So, are you against the Nat1/20 rule then? I'm confused. Since conversely, if something is a DC 30 and you have no bonus you shouldn't be able to auto succeed. It seems odd to be in favor of the success option but not the failure. Seems like you're just seeking out ways to make things easier.
Do you mean me? or Choir? For me, I am mostly against the Nat 1 auto fail. Nat 20 auto success isn't something I care too much about (though I lean more against it) partly because I do feel that impossible saves is a flaw at higher levels, but that is more due to Saves that you are not proficient in not scaling in anyway unless you have magic items or something else boosting it. Like I feel like there should be a way for you to always succeed, but I personally don't think the nat 20 auto success is the proper way to do it. In past editions, your level affected your saves, but it doesn't in 5E.
So, are you against the Nat1/20 rule then? I'm confused. Since conversely, if something is a DC 30 and you have no bonus you shouldn't be able to auto succeed. It seems odd to be in favor of the success option but not the failure. Seems like you're just seeking out ways to make things easier.
Which is a common thread I keep seeing, unfortunately.
I like the proposed rule. Taken at face value, it's simply telling the player four things:
The DM will let you know if and when you roll
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
That's it. There's no farming. Saving throws aren't "forced" like they were before, so it's possible for the DM to simply say you cannot fail. But if you do roll, there will always be a chance of failure; just as there will always be a chance of success.
The only X-factor that people seem to be ignoring is, if the DM decides a roll isn't warranted, they can also predetermine the outcome. This is why I encourage rolling, no matter what. It keeps the outcome out of the DM's hands and in fate's.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance. In organized play, this level of variance should not exist. The default rule should be the current 5E rule while having nat 1/20 auto fail/success be an optional rule due to the rule is more likely to lead to more negative experience than positive as generally the people who are for it are probably unaffected by it as nat 1's would generally be fails for them with or without auto fail on nat 1's as I doubt they typically build characters with modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
Which is why it's likely best to simply roll all the time. I'd be shocked if that isn't the intent. But there are no instructions given to the DM. It's worded as a player-facing rule for the next PHB.
But some players don't like that because it means they can't make themselves immune to something. Just as some Dungeon Masters don't like it because they can't railroad their players with impossible tasks.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
Which is why it's likely best to simply roll all the time. I'd be shocked if that isn't the intent. But there are no instructions given to the DM. It's worded as a player-facing rule for the next PHB.
But some players don't like that because it means they can't make themselves immune to something. Just as some Dungeon Masters don't like it because they can't railroad their players with impossible tasks.
Your statement is simply disingenuous.
Some players and dungeon masters (I'm both by the way) don't like it because it just adds randomness for the sake of randomness. It's a 5-10% chance of removing agency and ignoring any mechanical investment characters put into their builds. You have a +20 to a save and the DC is 10? Nat 1 you fail. That just feels bad and miserable. You built for that +20, but 5% of the time, it doesn't matter at all.
And letting players try certain possible tasks can lead to other possibilities. They may not succeed in their intended task, but they can open up new doors by attempting. However, a nat 20 would suggest by raw that they simply succeed at the original task.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
"As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting."
I wholly disagree with this, I do not believe they make the game more interesting, esp the Nat 1 side, that just makes the game more frustrating, straight up. It is the DM, not the game rules/mechanics that make Checks and Saves more interesting.
"If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky."
Should adventuring be risky? If you're an adventurer, you're still going to take the actions with the lowest risk or even no risk at all over the highly risk actions. It certainly isn't a career free from danger, so why increase the danger for no reason? suicidal?
"If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance."
But if there is no chance of success, even a nat 20 can not turn that into a success, yet the rules specifically contradict that.
"Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas."
I already did, you were just playing with your phone instead of paying attention to the lesson.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
but... If this will be the case, as DM, I can choose when anybody can do any check. If DC is higher than 20, than I ask the character's statnumber, and if the bonus at least +1, maybe I would let them roll. Depend on the situation. Always the DMs choice.
For autofail, maybe I would make a second roll, and if the second one is also unsuccessful, the fail is critical, not a simple mistake. Maybe lost your weapon, or break the sword if throwing again 1.
But this new rule is bad, because mislead players, and give opportunity to arguments, and nothing worse than an argument between a player and DM what is the rule... One afternoon out of the window because of that...
