Having played most of my DnD career (40+ years) with a Nat 1 being not only a fail but a critical fail and a Nat 20 being a critical success I don’t have a problem with the rule. Not having DM crits is going to make party survival much more likely much of the time but I know several ways to deal with that. What having crit fails and hits does is indeed remove the “ you can’t make the roll needed so don’t bother trying”. That can slow play somewhat but typically doesn’t and when you get a chain of crits it makes the result truly memorable and game/character changing. The longest one I ever saw was a crit hit followed by 10 crit fails in a row.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
There are just as many posts from people like me who have also played with Crit misses/hits on ability checks and were happy to see the back of them this edition. I have been playing D&D for just shy of 3 decades since 2e and was happy they had moved away from critical fumbles and successes on anything other than attack rolls. Yet folks like you are as equally dismissive of our voices as you accuse us of being to yours. It goes both ways.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
Next time I recommend that you actually quote the post so people can see that you didn't read or maybe didn't understand it.
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
Next time I recommend that you actually quote the post so people can see that you didn't read or maybe didn't understand it.
You mean the post where you say you “never” allowed it and say “I don’t like it” but never say “I don’t like it based on my experience”? YOU might think you were clear, but the simple reality is that you never actually assert what you say you do.
I’m glad you - and others - have come around to articulating that you have actually used the system - that’s actually helpful information for folks trying to make an informed decision, and exactly what I was hoping folks would do. Thus far, only one person in the entire thread actually articulated both dislike and that they used the system - having more people do so, and explain their reasons for disliking it is certainly more useful than, say, stating how addition works while not saying “in my experience, addition is more fun than failure.”
Having played most of my DnD career (40+ years) with a Nat 1 being not only a fail but a critical fail and a Nat 20 being a critical success I don’t have a problem with the rule. Not having DM crits is going to make party survival much more likely much of the time but I know several ways to deal with that. What having crit fails and hits does is indeed remove the “ you can’t make the roll needed so don’t bother trying”. That can slow play somewhat but typically doesn’t and when you get a chain of crits it makes the result truly memorable and game/character changing. The longest one I ever saw was a crit hit followed by 10 crit fails in a row.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Pretty sure I stated that I have played with Auto Fail/Success on Nat 1/20 in a previous post, and that it felt miserable failing on a nat 1 when the modifier was enough to succeed on a nat 1. I have plenty of experience with the Nat 1 Auto Fails, having used it for a few years before switching over to the RAW rule and my groups have preferred it this way. You may not see meaning to be able to make a roll 100% of the time, but I and the people I played with did.
So if we are acknowledging people with experience having valid insights then you should also be acknowledging those of us who are against the Nat 1 auto fails as well, because we do have experience with and without that rule. Just because someone had a different outlook and opinion from you does not mean they don't have experience or are having a knee-jerk reaction. Honestly, someone shouldn't need to state that they have experience, it should be assumed they have prior experience if they are posting here. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they don't have experience. Being able to succeed on a nat 1 is not an objectively bad design as someone else has attempted to purport it as, people can enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 and see meaning in it.
In fact, here is the snippet where I stated I had experience with nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in response to someone accusing me of having a knee-jerk reaction.
Furthermore, this is not a knee-jerk reaction. I have experienced the rule in my group in the past as we used to use this rule. However, we found it miserable to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier would have allowed you to succeed otherwise and it sped up the game to see if your minimum roll would give you a success. Also, this type of response is very much helpful as One D&D is currently UA, meaning this is the time to be posting this type of response as it is discussion on the UA material. There are likely people on the fence with some aspects of the UA and they read dicussion to help form an opinion. To say that this type of discussion is not helpful is incorrect. I find making the auto fail/success rule the standard to be a terrible idea so there is no reason why I shouldn't debate against this rule and potentially turn the opinion of those on the fence towards my viewpoint as feedback on the UA will affect whether or not it makes it to the release version.
Sure I may not have stated how long I played with the auto fail/success rules, so I am stated it now, it was for a few years if we are looking at 5E. If we look at the entirety of my D&D (and Pathfinder) experience, it is even longer. My posts are not made with 0 play experiences, but years of it.
You mean the post where you say you “never” allowed it and say “I don’t like it” but never say “I don’t like it based on my experience”? YOU might think you were clear, but the simple reality is that you never actually assert what you say you do.
I’m glad you - and others - have come around to articulating that you have actually used the system - that’s actually helpful information for folks trying to make an informed decision, and exactly what I was hoping folks would do. Thus far, only one person in the entire thread actually articulated both dislike and that they used the system - having more people do so, and explain their reasons for disliking it is certainly more useful than, say, stating how addition works while not saying “in my experience, addition is more fun than failure.”
