Can someone explain to me why a character with +12 on their save should have the same chance of critical failure as someone with a +2?
There's no such thing as critical failure.
There was a rule I recall from somewhere, I think something third party, where a 20 was only a critical success if it would have been a success normally.
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 cast a spell, 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.
I am not advocating for consequence free play, stop trying to attach falsehoods to my words; I already stated that I am fine with failing if the DC is high enough. I also stated I am fine with failing in other rolls that I did not specialize in. Stop trying to make me out as someone who wants to be able to automatically succeed on every single roll because that is not the case. It takes effort and investment to get a character to the point where they can succeed on a save with a nat 1; it sucks to have that effort and investment negated 5% of the time. If someone actually optimized their character to get to that point, they should be allowed to take full advantage of it and not have it be negated on them 5% of the time.
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.
I can read that description of Saving Throws and think there shouldn't be at least a 5% chance of failure because it takes investment and effort to reach that point. Plus there is still a risk of harm if the effect has an effect on a successful save, usually half damage. Just because there is no chance of failure doesn't mean there is no saving throw. It has been working this way since 5E was released and it has been working fine. If it wasn't, then groups wouldn't be using the rule and having fun with it. I believe it is possible for someone to train themselves to trivialize a task to the point where it is akin to breathing to them.
In fact, I'll say it again. It is fine for a Saving Throw to have a 100% chance of success if the player has put in the effort made the necessary investments to optimize their saving throw to the point where they can succeed on a Nat 1.
5E's current rule for Nat 1/20 is not bad design. I'd honestly say it is good design.
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.
While yes no body owes you the win, losing to that 5% when without the auto fail rule you would have won, just sucks. It's anti-climatic and just feels like victory was stolen from you. If your actions directly lead to the lost then it would be fine, but in that situation it was just a 5% RNG screwing you over regardless of what you did. The issue is that 5% can just outright negate any and all preparation, it takes agency away from the player.
Also, I am pretty sure just because they think that way doesn't necessary mean they haven't played Curse of Strahd, at least the 5E version anyway.
Can someone explain to me why a character with +12 on their save should have the same chance of critical failure as someone with a +2?
Really, if that could be explained in a way that made sense to me, then I would feel better about this rule.
+12 represents their skill.
Dice rolls represent their luck.
The idea being no matter how skilled someone is, there is still a chance for an unlucky happenstance to befall them - and vice versa, there is a chance an unskilled person can get very lucky every now and again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Can someone explain to me why a character with +12 on their save should have the same chance of critical failure as someone with a +2?
Really, if that could be explained in a way that made sense to me, then I would feel better about this rule.
+12 represents their skill.
Dice rolls represent their luck.
The idea being no matter how skilled someone is, there is still a chance for an unlucky happenstance to befall them - and vice versa, there is a chance an unskilled person can get very lucky every now and again.
Someone being able to succeed on a nat 1 goes beyond skilled; at that point the task at hand should be akin to breathing for them. Furthermore 5% is too high for a unlucky happenstance.
Someone being able to succeed on a nat 1 goes beyond skilled; at that point the task at hand should be akin to breathing for them. Furthermore 5% is too high for a unlucky happenstance.
A natural one is Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note. No matter how natural their talent is; yes, it can still happen.
Whether 5% is too high; well I happen to agree; hence I'm more of a fan of such things being specifically tied to disadvantage rolls as opposed to standard rolls as well as other variant options that decrease the % such as threat/confirmation or use of 2d10 even.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
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.
Ok, so first off:
I'm a DM, pretty much exclusively, so my win condition is when my players enjoy the game I run`and my fail condition is when they get discouraged or frustrated and don't feel like playing anymore.
Secondly:
Really? Your counterpoint to the idea that a random bad roll screwing you out of defeating the BBEG can make an entire campaign feel ruined is to cite the one adventure for 5e that is specifically designed to be randomised every time you play it so that, win or lose, you can go back to play it again in a little while without having to do the exact same thing all over again?
Look... I've run straight up meat grinder one-shots in the past, but the core there is that the players knew in advance that the goal of that one-shot wasn't to win, but to see how far they could get. And that's still different from getting shafted by an arbitrary auto-fail.
Someone being able to succeed on a nat 1 goes beyond skilled; at that point the task at hand should be akin to breathing for them. Furthermore 5% is too high for a unlucky happenstance.
A natural one is Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note. No matter how natural their talent is; yes, it can still happen.
Whether 5% is too high; well I happen to agree; hence I'm more of a fan of such things being specifically tied to disadvantage rolls as opposed to standard rolls as well as other variant options that decrease the % such as threat/confirmation or use of 2d10 even.
I'd argue that being able to succeed on a Nat 1 goes a bit beyond that. You are quite literally trivializing the task at hand to an insane degree. I'd argue that Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note just means they didn't have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1.
Under normal circumstances, without any additional boosts, a character maxes out a modifier at +11. That is having proficiency and maxing out a stat to 20, which is described as the mortal limit in 5E. Going beyond 20 in a stat means you are exceeding what a mortal should be capable of. +11 is essentially the normal mortal limit and you are among the best of the best if you have a modifier that high. Granted, D&D math never fully translated into real world analogies too well. However, I do feel that when you are approaching the absurdly high modifiers like +17, you are essentially Super Human at that task.
Something to keep in mind with these new rules is reroll mechanics are in growing increasingly common so in practicality it's not 5% chance ofa critical failure it's .25% or even .013% with minimal planning.