Would be easier if there is no auto success or auto fail. DM always can decide and help behind the panel without noticing the players to avoid any sour and let the game flow.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
This is to say, not all rolls require a success or failure state, yet these D20 rules are enforcing that and it makes little sense.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
The DM isn't having their agency taken away. It's a die roll. It's chance. And they aren't even rolling the die, so it isn't their chance to take. The player is. And the player is taking that jump as an informed decision. If they have a Strength score of 19, then they can only reliably clear 19 feet. So a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) check is, what, 25 feet?
I'd be asking what other options are there. Can we climb down and then up? If it's too deep, can we find another way across than just leaping? If there aren't other options presented to us, then we're being railroaded. You either pass this specific test on my terms or not at all. Whether they fall or turn around, it doesn't matter. The DM should not claim agency at the expense of the players.
At first glance, your example looks like a deeply frustrating encounter. I'd want to give my players as many opportunities as I can. Because, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I think we should want our players to succeed.
There are times as a GM I don't want players to know a task is mathematically impossible.
THIS. The example given is good.
Another example might be an attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap. You can do some wonderful tension building if the player rolls a modified 23 (or 27 or 33) and still isn't successful. It can impress upon the party the difficulty of tasks in that place/situation in a way that simply telling them "It's impossible, don't roll" doesn't.
Counterpoint: That's adversarial play, and one of the points of the rule is to quash it.
If you can't adequately build tension without sending your players up against an impossible task, then you aren't building tension. You're deflating the game by railroading the players. You're telling them their choices and actions don't matter.
Counter Counter Point: It's not necessary adversarial play because even if they can't succeed at the task they are attempting, just the act of attempting it can cause other things to happen. They fail at the task at hand, but succeed at causing something else to happen. Or perhaps simply attempting and failing can make the next attempt easier based on how well they roll. DC could start impossibly high, but based on how close they get to success, the DC could go down as they wear it down.
Yes to what Mana said.
And I find the whole "If this is your only way to build tension, you're failing as a DM!" kind of proclamations tiring. Who said it was the only way? There are tons of ways to build tension: description, interaction with PCS, sound, lore, etc. I'm tired just typing this. It's a valid way to build tension and be immersive because most of the time, the PCs won't know if something is impossible (or near to it) outside of absurdities ("I try to jump to the moon!"). When confronted with a lock or a trap, or a place with very cleverly designed secret doors, they're not going to automatically know if finding or disarming or opening these things is "impossible." They have to try.
It's not about being adversarial. It's about using one tool among many to convey information and set the scene.
BTW, I'm not saying a DM should NEVER just bypass rolling. It's ultimately the DM's call, and I've certainly waved off rolling a DC check for something that should be (IMNSHO) an auto success....and I've flat out told them "This gate is too large and heavy for any of you to lift using brute strength."
Re: "telling them choices don't matter": No. I disagree with this vehemently. Because context is important here. It could be that the party is in a large, multilevel dungeon complex and have chosen to wander deeper into the dungeon than their original mission warranted. It could be that instead of being content successfully lifting the lady's jewels, they decide to go after what's in the vault in the cellars of the manor. Having them roll instead of just telling them they succeed/fail can, again, be one tool among many to build tension and convey information (even a helpful warning that they're in over their heads) without breaking immersion or verbally redirecting them.
but... If this will be the case, as DM, I can choose when anybody can do any check. If DC is higher than 20, than I ask the character's statnumber, and if the bonus at least +1, maybe I would let them roll. Depend on the situation. Always the DMs choice.
For autofail, maybe I would make a second roll, and if the second one is also unsuccessful, the fail is critical, not a simple mistake. Maybe lost your weapon, or break the sword if throwing again 1.
But this new rule is bad, because mislead players, and give opportunity to arguments, and nothing worse than an argument between a player and DM what is the rule... One afternoon out of the window because of that...
Would be easier if there is no auto success or auto fail. DM always can decide and help behind the panel without noticing the players to avoid any sour and let the game flow.
I must have forgotten. There has never been an argument before this rule. Everything was pure and good.
