Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
What would magnitudes of success or failure look like on a pass/fail saving throw?
You wouldn't roll magnitude for a saving throw. You'd roll magnitude when a player insists on trying something that requires an ability check that will fail anyway, but it could just simply fail or it could fail spectacularly. The same for success.
And how in Ao's name is automatic success or failure a needless complication? Walk me through your thought process.
I just did, in the part you didn't quote. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself...
Well, not any more than I already do regularly, any way.
I ask for clarification because you contradict yourself. If we already agree that we should only roll when the outcome matters, when success and failure are both possible, then adding a condition where we don't have to perform addition and compare the sum to the DC isn't a complication. It's a shortcut. It speeds the process along.
I'm talking specifically about saving throws, because ability checks aren't (or shouldn't) be impacted whatsoever. Instead, you want to add degrees of success and failure, which is already in the DMG, to the PHB. Am I reading this correctly? Are you trying to shift two sets of goal posts at once? Because moving something from one book to another is pointless. We're looking at player-facing rules. Players don't need to know about degrees of success; should a DM even choose to use them. And I was not talking about ability checks, so why you try to change the subject is just...ARGH!
Are you that uninterested in what others have to say? I'm trying to understand you. But I can't. You aren't making sense.
I think a lot of us are more focused on the ability checks than Saves. Saves are binary in the same way Attacks are. You either save or you don't.
Ability checks don't really function in the same manner. Degrees of success/failure with skill checks are mostly reflected in the Role Play and how that impacts the story. A character may not be able to out right fail at a skill check, but might barely scrape by and that has story complications all on it's own represented in the amount of time something might take or how an NPC might react. Those things are significant enough to warrant a roll, even if a 1 might succeed, a higher result would be of greater benefit. The same can be said of tasks that are possible, but not by anyone in the party due to lower modifier. You can let them roll, knowing that they can't succeed, but they might be able lessen the impact of the failure or learn of a different course of action that could lead to success.
Of course if a task is truly impossible, such as jumping over the moon, then you don't allow the roll. Same thing with anything that is mundane or has no real impact on the story.
I mean this in the best possible way: I wish I could agree with you.
The lion's share of my "arguing" has been over saving throws. They're intended to be binary, but in the current rules (the PHB, not the playtest) it's possible to negate them completely. And I think that's why the Nat1/Nat20 rule is being implemented. It's to ensure that binary remains. If I have a rogue with a negative wisdom modifier, they'll never pass the DC 21 Wisdom saving throw of an ancient red dragon's Frightful Presence. At least, not without some outside help. But with the playtest rule, they can. And that's empowering. It means we always have a fighting chance.
It also means you can't actually make yourself immune to the saving throws forced by lesser creatures. Because that can happen, too, using the rules in the PHB. But with the playtest, it means there's always an element of danger. That's exciting.
I don't think skills and ability checks are meaningfully impacted by the rule. From what I've run with the playtest document, I haven't seen anything new.
Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
For me it is about an onslaught of attacks, I think with Concentration Wizards (of the coast, not pointy hat kind) need to consider making it increasingly more difficult if you accumulate damage across a turn. For me, if they did that then I am happy ignoring the nat 1 failure for concentration. Currently if I have 8 goblin archers each only doing 1d6+3 say damage then it makes sense that the wizard only roll for concentration once all the damage has been calculated, or you roll every time damage is caused adding the damage to the total damage caused so far when working out the DC.
That way Goblin 1, yes you are going to probably succeed on that 5 points of damage, goblins 2 to 8 then also shoot at the Wizard, they don't kill him, but do a total of 42 points of damage, now the wizard should be making a concentration check on a 21. Or 3 goblins attack and hit, then cleric heals and the Orcs then attack, that damage should all be added together for the case of a concentration check even if the wizard has been healed.
Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
If someone is implementing a DC 50 check, that's beyond what the core books consider to be "nearly impossible." And that's where the table stops. It's literally uncharted rules territory, and I think it's a bad example. It's homebrew, so the core rules won't be able to address it.
To recontextualize that, normally a group check is everyone making their own individual check to accomplish a task. If the entire group is rolling Dexterity (Stealth), for example, they aren't rolling for a total. They're all individually rolling against a set DC. And if a majority succeeds in their individual checks, then the group succeeds. If a majority fails, the group fails. If we implement degrees of success and failure, from the DMG, then someone who rolls well enough might be able to make up for someone else's shortcomings and vice versa.
So while the Nat20 in your example might be enough to make up for one other person's failure, I wouldn't call it a success in moving the tree. Heck, the tree has a weight, doesn't it? Why are we even rolling when everyone can just pool their respective carrying capacities? Or are we pretending encumbrance doesn't matter? A 50-foot pine tree with a 12-inch diameter is roughly 2,000 lbs., so why not just present the numbers to the party and let them figure out the best way to move it on their own?
Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
If someone is implementing a DC 50 check, that's beyond what the core books consider to be "nearly impossible." And that's where the table stops. It's literally uncharted rules territory, and I think it's a bad example. It's homebrew, so the core rules won't be able to address it.
To recontextualize that, normally a group check is everyone making their own individual check to accomplish a task. If the entire group is rolling Dexterity (Stealth), for example, they aren't rolling for a total. They're all individually rolling against a set DC. And if a majority succeeds in their individual checks, then the group succeeds. If a majority fails, the group fails. If we implement degrees of success and failure, from the DMG, then someone who rolls well enough might be able to make up for someone else's shortcomings and vice versa.
So while the Nat20 in your example might be enough to make up for one other person's failure, I wouldn't call it a success in moving the tree. Heck, the tree has a weight, doesn't it? Why are we even rolling when everyone can just pool their respective carrying capacities? Or are we pretending encumbrance doesn't matter? A 50-foot pine tree with a 12-inch diameter is roughly 2,000 lbs., so why not just present the numbers to the party and let them figure out the best way to move it on their own?
A DC50 concentration check is very possible.
magic using Character has more then 100 hit points (very possible) and takes 100 damage in a single attack (also possible at level 20). Thats a DC of 50 for your concentration check.
Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
If someone is implementing a DC 50 check, that's beyond what the core books consider to be "nearly impossible." And that's where the table stops. It's literally uncharted rules territory, and I think it's a bad example. It's homebrew, so the core rules won't be able to address it.
To recontextualize that, normally a group check is everyone making their own individual check to accomplish a task. If the entire group is rolling Dexterity (Stealth), for example, they aren't rolling for a total. They're all individually rolling against a set DC. And if a majority succeeds in their individual checks, then the group succeeds. If a majority fails, the group fails. If we implement degrees of success and failure, from the DMG, then someone who rolls well enough might be able to make up for someone else's shortcomings and vice versa.
So while the Nat20 in your example might be enough to make up for one other person's failure, I wouldn't call it a success in moving the tree. Heck, the tree has a weight, doesn't it? Why are we even rolling when everyone can just pool their respective carrying capacities? Or are we pretending encumbrance doesn't matter? A 50-foot pine tree with a 12-inch diameter is roughly 2,000 lbs., so why not just present the numbers to the party and let them figure out the best way to move it on their own?