I even quoted in here for you and you still failed to read it. Let me do it again.
I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success, but I don't like the auto success of the Nat 20, because I don't like the auto fail of a Nat 1.
One of the things that I have enjoyed most about the 5e skill system is that anyone can attempt to do anything, but if you build a true expert in a given skill it really shows. I generally do varying levels of success for things like Performance, History and the like. If you roll a Performance check and roll a 1, but have a +11 to the check, you still did an decent job, not the best, but not bad either. If you are doing a History check, you may recall more information with a higher roll, but a Nat 1 with a +10 to the check, it isn't going to leave you with out anything.
I will likely continue with this style even if the changes proposed stick.
It does say that I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success. Is that what you are misreading?
But here you go, just so it is very very clear to you.
When I first started playing D&D, we didn't really have skills as people know them today. We played with critical successes and failures in 3/3.5 and Pathfinder. In 5e we adopted the new rules and we like them.
Edit: by We, I mean the people that I have played with for many years.
Having played most of my DnD career (40+ years) with a Nat 1 being not only a fail but a critical fail and a Nat 20 being a critical success I don’t have a problem with the rule. Not having DM crits is going to make party survival much more likely much of the time but I know several ways to deal with that. What having crit fails and hits does is indeed remove the “ you can’t make the roll needed so don’t bother trying”. That can slow play somewhat but typically doesn’t and when you get a chain of crits it makes the result truly memorable and game/character changing. The longest one I ever saw was a crit hit followed by 10 crit fails in a row.
Worth highlighting this post because, amid the rampant speculation folks have been engaging in on this thread, posts of this nature have been ignored. Go back through this thread and one would see a fair number of posts exactly like this - “I have actually played with critical successes and failures on skill checks and they actually improve gameplay by [assorted reasons listed].”
Yet, despite the consensus among folks who have actually used a rule like this, their posts are almost universally ignored by folks who want to snipe back and forth with their speculation - evidently actual data from players already doing this for years is not flashy enough for people who would prefer to rant about how they assume it might “destroy the game” of some such nonsense.
As everyone who actually plays with these rules know, the added element of randomness removes the fait accompli element of high-level gameplay; the feeling that players become near indestructible at high levels (amusingly, some of the folks complaining about this are the same folks who complain about how OP characters feel at high levels - it is almost like a lot of D&D players value complaining more than consistency in their own opinions!). Knowing there is a slight chance of failure on a roll adds meaning to rolls when players have stacked their stats super high, turning a check from something that’s already a given outcome into something that actually might result in something unexpected. As everyone who already played with this rule noted, that unexpected outcome almost always leads to laughter at the table, interesting story moments, and a general improvement of the game itself.
But, hey, why listen to all those folks when speculation based exclusively on rules text with either only cursory experimentation (but going into the experiment biased against the change) or (more likely) no in-game experience is so much easier than acknowledging others with experience might actually have valid insights!
Pretty sure I stated that I have played with Auto Fail/Success on Nat 1/20 in a previous post, and that it felt miserable failing on a nat 1 when the modifier was enough to succeed on a nat 1. I have plenty of experience with the Nat 1 Auto Fails, having used it for a few years before switching over to the RAW rule and my groups have preferred it this way. You may not see meaning to be able to make a roll 100% of the time, but I and the people I played with did.
So if we are acknowledging people with experience having valid insights then you should also be acknowledging those of us who are against the Nat 1 auto fails as well, because we do have experience with and without that rule. Just because someone had a different outlook and opinion from you does not mean they don't have experience or are having a knee-jerk reaction.
In fact, here is the snippet where I stated I had experience with nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in response to someone accusing me of having a knee-jerk reaction.
Furthermore, this is not a knee-jerk reaction. I have experienced the rule in my group in the past as we used to use this rule. However, we found it miserable to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier would have allowed you to succeed otherwise and it sped up the game to see if your minimum roll would give you a success. Also, this type of response is very much helpful as One D&D is currently UA, meaning this is the time to be posting this type of response as it is discussion on the UA material. There are likely people on the fence with some aspects of the UA and they read dicussion to help form an opinion. To say that this type of discussion is not helpful is incorrect. I find making the auto fail/success rule the standard to be a terrible idea so there is no reason why I shouldn't debate against this rule and potentially turn the opinion of those on the fence towards my viewpoint as feedback on the UA will affect whether or not it makes it to the release version.
Sure I may not have stated how long I played with the auto fail/success rules, so I am stated it now, it was for a few years if we are looking at 5E. If we look at the entirety of my D&D (and Pathfinder) experience, it is even longer. My posts are not made with 0 play experiences, but years of it.