Rolling a 1 doesn't have to be disastrous failure. It just means you fail. Same as if you rolled a 2 and your bonuses don't cover the DC
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
This is to say, not all rolls require a success or failure state, yet these D20 rules are enforcing that and it makes little sense.
You chef case shows an auto fail/success. A 1 would fail and they would cook a horrible meal. A 20 would be a great meal. Everything in between the DM can decide how the King feels. They can set a DC you have to pass to be acceptable
Take a performance check to play a song. Your bard is having a lute battle with an NPC. That would be multiple rolls. They roll a 1 first time, then a 10, then an 8, then a 15, then a 20, another 20. By the end the DM averages it out and they came out stronger. Started bad but won it in the end.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
This is to say, not all rolls require a success or failure state, yet these D20 rules are enforcing that and it makes little sense.
You chef case shows an auto fail/success. A 1 would fail and they would cook a horrible meal. A 20 would be a great meal. Everything in between the DM can decide how the King feels. They can set a DC you have to pass to be acceptable
Take a performance check to play a song. Your bard is having a lute battle with an NPC. That would be multiple rolls. They roll a 1 first time, then a 10, then an 8, then a 15, then a 20, another 20. By the end the DM averages it out and they came out stronger. Started bad but won it in the end.
incorrect, you've arbitarily decided that 1 is a fail here, as I said, in my example the DM determined it'd be a minimum of a good meal. This is literally my point, you're trying to force a failure state where there simply need NOT be a failure state.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
This is to say, not all rolls require a success or failure state, yet these D20 rules are enforcing that and it makes little sense.
You chef case shows an auto fail/success. A 1 would fail and they would cook a horrible meal. A 20 would be a great meal. Everything in between the DM can decide how the King feels. They can set a DC you have to pass to be acceptable
Take a performance check to play a song. Your bard is having a lute battle with an NPC. That would be multiple rolls. They roll a 1 first time, then a 10, then an 8, then a 15, then a 20, another 20. By the end the DM averages it out and they came out stronger. Started bad but won it in the end.
incorrect, you've arbitarily decided that 1 is a fail here, as I said, in my example the DM determined it'd be a minimum of a good meal. This is literally my point, you're trying to force a failure state where there simply need NOT be a failure state.
You're not making the argument you think you are. It could very easily be flipped around. You're trying to force a state where there is no chance of failure when the playtest rule explicitly states there is always a chance of failure.
You can't disregard the playtest rules from your thought experiment. That's the point.
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
This is to say, not all rolls require a success or failure state, yet these D20 rules are enforcing that and it makes little sense.
You chef case shows an auto fail/success. A 1 would fail and they would cook a horrible meal. A 20 would be a great meal. Everything in between the DM can decide how the King feels. They can set a DC you have to pass to be acceptable
Take a performance check to play a song. Your bard is having a lute battle with an NPC. That would be multiple rolls. They roll a 1 first time, then a 10, then an 8, then a 15, then a 20, another 20. By the end the DM averages it out and they came out stronger. Started bad but won it in the end.
incorrect, you've arbitarily decided that 1 is a fail here, as I said, in my example the DM determined it'd be a minimum of a good meal. This is literally my point, you're trying to force a failure state where there simply need NOT be a failure state.
Fine, you win. No more rolls to see if you succeed or fail. Just to see how well you succeed. Because the best cook has never made a bad dish The best musician has never played a bad note The best player in any sport has never done bad at it. The list can go on and on.
I mean should there be no chance of failure if someone tries to do a heart transplant as long as the person is proficient? My Rogue with +10 in Acrobatics is also proficient in the cobbler kit. Should he never make a bad pair of shows ever? What if it is in metal working or something that uses a mold? Should the mold ever crack?
You can expect the DC of the roll to be anywhere from 5 to 30
A 1 will always fail
A 20 will always succeed
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed 100% chance others fail No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20. Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
This is to say, not all rolls require a success or failure state, yet these D20 rules are enforcing that and it makes little sense.
You chef case shows an auto fail/success. A 1 would fail and they would cook a horrible meal. A 20 would be a great meal. Everything in between the DM can decide how the King feels. They can set a DC you have to pass to be acceptable
Take a performance check to play a song. Your bard is having a lute battle with an NPC. That would be multiple rolls. They roll a 1 first time, then a 10, then an 8, then a 15, then a 20, another 20. By the end the DM averages it out and they came out stronger. Started bad but won it in the end.
incorrect, you've arbitarily decided that 1 is a fail here, as I said, in my example the DM determined it'd be a minimum of a good meal. This is literally my point, you're trying to force a failure state where there simply need NOT be a failure state.