A DC50 concentration check is very possible.
magic using Character has more then 100 hit points (very possible) and takes 100 damage in a single attack (also possible at level 20). Thats a DC of 50 for your concentration check.
That's a saving throw, not an ability check. If the DM is calling for an ability check, then they're admitting something is possible and maybe even intended to be succeeded against. Saving throws aren't called for, they're forced. Get your terms straight.
And, yes, something like meteor swarm does an average of 140 damage for a DC 70 Constitution saving throw. You're all but guaranteed to fail that. But at least with the new rule you have a fighting chance.
And I think they're wrong for pushing back. The principle is sound. In a game where every cast of the die is a binary outcome, both success and failure needs to always be options. Anything is possible. Nothin
Some of this is just growing pains from clumsily lumping everything together into a D20 Test. I get wanting to unify everything, and some systems pull it off, but I don't think it's necessary here. It reads like an attempt to save ink and page space. And if anyone out there has a better execution for this principle, then I'd love to see it. If they disagree with this principle, I'd like to see a justification beyond simply rewarding players for stacking numbers. That's a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question.
They are not wrong for pushing back. Being wrong on pushing back means their fun is wrong which is a wrong idea to begin with.
Also, rewarding someone for stacking numbers is not a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question; it is simply you hating optimization. Fact is, the nat 1 auto fail will really only affect people who optimize and will likely only impact their fun. Even if nat 1 auto fails did not exist, I doubt your games would change in anyway vs if they did as it seems unlikely that people in your games would pump up their modifiers to succeed on Nat 1's. People would fail on Nat 1's because normally their modifiers would not be enough to succeed on a nat 1. You are literally advocating a change that will probably not affect your games but can hinder the fun of other people's games.
Furthermore, the nat 1/20 auto fail/success will likely slow games down as either DMs will make players roll for that 5% auto fail chance or players will bully a DM into letting them try for that 5% autosuccess. Won't happen everygame or even most games, but it will happen in some games.
Finally, Saving Throws are not actually forced rolls under the One D&D rules because DMs have full control over when any d20 test is made. They very much can just say you succeed or fail a save, basing it on your modifier. This means some DMs can outright stop the auto fail/success rule from working. However this will lead to variance in Organized Play, e.g. Adventurers League, where idealy there should be 0 ruling variance from table to table.
Now you're just attacking my opinion, not my reasoning, while making specious arguments. And that's me be being charitable.
I laid out my case while contrasting the descriptive text for what a saving throw is against the actual mechanics. The OneD&D playtest, so far, has not redefined what a saving throw is. And until it does, the old text from 2014 stands. If it doesn't still stand, then none of this has any meaning. Even our mutual citing it was pointless. You're moving goal posts, you aren't the only one, and I'm sick of it. So far, the playtest only tells us how a saving throw is to be resolved. It has changed nothing about them being forced.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall.
You say the Nat1/Nat20 proposal will likely slow the game down. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what data there is on when the game last used this rule versus now. No one may even have kept track. What that does tell me, though, is you haven't tried it yourself. Because you aren't citing your own experience. You're giving me an armchair review. And I think that's just cute. Everyone has an opinion. Not all opinions are equal. A flat-earther is a joke. A J6 insurrectionist is a joke. Attempting to weigh in on the rules without trying them means any opinion you have is born from ignorance. You owe it to yourself to give them a fair shot.
For crying out loud, if saving throws aren't actually forced and are just something the DM decides happens, then hold person is going to be an automatic success every time. You don't get a save. You're just [condition]paralyzed[/spell]. But that would be capricious, subject to abuse, and therefore wrong. These are player-facing rules. They exist to establish a norm, a social contract, between the player(s) and the DM. There may be special rules only the DM can see or use, but this is the common clay on which everything else is built from. And something that is forced, because there is always an inherent element of harm, should always have a fail condition. For those words to mean anything, the rule needs teeth. So that failure chance should be there; no matter how small it might be.
You're worried about players bullying the DM. And that's fair. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. You know what else doesn't happen often, but does happen? The DM gives the party an impossible task, knowing full well they can't complete it, but has them roll anyway to deceive them into thinking there's a chance. I've already typed about this. That's adversarial, and I hope I'm not alone in this thread in thinking that's not acceptable behavior. Even implementing degrees of failure doesn't mitigate this. I don't care how badly I'm going to fail because I'm still going to fail. I'm still being gated─railroaded. The degree of failure doesn't actually matter. It would have been better to just let me know not to try this and move on to something else that doesn't waste anyone's time. What this rule changes for ability checks is every roll has a guaranteed chance of succeeding or failing. This means you can't actually gate the players. It functionally ends that adversarial play. And for a player, not having an adversarial DM is a good thing.
Bullying, no matter which way it goes, ultimately comes down to manners and etiquette. Players can already bully the DM into allowing an ability check. This proposal might encourage more of that, but hypotheticals aren't real or helpful. We can go back and forth until we're all blue in the face and still haven't gotten anywhere. What this does is definitely cut a real problem off at the knees. And if my only two choices are leaving two problems alone or fixing one of them, I'm going to fix the one. It's a no-brainer.
We do all agree that ability checks should only be rolled when there's a meaningful consequence, right? This just codifies that, so there always is. The DM still decides when a check is called for. And routine activities don't need checks. Functionally, we shouldn't actually notice a difference with ability checks. I sure haven't.
The only thing that really changes are saving throws. And that's just a bridge too far for some of you.
You have been attacking my opinion this entire time, trying to paint optimization as something wrong. I am defending against that. I have been feeling like I have been talking to a wall as well.
Also, I have experienced it myself. Simply checking the modifier and if a roll is guaranteed success or failure based on the modifier, I can save the time needed to make that roll. That is from experience
Also, the One D&D rules state that Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, and Saving Throws are d20 tests and that "the DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance." It states both of those very clearly. Meaning a DM can decide that a Saving Throw is not warranted. Judging by how controversial this rule change is, it is pretty clear that different DMs are going to handle it different with some deciding that if you need a Nat 1 or 20 to fail/succeed that the roll is not warranted because by RAW that is within their power. This will cause variance in Organized Play. It is fact that this is currently how the rule works. It may change, but right now that is how the rule works.
All of the groups I've played in have found meaning in Saves that can be succeeded on a Nat 1, and if there is an instance in which a statement is shown to be false then the statement is false. Thus the statement that there has to be a chance of failure for a save to have meaning is false. Succeeding on a Nat 1 doesn't break anything, doesn't warp the game, isn't disruptive, there is nothing wrong with it. You may not see it as fun, but clearly other people do. The Nat 1/20 Auto fail/success devalues build investment.
I haven't seen a DM ever give a completely impossible task. However, I have seen players try to get rolls for impossible tasks such as the classic seducing a dragon scenario. This isn't conjecture, but actual experience. Thankfully they shut up once it is pointed out that by RAW and RAI, nat 20's and nat 1's do not affect ability checks or saving throws, often by me.