I'm working on a script to figure out how the changes the inspiration are going to directly impact these rules for 1/20.
Is that fully calculatable though? Because you aren't always going to have that inspiration and it depends a lot on what happened with previous actions. I feel like there are way too many factors at hand for that.
The other issue with the Nat 1/20 Auto Fail/Success rule is that if you are going to enforce that 5% fail chance, you are going to be slowing the game down. Every time someone could succeed on a nat 1, you can just skip the actual roll, which can speed the game up a decent amount. Sure each roll is a small amount of time, but with how often you roll, that amount of time can add up.
Making a specific post to address this particular bag of manure...
My dude, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word 'consequence'.
In narratives a consequence is the (usually, but not always, bad) result of a choice or action. A negative result from a die roll isn't a freaking 'consequence' , it's just bad luck.
If the party rocks up to the local king and starts insulting him to his face and he orders their execution, that is a consequence.
If the party approaches the local king and the party face respectfully requests an audience and he rolls a 1 and auto-fails on his DC 10 persuasion check despite having +12 to Persuasion, that's not a consequence, that's just random bullshit.
I'm going to offer some perspective from a different game:
Anyone who recognises my avatar probably already knows which one, but for the rest: Vampire the Masquerade.
Now... Rolling dice in VtM works very differently from D&D. Instead of rolling a single d20 and adding a modifier, the Storyteller System works with dice pools where you roll a pool of d10s determined by one's stats and any relevant bonuses and try to beat a difficulty set by the gamemaster (Storyteller or ST in the system's parlance). Various version of the game had different ways for determining said difficulty. Early on it was the number you had to roll on the die to make it count as a success (an easy task might require a 4 on a d10 for a success, an almost impossible task might require an 8) with any success on a single die meaning the action succeeded and the number of successes determining the magnitude of that success. Later on it moved to making the number required for a success static (a 6 or above) and making the difficulty determined by a minimum number of successes required.
In early versions of that system had a rule that regarded a '1' on a d10 to be a critical failure, which wouldn't simply not be a success on that die, but also negate one success on another die. The exception being a 10. A 10 was a guaranteed success that couldn't be negated by a 1 (so if you roll four dice and the results are 9,9, 1,1 you fail, because the two 1s cancel out the two 9s, but if you roll 10, 1, 1, 1 you succeed, because the three 1s can't cancel the automatic success of the 10).
So why does this matter?
That system was changed intentionally, because it felt bad to play with. Initially people couldn't really put into words why it felt bad, just that it did. So White Wolf did a lot of playtesting and gathered a lot of feedback and ultimately they reached a conclusion: Having any result on a roll be an automatic failure was more frustrating than it was beneficial.
The main way that a character would get stronger was to increase stats in order to increase the dice pool and therefore increasing the chance of getting at least one success in the roll.... But increasing dice pools also increased the chance of getting at least one 1. As your dice pool increased, the chance of succeeding did statistically increase, of course. But the psychological effect of knowing that a fluke could still ruin everything meant that it didn't feel like your character was getting stronger. The system had another mechanic for generating automatic successes, the willpower stat, which would grant you a limited pool of points you could spend to get one automatic success on a test that couldn't be negated by rolling a 1. And in playtesting they found that despite being far more expensive to raise than the stats that determine dice pools, most players would prefer to save up their xp points (VtM works on a system where instead of getting stat increases across the board when reaching a certain xp threshold, xp points can be spent directly to raise one's statistics) to buy more willpower.
Because with the looming spectre of your dice screwing you and causing you to automatically fail at something your character was supposed to be really, really good at, most players would prefer increasing their ability to enjoy the safety of that single, unspectacular success rather than making their character actually good at things.
Ultimately it was discovered that having the possibility of rolling 1s and negating their successes has a psychological effect far beyond the likelihood of it actually happening... Because when it did happen it felt so bad, because people felt cheated out of a success, that it outweighed the numerous instances where it didn't in the minds of the players. It made players afraid to roll their dice, because the mere chance that a straight roll could result in a complete failure even on a maximum dice pool felt so off puting that many players would just default to 'I spend a willpower, I'm not even going to bother rolling, tell me what my one success gets me'... And VtM already had far less emphasis on rolling than D&D does.
So they changed it. They still wanted to have the possibility of critical failures, because VtM is a drama game and nothing generates drama like an unmitigated failure. And when I say 'they' I don't just mean the designers. I mean the players as well. The players wanted a possibility of critical failure, just not the one they had. So they made it so that instead of subtracting successes from the rest of the roll, a 1 didn't matter if you rolled any successes, but triggered a critical failure if you didn't get at least one success.
And that felt a lot better. Because, sure, rolling a 1 could still be bad, but it would only be bad if the roll was a failure anyway. You were no longer 'cheated' out of a success by randomly rolling a 1. So rolling a 1 on a failure became almost as exciting as rolling six successes (VtM's version of a critical success).
Because the problem was never that a 1 could cause you to fail in and of itself, it was that rolling a 1 could turn what would otherwise have been a success into a failure.
The same is true for D&D. If you have a high enough modifier to succeed on a check regardless of what you roll then getting 'cheated' out of that success by rolling a 1 feels far worse than if you fail the check when you only had a middling chance to succeed in the first place.
