is not super helpful really because obviously everyone will always end up with the same character. Limitations are where it gets interesting and where flavour gets introduced.
Problem not solved because I believe the current 5E rule for this is the better rule. This is supposed to be a debate about the UA rule and its pros and cons. You are giving non answers.
Furthermore, if people never increase the modifiers to the point where they could succeed on a nat 1, then what is the purpose of the rule? Auto fail on 1 means nothing if a 1 was never going t be a success to begin with. The rule is pointless at that point. Nat 20 auto success at least has a point as the DC for a save could be higher than what they can roll but the auto success gives them a slim chance. However a nat 1 is already a failure in most cases, only time it is not are in the specific situation where someone did raise their modifier that high. The rule shouldn't be there just to deal with that unless you are implying it is wrong for someone to pump their modifiers.
You said the problem was with how the players felt after they pumped their thing up. You tell them at the start and they wont pump that ridiculously high. You said the players would not mind failing on a one with a High DC, if you never tell them the DC then they won't know they failed a lower DC check. All they will know is they failed. Your arguments don't make any sense when you actually put any scrutiny towards them.
Tell the players at the start, and they wont stack stats to ludicrous levels and they will be good at MORE things, probably making them MORE satisfied with their build. In addition don't tell them the DC. Every problem you have brought up with the system has been solved in 2 easy steps all done.
Except they want to be able to stack it that high and succeed on a Nat 1's. We also do not want to hide DC's unless absolutely necessary. Some DC's cannot be hidden like Concentration or the DC for identifying Spells or to cast a spell scroll of a level higher than what you can cast or the DC for scribing a spell into a spellbook.
Well if you tell them they can't succeed at a nat 1, then that takes away their desire to build to do something they are told they can't do. Simply communicating that it is the way the rule is prevents and stops all of the arguments you are making against it.
It doesn't. They still would desire to be able to succeed on a Nat 1 and so do I. We desire the current 5E rule as we find the auto fail on nat 1 to not be fun and pointless if no one is raising their modifier high enough to succeed on a nat 1. We find it fun to be able to build a character to the point where they can succeed on a nat 1.
Your idea does not solve the issue nor stops my arguments.
This rule is not official yet, it is still UA so there is still a chance for feedback to make it so that it does not become RAW. Unless you can stop that, you can't stop my arguments.
Then why are you playing a dice game? Why are you bothering to roll dice? Why not choose to play a game where dice are not needed and you just use your abilities that you have created for yourself. If there is no chance for failure, there is no point to roll, if there is no chance for success there is no point to roll.
Communicating that you are playing a dice game with chance of success and failure with EVERY ROLL solves the problem. It is really that easy.
Because it takes time and effort to reach that point. It is not like we start off at first level being able to succeed on a nat 1.
Furthermore, we aren't succeeding on a nat 1 if it is not in a roll we specialized in. A character may have +19 Con Saves but that won't help them in an int save for example.
We are also fine with failing on a nat 1 if the DC is high enough. If the DC is 21, and we rolled a nat 1 with a +19, we are fine with failing in that situation because we did not meet the DC. However if the DC is 10 and we have a +19, we should just succeed.
D&D uses Dice and Modifiers. You can optimize a character to increase their chance of succeeding. This is simply doing that, increasing the chance of success as high as we can.
Also, currently, if the minimum possible roll meets the DC, my group does not roll. It just succeeds as that is the current RAW and RAI in 5E.
We enjoy D&D 5E and we enjoy that by both RAW and RAI that we can build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 if they invest into making their character that good in that type of roll.
There is still a point for us to play a "dice game" even if you don't see it.
I've come around on this rule. At first I was like, "who cares, it's so rare anyway that you can basically ignore it." But now I'm thinking, putting it on the page makes people think about it. Makes people reference it, and use it as an example, and so on.
Furthermore, I don't think the tiny value add of having all the tests work the same way is worth the value loss of making ability checks really stupid.
Would not use this rule if it was made official.
Can I use this wording when I answer their survey later this week? I mean this exact wording?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Lol, be my guest. I will probably use a lot more words in mine.
I'm very curious about their survey methodology. On one hand, I hope they differentiate between people who played with the rules, and people who didn't. On the other hand, I hope they still listen to those of us who only read the rules, just... Maybe less? Idk. On a third hand (that's right, I have at least three), I hope they DON'T listen to people whose only brush with the rules was what their favorite YouTube drama person said about them. So, it's complicated.