Maybe someone else can explain things better than I can. Pack Tactics just made a video on the new One D&D Rules and gave his opinion on the d20 tests:
Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
For me it is about an onslaught of attacks, I think with Concentration Wizards (of the coast, not pointy hat kind) need to consider making it increasingly more difficult if you accumulate damage across a turn. For me, if they did that then I am happy ignoring the nat 1 failure for concentration. Currently if I have 8 goblin archers each only doing 1d6+3 say damage then it makes sense that the wizard only roll for concentration once all the damage has been calculated, or you roll every time damage is caused adding the damage to the total damage caused so far when working out the DC.
That way Goblin 1, yes you are going to probably succeed on that 5 points of damage, goblins 2 to 8 then also shoot at the Wizard, they don't kill him, but do a total of 42 points of damage, now the wizard should be making a concentration check on a 21. Or 3 goblins attack and hit, then cleric heals and the Orcs then attack, that damage should all be added together for the case of a concentration check even if the wizard has been healed.
Concentration upkeep is meant to be lenient though as the main balancing factor for it is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. It can also be broken by any effect that incapacitates you like a stun or paralysis. It isn't supposed to become something impossible to upkeep unless you have incredibly high saves.
And I think they're wrong for pushing back. The principle is sound. In a game where every cast of the die is a binary outcome, both success and failure needs to always be options. Anything is possible. Nothin
Some of this is just growing pains from clumsily lumping everything together into a D20 Test. I get wanting to unify everything, and some systems pull it off, but I don't think it's necessary here. It reads like an attempt to save ink and page space. And if anyone out there has a better execution for this principle, then I'd love to see it. If they disagree with this principle, I'd like to see a justification beyond simply rewarding players for stacking numbers. That's a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question.
They are not wrong for pushing back. Being wrong on pushing back means their fun is wrong which is a wrong idea to begin with.
Also, rewarding someone for stacking numbers is not a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question; it is simply you hating optimization. Fact is, the nat 1 auto fail will really only affect people who optimize and will likely only impact their fun. Even if nat 1 auto fails did not exist, I doubt your games would change in anyway vs if they did as it seems unlikely that people in your games would pump up their modifiers to succeed on Nat 1's. People would fail on Nat 1's because normally their modifiers would not be enough to succeed on a nat 1. You are literally advocating a change that will probably not affect your games but can hinder the fun of other people's games.
Furthermore, the nat 1/20 auto fail/success will likely slow games down as either DMs will make players roll for that 5% auto fail chance or players will bully a DM into letting them try for that 5% autosuccess. Won't happen everygame or even most games, but it will happen in some games.
Finally, Saving Throws are not actually forced rolls under the One D&D rules because DMs have full control over when any d20 test is made. They very much can just say you succeed or fail a save, basing it on your modifier. This means some DMs can outright stop the auto fail/success rule from working. However this will lead to variance in Organized Play, e.g. Adventurers League, where idealy there should be 0 ruling variance from table to table.
Now you're just attacking my opinion, not my reasoning, while making specious arguments. And that's me be being charitable.
I laid out my case while contrasting the descriptive text for what a saving throw is against the actual mechanics. The OneD&D playtest, so far, has not redefined what a saving throw is. And until it does, the old text from 2014 stands. If it doesn't still stand, then none of this has any meaning. Even our mutual citing it was pointless. You're moving goal posts, you aren't the only one, and I'm sick of it. So far, the playtest only tells us how a saving throw is to be resolved. It has changed nothing about them being forced.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall.
You say the Nat1/Nat20 proposal will likely slow the game down. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what data there is on when the game last used this rule versus now. No one may even have kept track. What that does tell me, though, is you haven't tried it yourself. Because you aren't citing your own experience. You're giving me an armchair review. And I think that's just cute. Everyone has an opinion. Not all opinions are equal. A flat-earther is a joke. A J6 insurrectionist is a joke. Attempting to weigh in on the rules without trying them means any opinion you have is born from ignorance. You owe it to yourself to give them a fair shot.
For crying out loud, if saving throws aren't actually forced and are just something the DM decides happens, then hold person is going to be an automatic success every time. You don't get a save. You're just [condition]paralyzed[/spell]. But that would be capricious, subject to abuse, and therefore wrong. These are player-facing rules. They exist to establish a norm, a social contract, between the player(s) and the DM. There may be special rules only the DM can see or use, but this is the common clay on which everything else is built from. And something that is forced, because there is always an inherent element of harm, should always have a fail condition. For those words to mean anything, the rule needs teeth. So that failure chance should be there; no matter how small it might be.
You're worried about players bullying the DM. And that's fair. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. You know what else doesn't happen often, but does happen? The DM gives the party an impossible task, knowing full well they can't complete it, but has them roll anyway to deceive them into thinking there's a chance. I've already typed about this. That's adversarial, and I hope I'm not alone in this thread in thinking that's not acceptable behavior. Even implementing degrees of failure doesn't mitigate this. I don't care how badly I'm going to fail because I'm still going to fail. I'm still being gated─railroaded. The degree of failure doesn't actually matter. It would have been better to just let me know not to try this and move on to something else that doesn't waste anyone's time. What this rule changes for ability checks is every roll has a guaranteed chance of succeeding or failing. This means you can't actually gate the players. It functionally ends that adversarial play. And for a player, not having an adversarial DM is a good thing.
Bullying, no matter which way it goes, ultimately comes down to manners and etiquette. Players can already bully the DM into allowing an ability check. This proposal might encourage more of that, but hypotheticals aren't real or helpful. We can go back and forth until we're all blue in the face and still haven't gotten anywhere. What this does is definitely cut a real problem off at the knees. And if my only two choices are leaving two problems alone or fixing one of them, I'm going to fix the one. It's a no-brainer.
We do all agree that ability checks should only be rolled when there's a meaningful consequence, right? This just codifies that, so there always is. The DM still decides when a check is called for. And routine activities don't need checks. Functionally, we shouldn't actually notice a difference with ability checks. I sure haven't.
The only thing that really changes are saving throws. And that's just a bridge too far for some of you.
You have been attacking my opinion this entire time, trying to paint optimization as something wrong. I am defending against that. I have been feeling like I have been talking to a wall as well.
Also, I have experienced it myself. Simply checking the modifier and if a roll is guaranteed success or failure based on the modifier, I can save the time needed to make that roll. That is from experience
Also, the One D&D rules state that Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, and Saving Throws are d20 tests and that "the DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance." It states both of those very clearly. Meaning a DM can decide that a Saving Throw is not warranted. Judging by how controversial this rule change is, it is pretty clear that different DMs are going to handle it different with some deciding that if you need a Nat 1 or 20 to fail/succeed that the roll is not warranted because by RAW that is within their power. This will cause variance in Organized Play. It is fact that this is currently how the rule works. It may change, but right now that is how the rule works.
All of the groups I've played in have found meaning in Saves that can be succeeded on a Nat 1, and if there is an instance in which a statement is shown to be false then the statement is false. Thus the statement that there has to be a chance of failure for a save to have meaning is false. The Nat 1/20 Auto fail/success devalues build investment.
Maybe someone else can explain things better than I can. Pack Tactics just made a video on the new One D&D Rules and gave his opinion on the d20 tests:
I've removed the video because it doesn't need to be reposted.
Okay, if I'm reading you correctly:
You're still harping on optimization, even though that's a nonstarter I've clearly moved on from.