Yep - I’ll admit to missing you in my review, and, for that, I’ll apologise. But, general communicating tip - if you have tangible experience with something, put it in your first post…. Not in the middle of a 8 paragraph post on your ninth post in the thread. There’s been a lot of useless speculation - real world experiences are the most useful information and folks with actual experience should highlight that so they can provide that data to others.
—
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
—
Anyway, I am glad my (somewhat flippant) post managed to get folks to more clearly articulate their real experiences and dislike of the system based thereon. It seems a number of folks who are against it have experienced both systems - but failed to affirmatively state such.
Those experiences, on both sides, are far more useful than a bunch of folks talking past each other about math. The math is easy and should be intuitive; how that math feels in terms of gameplay, as experienced by those who have used both systems, is far more useful.
Yep - I’ll admit to missing you in my review, and, for that, I’ll apologise. But, general communicating tip - if you have tangible experience with something, put it in your first post…. Not in the middle of a 8 paragraph post on your ninth post in the thread. There’s been a lot of useless speculation - real world experiences are the most useful information and folks with actual experience should highlight that so they can provide that data to others.
—
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
—
Anyway, I am glad my (somewhat flippant) post managed to get folks to more clearly articulate their real experiences and dislike of the system based thereon. It seems a number of folks who are against it have experienced both systems - but failed to affirmatively state such.
I shouldn't need to state that I have experience. It should be assumed if someone is posting here that they have experience. Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is something that people can easily have prior experience with. Out of all of the rules in the UA, this rule is the one that people can immediately comment on as they likely already have experience with it.
Honestly, I am concerned with the assumption that just because someone is against nat 1/20 auto fail/success that they never played with those rules. I saw it on reddit as well. Is it really that baffling that someone does not like nat 1/20 auto fail/success?
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
Allowed a system where rolls a player could not succeed in - I read that as not allowing rolls where a player with a low modifier can natural 20 to success. I suppose that could also be “jump to the moon” kind of rolls. Regardless, as I said - you never stated actual experience with the system, and, as I have also said, I am glad you have now clarified.
When the DM calls for an ability check, there should to be a chance of success or failure. If there isn't, then they're just wasting time. They're either padding egos or throwing their players up against literally impossible tasks. The DM can, and should, refrain from calling for die rolls when the outcome is already predetermined. So the critical failure/success rule shouldn't matter here. If it does, then all it does is encourage rolling more dice. Failures suck, but they aren't the end of the world. We can still learn something in our failures. And a success doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we get the best possible outcome. Attempting to seduce the dragon doesn't have to mean you actually seduce the dragon. It can just mean they find you amusing and won't eat you.
Attacks and saving throws are different. Those are forced by actions. There's no avoiding them; the DM can't just waive them. And because there's no choice, the solution should be painfully obvious. I get that y'all don't like it, but that's only because of perceived weakness. The die roll needs a consequence. Bringing up Legendary Resistance is a cop out. That's a finite resource the DM decides when to use. They don't have to use it on the first failed saving throw. Or the second. Or the third.
The best solution is probably something to take that edge off. I suggest shifting the Inspiration awarded for a Nat20 to the Nat1. The Nat20 is already a guaranteed success. It doesn't need a cherry on top. And learning something from a failure, pushing yourself to do better next time, makes sense.
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
Allowed a system where rolls a player could not succeed in - I read that as not allowing rolls where a player with a low modifier can natural 20 to success. I suppose that could also be “jump to the moon” kind of rolls. Regardless, as I said - you never stated actual experience with the system, and, as I have also said, I am glad you have now clarified.
That isn't what I said at all. There is a quote function, you can cut and paste, you can just retype the words, yet some how, you have proven completely incapable of not only reading what I said, but repeating it as well. Even after I have provided you the EXACT words multiple times. I have to assume that you are just trolling at this point.
When the DM calls for an ability check, there should to be a chance of success or failure. If there isn't, then they're just wasting time. They're either padding egos or throwing their players up against literally impossible tasks. The DM can, and should, refrain from calling for die rolls when the outcome is already predetermined. So the critical failure/success rule shouldn't matter here. If it does, then all it does is encourage rolling more dice. Failures suck, but they aren't the end of the world. We can still learn something in our failures. And a success doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we get the best possible outcome. Attempting to seduce the dragon doesn't have to mean you actually seduce the dragon. It can just mean they find you amusing and won't eat you.
Attacks and saving throws are different. Those are forced by actions. There's no avoiding them; the DM can't just waive them. And because there's no choice, the solution should be painfully obvious. I get that y'all don't like it, but that's only because of perceived weakness. The die roll needs a consequence. Bringing up Legendary Resistance is a cop out. That's a finite resource the DM decides when to use. They don't have to use it on the first failed saving throw. Or the second. Or the third.