Beyond that, though, there's another reason to keep '1 is critical miss, 20 is a critical success' only on attack rolls:
Failing a save is often far, far more devastating than failing an attack roll. With the exception of a desperate, hail-Mary attack on a creature that is close to death, but also about to wreck the party's sh... erhm poop, failing on an attack roll doesn't often have direct character ending consequences. You just... Miss one attack and did a little less damage a little less quickly this combat than if you'd succeeded. You'll make another next turn... Or if you have more than one attack per turn, you'll make another one right after (or made one already before on this turn).
But a save? Failing a save can be the difference between taking a lot of damage and taking an instantly lethal amount of damage. It can lead to a character suffering a debilitating condition that effectively takes them out of the running for the rest of the fight. A single failed save can result in widespread consequences that lead to a TPK in a way that a single failed attack almost never will.
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, suffering a TPK because one player failed a save due to getting an automatic failure by rolling a 1 on a roll that they would have succeeded at had they rolled any other number... including a 1 if that hadn't been an automatic failure... is the kind of utterly demoralising situation that can lead to the entire group just straight up giving up on the game.
Sure, objectively speaking it's just a fluke. It's not very likely to happen. But the fact that it can happen? That it does happen? That knowledge alone is enough to lead to people having anxiety attacks about a game that is, ultimately, supposed to be about telling a fun story with your friends (or, sometimes, people that you somewhat tolerate because they're the only people around you can play with).
I love the storyteller system, but, the difference between that and the D20 system is the reason why I feel you don't need 1's to fail in storytelling but you do on a D20.
In the storytelling system the binary success failure is more evened out to a degree of success and failure in that there is no such thing really as a definite pass. Even if the storyteller sets the pass at 1 dice and your rolling 5 you still have the chance of a failure. The rule of 1 meant that failure was more skewed then success which is why the system didn't work.
With a D20 system you make a choice, either players reach a point where they never have to roll for certain things because their stats are so high that they always auto succeed, something that can start to happen by level 9 or 10. Or you say that, yes, your character is amazing at a thing but, there is a chance that sometimes even they will make a mistake. For me the 2nd makes sense, the greatest sportsmen in the world, people who would be a +15 or 20 in a game of DnD sometimes still whiff. DnD however allows for that as well, there are so many ways a character can get advantage on a roll anyway that suddenly rolling a 1 becomes far less likely. But also, if a character can auto succeed, whats the point in disadvantage. If a player is trying to do that thing they have +15 to in the dark, and the DC is 16 and they should get Disadvantage, well, suddenly they are just as good in the dark as in daylight.
I understand the point you are trying to make but the D20 system by definition needs a chance of failure, I have been running this on my own table for years, in fact, and my players are totally happy with this, I do auto failures on a 1, but not auto success on a 20. It works really well and ensures there is always a sense of fallibility.
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.
When it comes to Saving throws my biggest issue with Not allowing a nat 1 is that as a DM it then instantly makes me meta game my own monsters and traps. But also, not allowing a nat 1 means that some classes are skewed to have better survivability when it comes to saving throws. Dex saving throws make up a vast majority of Trap saving throws, followed closely by Con. Is it right that the party rogue need never again be concerned about a trap because they will auto succeed the saving throw. I will also say that adding in that chance of extra failure isn't going to break the game. One of the biggest complaints from pretty much every DM is that Characters have it far too easy, the CR system in broken, characters can yoyo in combat, it is really difficult from level 6 or 7 onwards to really put the party in peril.
Those same DM's are now complaining that we are adding in an extra little bit of risk for those players who have made themselves literally bomb proof. Wizards have no risk of dropping concentration unless you attack them with monsters that are going to hit hard enough to do real damage for instance. Make up your mind, either you want the system fixed to make it a bit more balanced and give players a real challenge, or you are happy as is with your players just walking through high level dungeons with no real fear of actual death.
In a Binary D20 system, where all you have is success or failure removing the chance of failure makes the game really boring at times.
Making a specific post to address this particular bag of manure...
My dude, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word 'consequence'.
In narratives a consequence is the (usually, but not always, bad) result of a choice or action. A negative result from a die roll isn't a freaking 'consequence' , it's just bad luck.
If the party rocks up to the local king and starts insulting him to his face and he orders their execution, that is a consequence.
If the party approaches the local king and the party face respectfully requests an audience and he rolls a 1 and auto-fails on his DC 10 persuasion check despite having +12 to Persuasion, that's not a consequence, that's just random bullshit.
Thats a storytelling moment, no you won't TPK the party straight away, but it does allow for a funny moment where you watch the party then try and correct the error, or the story goes in a great new direction.
Players fail dice rolls all the time, and that is what should direct the narriative, otherwise you might as well just stick a pair of tracks down and tell the players whatever they choose to do you will be making sure they succeed as long as they are not too crazy with there ideas.
I am not advocating for consequence free play, stop trying to attach falsehoods to my words; I already stated that I am fine with failing if the DC is high enough. I also stated I am fine with failing in other rolls that I did not specialize in. Stop trying to make me out as someone who wants to be able to automatically succeed on every single roll because that is not the case. It takes effort and investment to get a character to the point where they can succeed on a save with a nat 1; it sucks to have that effort and investment negated 5% of the time. If someone actually optimized their character to get to that point, they should be allowed to take full advantage of it and not have it be negated on them 5% of the time.
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.