Saving throws aren't forced and are up to the whims of the DM, so they're just as pass/fail as ability checks have been.
Which means you haven't actually lost your precious immunity if you can convince the DM to simply not have you roll a saving throw (D20 Test).
Dragonborn still suck because the DM can just say "no" to their Breath Weapon.
As far as points two and three go, you're arguing over nothing. The Rolling a 1/Rolling a 20 rules for the D20 Test don't impact your concerns in the slighest. There's nothing for you to be upset over because you still have your precious immunity. Never mind that the rules cut both ways and give you a fighting chance against things you otherwise wouldn't have a fighting chance against. You only roll the D20 Test if the DM decides it's worth it, and that goes for saving throws. You haven't lost anything. What you have gained is the automatic success on a 20 and the inspiration that comes with it. And you, demonstrably, don't care about that.
You have spent the last 5 days making 37 posts, entirely in this thread, whinging over absolutely nothing.
I'm reporting your account for trolling. You have to be. There's no logical explanation for your activity.
And I think they're wrong for pushing back. The principle is sound. In a game where every cast of the die is a binary outcome, both success and failure needs to always be options. Anything is possible. Nothin
Some of this is just growing pains from clumsily lumping everything together into a D20 Test. I get wanting to unify everything, and some systems pull it off, but I don't think it's necessary here. It reads like an attempt to save ink and page space. And if anyone out there has a better execution for this principle, then I'd love to see it. If they disagree with this principle, I'd like to see a justification beyond simply rewarding players for stacking numbers. That's a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question.
They are not wrong for pushing back. Being wrong on pushing back means their fun is wrong which is a wrong idea to begin with.
Also, rewarding someone for stacking numbers is not a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question; it is simply you hating optimization. Fact is, the nat 1 auto fail will really only affect people who optimize and will likely only impact their fun. Even if nat 1 auto fails did not exist, I doubt your games would change in anyway vs if they did as it seems unlikely that people in your games would pump up their modifiers to succeed on Nat 1's. People would fail on Nat 1's because normally their modifiers would not be enough to succeed on a nat 1. You are literally advocating a change that will probably not affect your games but can hinder the fun of other people's games.
Furthermore, the nat 1/20 auto fail/success will likely slow games down as either DMs will make players roll for that 5% auto fail chance or players will bully a DM into letting them try for that 5% autosuccess. Won't happen everygame or even most games, but it will happen in some games.
Finally, Saving Throws are not actually forced rolls under the One D&D rules because DMs have full control over when any d20 test is made. They very much can just say you succeed or fail a save, basing it on your modifier. This means some DMs can outright stop the auto fail/success rule from working. However this will lead to variance in Organized Play, e.g. Adventurers League, where idealy there should be 0 ruling variance from table to table.
Now you're just attacking my opinion, not my reasoning, while making specious arguments. And that's me be being charitable.
I laid out my case while contrasting the descriptive text for what a saving throw is against the actual mechanics. The OneD&D playtest, so far, has not redefined what a saving throw is. And until it does, the old text from 2014 stands. If it doesn't still stand, then none of this has any meaning. Even our mutual citing it was pointless. You're moving goal posts, you aren't the only one, and I'm sick of it. So far, the playtest only tells us how a saving throw is to be resolved. It has changed nothing about them being forced.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall.
You say the Nat1/Nat20 proposal will likely slow the game down. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what data there is on when the game last used this rule versus now. No one may even have kept track. What that does tell me, though, is you haven't tried it yourself. Because you aren't citing your own experience. You're giving me an armchair review. And I think that's just cute. Everyone has an opinion. Not all opinions are equal. A flat-earther is a joke. A J6 insurrectionist is a joke. Attempting to weigh in on the rules without trying them means any opinion you have is born from ignorance. You owe it to yourself to give them a fair shot.
For crying out loud, if saving throws aren't actually forced and are just something the DM decides happens, then hold person is going to be an automatic success every time. You don't get a save. You're just [condition]paralyzed[/spell]. But that would be capricious, subject to abuse, and therefore wrong. These are player-facing rules. They exist to establish a norm, a social contract, between the player(s) and the DM. There may be special rules only the DM can see or use, but this is the common clay on which everything else is built from. And something that is forced, because there is always an inherent element of harm, should always have a fail condition. For those words to mean anything, the rule needs teeth. So that failure chance should be there; no matter how small it might be.
You're worried about players bullying the DM. And that's fair. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. You know what else doesn't happen often, but does happen? The DM gives the party an impossible task, knowing full well they can't complete it, but has them roll anyway to deceive them into thinking there's a chance. I've already typed about this. That's adversarial, and I hope I'm not alone in this thread in thinking that's not acceptable behavior. Even implementing degrees of failure doesn't mitigate this. I don't care how badly I'm going to fail because I'm still going to fail. I'm still being gated─railroaded. The degree of failure doesn't actually matter. It would have been better to just let me know not to try this and move on to something else that doesn't waste anyone's time. What this rule changes for ability checks is every roll has a guaranteed chance of succeeding or failing. This means you can't actually gate the players. It functionally ends that adversarial play. And for a player, not having an adversarial DM is a good thing.
Bullying, no matter which way it goes, ultimately comes down to manners and etiquette. Players can already bully the DM into allowing an ability check. This proposal might encourage more of that, but hypotheticals aren't real or helpful. We can go back and forth until we're all blue in the face and still haven't gotten anywhere. What this does is definitely cut a real problem off at the knees. And if my only two choices are leaving two problems alone or fixing one of them, I'm going to fix the one. It's a no-brainer.
We do all agree that ability checks should only be rolled when there's a meaningful consequence, right? This just codifies that, so there always is. The DM still decides when a check is called for. And routine activities don't need checks. Functionally, we shouldn't actually notice a difference with ability checks. I sure haven't.
The only thing that really changes are saving throws. And that's just a bridge too far for some of you.
You have been attacking my opinion this entire time, trying to paint optimization as something wrong. I am defending against that. I have been feeling like I have been talking to a wall as well.
Also, I have experienced it myself. Simply checking the modifier and if a roll is guaranteed success or failure based on the modifier, I can save the time needed to make that roll. That is from experience
Also, the One D&D rules state that Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, and Saving Throws are d20 tests and that "the DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance." It states both of those very clearly. Meaning a DM can decide that a Saving Throw is not warranted. Judging by how controversial this rule change is, it is pretty clear that different DMs are going to handle it different with some deciding that if you need a Nat 1 or 20 to fail/succeed that the roll is not warranted because by RAW that is within their power. This will cause variance in Organized Play. It is fact that this is currently how the rule works. It may change, but right now that is how the rule works.
All of the groups I've played in have found meaning in Saves that can be succeeded on a Nat 1, and if there is an instance in which a statement is shown to be false then the statement is false. Thus the statement that there has to be a chance of failure for a save to have meaning is false. The Nat 1/20 Auto fail/success devalues build investment.
Maybe someone else can explain things better than I can. Pack Tactics just made a video on the new One D&D Rules and gave his opinion on the d20 tests:
I've removed the video because it doesn't need to be reposted.
Okay, if I'm reading you correctly:
You're still harping on optimization, even though that's a nonstarter I've clearly moved on from.