The best solution is probably something to take that edge off. I suggest shifting the Inspiration awarded for a Nat20 to the Nat1. The Nat20 is already a guaranteed success. It doesn't need a cherry on top. And learning something from a failure, pushing yourself to do better next time, makes sense.
I say the best solution is to use the 5E rules that have been working for nearly a decade, where a nat 1 and 20 do not give auto fail or successes. It is perfectly fine for someone to be able to guarantee a roll. If it wasn't, then why did it go so well for my group? Being able to no-sell mind blasts actually enhanced the experience for my group. Fact is, being able to succeed on a nat 1 is not bad design and it works for a number groups, always has, and I say this as someone who has experienced both and failing on a nat 1 when your modifier would otherwise let you succeed on a nat 1 did not feel fun at all. Some people may find it fun, but not all, and it is not a case of D&D not being the game for them.
Not all dice rolls need a chance of failure. It is fine to say that someone just succeeds because their modifier is high enough. After all, they have other rolls that have a chance of failure and they can still fail if the DC is high enough that they can't succeed on a nat 1.
Fact is that there are groups that switched from Nat 1/20 auto fail/success and found it to be a superior experience, this includes being able to guarantee success on certain rolls. it is not a case of taking the edge off, it is being able to put the effort and investment into achieving something and not seeing it auto fail 5% of the time. People are not wrong for seeing it that way; their way of playing D&D is not wrong.
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.
Here is the problem and how it limits. Wizard doesn't have lockpicking skill some think they can never try. Of course they can. It will be harder but of course they can try. Don't have tavern brawler? You can still pick up a chair and hit someone over the head with it. Anyone can pick up a sword and swing it. Anyone can lie List goes on. DC may change though. People specialize and see it on their character sheet and then only see the things they are good at. That limits options. Then of course there is the problem of some people thinking the Wizard hanging out with a Rogue can't learn how to pick a lock without multiclassing
None of that has anything at all to do with optimization. Optimization is just building your character to be good at whatever you want your character to be good at.
When the DM calls for an ability check, there should to be a chance of success or failure. If there isn't, then they're just wasting time. They're either padding egos or throwing their players up against literally impossible tasks. The DM can, and should, refrain from calling for die rolls when the outcome is already predetermined. So the critical failure/success rule shouldn't matter here. If it does, then all it does is encourage rolling more dice. Failures suck, but they aren't the end of the world. We can still learn something in our failures. And a success doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we get the best possible outcome. Attempting to seduce the dragon doesn't have to mean you actually seduce the dragon. It can just mean they find you amusing and won't eat you.
Attacks and saving throws are different. Those are forced by actions. There's no avoiding them; the DM can't just waive them. And because there's no choice, the solution should be painfully obvious. I get that y'all don't like it, but that's only because of perceived weakness. The die roll needs a consequence. Bringing up Legendary Resistance is a cop out. That's a finite resource the DM decides when to use. They don't have to use it on the first failed saving throw. Or the second. Or the third.
The best solution is probably something to take that edge off. I suggest shifting the Inspiration awarded for a Nat20 to the Nat1. The Nat20 is already a guaranteed success. It doesn't need a cherry on top. And learning something from a failure, pushing yourself to do better next time, makes sense.
I say the best solution is to use the 5E rules that have been working for nearly a decade, where a nat 1 and 20 do not give auto fail or successes. It is perfectly fine for someone to be able to guarantee a roll. If it wasn't, then why did it go so well for my group? Being able to no-sell mind blasts actually enhanced the experience for my group. Fact is, being able to succeed on a nat 1 is not bad design and it works for a number groups, always has, and I say this as someone who has experienced both and failing on a nat 1 when your modifier would otherwise let you succeed on a nat 1 did not feel fun at all. Some people may find it fun, but not all, and it is not a case of D&D not being the game for them.
Not all dice rolls need a chance of failure. It is fine to say that someone just succeeds because their modifier is high enough. After all, they have other rolls that have a chance of failure and they can still fail if the DC is high enough that they can't succeed on a nat 1.
Fact is that there are groups that switched from Nat 1/20 auto fail/success and found it to be a superior experience, this includes being able to guarantee success on certain rolls. it is not a case of taking the edge off, it is being able to put the effort and investment into achieving something and not seeing it auto fail 5% of the time. People are not wrong for seeing it that way; their way of playing D&D is not wrong.
You keep saying die rolls don't need a failure chance. All I'm seeing is someone advocating for consequence-free play. You want all the reward with none of the risk. If a die roll doesn't have a chance of failure, then don't roll the die. If the die roll doesn't have a chance of success or some other benefit, then don't roll the die. The problem, and I've been saying this for a while to deaf ears and blind eyes, is we aren't always given that choice. Sometimes that roll is forced, and when that happens there needs to be a consequence. Don't force an exercise in randomness with a fixed outcome.
