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.
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.
See you are making the same mistake others make. You seem to be adding die rolls. That 95% chance of success. Next meal there is the same success. Meal after that? Same success. There is no one in 20.
So you promise us that if you roll a 20 and the DM says you fail, even with your pluses, you won't complain? Why have any rules then? Let the DM create them all. Why have Stats or ability checks or saving throws?
See you are making the same mistake others make. You seem to be adding die rolls. That 95% chance of success. Next meal there is the same success. Meal after that? Same success. There is no one in 20.
So you promise us that if you roll a 20 and the DM says you fail, even with your pluses, you won't complain? Why have any rules then? Let the DM create them all. Why have Stats or ability checks or saving throws?
If the DM says a 1 doesn't fail, are you going to complain? It seems you're continue to make the same mistake over and over.
I've never complained when a DM says an action fails, because I play with sensible DMs that homebrew away nonsense like this, you know, that things where DMs can in fact create rules and is encouraged. But that is the thing with these D20 tests, is that they are things that should be in as optional or homebrew rules, not the de facto, that is the mistake you're continuing to make, you can't see the distinction that should be here and so you're basically acting like you know a DM's table better than the DM of that table.
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?
The best cooks would never make a bad dish if it counted. If a single bad dish gets out, it can be disastrous. The best restaurants strive to make sure that every single meal is a success.
The best musicians can make a bad note, but that single bad note does not equal immediately failure. Success does not require the performance went perfectly, but that it went adequately. The best musicians can make a mistake but at the same time continue in a manner that no one notices the mistake, making the entire performance a success. A nat 1 failure would mean 1 in every 20 performance would be a disastrous failure.
For sports, it is a contested roll so there are a lot more factors going on.
If that rogue has reliable talent, then he will absolutely never make a bad pair of shoes because reliable talent ensures he rolls at least a 10.
Also we are not looking at simple proficiency. We are looking at a high enough modifier to succeed on a nat 1. So if a heart transplant is a DC25, then if someone has a +24, then yes they should never fail at it. However, that +24 takes investment to build into. It is not you are proficient and you get the stat point to 20 and boom you can't fail on a nat 1; no in most cases that only gets you to a +11 at T4. We are looking at getting to much higher modifiers.
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.
5% is not statistically insignificant and it is still a 5% that your mechanical investment is negated; there shouldn't be any chance of that. Just because there are ways to negate a 1 doesn't make it any better. You shouldn't have to take a specific race or 11 levels in a class to not have a 5% auto fail chance especially when it takes investment to get a modifier that does not fail on a nat 1; there just shouldn't be an auto fail chance.
Also, we are not going to succeed 100% of the time. The DC can become too high for us to succeed on a nat 1. The highest I ever got a Saving Throw was +21 so if it was a DC23, then a nat 1 would still be a failure and I am fine with that. Not all of our rolls are going to succeed on a nat 1; I may have a +19 Con Save but that is not going to let me auto succeed a DC15 Int Save if my Int Save is +9.
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.
Being able to succeed on a nat 1 for some rolls does not make adventuring non-risky. You aren't going to be able to succeed on a nat 1 for every roll. And a 5% auto fail does not make things more interesting; a 5% chance that any choices you made with your character's mechanics is not interesting. Failure in it of itself can (keyword: CAN) be interesting yes, but an inherent 5% auto fail chance does not make it interesting. Like failing a DC10 concentration check when you have +19 to Con saves because you rolled a nat 1? That's not interesting, that just feels miserable. Failing a DC15 disintegration when you have a +14 Dex Save, then getting disintegrated because it brought you to 0? Nothing interesting in that; just meant that the effort you put into pumping up your dex save didn't matter.
Just because you can succeed on some rolls with a nat 1 doesn't mean you will be able to succeed on a nat 1 with all roll. Being able to succeed on a nat 1 takes effort and investment, and it doesn't always mean you are completely immune as plenty of effects have things happen on a successful save. When your character is able to succeed on a nat 1, it can feel so satisfying to finally see your character reach this point.
There are people who have fun with being able to succeed on a nat 1 and this rule takes that away and gives nothing in return. For the people who are for it, it is unlikely anything changed for them because they are unlikely to stack bonuses to begin with so a nat 1 would be a failure to them with or without the autofail.
So this rule making it through or not changes absolutely nothing for the people who are for it, but hinders the fun of the people that would see a change from the rule being implemented. How is that a good thing?