Saving throws aren't forced and are up to the whims of the DM, so they're just as pass/fail as ability checks have been.
Which means you haven't actually lost your precious immunity if you can convince the DM to simply not have you roll a saving throw (D20 Test).
Dragonborn still suck because the DM can just say "no" to their Breath Weapon.
As far as points two and three go, you're arguing over nothing. The Rolling a 1/Rolling a 20 rules for the D20 Test don't impact your concerns in the slighest. There's nothing for you to be upset over because you still have your precious immunity. Never mind that the rules cut both ways and give you a fighting chance against things you otherwise wouldn't have a fighting chance against. You only roll the D20 Test if the DM decides it's worth it, and that goes for saving throws. You haven't lost anything. What you have gained is the automatic success on a 20 and the inspiration that comes with it. And you, demonstrably, don't care about that.
You have spent the last 5 days making 37 posts, entirely in this thread, whinging over absolutely nothing.
I'm reporting your account for trolling. You have to be. There's no logical explanation for your activity.
Again you presuming things because my opinion differ from yours. I am not trolling, I am debating against the rule because while some DMs will not warrant saves that would otherwise succeed on a nat 1, others will. Because a DM is free to decide, different DMs will decide differently. For cases like organized play, such as Adventurers League, this is a detriment because the rules are supposed to be consistent table to table. I have stated this before.
Optimization is a huge point for me because it is something I greatly enjoy in D&D. Obviously I am going to emphasize it because a lot of the arguments you have made have implicated it as objectively bad design, which it is not. You outright stated that being able to succeed on a nat 1 is objectively bad design, essentially saying that the enjoyment I and others get from being able to build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 is wrong.
Saving Throws not being forced is something outright stated in the One D&D rules, I am simply correcting a misconception you have about them. However, a character will not succeed on a nat 1 even if their modifier is enough to do so if they are made to roll by the DM, which the DM can. Again this is a huge part of the variance that can happen in situations where there shouldn't be variance. RAW shouldn't have so much variance, that is what House Rules are for.
I have spent the past 5 days making 37 posts because this is important to me. I don't want the Nat 1/20 rule to be made. One D&D is currently UA and this is going to be one of the most important series of UA if not the most important; obviously I am going to take it a lot more seriously than previous UA's. Go ahead and report me, try to silence me for having an opinion that you clearly disagree with, but I firmly believe that I have done nothing wrong. I have not been trolling but debating on a topic I feel is important for the development of One D&D.
Just because someone has a very different opinion from you doesn't mean they lack logical explanation or are trolling.
And I think they're wrong for pushing back. The principle is sound. In a game where every cast of the die is a binary outcome, both success and failure needs to always be options. Anything is possible. Nothin
Some of this is just growing pains from clumsily lumping everything together into a D20 Test. I get wanting to unify everything, and some systems pull it off, but I don't think it's necessary here. It reads like an attempt to save ink and page space. And if anyone out there has a better execution for this principle, then I'd love to see it. If they disagree with this principle, I'd like to see a justification beyond simply rewarding players for stacking numbers. That's a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question.
They are not wrong for pushing back. Being wrong on pushing back means their fun is wrong which is a wrong idea to begin with.
Also, rewarding someone for stacking numbers is not a Dolyist answer to a Watsonian question; it is simply you hating optimization. Fact is, the nat 1 auto fail will really only affect people who optimize and will likely only impact their fun. Even if nat 1 auto fails did not exist, I doubt your games would change in anyway vs if they did as it seems unlikely that people in your games would pump up their modifiers to succeed on Nat 1's. People would fail on Nat 1's because normally their modifiers would not be enough to succeed on a nat 1. You are literally advocating a change that will probably not affect your games but can hinder the fun of other people's games.
Furthermore, the nat 1/20 auto fail/success will likely slow games down as either DMs will make players roll for that 5% auto fail chance or players will bully a DM into letting them try for that 5% autosuccess. Won't happen everygame or even most games, but it will happen in some games.
Finally, Saving Throws are not actually forced rolls under the One D&D rules because DMs have full control over when any d20 test is made. They very much can just say you succeed or fail a save, basing it on your modifier. This means some DMs can outright stop the auto fail/success rule from working. However this will lead to variance in Organized Play, e.g. Adventurers League, where idealy there should be 0 ruling variance from table to table.
Now you're just attacking my opinion, not my reasoning, while making specious arguments. And that's me be being charitable.
I laid out my case while contrasting the descriptive text for what a saving throw is against the actual mechanics. The OneD&D playtest, so far, has not redefined what a saving throw is. And until it does, the old text from 2014 stands. If it doesn't still stand, then none of this has any meaning. Even our mutual citing it was pointless. You're moving goal posts, you aren't the only one, and I'm sick of it. So far, the playtest only tells us how a saving throw is to be resolved. It has changed nothing about them being forced.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall.
You say the Nat1/Nat20 proposal will likely slow the game down. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what data there is on when the game last used this rule versus now. No one may even have kept track. What that does tell me, though, is you haven't tried it yourself. Because you aren't citing your own experience. You're giving me an armchair review. And I think that's just cute. Everyone has an opinion. Not all opinions are equal. A flat-earther is a joke. A J6 insurrectionist is a joke. Attempting to weigh in on the rules without trying them means any opinion you have is born from ignorance. You owe it to yourself to give them a fair shot.
For crying out loud, if saving throws aren't actually forced and are just something the DM decides happens, then hold person is going to be an automatic success every time. You don't get a save. You're just [condition]paralyzed[/spell]. But that would be capricious, subject to abuse, and therefore wrong. These are player-facing rules. They exist to establish a norm, a social contract, between the player(s) and the DM. There may be special rules only the DM can see or use, but this is the common clay on which everything else is built from. And something that is forced, because there is always an inherent element of harm, should always have a fail condition. For those words to mean anything, the rule needs teeth. So that failure chance should be there; no matter how small it might be.
You're worried about players bullying the DM. And that's fair. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. You know what else doesn't happen often, but does happen? The DM gives the party an impossible task, knowing full well they can't complete it, but has them roll anyway to deceive them into thinking there's a chance. I've already typed about this. That's adversarial, and I hope I'm not alone in this thread in thinking that's not acceptable behavior. Even implementing degrees of failure doesn't mitigate this. I don't care how badly I'm going to fail because I'm still going to fail. I'm still being gated─railroaded. The degree of failure doesn't actually matter. It would have been better to just let me know not to try this and move on to something else that doesn't waste anyone's time. What this rule changes for ability checks is every roll has a guaranteed chance of succeeding or failing. This means you can't actually gate the players. It functionally ends that adversarial play. And for a player, not having an adversarial DM is a good thing.
Bullying, no matter which way it goes, ultimately comes down to manners and etiquette. Players can already bully the DM into allowing an ability check. This proposal might encourage more of that, but hypotheticals aren't real or helpful. We can go back and forth until we're all blue in the face and still haven't gotten anywhere. What this does is definitely cut a real problem off at the knees. And if my only two choices are leaving two problems alone or fixing one of them, I'm going to fix the one. It's a no-brainer.