It's inconsistent to selectively apply the critical success and failure rule. It's wasteful and, worse, deceitful. Every inconsequential die rolled is a lie the DM tells their players. And if a roll is forced, there needs to be a chance of failure. Otherwise, there's no reason to forcing the roll in the first place.
Vernacular has changed a bit, and that could be a source of confusion. There have been a critical success and failure with the d20 since at least 2002. It was a variant rule found on page 34 of the DMG, and it worked differently than this UA proposal. You had to roll again, either success or failure, to confirm. And if confirmed, then something extra─good or bad─would happen. And, like I said earlier, this UA proposal doesn't really impact ability checks. Those happen because the DM calls for them, so the DM has already made the determination the check can succeed or fail. Some tasks can just be that routine and no roll is necessary.
But back in 3.5, both attack rolls and saving throws were subject to automatic successes and failures. If you rolled a natural 20, you passed. And if you rolled a natural 1, you failed. And that makes sense because they're not entirely in the DM's hands. The player can decide to attack or [Tooltip Not Found], for example, and they don't need the DM's permission. Combat is its own mini-game with special rules. Sometimes an action might even call for both an attack and saving throw; like with the wolf's bite.
I mean, for crying out loud...
Saving Throws
A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm.
How can you read that and think there shouldn't be at least a 5% chance of failure? If you're forced, then you need to be at risk of harm. If there's no risk, then there's no saving throw. But because a saving throw is forced, you must have that change, however minute, of failing and suffering harm.
So would people feel the same if it was on a percentile die and you only have a 1% chance of failure? What percentage failure is Ok with you? It can't be zero.
Sure it can. Most of the time it isn't. If you've got a modifier of +5 and you want to succeed on something that's DC 20, you have a 70% chance of failure.
Thing is... You know in advance that you're trying something that's difficult for your character and that they're not (yet) very good at.
That's very different from, say, being asked to make a roll for a check that you should, in 5e RAW, succeed on with just your passive score because your DM has decided that there should always be a chance for failure and getting screwed out of succeeding on something that your character specialises in by rolling a 1. (Especially if some other party member who isn't even proficient at that thing then succeeds by rolling a 6 or something).
If you are rolling a die to determine an outcome at something then there should be a fear of failure.
I don't think it's fair to say that there should be fear of anything, ever. There can be. That kind of suspense can even be fun and exhilarating. But I wouldn't decide for others that they need to go through that as a rule. (But then, I actually have an anxiety disorder, so I know first hand that there are people for whom even 'fun' low stakes fear can cause panic attacks even when, intellectually, they know it doesn't really matter.)
I don't understand the feel bad argument. If that is the case then just let everyone succeed at everything. Can't have anyone feel bad.
It's not just 'feeling bad'. It's a specific kind of feeling bad. It's the fact that something about human psychology makes failing feel much worse if you had no agency in it. If you weren't allowed to do anything to prevent it. In D&D's case, modifiers are what allow you to have some agency to affect the randomness of your rolls.
Also... Do you hear yourself? If playing a game that's supposed to be enjoyable makes people feel bad instead, that's a frickin' problem.
Instead of thinking how bad it is your big high level perfect character should never fail think of it as a role-playing opportunity. Let's say your character has a +19 to fear roles and the DC is 20. You're going to suceed 95% of the time. Willing to bet it comes up so rarely that you're going to succeed the more than that (meaning you are rolling fear roles so rarely that you're going to succeed). You roll a 1. So now this character who rarely feels fear suddenly is afraid. What do they do?
That depends pretty heavily on context. If failing that save just causes you to be frightened for one turn before you get to roll the save again and you succeed and finish the combat, then sure, that'll give you a nice role play moment afterwards. But if it's a save against a Legendary action by the BBEG just as he's about to complete his grand ritual to end the world and spending a round Frightened causes you to not be able to move to where you need to to stop the ritual? That retroactively turns the entire campaign you just played into a pointless exercise. All the work the entire party did to get to that moment... The entire climax of the story... Ruined because someone decided you should always have at least an arbitrary 5% chance to fail anything you try.
And it doesn't matter that maybe only one in a thousand groups playing the game ever experiences that kind of situation once in their entire time playing D&D. Because what matters is that it can happen and it doesn't have to.
It is simple. If you are bringing an element of chance into the game there needs to be a chance of failure.
Sure, but this rule does that in reverse. Rather than bringing an element of chance into the game, it brings a chance of failure into the game that in turn brings an element of chance into everything. Or at least into anything that can be rolled for. It makes it so that anything that can be rolled for, has to be rolled for, because there is always a chance for failure.