See you are making the same mistake others make. You seem to be adding die rolls. That 95% chance of success. Next meal there is the same success. Meal after that? Same success. There is no one in 20.
So you promise us that if you roll a 20 and the DM says you fail, even with your pluses, you won't complain? Why have any rules then? Let the DM create them all. Why have Stats or ability checks or saving throws?
If it is DC40 and my modifier is a +19, then I am fine with failing because nothing I roll can make my +19 into a 40.
Though if nothing comes from failing on a nat20+bonuses, then I would only ask why even have me roll? Like it is fine that the task is impossible, just tell me it is not possible rather than have me roll for it and tell me afterwards. If something comes from that failure, like it opens new possibilities based on what I rolled then I would be fine with rolling against a DC I can't make, even with a Nat 20.
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?
The best cooks would never make a bad dish if it counted. If a single bad dish gets out, it can be disastrous. The best restaurants strive to make sure that every single meal is a success.
The best musicians can make a bad note, but that single bad note does not equal immediately failure. Success does not require the performance went perfectly, but that it went adequately. The best musicians can make a mistake but at the same time continue in a manner that no one notices the mistake, making the entire performance a success. A nat 1 failure would mean 1 in every 20 performance would be a disastrous failure.
For sports, it is a contested roll so there are a lot more factors going on.
If that rogue has reliable talent, then he will absolutely never make a bad pair of shoes because reliable talent ensures he rolls at least a 10.
Also we are not looking at simple proficiency. We are looking at a high enough modifier to succeed on a nat 1. So if a heart transplant is a DC25, then if someone has a +24, then yes they should never fail at it. However, that +24 takes investment to build into. It is not you are proficient and you get the stat point to 20 and boom you can't fail on a nat 1; no in most cases that only gets you to a +11 at T4. We are looking at getting to much higher modifiers.
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.
5% is not statistically insignificant and it is still a 5% that your mechanical investment is negated; there shouldn't be any chance of that. Just because there are ways to negate a 1 doesn't make it any better. You shouldn't have to take a specific race or 11 levels in a class to not have a 5% auto fail chance especially when it takes investment to get a modifier that does not fail on a nat 1; there just shouldn't be an auto fail chance.
Also, we are not going to succeed 100% of the time. The DC can become too high for us to succeed on a nat 1. The highest I ever got a Saving Throw was +21 so if it was a DC23, then a nat 1 would still be a failure and I am fine with that. Not all of our rolls are going to succeed on a nat 1; I may have a +19 Con Save but that is not going to let me auto succeed a DC15 Int Save if my Int Save is +9.
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.
Being able to succeed on a nat 1 for some rolls does not make adventuring non-risky. You aren't going to be able to succeed on a nat 1 for every roll. And a 5% auto fail does not make things more interesting; a 5% chance that any choices you made with your character's mechanics is not interesting. Failure in it of itself can (keyword: CAN) be interesting yes, but an inherent 5% auto fail chance does not make it interesting. Like failing a DC10 concentration check when you have +19 to Con saves because you rolled a nat 1? That's not interesting, that just feels miserable. Failing a DC15 disintegration when you have a +14 Dex Save, then getting disintegrated because it brought you to 0? Nothing interesting in that; just meant that the effort you put into pumping up your dex save didn't matter.
Just because you can succeed on some rolls with a nat 1 doesn't mean you will be able to succeed on a nat 1 with all roll. Being able to succeed on a nat 1 takes effort and investment, and it doesn't always mean you are completely immune as plenty of effects have things happen on a successful save. When your character is able to succeed on a nat 1, it can feel so satisfying to finally see your character reach this point.
There are people who have fun with being able to succeed on a nat 1 and this rule takes that away and gives nothing in return. For the people who are for it, it is unlikely anything changed for them because they are unlikely to stack bonuses to begin with so a nat 1 would be a failure to them with or without the autofail.
So this rule making it through or not changes absolutely nothing for the people who are for it, but hinders the fun of the people that would see a change from the rule being implemented. How is that a good thing?
See you are making the same mistake others make. You seem to be adding die rolls. That 95% chance of success. Next meal there is the same success. Meal after that? Same success. There is no one in 20.
So you promise us that if you roll a 20 and the DM says you fail, even with your pluses, you won't complain? Why have any rules then? Let the DM create them all. Why have Stats or ability checks or saving throws?