We do all agree that ability checks should only be rolled when there's a meaningful consequence, right? This just codifies that, so there always is. The DM still decides when a check is called for. And routine activities don't need checks. Functionally, we shouldn't actually notice a difference with ability checks. I sure haven't.
The only thing that really changes are saving throws. And that's just a bridge too far for some of you.
You have been attacking my opinion this entire time, trying to paint optimization as something wrong. I am defending against that. I have been feeling like I have been talking to a wall as well.
Also, I have experienced it myself. Simply checking the modifier and if a roll is guaranteed success or failure based on the modifier, I can save the time needed to make that roll. That is from experience
Also, the One D&D rules state that Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, and Saving Throws are d20 tests and that "the DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance." It states both of those very clearly. Meaning a DM can decide that a Saving Throw is not warranted. Judging by how controversial this rule change is, it is pretty clear that different DMs are going to handle it different with some deciding that if you need a Nat 1 or 20 to fail/succeed that the roll is not warranted because by RAW that is within their power. This will cause variance in Organized Play. It is fact that this is currently how the rule works. It may change, but right now that is how the rule works.
All of the groups I've played in have found meaning in Saves that can be succeeded on a Nat 1, and if there is an instance in which a statement is shown to be false then the statement is false. Thus the statement that there has to be a chance of failure for a save to have meaning is false. The Nat 1/20 Auto fail/success devalues build investment.
Maybe someone else can explain things better than I can. Pack Tactics just made a video on the new One D&D Rules and gave his opinion on the d20 tests:
I've removed the video because it doesn't need to be reposted.
Okay, if I'm reading you correctly:
You're still harping on optimization, even though that's a nonstarter I've clearly moved on from.
Saving throws aren't forced and are up to the whims of the DM, so they're just as pass/fail as ability checks have been.
Which means you haven't actually lost your precious immunity if you can convince the DM to simply not have you roll a saving throw (D20 Test).
Dragonborn still suck because the DM can just say "no" to their Breath Weapon.
As far as points two and three go, you're arguing over nothing. The Rolling a 1/Rolling a 20 rules for the D20 Test don't impact your concerns in the slighest. There's nothing for you to be upset over because you still have your precious immunity. Never mind that the rules cut both ways and give you a fighting chance against things you otherwise wouldn't have a fighting chance against. You only roll the D20 Test if the DM decides it's worth it, and that goes for saving throws. You haven't lost anything. What you have gained is the automatic success on a 20 and the inspiration that comes with it. And you, demonstrably, don't care about that.
You have spent the last 5 days making 37 posts, entirely in this thread, whinging over absolutely nothing.
I'm reporting your account for trolling. You have to be. There's no logical explanation for your activity.
Again you presuming things because my opinion differ from yours. I am not trolling, I am debating against the rule because while some DMs will not warrant saves that would otherwise succeed on a nat 1, others will. Because a DM is free to decide, different DMs will decide differently. For cases like organized play, such as Adventurers League, this is a detriment because the rules are supposed to be consistent table to table. I have stated this before.
Saving Throws not being forced is something outright stated in the One D&D rules, I am simply correcting a misconception you have about them. However, a character will not succeed on a nat 1 even if their modifier is enough to do so if they are made to roll by the DM, which the DM can. Again this is a huge part of the variance that can happen in situations where there shouldn't be variance. RAW shouldn't have so much variance, that is what House Rules are for.
I have spent the past 5 days making 37 posts because this is important to me. I don't want the Nat 1/20 rule to be made. Go ahead and report me, try to silence me for having an opinion that you clearly disagree with, but I firmly believe that I have done nothing wrong. I have not been trolling but debating on a topic I feel is important for the development of One D&D.
Then your problem isn't with the rule for rolling a 1. It's with an allegedly arbitrary permissions granted to the DM setting unclear expectations for the players.
Then your problem isn't with the rule for rolling a 1. It's with an allegedly arbitrary permissions granted to the DM setting unclear expectations for the players.
You spent all this time on a knee-jerk reaction. Get over yourself. And I'm putting you on ignore, so don't bother responding to me again. Ever.
It is not a knee jerk reaction. I have actual experience with the rule for several years. I know how it feels to fail on a nat 1 despite having the modifier to succeed. A +19 should not fail a DC10 5% of the time. My problem is very much with the Nat 1 Auto Fail. I only brought up the DM being able to decide whether a roll is warranted or not to show that another point because you asked people to show more points and the Nat 1/20 rule leads to variance in organized play that should not be there.
I don't care if you put me on ignore. I will still respond to your posts because my goal was never to convince you or change your opinion. The goal of debates is to change the opinion of the audience, anyone who may be lurking and/or on the fence on a rule. My goal is to convince them not my debate opponent. Refuting your points is the best way to do so.
There is little point in trying to convince a single person, but there is so much more in convincing the audience as the more voices opposing the Nat 1/20 rule, the more likely it will not make it to the official release.
Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
If someone is implementing a DC 50 check, that's beyond what the core books consider to be "nearly impossible." And that's where the table stops. It's literally uncharted rules territory, and I think it's a bad example. It's homebrew, so the core rules won't be able to address it.
To recontextualize that, normally a group check is everyone making their own individual check to accomplish a task. If the entire group is rolling Dexterity (Stealth), for example, they aren't rolling for a total. They're all individually rolling against a set DC. And if a majority succeeds in their individual checks, then the group succeeds. If a majority fails, the group fails. If we implement degrees of success and failure, from the DMG, then someone who rolls well enough might be able to make up for someone else's shortcomings and vice versa.
So while the Nat20 in your example might be enough to make up for one other person's failure, I wouldn't call it a success in moving the tree. Heck, the tree has a weight, doesn't it? Why are we even rolling when everyone can just pool their respective carrying capacities? Or are we pretending encumbrance doesn't matter? A 50-foot pine tree with a 12-inch diameter is roughly 2,000 lbs., so why not just present the numbers to the party and let them figure out the best way to move it on their own?
Nearly impossible indeed, I meant an athletics check which with expertise in athletics and using the hammer of thunderbolts and a belt of the storm giant makes it possible with a bardic inspiration on top to get up to potential a +34 which does make a DC 50 possible, if I put down the correct check to start with. However in my absurd example I messed up the original point of how does this effect a group check, a single player getting a 20 should not auto succeed but it'll be argued by some players that it should auto succeed the whole group check, and then how do you handle a nat 1? does the entire group auto fail a stealth check because 1 player got a nat 1? possibly but the consistency flip side to that is from a single player should succeed. What if one player gets a 1 and another a 20?
Personally I dislike the new rule. Just based on our normal sessions and seeing how the skill checks have played out normally.
In the end I fully believe this will be one of the most house ruled things in the game. But depending on if you're using the VTT or not, you may not be able to get away with it.
In the end I fully believe this will be one of the most house ruled things in the game. But depending on if you're using the VTT or not, you may not be able to get away with it.
A VTT is unlikely to even know what the DC is, it's just going to report 'what was rolled' and whether the base die roll was a 1, a 20, or something else.
In the end I fully believe this will be one of the most house ruled things in the game. But depending on if you're using the VTT or not, you may not be able to get away with it.