I can read that description of Saving Throws and think there shouldn't be at least a 5% chance of failure because it takes investment and effort to reach that point. Plus there is still a risk of harm if the effect has an effect on a successful save, usually half damage. Just because there is no chance of failure doesn't mean there is no saving throw. It has been working this way since 5E was released and it has been working fine. If it wasn't, then groups wouldn't be using the rule and having fun with it. I believe it is possible for someone to train themselves to trivialize a task to the point where it is akin to breathing to them.
In fact, I'll say it again. It is fine for a Saving Throw to have a 100% chance of success if the player has put in the effort made the necessary investments to optimize their saving throw to the point where they can succeed on a Nat 1.
5E's current rule for Nat 1/20 is not bad design. I'd honestly say it is good design.
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.
While yes no body owes you the win, losing to that 5% when without the auto fail rule you would have won, just sucks. It's anti-climatic and just feels like victory was stolen from you. If your actions directly lead to the lost then it would be fine, but in that situation it was just a 5% RNG screwing you over regardless of what you did. The issue is that 5% can just outright negate any and all preparation, it takes agency away from the player.
Also, I am pretty sure just because they think that way doesn't necessary mean they haven't played Curse of Strahd, at least the 5E version anyway.
So, that was excessive. You certainly didn't need to copy and same text I already had from the PHB. That's just redundant. I also think you aren't comprehending what's on the page.
It does not take effort and investment to get to at least a 5% chance of failing a saving throw. It does take effort and investment to reduce the likelihood, but only in the sense that you're leveling up. Your proficiency bonus improves, ability scores can improve, and the odd feat or class feature can grant a proficiency (Elegant Courtier) or a numerical bonus (Aura of Protection). And while reducing the likelihood of failure is desirable, even commendable, that doesn't mean it should be nothing. For every saving throw for half-damage, there are just as many without. Cantrips, like frostbite don't deal half-damage on a success without the odd class feature. (Only 11 wizard cantrips can be affected by the School of Evoction's Potent Cantrip feature, and of those only three are also evocation spells.) Never mind the plethora of leveled spells, like hold person and sleet storm, which cannot inflict damage at all.
Heck, remember the mind flayers you mentioned a few pages ago? Its Mind Blast doesn't deal half damage on a successful save. Did you forget about that, or did you intentionally make a bad argument?
When you advocate for failure being impossible, you're arguing in favor of removing negative consequences. Don't pretend you're not. If a forced saving throw should always have an element of danger to them, then you cannot make yourself totally immune. Every saving throw has to have an element of danger. And if that means failure, because a success removes all harm, then so be it. Your position, and the current rule, is incongruous with the descriptive text. And that's been the case since 2014. Something has to give.
Specialization and system mastery are all well and good until they become disruptive. Yes, they can be disruptive, and that includes any total, passive immunity. It doesn't matter if the immunity is niche. Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon. And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
Give me a break. Malicious compliance has its place. Playing a munchkin isn't it.
Making a specific post to address this particular bag of manure...
My dude, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word 'consequence'.
In narratives a consequence is the (usually, but not always, bad) result of a choice or action. A negative result from a die roll isn't a freaking 'consequence' , it's just bad luck.
If the party rocks up to the local king and starts insulting him to his face and he orders their execution, that is a consequence.
If the party approaches the local king and the party face respectfully requests an audience and he rolls a 1 and auto-fails on his DC 10 persuasion check despite having +12 to Persuasion, that's not a consequence, that's just random bullshit.
The rolling of dice is an exercise in probability for a binary outcome: success or failure. You shouldn't be rolling dice if you aren't prepared for either outcome. We aren't talking about narrative consequences, though the results of the dice can inform the narrative. I'm talking purely the definition of consequence: "a result or effect of an action or condition."
Though, there is a second definition: "importance or relevance." A die roll should always be relevant. If the outcome is predetermined, whether a bonus or the DC is too high, then the roll is of no consequence. It's an exercise in futility. Both are bad.
Now, I don't know why you think a random adventurer with a Charisma (Persuasion) of +12 only has a routine chance of requesting an audience with the reigning monarch. If they're that far along, they've probably done something noteworthy to gain the king's attention. Or they just might not meet the king, but they can meet with an advisor. Failure is not the end. It's simply not getting what you want.
Likewise, success on a roll does not have to mean getting what you want. It means getting the best possible result. Rolling a Nat20 when you ask the same king to step down and surrender their crown to someone else isn't going to actually get that result. Let's not be silly, here. It means he won't execute you for doing something foolish.
I don't know where your expectations come from, and I surmise that's the big disconnect here. Everyone has a different idea of what the die rolls should be or when they should be rolled. That's beautiful, in a way, because it speaks to all the many different experiences we can have playing the game. But also frustrating to no end. It means we're struggling to find common ground.
Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon.
Or you can do it at level 5 if you're a dragonborn, iirc.
And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
I do! That sounds perfectly okay to me. You think that's absurd?
A natural one is Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note. No matter how natural their talent is; yes, it can still happen.
You don't realise this, but you've basically made an excellent argument for why a 1 shouldn't be an automatic fail with this.
Because, you know what? Musicians, including vocalists, miss notes all the time. Even the most talented, most skilled musicians do this.
But you know what separates the really good musicians from the merely adequate ones? When the good ones do it, you don't notice unless you're specifically listening for it. And when the absolutely great ones do it, you might not even notice then.