Fine, you win. No more rolls to see if you succeed or fail. Just to see how well you succeed. Because the best cook has never made a bad dish The best musician has never played a bad note The best player in any sport has never done bad at it. The list can go on and on.
I mean should there be no chance of failure if someone tries to do a heart transplant as long as the person is proficient? My Rogue with +10 in Acrobatics is also proficient in the cobbler kit. Should he never make a bad pair of shows ever? What if it is in metal working or something that uses a mold? Should the mold ever crack?
Great Chefs do everything they can to make sure their dishes go out in great condition, if any chef was handing out 1 in 20 bad dishes, they wouldn't be a good chef. Failures happen but not at a 5% failure rate, this is forcing an unnaturally high failure rate in that regard.
My point has never been that you can't have a 1 as a failure and 20 success, my point has been that this should be down to the DM, not the game rules. you all are trying to argue that these should be hard and fast rules, which literally makes no sense, again, DMs are capable of deciding. Just add it as an optional/variant rule which DMs can use, it does not need be anything more than that.
Saying DMs have to use these rules is literally saying you know better than a DM at how they run their own campaign.
Do you mean me? or Choir? For me, I am mostly against the Nat 1 auto fail. Nat 20 auto success isn't something I care too much about (though I lean more against it) partly because I do feel that impossible saves is a flaw at higher levels, but that is more due to Saves that you are not proficient in not scaling in anyway unless you have magic items or something else boosting it. Like I feel like there should be a way for you to always succeed, but I personally don't think the nat 20 auto success is the proper way to do it. In past editions, your level affected your saves, but it doesn't in 5E.
The issue I have with the DM deciding when a roll is warranted is that it will lead to variance in organized play; with some DMs saying you don't need to roll while others make you roll for that 5% autofail chance. In organized play, this level of variance should not exist. The default rule should be the current 5E rule while having nat 1/20 auto fail/success be an optional rule due to the rule is more likely to lead to more negative experience than positive as generally the people who are for it are probably unaffected by it as nat 1's would generally be fails for them with or without auto fail on nat 1's as I doubt they typically build characters with modifiers high enough to succeed on a nat 1.
Variance in how skill checks are handled is already all over the place in organized play, because rules on what can be tried and what DC is appropriate are already poorly defined.
Then we shouldn't be adding even more variance.
Which is why it's likely best to simply roll all the time. I'd be shocked if that isn't the intent. But there are no instructions given to the DM. It's worded as a player-facing rule for the next PHB.
But some players don't like that because it means they can't make themselves immune to something. Just as some Dungeon Masters don't like it because they can't railroad their players with impossible tasks.
Your statement is simply disingenuous.
Some players and dungeon masters (I'm both by the way) don't like it because it just adds randomness for the sake of randomness. It's a 5-10% chance of removing agency and ignoring any mechanical investment characters put into their builds. You have a +20 to a save and the DC is 10? Nat 1 you fail. That just feels bad and miserable. You built for that +20, but 5% of the time, it doesn't matter at all.
And letting players try certain possible tasks can lead to other possibilities. They may not succeed in their intended task, but they can open up new doors by attempting. However, a nat 20 would suggest by raw that they simply succeed at the original task.
As you say, it does say this, but let me colour code the good parts green and the bad parts red.
Ignoring the rolls that shouldn't even need to be rolled because your bonus is way to high or low to make it irrelevant for the moment. If a DC is 20 and your bonus is +9, you succeed on an 11+ and fail on a 10-, why do you need extra rules saying you fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20 anyways when that was going to be the result? This literally means the only time these two rules are even relevant is when a 1 would have succeed or a 20 would have failed.
If a 1 would succeed than a 20 would succeed anyway, so in these rolls you're punished with an extra 5% failure chance that just should never have been there to begin with.
If a 20 would fail then a 1 would fail anyway, so in these rolls you're rewarded with a 5% success chance to essentially do something that should be 100% impossible.