Oh as the above poster brought of White Wolf, we played Vampire when it first came out. We had no problem with the die rolls. Sure even the most powerful may, on occasion, fail. We just went with it.
Great for you, I guess? White Wolf disagreed, because that rule was actively losing them players (who also disagreed) which is why they axed it.
If failing that save just causes you to be frightened for one turn before you get to roll the save again and you succeed and finish the combat, then sure, that'll give you a nice role play moment afterwards. But if it's a save against a Legendary action by the BBEG just as he's about to complete his grand ritual to end the world and spending a round Frightened causes you to not be able to move to where you need to to stop the ritual? That retroactively turns the entire campaign you just played into a pointless exercise. All the work the entire party did to get to that moment... The entire climax of the story... Ruined because someone decided you should always have at least an arbitrary 5% chance to fail anything you try.
And it doesn't matter that maybe only one in a thousand groups playing the game ever experiences that kind of situation once in their entire time playing D&D. Because what matters is that it can happen and it doesn't have to.
Tell us you haven't played Curse of Strahd without saying you haven't played Curse of Strahd. I've run it to multiple TPKs.
Failing to stop the BBEG doesn't mean the entire campaign was ruined or a pointless exercise. Stories are allowed to end on a dour note. Nobody owes you the win.
There are just as many posts from people like me who have also played with Crit misses/hits on ability checks and were happy to see the back of them this edition. I have been playing D&D for just shy of 3 decades since 2e and was happy they had moved away from critical fumbles and successes on anything other than attack rolls. Yet folks like you are as equally dismissive of our voices as you accuse us of being to yours. It goes both ways.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Believe it or not, some of us that have played for 40+ years that don't agree with you. I like the the lack of critical successes and failures on skills that came with 5e.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
*Reads your first post where you simply state you never allowed this, were happy your absolute homerule was adipted in 5e, but do not actually say that you have ever tried it. Reads thiz post by you where you say you don’t like the idea, but again fail to state you have actually given it a go.*
Now, if you have actual experience, feel free to state it - that would be a useful data point to the discussion. Thus far, that “40 year crowd who hates it” has been either silent or, as you are, poorly communicating their experiences.
I've played with it. For close to a decade. I'm happier without it and do not anticipate its return with any enthusiasm.
Next time I recommend that you actually quote the post so people can see that you didn't read or maybe didn't understand it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You mean the post where you say you “never” allowed it and say “I don’t like it” but never say “I don’t like it based on my experience”? YOU might think you were clear, but the simple reality is that you never actually assert what you say you do.
I’m glad you - and others - have come around to articulating that you have actually used the system - that’s actually helpful information for folks trying to make an informed decision, and exactly what I was hoping folks would do. Thus far, only one person in the entire thread actually articulated both dislike and that they used the system - having more people do so, and explain their reasons for disliking it is certainly more useful than, say, stating how addition works while not saying “in my experience, addition is more fun than failure.”
Pretty sure I stated that I have played with Auto Fail/Success on Nat 1/20 in a previous post, and that it felt miserable failing on a nat 1 when the modifier was enough to succeed on a nat 1. I have plenty of experience with the Nat 1 Auto Fails, having used it for a few years before switching over to the RAW rule and my groups have preferred it this way. You may not see meaning to be able to make a roll 100% of the time, but I and the people I played with did.
So if we are acknowledging people with experience having valid insights then you should also be acknowledging those of us who are against the Nat 1 auto fails as well, because we do have experience with and without that rule. Just because someone had a different outlook and opinion from you does not mean they don't have experience or are having a knee-jerk reaction. Honestly, someone shouldn't need to state that they have experience, it should be assumed they have prior experience if they are posting here. Just because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't mean they don't have experience. Being able to succeed on a nat 1 is not an objectively bad design as someone else has attempted to purport it as, people can enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 and see meaning in it.
In fact, here is the snippet where I stated I had experience with nat 1/20 auto fail/success, in response to someone accusing me of having a knee-jerk reaction.
Sure I may not have stated how long I played with the auto fail/success rules, so I am stated it now, it was for a few years if we are looking at 5E. If we look at the entirety of my D&D (and Pathfinder) experience, it is even longer. My posts are not made with 0 play experiences, but years of it.
I even quoted in here for you and you still failed to read it. Let me do it again.
It does say that I have never allowed rolls that have no chance of success. Is that what you are misreading?
But here you go, just so it is very very clear to you.
When I first started playing D&D, we didn't really have skills as people know them today. We played with critical successes and failures in 3/3.5 and Pathfinder. In 5e we adopted the new rules and we like them.