If it is DC40 and my modifier is a +19, then I am fine with failing because nothing I roll can make my +19 into a 40.
Though if nothing comes from failing on a nat20+bonuses, then I would only ask why even have me roll? Like it is fine that the task is impossible, just tell me it is not possible rather than have me roll for it and tell me afterwards. If something comes from that failure, like it opens new possibilities based on what I rolled then I would be fine with rolling against a DC I can't make, eFirstven with a Nat 20.
First off even the best make mistakes. No one is perfect. Now use the example of the example of the party posing as cooks for the cook. One is proficient in cooking, They could have been an army cook. Does that mean they can cook for a king? Should rolling low have an effect? You missed the part earlier that I said that a musician could make multiple mistakes. Then it is bad. 5% does not happen often. I know you seem to think it happens
What are you going to do when you like the changes they make but others don't? Are you going to say they should not make a change because it effects others? I mean you are going to be fair.
First off even the best make mistakes. No one is perfect. Now use the example of the example of the party posing as cooks for the cook. One is proficient in cooking, They could have been an army cook. Does that mean they can cook for a king? Should rolling low have an effect? You missed the part earlier that I said that a musician could make multiple mistakes. Then it is bad. 5% does not happen often. I know you seem to think it happens
What are you going to do when you like the changes they make but others don't? Are you going to say they should not make a change because it effects others? I mean you are going to be fair.
As has been stated a few times, the change/rule can simply be made an optional rule in the book, it shouldn't be de facto. Then the people who WANT that rule can use it and those that do NOT WANT that rule do not need to use it, most groups are mature enough to figure out between themselves which they would prefer. It's the de facto nature of these new nat1/nat20 rules that is the issue.
You're the one that is imposing your views over others, we are just saying we do not like these rules and do not want to be forced into them, make it optional, leave to groups to talk about if they want to use it or not.
First off even the best make mistakes. No one is perfect. Now use the example of the example of the party posing as cooks for the cook. One is proficient in cooking, They could have been an army cook. Does that mean they can cook for a king? Should rolling low have an effect? You missed the part earlier that I said that a musician could make multiple mistakes. Then it is bad. 5% does not happen often. I know you seem to think it happens
What are you going to do when you like the changes they make but others don't? Are you going to say they should not make a change because it effects others? I mean you are going to be fair.
Everyone should fill out the survey based off of what THEY want to see in the next book. That is the whole point of the UA process. There are certain to be things I like that won't make it into the books because enough people don't like them. What sense does it make to vote in favor for changes you don't like? If you like it, say so in the survey and maybe you will be lucky and it makes it through the process.
That being said, in this specific instance, I think both rules should appear in the next PHB. I am almost always in favor of there being optional rules to choose from.
First off even the best make mistakes. No one is perfect. Now use the example of the example of the party posing as cooks for the cook. One is proficient in cooking, They could have been an army cook. Does that mean they can cook for a king? Should rolling low have an effect? You missed the part earlier that I said that a musician could make multiple mistakes. Then it is bad. 5% does not happen often. I know you seem to think it happens
What are you going to do when you like the changes they make but others don't? Are you going to say they should not make a change because it effects others? I mean you are going to be fair.
As has been stated a few times, the change/rule can simply be made an optional rule in the book, it shouldn't be de facto. Then the people who WANT that rule can use it and those that do NOT WANT that rule do not need to use it, most groups are mature enough to figure out between themselves which they would prefer. It's the de facto nature of these new nat1/nat20 rules that is the issue.
You're the one that is imposing your views over others, we are just saying we do not like these rules and do not want to be forced into them, make it optional, leave to groups to talk about if they want to use it or not.
So then every rule should be optional. Right? I mean you don't want to impose your view on others so won't do it when you like the rule.
Okay, that was oddly helpful. I haven't seen anything by Mana for the last couple of days. (I've had them set to "Ignore" for my own well-being, and a moderator removed that comment.) But they can still see me, so I guess I'll respond.
Everyone makes mistakes. Nobody is perfect. We are not always going to succeed in everything we do, not matter how much we might master our respective crafts. The idea that "cooks would never make a bad dish if it counted" is, in all honesty, silly. Even in game terms, we don't need to roll for something routine. But in a high-pressure environment, like cooking a meal for a competition, you absolutely roll. You can forget things in the chaos. Something horrible can happen. I just need to watch an episode of Chopped to see that in action.