Neither of these are good. Nat 1 & Nat 20 on attack rolls worked because both were relevant and overall it didn't punish players for no reason, the nat 1 rule does punish players for no reason while the nat 20 rule just makes DMing a nightmare as some people will continually insist that they get to roll for things that should be impossible and then when they do get 20s will be insisting that they literally did the impossible thing; DMs are usually smart enough to know how they want to handle a roll when they call it, it doesn't need rules removing the DMs agency in how they handle these rolls.
Add this on to what I said a few pages back, this also means that concentration checks now have a hard 5% minimum chance of failure on any attack, which is a caster nerf that really wasn't needed. Now speccing towards concentration is just a little bit less rewarding since you can never reach the point where most attacks aren't enough to affect your concentration.
As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting.
If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky.
If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance.
Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas.
"As I've stated multiple times, those possible failure and success points make the game more interesting."
I wholly disagree with this, I do not believe they make the game more interesting, esp the Nat 1 side, that just makes the game more frustrating, straight up. It is the DM, not the game rules/mechanics that make Checks and Saves more interesting.
"If there's always a chance of failure, then there's always a risk. Adventuring should inherently be risky."
Should adventuring be risky? If you're an adventurer, you're still going to take the actions with the lowest risk or even no risk at all over the highly risk actions. It certainly isn't a career free from danger, so why increase the danger for no reason? suicidal?
"If there's always a chance of success, then there's always a point in trying. You always have a fighting chance."
But if there is no chance of success, even a nat 20 can not turn that into a success, yet the rules specifically contradict that.
"Please, explain to the class how these are bad ideas."
I already did, you were just playing with your phone instead of paying attention to the lesson.
I feel some people want 100% chance they succeed
100% chance others fail
No one complains when they roll a Nat 20. There is a reason we say Nat1 and Nat 20 and not Nat 10 or any other number. There is a reason we shudder when we roll a 1 and cheer when we roll a 20.
Then there are enough things that negate rolling a 1. Halflings can ignore rolling a 1. Rogues get reliable talent at level 11.
I just wish people would stop treating a 5% chance as happening 95% of the time.
I agree with you, if you are rolling there should be some chance added to it. I say this as someone who has a character with a plus 10 on acrobatics and stealth.
I would not allow auto success or auto fail.
but...
If this will be the case, as DM, I can choose when anybody can do any check. If DC is higher than 20, than I ask the character's statnumber, and if the bonus at least +1, maybe I would let them roll. Depend on the situation. Always the DMs choice.
For autofail, maybe I would make a second roll, and if the second one is also unsuccessful, the fail is critical, not a simple mistake. Maybe lost your weapon, or break the sword if throwing again 1.
But this new rule is bad, because mislead players, and give opportunity to arguments, and nothing worse than an argument between a player and DM what is the rule...
One afternoon out of the window because of that...
Would be easier if there is no auto success or auto fail. DM always can decide and help behind the panel without noticing the players to avoid any sour and let the game flow.
Actually in the cases of 100% success or 100% failure, DMs will fore-go the roll unless they are trying to determine between specific success or failure states.
For example, If a player tries to make a jump that is too far, a DM might decide that on a D15 they will make it far enough to grab onto the ledge with their hands while not making the jump but below a 15 then they fall into the ravine below. Using these rules, if that player now get a D20 they automatically make the jump even if the DM had decided that was not a possible outcome, it's removing DM agency; which is a major issue!
And before you say a D20 should still make it and ignore DM agency; If the DM had decided a D20 would however still have made it, they are capable of deciding that and making it a roll that a D20 makes it, they do NOT need the rules to tell them this, or for the rules to enforce this.
An alternate case might be pretending to be chefs for the king, one of the players actually has chef feats and proficiency in cooking tools with the toolkit, they literally are going to succeed at making a good meal, the DM might roll to see just how good it is, from 1 being a mid-tier restaurant to a 20 being Gordan Ramsey's best ever meal, which will definitely impress the king.
This is to say, not all rolls require a success or failure state, yet these D20 rules are enforcing that and it makes little sense.
The DM isn't having their agency taken away. It's a die roll. It's chance. And they aren't even rolling the die, so it isn't their chance to take. The player is. And the player is taking that jump as an informed decision. If they have a Strength score of 19, then they can only reliably clear 19 feet. So a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) check is, what, 25 feet?