A VTT is unlikely to even know what the DC is, it's just going to report 'what was rolled' and whether the base die roll was a 1, a 20, or something else.
My tables primary plays on a VTT and we started with roll20 before moving onto foundry. In both, nat 1 and nat 20 rolls re highlighted in red and green respectively, so yeah you right in that we should always know when you roll a nat 1 or 20.
Though I am a bit confused as to how a VTT would really change things in regards to the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success. I know if the DM uses a monster's feature or action, it will display info like the description, any dc it may have, the type of save, etc. So in that sense it can know the DC, but the DM can hide it pretty easily, from my experience anyway.
So I have been back and forth on this alot, have tried it at my table and it both worked really well in some moments and badly in others.
I think, and my feedback on the survey was, that this should absolutely be in the rule book but as an optional rule. That way DM's will not have to explain there "house rules" for this, it will be a simple binary, from the rulebook, do you treat nat 20's and nat 1's as per RAW or the clearly defined optional rule.
So I have been back and forth on this alot, have tried it at my table and it both worked really well in some moments and badly in others.
I think, and my feedback on the survey was, that this should absolutely be in the rule book but as an optional rule. That way DM's will not have to explain there "house rules" for this, it will be a simple binary, from the rulebook, do you treat nat 20's and nat 1's as per RAW or the clearly defined optional rule.
I think that is a very fair way to do it. They already have the rules in 5e and the test rules, it should be easy enough to include both in the PHB.
So I have been back and forth on this alot, have tried it at my table and it both worked really well in some moments and badly in others.
I think, and my feedback on the survey was, that this should absolutely be in the rule book but as an optional rule. That way DM's will not have to explain there "house rules" for this, it will be a simple binary, from the rulebook, do you treat nat 20's and nat 1's as per RAW or the clearly defined optional rule.
So exact the same as now lol.
Pretty much, though I guess it would be more clearly defined, which I think was an issue in the current books. A lot of the rules could definitely be organized better and not weirdly spread out. I really love that they actually state under the Incapacitated Condition that you lose concentration while incapacitated.
I stated before that I am fine with nat 1/20 auto fail/success being an optional rule, as long as it isn't the default rule. Honestly, it clearly being stated as an optional rule may make more people realize that it isn't the default rule like how a lot of people do right now in 5E. The main reason why so many people were playing with Nat 1/20 auto fail/success in 5E was because they thought it was the default rule.
I dislike the new rules for a few reasons,
Consider concentration checks, you're a Wizard with a CON save of +8, you're next to a paladin who's Aura boosts your save by another +4 to a save of +12. A cat hits with a scratch attack for 1 damage, you now have a 5% chance of losing concentration instead of no chance to lose concentration. It's additionally an extra roll you now have to make where it could have been skipped before, just encase you hit that nat 1 scenario.
On the flip side, if a tree has a DC 50 strength check for lifting as a group check, do you auto succeed that if a player gets a 20? even if rest of the party gets a combined result of around 10. I do not believe and have not found a situation in which 20 not being an auto success or a 1 not being an auto failure is an issue. Often the rolls aren't even made in most cases but the cases they are it is usually for the DC to determine what the result of the attempt was, where a low roll might be a bigger failure than a higher roll but now there are going to be players rules lawyering that a "20 is a success" even if the DM isn't checking for that since "success" wasn't possible; Just merely a different failure outcome.
I mean this in the best possible way: I wish I could agree with you.
The lion's share of my "arguing" has been over saving throws. They're intended to be binary, but in the current rules (the PHB, not the playtest) it's possible to negate them completely. And I think that's why the Nat1/Nat20 rule is being implemented. It's to ensure that binary remains. If I have a rogue with a negative wisdom modifier, they'll never pass the DC 21 Wisdom saving throw of an ancient red dragon's Frightful Presence. At least, not without some outside help. But with the playtest rule, they can. And that's empowering. It means we always have a fighting chance.
It also means you can't actually make yourself immune to the saving throws forced by lesser creatures. Because that can happen, too, using the rules in the PHB. But with the playtest, it means there's always an element of danger. That's exciting.
I don't think skills and ability checks are meaningfully impacted by the rule. From what I've run with the playtest document, I haven't seen anything new.
For me it is about an onslaught of attacks, I think with Concentration Wizards (of the coast, not pointy hat kind) need to consider making it increasingly more difficult if you accumulate damage across a turn. For me, if they did that then I am happy ignoring the nat 1 failure for concentration. Currently if I have 8 goblin archers each only doing 1d6+3 say damage then it makes sense that the wizard only roll for concentration once all the damage has been calculated, or you roll every time damage is caused adding the damage to the total damage caused so far when working out the DC.
That way Goblin 1, yes you are going to probably succeed on that 5 points of damage, goblins 2 to 8 then also shoot at the Wizard, they don't kill him, but do a total of 42 points of damage, now the wizard should be making a concentration check on a 21. Or 3 goblins attack and hit, then cleric heals and the Orcs then attack, that damage should all be added together for the case of a concentration check even if the wizard has been healed.
If someone is implementing a DC 50 check, that's beyond what the core books consider to be "nearly impossible." And that's where the table stops. It's literally uncharted rules territory, and I think it's a bad example. It's homebrew, so the core rules won't be able to address it.
To recontextualize that, normally a group check is everyone making their own individual check to accomplish a task. If the entire group is rolling Dexterity (Stealth), for example, they aren't rolling for a total. They're all individually rolling against a set DC. And if a majority succeeds in their individual checks, then the group succeeds. If a majority fails, the group fails. If we implement degrees of success and failure, from the DMG, then someone who rolls well enough might be able to make up for someone else's shortcomings and vice versa.
So while the Nat20 in your example might be enough to make up for one other person's failure, I wouldn't call it a success in moving the tree. Heck, the tree has a weight, doesn't it? Why are we even rolling when everyone can just pool their respective carrying capacities? Or are we pretending encumbrance doesn't matter? A 50-foot pine tree with a 12-inch diameter is roughly 2,000 lbs., so why not just present the numbers to the party and let them figure out the best way to move it on their own?
A DC50 concentration check is very possible.
magic using Character has more then 100 hit points (very possible) and takes 100 damage in a single attack (also possible at level 20). Thats a DC of 50 for your concentration check.
That's a saving throw, not an ability check. If the DM is calling for an ability check, then they're admitting something is possible and maybe even intended to be succeeded against. Saving throws aren't called for, they're forced. Get your terms straight.
And, yes, something like meteor swarm does an average of 140 damage for a DC 70 Constitution saving throw. You're all but guaranteed to fail that. But at least with the new rule you have a fighting chance.
You have been attacking my opinion this entire time, trying to paint optimization as something wrong. I am defending against that. I have been feeling like I have been talking to a wall as well.
Also, I have experienced it myself. Simply checking the modifier and if a roll is guaranteed success or failure based on the modifier, I can save the time needed to make that roll. That is from experience
Also, the One D&D rules state that Attack Rolls, Ability Checks, and Saving Throws are d20 tests and that "the DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance." It states both of those very clearly. Meaning a DM can decide that a Saving Throw is not warranted. Judging by how controversial this rule change is, it is pretty clear that different DMs are going to handle it different with some deciding that if you need a Nat 1 or 20 to fail/succeed that the roll is not warranted because by RAW that is within their power. This will cause variance in Organized Play. It is fact that this is currently how the rule works. It may change, but right now that is how the rule works.