When someone who's just starting to get acquainted with their instrument misses a note, you notice because they notice and it throws them off and 9 times out of 10 it's not the missed note, but their distraction and inability to adjust that ruins the performance. When someone who's mastered their instrument misses a note, they know the instrument and they know the piece and instead of thinking 'wait, that's not right, what did I do wrong?' they just keep playing and hit the next note instead.
It does not take effort and investment to get to at least a 5% chance of failing a saving throw. It does take effort and investment to reduce the likelihood, but only in the sense that you're leveling up. Your proficiency bonus improves, ability scores can improve, and the odd feat or class feature can grant a proficiency (Elegant Courtier) or a numerical bonus (Aura of Protection). And while reducing the likelihood of failure is desirable, even commendable, that doesn't mean it should be nothing. For every saving throw for half-damage, there are just as many without. Cantrips, like frostbite don't deal half-damage on a success without the odd class feature. (Only 11 wizard cantrips can be affected by the School of Evoction's Potent Cantrip feature, and of those only three are also evocation spells.) Never mind the plethora of leveled spells, like hold person and sleet storm, which cannot inflict damage at all.
Heck, remember the mind flayers you mentioned a few pages ago? Its Mind Blast doesn't deal half damage on a successful save. Did you forget about that, or did you intentionally make a bad argument?
When you advocate for failure being impossible, you're arguing in favor of removing negative consequences. Don't pretend you're not. If a forced saving throw should always have an element of danger to them, then you cannot make yourself totally immune. Every saving throw has to have an element of danger. And if that means failure, because a success removes all harm, then so be it. Your position, and the current rule, is incongruous with the descriptive text. And that's been the case since 2014. Something has to give.
Specialization and system mastery are all well and good until they become disruptive. Yes, they can be disruptive, and that includes any total, passive immunity. It doesn't matter if the immunity is niche. Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon. And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
Give me a break. Malicious compliance has its place. Playing a munchkin isn't it.
A munchkin wouldn't play within the confine of the rules; I am. I am an optimizer not a munchkin. Just because I optimize beyond what you agree should be possible does not make me a munchkin as I make sure my optimization is not a disruption tot he game, which it is not.
My point in brining out saving throws with half damage on save is to point out that someone succeeding on a Nat 1 doesn't make them immune to everything that save offers. My example with Mind Blast is to show an example of a character that despite being immune to something was not disruptive and did not take away the challenge for a table. In fact, my character being immune to Mind Blast was a huge highlight for the table. The way you make out succeeding on a nat 1 to be, I should have not been cheered by the table but booed instead, yet that did not happen. The only bad argument I see is you trying to argue that my argument was a bad argument.
Also, yes, I do believe a 9th level wizard with 20 intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast as long as they are within 10 feet of a 20 Charisma Paladin's Aura of Protection. I do not see anything wrong with it, it's teamwork; mind flayers should have other options to deal with such situations (they are incredibly intelligent beings and should not be one trick ponies) and it requires the wizard to stay within 10 feet of the paladin, who is unlikely to be immune to Mind Blast themselves.
Furthermore, it does take effort and investment to get a save to a high enough modifier to succeed on a nat 1. Every option took to get a save that high means other options were forwent.
Optimizing a character to succeed on a nat 1 is not disruptive. If it was, then someone getting lucky and constantly succeeding their saves out of pure luck would be disruptive, but they are not.
When it comes to Saving throws my biggest issue with Not allowing a nat 1 is that as a DM it then instantly makes me meta game my own monsters and traps. But also, not allowing a nat 1 means that some classes are skewed to have better survivability when it comes to saving throws. Dex saving throws make up a vast majority of Trap saving throws, followed closely by Con. Is it right that the party rogue need never again be concerned about a trap because they will auto succeed the saving throw. I will also say that adding in that chance of extra failure isn't going to break the game. One of the biggest complaints from pretty much every DM is that Characters have it far too easy, the CR system in broken, characters can yoyo in combat, it is really difficult from level 6 or 7 onwards to really put the party in peril.
Those same DM's are now complaining that we are adding in an extra little bit of risk for those players who have made themselves literally bomb proof. Wizards have no risk of dropping concentration unless you attack them with monsters that are going to hit hard enough to do real damage for instance. Make up your mind, either you want the system fixed to make it a bit more balanced and give players a real challenge, or you are happy as is with your players just walking through high level dungeons with no real fear of actual death.
In a Binary D20 system, where all you have is success or failure removing the chance of failure makes the game really boring at times.
The main balancing factor in concentration is not that it can be broken, but that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Optimally played spellcasters should rarely if ever have their concentration broken. I believe it is right for the rogue to not be concerned about the trap, but they will still want to disarm the trap because someone else in their party may be harmed by it. If adding extra failure chance won't break the game, then keeping the current rules won't break it either. However, when you actually consider who this affects, it really only affects the people who enjoyed being able to raise modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1 because you have to build for it; otherwise, a nat 1 will be a failure because you won't have the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. This rule basically hurts the fun of those of us who enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 while doing absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't pump up their modifiers.
My table has allowed modifiers to make nat 1 succeed for years now and it has yet to make the game boring and we are still challenged and have suffered deaths.
For those who want auto fail on nat 1's, you would probably see no difference in gameplay even if you have been playing by the 5E RAW rules while the people who actually did build their characters to succeed on a nat 1 would see a difference as they now have a 5% fail chance forced upon them on the rolls they pumped up.
If the target number is 18 and I have a +19 on the roll and they have a +22, they should still have an easier time succeeding.