Edit: by We, I mean the people that I have played with for many years.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yep - I’ll admit to missing you in my review, and, for that, I’ll apologise. But, general communicating tip - if you have tangible experience with something, put it in your first post…. Not in the middle of a 8 paragraph post on your ninth post in the thread. There’s been a lot of useless speculation - real world experiences are the most useful information and folks with actual experience should highlight that so they can provide that data to others.
—
@Golaryn - I did not misread anything. You state you “never” allowed it. That is a negative statement that does not say “but I have done it.” I don’t make it a habit to assume facts nor in evidence, and your original post is quite silent on any affirmative statements of experience.
—
Anyway, I am glad my (somewhat flippant) post managed to get folks to more clearly articulate their real experiences and dislike of the system based thereon. It seems a number of folks who are against it have experienced both systems - but failed to affirmatively state such.
Those experiences, on both sides, are far more useful than a bunch of folks talking past each other about math. The math is easy and should be intuitive; how that math feels in terms of gameplay, as experienced by those who have used both systems, is far more useful.
I shouldn't need to state that I have experience. It should be assumed if someone is posting here that they have experience. Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is something that people can easily have prior experience with. Out of all of the rules in the UA, this rule is the one that people can immediately comment on as they likely already have experience with it.
Honestly, I am concerned with the assumption that just because someone is against nat 1/20 auto fail/success that they never played with those rules. I saw it on reddit as well. Is it really that baffling that someone does not like nat 1/20 auto fail/success?
Never allowed what? Use your words. What does my post say that I never allowed? Quote directly what "it" is that I never allow.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Allowed a system where rolls a player could not succeed in - I read that as not allowing rolls where a player with a low modifier can natural 20 to success. I suppose that could also be “jump to the moon” kind of rolls. Regardless, as I said - you never stated actual experience with the system, and, as I have also said, I am glad you have now clarified.
A die roll needs to have consequences.
When the DM calls for an ability check, there should to be a chance of success or failure. If there isn't, then they're just wasting time. They're either padding egos or throwing their players up against literally impossible tasks. The DM can, and should, refrain from calling for die rolls when the outcome is already predetermined. So the critical failure/success rule shouldn't matter here. If it does, then all it does is encourage rolling more dice. Failures suck, but they aren't the end of the world. We can still learn something in our failures. And a success doesn't mean we get what we want. It means we get the best possible outcome. Attempting to seduce the dragon doesn't have to mean you actually seduce the dragon. It can just mean they find you amusing and won't eat you.
Attacks and saving throws are different. Those are forced by actions. There's no avoiding them; the DM can't just waive them. And because there's no choice, the solution should be painfully obvious. I get that y'all don't like it, but that's only because of perceived weakness. The die roll needs a consequence. Bringing up Legendary Resistance is a cop out. That's a finite resource the DM decides when to use. They don't have to use it on the first failed saving throw. Or the second. Or the third.
The best solution is probably something to take that edge off. I suggest shifting the Inspiration awarded for a Nat20 to the Nat1. The Nat20 is already a guaranteed success. It doesn't need a cherry on top. And learning something from a failure, pushing yourself to do better next time, makes sense.
That isn't what I said at all. There is a quote function, you can cut and paste, you can just retype the words, yet some how, you have proven completely incapable of not only reading what I said, but repeating it as well. Even after I have provided you the EXACT words multiple times. I have to assume that you are just trolling at this point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I say the best solution is to use the 5E rules that have been working for nearly a decade, where a nat 1 and 20 do not give auto fail or successes. It is perfectly fine for someone to be able to guarantee a roll. If it wasn't, then why did it go so well for my group? Being able to no-sell mind blasts actually enhanced the experience for my group. Fact is, being able to succeed on a nat 1 is not bad design and it works for a number groups, always has, and I say this as someone who has experienced both and failing on a nat 1 when your modifier would otherwise let you succeed on a nat 1 did not feel fun at all. Some people may find it fun, but not all, and it is not a case of D&D not being the game for them.
Not all dice rolls need a chance of failure. It is fine to say that someone just succeeds because their modifier is high enough. After all, they have other rolls that have a chance of failure and they can still fail if the DC is high enough that they can't succeed on a nat 1.
Fact is that there are groups that switched from Nat 1/20 auto fail/success and found it to be a superior experience, this includes being able to guarantee success on certain rolls. it is not a case of taking the edge off, it is being able to put the effort and investment into achieving something and not seeing it auto fail 5% of the time. People are not wrong for seeing it that way; their way of playing D&D is not wrong.
None of that has anything at all to do with optimization. Optimization is just building your character to be good at whatever you want your character to be good at.