I'd be asking what other options are there. Can we climb down and then up? If it's too deep, can we find another way across than just leaping? If there aren't other options presented to us, then we're being railroaded. You either pass this specific test on my terms or not at all. Whether they fall or turn around, it doesn't matter. The DM should not claim agency at the expense of the players.
At first glance, your example looks like a deeply frustrating encounter. I'd want to give my players as many opportunities as I can. Because, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I think we should want our players to succeed.
Yes to what Mana said.
And I find the whole "If this is your only way to build tension, you're failing as a DM!" kind of proclamations tiring. Who said it was the only way? There are tons of ways to build tension: description, interaction with PCS, sound, lore, etc. I'm tired just typing this. It's a valid way to build tension and be immersive because most of the time, the PCs won't know if something is impossible (or near to it) outside of absurdities ("I try to jump to the moon!"). When confronted with a lock or a trap, or a place with very cleverly designed secret doors, they're not going to automatically know if finding or disarming or opening these things is "impossible." They have to try.
It's not about being adversarial. It's about using one tool among many to convey information and set the scene.
BTW, I'm not saying a DM should NEVER just bypass rolling. It's ultimately the DM's call, and I've certainly waved off rolling a DC check for something that should be (IMNSHO) an auto success....and I've flat out told them "This gate is too large and heavy for any of you to lift using brute strength."
Re: "telling them choices don't matter": No. I disagree with this vehemently. Because context is important here. It could be that the party is in a large, multilevel dungeon complex and have chosen to wander deeper into the dungeon than their original mission warranted. It could be that instead of being content successfully lifting the lady's jewels, they decide to go after what's in the vault in the cellars of the manor. Having them roll instead of just telling them they succeed/fail can, again, be one tool among many to build tension and convey information (even a helpful warning that they're in over their heads) without breaking immersion or verbally redirecting them.
I must have forgotten. There has never been an argument before this rule. Everything was pure and good.
Rolling a 1 doesn't have to be disastrous failure. It just means you fail. Same as if you rolled a 2 and your bonuses don't cover the DC
You chef case shows an auto fail/success.
A 1 would fail and they would cook a horrible meal.
A 20 would be a great meal.
Everything in between the DM can decide how the King feels. They can set a DC you have to pass to be acceptable
Take a performance check to play a song. Your bard is having a lute battle with an NPC. That would be multiple rolls. They roll a 1 first time, then a 10, then an 8, then a 15, then a 20, another 20. By the end the DM averages it out and they came out stronger. Started bad but won it in the end.
Every Chef lives only 10-20 days in the Kings castle XD
If he is lucky or human or halfling maybe more.
incorrect, you've arbitarily decided that 1 is a fail here, as I said, in my example the DM determined it'd be a minimum of a good meal. This is literally my point, you're trying to force a failure state where there simply need NOT be a failure state.
You're not making the argument you think you are. It could very easily be flipped around. You're trying to force a state where there is no chance of failure when the playtest rule explicitly states there is always a chance of failure.
You can't disregard the playtest rules from your thought experiment. That's the point.
Fine, you win. No more rolls to see if you succeed or fail. Just to see how well you succeed.
Because the best cook has never made a bad dish
The best musician has never played a bad note
The best player in any sport has never done bad at it.
The list can go on and on.
I mean should there be no chance of failure if someone tries to do a heart transplant as long as the person is proficient?
My Rogue with +10 in Acrobatics is also proficient in the cobbler kit. Should he never make a bad pair of shows ever? What if it is in metal working or something that uses a mold? Should the mold ever crack?
Great Chefs do everything they can to make sure their dishes go out in great condition, if any chef was handing out 1 in 20 bad dishes, they wouldn't be a good chef. Failures happen but not at a 5% failure rate, this is forcing an unnaturally high failure rate in that regard.
My point has never been that you can't have a 1 as a failure and 20 success, my point has been that this should be down to the DM, not the game rules. you all are trying to argue that these should be hard and fast rules, which literally makes no sense, again, DMs are capable of deciding. Just add it as an optional/variant rule which DMs can use, it does not need be anything more than that.
Saying DMs have to use these rules is literally saying you know better than a DM at how they run their own campaign.