At a certain point, the cause of failure (even in reality) is external effects unrelated to skill. Now, a 5% is unrealistically high for a lot of activities, but that's when you apply advantage or multiple die rolls.
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. [...]
I am really curious of your experience on this matter. Is it possible for you to elaborate on the reason(s) why you don't like rolling a 20 on a d20 to automatically count as a success for ability checks?
Note that the UA is not bring back "critical" successes or fumbles (in the sense that players succeed or fail to a greater extend if they rolled a 20 or a 1, respectively). It simply states that the DM decides whether a roll is warranted and, if it is, rolling a 20 is automatically a success and rolling a 1 is automatically a failure. (I am stating this for clarification since a lot of posts in this thread is misrepresenting what is actually written in the UA.
My interpretation of the spirit behind the new rule is that: if rolling a 20 leads to the same outcome as rolling a 1, then just narrate the result.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's no such thing as critical failure.
There was a rule I recall from somewhere, I think something third party, where a 20 was only a critical success if it would have been a success normally.
I am not advocating for consequence free play, stop trying to attach falsehoods to my words; I already stated that I am fine with failing if the DC is high enough. I also stated I am fine with failing in other rolls that I did not specialize in. Stop trying to make me out as someone who wants to be able to automatically succeed on every single roll because that is not the case. It takes effort and investment to get a character to the point where they can succeed on a save with a nat 1; it sucks to have that effort and investment negated 5% of the time. If someone actually optimized their character to get to that point, they should be allowed to take full advantage of it and not have it be negated on them 5% of the time.
I can read that description of Saving Throws and think there shouldn't be at least a 5% chance of failure because it takes investment and effort to reach that point. Plus there is still a risk of harm if the effect has an effect on a successful save, usually half damage. Just because there is no chance of failure doesn't mean there is no saving throw. It has been working this way since 5E was released and it has been working fine. If it wasn't, then groups wouldn't be using the rule and having fun with it. I believe it is possible for someone to train themselves to trivialize a task to the point where it is akin to breathing to them.
In fact, I'll say it again. It is fine for a Saving Throw to have a 100% chance of success if the player has put in the effort made the necessary investments to optimize their saving throw to the point where they can succeed on a Nat 1.
5E's current rule for Nat 1/20 is not bad design. I'd honestly say it is good design.
While yes no body owes you the win, losing to that 5% when without the auto fail rule you would have won, just sucks. It's anti-climatic and just feels like victory was stolen from you. If your actions directly lead to the lost then it would be fine, but in that situation it was just a 5% RNG screwing you over regardless of what you did. The issue is that 5% can just outright negate any and all preparation, it takes agency away from the player.
Also, I am pretty sure just because they think that way doesn't necessary mean they haven't played Curse of Strahd, at least the 5E version anyway.
+12 represents their skill.
Dice rolls represent their luck.
The idea being no matter how skilled someone is, there is still a chance for an unlucky happenstance to befall them - and vice versa, there is a chance an unskilled person can get very lucky every now and again.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Someone being able to succeed on a nat 1 goes beyond skilled; at that point the task at hand should be akin to breathing for them. Furthermore 5% is too high for a unlucky happenstance.
A natural one is Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note. No matter how natural their talent is; yes, it can still happen.
Whether 5% is too high; well I happen to agree; hence I'm more of a fan of such things being specifically tied to disadvantage rolls as opposed to standard rolls as well as other variant options that decrease the % such as threat/confirmation or use of 2d10 even.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Ok, so first off:
I'm a DM, pretty much exclusively, so my win condition is when my players enjoy the game I run`and my fail condition is when they get discouraged or frustrated and don't feel like playing anymore.
Secondly:
Really? Your counterpoint to the idea that a random bad roll screwing you out of defeating the BBEG can make an entire campaign feel ruined is to cite the one adventure for 5e that is specifically designed to be randomised every time you play it so that, win or lose, you can go back to play it again in a little while without having to do the exact same thing all over again?
Look... I've run straight up meat grinder one-shots in the past, but the core there is that the players knew in advance that the goal of that one-shot wasn't to win, but to see how far they could get. And that's still different from getting shafted by an arbitrary auto-fail.
I'd argue that being able to succeed on a Nat 1 goes a bit beyond that. You are quite literally trivializing the task at hand to an insane degree. I'd argue that Beetoven missing a key or Luciano Pavarotti missing a note just means they didn't have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1.
Under normal circumstances, without any additional boosts, a character maxes out a modifier at +11. That is having proficiency and maxing out a stat to 20, which is described as the mortal limit in 5E. Going beyond 20 in a stat means you are exceeding what a mortal should be capable of. +11 is essentially the normal mortal limit and you are among the best of the best if you have a modifier that high. Granted, D&D math never fully translated into real world analogies too well. However, I do feel that when you are approaching the absurdly high modifiers like +17, you are essentially Super Human at that task.
Is that fully calculatable though? Because you aren't always going to have that inspiration and it depends a lot on what happened with previous actions. I feel like there are way too many factors at hand for that.
The other issue with the Nat 1/20 Auto Fail/Success rule is that if you are going to enforce that 5% fail chance, you are going to be slowing the game down. Every time someone could succeed on a nat 1, you can just skip the actual roll, which can speed the game up a decent amount. Sure each roll is a small amount of time, but with how often you roll, that amount of time can add up.
Making a specific post to address this particular bag of manure...
My dude, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word 'consequence'.