Its hardly stacking stats to a ridiculous level if just having expertise in one of your skills will easily put you over +10 and mean you should be passing a number of checks on a nat 1.
And this is where the conversation begins to break down. Optimization is, by its very nature, restrictive. It only works by removing options from the game. Any rule which promotes optimization, and thus promotes the removal of options, is a bad rule. How many races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, and even equipment are we told are "bad" because they don't optimize well?
If you don't want to play with critical failures and successes, then don't play using those rules. You cannot look at only your niche enjoyment and say this is how the game should be played.
No it doesn't. Building a character is always about picking which of several options you'll use, and optimization is just a method of making that decision.
This goes both ways. Your desires carry no more weight than anyone else's.
The entire point of the UA and Survey is to get a consensus of how people play and what they want. In the end we will see how the community as a whole feels about it and that will be that. I will be voicing my desire to toss this concept into the garbage bin when the survey is available. I encourage you to vote how you desire and in the end we will see where it all ends up.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As others have stated, the statement that my enjoyment is niche goes both ways. The D&D fanbase is quite diverse and there is no invalid way of playing. Also, optimizing is not restrictive and does not need you to remove options from the game. It is a method of making decisions in the game. You are essentially saying optimization is bad and doing it is wrong, which is completely false as it is essentially saying that people are wrong to optimize, something that has been proven wrong since Stormwind's Fallacy was coined.
I'll do my best to answer everyone here, as I really don't feel like making four posts.
When you optimize, you must exclude suboptimal choices. It's an unavoidable reality. Races, classes, subclasses, feats, background, magic items...everything is placed under the microscope. The game, in its current iteration, does reward specialization. It does reward system mastery. Allowing for critical failures and successes does not diminish this fact. It adds an element of luck and unpredictability. This, in of itself, is not a bad thing.
I'm not going to fault someone for saying they want to optimize their character. That's their own business, and so long as it doesn't prove disruptive, I'm fine with it. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against anyone who thinks optimization should be the standard under which we all play. That's beyond intrusive. Players should have the freedom to make suboptimal choices. I think they should even be encouraged to do so, and I think the system needs to be designed with these people in mind. I get your frustration, but your previous words on the subject come across as moaning and the gnashing of teeth.
You don't like unpredictability. I think you're playing the wrong game.
Any time you build a character, you have to exclude a lot of choices, because there's a limit to how many you can put on your character. Excluding an option because it's inefficient is not different in kind from excluding an option because it doesn't fit your backstory or you just want another option more.
Optimization isn't always about picking the absolute best option. For example, optimizing a specific concept, like trying to recreate a character from another fandom, often has you pick overall suboptimal choices but optimal in the case of trying to recreate something.
No one is playing the wrong game. D&D is meant to be inclusive, including the people who don't like unpredictability because it offers mechanics to mitigate unpredictability, such as Reliable Talent for example.
Also, no one is saying optimization should be the standard under which we all play; what we are saying is that they should not be disregarded. Players have the freedom to make suboptimal choices under the current 5E rules without nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in fact, it generally doesn't even affect them if it exists or not. If someone is not the type to optimize, then they would normally fail with a nat 1 and likely succeed on a nat 20 (though that is less guaranteed, such as the DC being higher than what they can achieve). So quite literally for them, the nat 1 auto fail does not change anything for them at all; they would fail with a nat 1 before the rule change and they will fail with a nat 1 after the rule change. Rather than fighting tooth and nail to prevent optimization from being the standard, you are fighting tooth and nail to discourage optimization.
What the nat 1 auto fail does change things for are the people who do optimize and make characters capable of succeeding on a nat 1. The rule actually affects them as it can turn a 100% chance to a 95% chance. The people who optimize are actually affected by this rule while the people who don't are unlikely to be affected.
You have a very narrow restrictive view of optimisation. Optimisation can be done with any number of parameters including choices that might be viewed as suboptimal by some. It all depends on the parameters and end goal you're looking for when you decide to try and optimise.
Optimising without parameters is not super helpful really because obviously everyone will always end up with the same character. Limitations are where it gets interesting and where flavour gets introduced.