You keep saying die rolls don't need a failure chance. All I'm seeing is someone advocating for consequence-free play. You want all the reward with none of the risk. If a die roll doesn't have a chance of failure, then don't roll the die. If the die roll doesn't have a chance of success or some other benefit, then don't roll the die. The problem, and I've been saying this for a while to deaf ears and blind eyes, is we aren't always given that choice. Sometimes that roll is forced, and when that happens there needs to be a consequence. Don't force an exercise in randomness with a fixed outcome.
It's inconsistent to selectively apply the critical success and failure rule. It's wasteful and, worse, deceitful. Every inconsequential die rolled is a lie the DM tells their players. And if a roll is forced, there needs to be a chance of failure. Otherwise, there's no reason to forcing the roll in the first place.
Vernacular has changed a bit, and that could be a source of confusion. There have been a critical success and failure with the d20 since at least 2002. It was a variant rule found on page 34 of the DMG, and it worked differently than this UA proposal. You had to roll again, either success or failure, to confirm. And if confirmed, then something extra─good or bad─would happen. And, like I said earlier, this UA proposal doesn't really impact ability checks. Those happen because the DM calls for them, so the DM has already made the determination the check can succeed or fail. Some tasks can just be that routine and no roll is necessary.
But back in 3.5, both attack rolls and saving throws were subject to automatic successes and failures. If you rolled a natural 20, you passed. And if you rolled a natural 1, you failed. And that makes sense because they're not entirely in the DM's hands. The player can decide to attack or [Tooltip Not Found], for example, and they don't need the DM's permission. Combat is its own mini-game with special rules. Sometimes an action might even call for both an attack and saving throw; like with the wolf's bite.
I mean, for crying out loud...
How can you read that and think there shouldn't be at least a 5% chance of failure? If you're forced, then you need to be at risk of harm. If there's no risk, then there's no saving throw. But because a saving throw is forced, you must have that change, however minute, of failing and suffering harm.
Sure it can. Most of the time it isn't. If you've got a modifier of +5 and you want to succeed on something that's DC 20, you have a 70% chance of failure.
Thing is... You know in advance that you're trying something that's difficult for your character and that they're not (yet) very good at.
That's very different from, say, being asked to make a roll for a check that you should, in 5e RAW, succeed on with just your passive score because your DM has decided that there should always be a chance for failure and getting screwed out of succeeding on something that your character specialises in by rolling a 1. (Especially if some other party member who isn't even proficient at that thing then succeeds by rolling a 6 or something).
I don't think it's fair to say that there should be fear of anything, ever. There can be. That kind of suspense can even be fun and exhilarating. But I wouldn't decide for others that they need to go through that as a rule. (But then, I actually have an anxiety disorder, so I know first hand that there are people for whom even 'fun' low stakes fear can cause panic attacks even when, intellectually, they know it doesn't really matter.)
It's not just 'feeling bad'. It's a specific kind of feeling bad. It's the fact that something about human psychology makes failing feel much worse if you had no agency in it. If you weren't allowed to do anything to prevent it. In D&D's case, modifiers are what allow you to have some agency to affect the randomness of your rolls.
Also... Do you hear yourself? If playing a game that's supposed to be enjoyable makes people feel bad instead, that's a frickin' problem.
That depends pretty heavily on context. If failing that save just causes you to be frightened for one turn before you get to roll the save again and you succeed and finish the combat, then sure, that'll give you a nice role play moment afterwards. But if it's a save against a Legendary action by the BBEG just as he's about to complete his grand ritual to end the world and spending a round Frightened causes you to not be able to move to where you need to to stop the ritual? That retroactively turns the entire campaign you just played into a pointless exercise. All the work the entire party did to get to that moment... The entire climax of the story... Ruined because someone decided you should always have at least an arbitrary 5% chance to fail anything you try.
And it doesn't matter that maybe only one in a thousand groups playing the game ever experiences that kind of situation once in their entire time playing D&D. Because what matters is that it can happen and it doesn't have to.
Sure, but this rule does that in reverse. Rather than bringing an element of chance into the game, it brings a chance of failure into the game that in turn brings an element of chance into everything. Or at least into anything that can be rolled for. It makes it so that anything that can be rolled for, has to be rolled for, because there is always a chance for failure.
Great for you, I guess? White Wolf disagreed, because that rule was actively losing them players (who also disagreed) which is why they axed it.
Tell us you haven't played Curse of Strahd without saying you haven't played Curse of Strahd. I've run it to multiple TPKs.
Failing to stop the BBEG doesn't mean the entire campaign was ruined or a pointless exercise. Stories are allowed to end on a dour note. Nobody owes you the win.
Well, critical failure is just failure, not anything special or extra-bad. And those characters do not have the same chance of failure, clearly.