In narratives a consequence is the (usually, but not always, bad) result of a choice or action. A negative result from a die roll isn't a freaking 'consequence' , it's just bad luck.
If the party rocks up to the local king and starts insulting him to his face and he orders their execution, that is a consequence.
If the party approaches the local king and the party face respectfully requests an audience and he rolls a 1 and auto-fails on his DC 10 persuasion check despite having +12 to Persuasion, that's not a consequence, that's just random bullshit.
I love the storyteller system, but, the difference between that and the D20 system is the reason why I feel you don't need 1's to fail in storytelling but you do on a D20.
In the storytelling system the binary success failure is more evened out to a degree of success and failure in that there is no such thing really as a definite pass. Even if the storyteller sets the pass at 1 dice and your rolling 5 you still have the chance of a failure. The rule of 1 meant that failure was more skewed then success which is why the system didn't work.
With a D20 system you make a choice, either players reach a point where they never have to roll for certain things because their stats are so high that they always auto succeed, something that can start to happen by level 9 or 10. Or you say that, yes, your character is amazing at a thing but, there is a chance that sometimes even they will make a mistake. For me the 2nd makes sense, the greatest sportsmen in the world, people who would be a +15 or 20 in a game of DnD sometimes still whiff. DnD however allows for that as well, there are so many ways a character can get advantage on a roll anyway that suddenly rolling a 1 becomes far less likely. But also, if a character can auto succeed, whats the point in disadvantage. If a player is trying to do that thing they have +15 to in the dark, and the DC is 16 and they should get Disadvantage, well, suddenly they are just as good in the dark as in daylight.
I understand the point you are trying to make but the D20 system by definition needs a chance of failure, I have been running this on my own table for years, in fact, and my players are totally happy with this, I do auto failures on a 1, but not auto success on a 20. It works really well and ensures there is always a sense of fallibility.
When it comes to Saving throws my biggest issue with Not allowing a nat 1 is that as a DM it then instantly makes me meta game my own monsters and traps. But also, not allowing a nat 1 means that some classes are skewed to have better survivability when it comes to saving throws. Dex saving throws make up a vast majority of Trap saving throws, followed closely by Con. Is it right that the party rogue need never again be concerned about a trap because they will auto succeed the saving throw. I will also say that adding in that chance of extra failure isn't going to break the game. One of the biggest complaints from pretty much every DM is that Characters have it far too easy, the CR system in broken, characters can yoyo in combat, it is really difficult from level 6 or 7 onwards to really put the party in peril.
Those same DM's are now complaining that we are adding in an extra little bit of risk for those players who have made themselves literally bomb proof. Wizards have no risk of dropping concentration unless you attack them with monsters that are going to hit hard enough to do real damage for instance. Make up your mind, either you want the system fixed to make it a bit more balanced and give players a real challenge, or you are happy as is with your players just walking through high level dungeons with no real fear of actual death.
In a Binary D20 system, where all you have is success or failure removing the chance of failure makes the game really boring at times.
Thats a storytelling moment, no you won't TPK the party straight away, but it does allow for a funny moment where you watch the party then try and correct the error, or the story goes in a great new direction.
Players fail dice rolls all the time, and that is what should direct the narriative, otherwise you might as well just stick a pair of tracks down and tell the players whatever they choose to do you will be making sure they succeed as long as they are not too crazy with there ideas.
So, that was excessive. You certainly didn't need to copy and same text I already had from the PHB. That's just redundant. I also think you aren't comprehending what's on the page.
It does not take effort and investment to get to at least a 5% chance of failing a saving throw. It does take effort and investment to reduce the likelihood, but only in the sense that you're leveling up. Your proficiency bonus improves, ability scores can improve, and the odd feat or class feature can grant a proficiency (Elegant Courtier) or a numerical bonus (Aura of Protection). And while reducing the likelihood of failure is desirable, even commendable, that doesn't mean it should be nothing. For every saving throw for half-damage, there are just as many without. Cantrips, like frostbite don't deal half-damage on a success without the odd class feature. (Only 11 wizard cantrips can be affected by the School of Evoction's Potent Cantrip feature, and of those only three are also evocation spells.) Never mind the plethora of leveled spells, like hold person and sleet storm, which cannot inflict damage at all.
Heck, remember the mind flayers you mentioned a few pages ago? Its Mind Blast doesn't deal half damage on a successful save. Did you forget about that, or did you intentionally make a bad argument?
When you advocate for failure being impossible, you're arguing in favor of removing negative consequences. Don't pretend you're not. If a forced saving throw should always have an element of danger to them, then you cannot make yourself totally immune. Every saving throw has to have an element of danger. And if that means failure, because a success removes all harm, then so be it. Your position, and the current rule, is incongruous with the descriptive text. And that's been the case since 2014. Something has to give.
Specialization and system mastery are all well and good until they become disruptive. Yes, they can be disruptive, and that includes any total, passive immunity. It doesn't matter if the immunity is niche. Everything else that grants any immunity, like investiture of flame, is a Tier 3 spell with a duration. Passive immunity is granted by some legendary magic items or an epic boon. And you think a 9th-level wizard with 20 Intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast so long as a 9th-level paladin with 20 Charisma is within 10 feet of them?
Give me a break. Malicious compliance has its place. Playing a munchkin isn't it.