All of the groups I've played in have found meaning in Saves that can be succeeded on a Nat 1, and if there is an instance in which a statement is shown to be false then the statement is false. Thus the statement that there has to be a chance of failure for a save to have meaning is false. Succeeding on a Nat 1 doesn't break anything, doesn't warp the game, isn't disruptive, there is nothing wrong with it. You may not see it as fun, but clearly other people do. The Nat 1/20 Auto fail/success devalues build investment.
I haven't seen a DM ever give a completely impossible task. However, I have seen players try to get rolls for impossible tasks such as the classic seducing a dragon scenario. This isn't conjecture, but actual experience. Thankfully they shut up once it is pointed out that by RAW and RAI, nat 20's and nat 1's do not affect ability checks or saving throws, often by me.
Maybe someone else can explain things better than I can. Pack Tactics just made a video on the new One D&D Rules and gave his opinion on the d20 tests:
Concentration upkeep is meant to be lenient though as the main balancing factor for it is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. It can also be broken by any effect that incapacitates you like a stun or paralysis. It isn't supposed to become something impossible to upkeep unless you have incredibly high saves.
I've removed the video because it doesn't need to be reposted.
Okay, if I'm reading you correctly:
As far as points two and three go, you're arguing over nothing. The Rolling a 1/Rolling a 20 rules for the D20 Test don't impact your concerns in the slighest. There's nothing for you to be upset over because you still have your precious immunity. Never mind that the rules cut both ways and give you a fighting chance against things you otherwise wouldn't have a fighting chance against. You only roll the D20 Test if the DM decides it's worth it, and that goes for saving throws. You haven't lost anything. What you have gained is the automatic success on a 20 and the inspiration that comes with it. And you, demonstrably, don't care about that.
You have spent the last 5 days making 37 posts, entirely in this thread, whinging over absolutely nothing.
I'm reporting your account for trolling. You have to be. There's no logical explanation for your activity.
Again you presuming things because my opinion differ from yours. I am not trolling, I am debating against the rule because while some DMs will not warrant saves that would otherwise succeed on a nat 1, others will. Because a DM is free to decide, different DMs will decide differently. For cases like organized play, such as Adventurers League, this is a detriment because the rules are supposed to be consistent table to table. I have stated this before.
Optimization is a huge point for me because it is something I greatly enjoy in D&D. Obviously I am going to emphasize it because a lot of the arguments you have made have implicated it as objectively bad design, which it is not. You outright stated that being able to succeed on a nat 1 is objectively bad design, essentially saying that the enjoyment I and others get from being able to build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 is wrong.
Saving Throws not being forced is something outright stated in the One D&D rules, I am simply correcting a misconception you have about them. However, a character will not succeed on a nat 1 even if their modifier is enough to do so if they are made to roll by the DM, which the DM can. Again this is a huge part of the variance that can happen in situations where there shouldn't be variance. RAW shouldn't have so much variance, that is what House Rules are for.
I have spent the past 5 days making 37 posts because this is important to me. I don't want the Nat 1/20 rule to be made. One D&D is currently UA and this is going to be one of the most important series of UA if not the most important; obviously I am going to take it a lot more seriously than previous UA's. Go ahead and report me, try to silence me for having an opinion that you clearly disagree with, but I firmly believe that I have done nothing wrong. I have not been trolling but debating on a topic I feel is important for the development of One D&D.
Just because someone has a very different opinion from you doesn't mean they lack logical explanation or are trolling.
Then your problem isn't with the rule for rolling a 1. It's with an allegedly arbitrary permissions granted to the DM setting unclear expectations for the players.
[REDACTED]
It is not a knee jerk reaction. I have actual experience with the rule for several years. I know how it feels to fail on a nat 1 despite having the modifier to succeed. A +19 should not fail a DC10 5% of the time. My problem is very much with the Nat 1 Auto Fail. I only brought up the DM being able to decide whether a roll is warranted or not to show that another point because you asked people to show more points and the Nat 1/20 rule leads to variance in organized play that should not be there.
I don't care if you put me on ignore. I will still respond to your posts because my goal was never to convince you or change your opinion. The goal of debates is to change the opinion of the audience, anyone who may be lurking and/or on the fence on a rule. My goal is to convince them not my debate opponent. Refuting your points is the best way to do so.
There is little point in trying to convince a single person, but there is so much more in convincing the audience as the more voices opposing the Nat 1/20 rule, the more likely it will not make it to the official release.
Nearly impossible indeed, I meant an athletics check which with expertise in athletics and using the hammer of thunderbolts and a belt of the storm giant makes it possible with a bardic inspiration on top to get up to potential a +34 which does make a DC 50 possible, if I put down the correct check to start with. However in my absurd example I messed up the original point of how does this effect a group check, a single player getting a 20 should not auto succeed but it'll be argued by some players that it should auto succeed the whole group check, and then how do you handle a nat 1? does the entire group auto fail a stealth check because 1 player got a nat 1? possibly but the consistency flip side to that is from a single player should succeed. What if one player gets a 1 and another a 20?
Personally I dislike the new rule. Just based on our normal sessions and seeing how the skill checks have played out normally.
In the end I fully believe this will be one of the most house ruled things in the game. But depending on if you're using the VTT or not, you may not be able to get away with it.
A VTT is unlikely to even know what the DC is, it's just going to report 'what was rolled' and whether the base die roll was a 1, a 20, or something else.
My tables primary plays on a VTT and we started with roll20 before moving onto foundry. In both, nat 1 and nat 20 rolls re highlighted in red and green respectively, so yeah you right in that we should always know when you roll a nat 1 or 20.
Though I am a bit confused as to how a VTT would really change things in regards to the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success. I know if the DM uses a monster's feature or action, it will display info like the description, any dc it may have, the type of save, etc. So in that sense it can know the DC, but the DM can hide it pretty easily, from my experience anyway.
So I have been back and forth on this alot, have tried it at my table and it both worked really well in some moments and badly in others.
I think, and my feedback on the survey was, that this should absolutely be in the rule book but as an optional rule. That way DM's will not have to explain there "house rules" for this, it will be a simple binary, from the rulebook, do you treat nat 20's and nat 1's as per RAW or the clearly defined optional rule.
I think that is a very fair way to do it. They already have the rules in 5e and the test rules, it should be easy enough to include both in the PHB.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Agreed. I have no issues with this being presented as an optional rule (like flanking, for instance) rather than the default standard.
Pretty much, though I guess it would be more clearly defined, which I think was an issue in the current books. A lot of the rules could definitely be organized better and not weirdly spread out. I really love that they actually state under the Incapacitated Condition that you lose concentration while incapacitated.
I stated before that I am fine with nat 1/20 auto fail/success being an optional rule, as long as it isn't the default rule. Honestly, it clearly being stated as an optional rule may make more people realize that it isn't the default rule like how a lot of people do right now in 5E. The main reason why so many people were playing with Nat 1/20 auto fail/success in 5E was because they thought it was the default rule.