The rolling of dice is an exercise in probability for a binary outcome: success or failure. You shouldn't be rolling dice if you aren't prepared for either outcome. We aren't talking about narrative consequences, though the results of the dice can inform the narrative. I'm talking purely the definition of consequence: "a result or effect of an action or condition."
Though, there is a second definition: "importance or relevance." A die roll should always be relevant. If the outcome is predetermined, whether a bonus or the DC is too high, then the roll is of no consequence. It's an exercise in futility. Both are bad.
Now, I don't know why you think a random adventurer with a Charisma (Persuasion) of +12 only has a routine chance of requesting an audience with the reigning monarch. If they're that far along, they've probably done something noteworthy to gain the king's attention. Or they just might not meet the king, but they can meet with an advisor. Failure is not the end. It's simply not getting what you want.
Likewise, success on a roll does not have to mean getting what you want. It means getting the best possible result. Rolling a Nat20 when you ask the same king to step down and surrender their crown to someone else isn't going to actually get that result. Let's not be silly, here. It means he won't execute you for doing something foolish.
I don't know where your expectations come from, and I surmise that's the big disconnect here. Everyone has a different idea of what the die rolls should be or when they should be rolled. That's beautiful, in a way, because it speaks to all the many different experiences we can have playing the game. But also frustrating to no end. It means we're struggling to find common ground.
Or you can do it at level 5 if you're a dragonborn, iirc.
I do! That sounds perfectly okay to me. You think that's absurd?
You don't realise this, but you've basically made an excellent argument for why a 1 shouldn't be an automatic fail with this.
Because, you know what? Musicians, including vocalists, miss notes all the time. Even the most talented, most skilled musicians do this.
But you know what separates the really good musicians from the merely adequate ones? When the good ones do it, you don't notice unless you're specifically listening for it. And when the absolutely great ones do it, you might not even notice then.
When someone who's just starting to get acquainted with their instrument misses a note, you notice because they notice and it throws them off and 9 times out of 10 it's not the missed note, but their distraction and inability to adjust that ruins the performance. When someone who's mastered their instrument misses a note, they know the instrument and they know the piece and instead of thinking 'wait, that's not right, what did I do wrong?' they just keep playing and hit the next note instead.
A munchkin wouldn't play within the confine of the rules; I am. I am an optimizer not a munchkin. Just because I optimize beyond what you agree should be possible does not make me a munchkin as I make sure my optimization is not a disruption tot he game, which it is not.
My point in brining out saving throws with half damage on save is to point out that someone succeeding on a Nat 1 doesn't make them immune to everything that save offers. My example with Mind Blast is to show an example of a character that despite being immune to something was not disruptive and did not take away the challenge for a table. In fact, my character being immune to Mind Blast was a huge highlight for the table. The way you make out succeeding on a nat 1 to be, I should have not been cheered by the table but booed instead, yet that did not happen. The only bad argument I see is you trying to argue that my argument was a bad argument.
Also, yes, I do believe a 9th level wizard with 20 intelligence should be immune to Mind Blast as long as they are within 10 feet of a 20 Charisma Paladin's Aura of Protection. I do not see anything wrong with it, it's teamwork; mind flayers should have other options to deal with such situations (they are incredibly intelligent beings and should not be one trick ponies) and it requires the wizard to stay within 10 feet of the paladin, who is unlikely to be immune to Mind Blast themselves.
Furthermore, it does take effort and investment to get a save to a high enough modifier to succeed on a nat 1. Every option took to get a save that high means other options were forwent.
Optimizing a character to succeed on a nat 1 is not disruptive. If it was, then someone getting lucky and constantly succeeding their saves out of pure luck would be disruptive, but they are not.
The main balancing factor in concentration is not that it can be broken, but that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Optimally played spellcasters should rarely if ever have their concentration broken. I believe it is right for the rogue to not be concerned about the trap, but they will still want to disarm the trap because someone else in their party may be harmed by it. If adding extra failure chance won't break the game, then keeping the current rules won't break it either. However, when you actually consider who this affects, it really only affects the people who enjoyed being able to raise modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1 because you have to build for it; otherwise, a nat 1 will be a failure because you won't have the modifier to succeed on a nat 1. This rule basically hurts the fun of those of us who enjoy being able to succeed on a nat 1 while doing absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't pump up their modifiers.
My table has allowed modifiers to make nat 1 succeed for years now and it has yet to make the game boring and we are still challenged and have suffered deaths.
For those who want auto fail on nat 1's, you would probably see no difference in gameplay even if you have been playing by the 5E RAW rules while the people who actually did build their characters to succeed on a nat 1 would see a difference as they now have a 5% fail chance forced upon them on the rolls they pumped up.
At a certain point, the cause of failure (even in reality) is external effects unrelated to skill. Now, a 5% is unrealistically high for a lot of activities, but that's when you apply advantage or multiple die rolls.
I am really curious of your experience on this matter. Is it possible for you to elaborate on the reason(s) why you don't like rolling a 20 on a d20 to automatically count as a success for ability checks?
Note that the UA is not bring back "critical" successes or fumbles (in the sense that players succeed or fail to a greater extend if they rolled a 20 or a 1, respectively). It simply states that the DM decides whether a roll is warranted and, if it is, rolling a 20 is automatically a success and rolling a 1 is automatically a failure. (I am stating this for clarification since a lot of posts in this thread is misrepresenting what is actually written in the UA.
My interpretation of the spirit behind the new rule is that: if rolling a 20 leads to the same outcome as rolling a 1, then just narrate the result.