Musicians and singers make mistakes with every performance. That's a given. I know because that's one of the cultures I grew up in. But as long as the audience doesn't know, it doesn't matter. Now, we're not trying to actually simulate anything with the game. The rules are an abstraction. If you want a simulator, find a game designed to do that. When the question of success or failure is raised, you need to define what that means in the given scenario. A 1 when cooking a dish doesn't have to mean you fail to plate anything. A 1 when playing an instrument doesn't mean you accidentally break it and the concert ends. We need to be more open in our thinking.
As to the issue of statistical significance, that's an actual mathematical term. And if it's going to be thrown around, someone needs to back up their work. Generally speaking, the p-value needs to be below 0.05. A 1/20 is right on the edge, but it doesn't cross that threshold. It's also a sample size of one. We don't bother with sample sizes of just one. Sorry.
Always having a chance to fail, however you wish to define failure, means every roll is inherently risky. There will always be something, anything, on the line. That's what I mean by risk, even if it is a statistically insignificant 5% of the time. And that, in of itself, isn't a bad thing. It means there comes a point when staking modifiers won't help you anymore. Which has always been true with 5th edition. That threshold is just slightly lower than before. And by the same token, a character with a negative modifier can still succeed against a DC that is higher than 20 if they roll that statistically insignificant 20. It means nobody is helpless; that players always have a fighting chance. Again, this is a good thing. I can't see how it's not, and I haven't seen anyone make the point that it's not.
(The one person who tried argued that it stripped the DM of agency, and no. If "stripping the DM of agency" means a loss of agency for the players, you find another way.)
If you think you should automatically succeed in something, then make the case for that something being routine. There are already rules in place to cover that. But an ability check, attack roll, and saving throw are, by definition, not routine activities. You're making those rolls because you're under pressure. That's why WotC is bundling them all under the umbrella of a D20 Test. And no, there's no mechanic in the game where a previously pressuring activity becomes routine. Your character might be used to the pressure, it might be something they've've done a thousand times, but it's still pressuring. And maybe they're better at managing it than they used to be, but they can all still crack. And so can we.
We can fail to see a patch of black ice on the road. We can accidentally slice our finger while cutting vegetables, or burn our hand over an open flame. We can lose our tempers, or run out of patience with someone.
The point of the rule is to lay out a basic social contract between the player and the DM, setting player expectations for when a 20 Test is going to be called for and how they're supposed to work. The expectation is failure and success will always be an option. And some people don't like that. I get it. They want to box people in.
I prefer unlimited potential. And if anyone has a better idea for how this social contract should look, what expectations should be set forth in these player-facing rules, I'd love to see them. No, really. I'm being honest. Put on your designer caps and draft something up.
First off even the best make mistakes. No one is perfect. Now use the example of the example of the party posing as cooks for the cook. One is proficient in cooking, They could have been an army cook. Does that mean they can cook for a king? Should rolling low have an effect? You missed the part earlier that I said that a musician could make multiple mistakes. Then it is bad. 5% does not happen often. I know you seem to think it happens
What are you going to do when you like the changes they make but others don't? Are you going to say they should not make a change because it effects others? I mean you are going to be fair.
As has been stated a few times, the change/rule can simply be made an optional rule in the book, it shouldn't be de facto. Then the people who WANT that rule can use it and those that do NOT WANT that rule do not need to use it, most groups are mature enough to figure out between themselves which they would prefer. It's the de facto nature of these new nat1/nat20 rules that is the issue.
You're the one that is imposing your views over others, we are just saying we do not like these rules and do not want to be forced into them, make it optional, leave to groups to talk about if they want to use it or not.
So then every rule should be optional. Right? I mean you don't want to impose your view on others so won't do it when you like the rule.
Your argument here seems to imply you see zero rule for any optional rules at all, I mean everything in the book MUST BE ENFORCED TO THE LETTER WITH NO VARIANCE.
encase you haven't understood my response here, it's this. you're not actually making any points here, you're just continuing to try and enforce your views on others.
But encase you still don't get it, there are optional rules in the first place because different people and groups like to play in different ways, the optional rules are for the contested rules that both a lot of people like and a lot of people hate; this rule of nat 1/20 on D20 tests is clearly falling into this category.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
See you are making the same mistake others make. You seem to be adding die rolls. That 95% chance of success. Next meal there is the same success. Meal after that? Same success.
There is no one in 20.
So you promise us that if you roll a 20 and the DM says you fail, even with your pluses, you won't complain?
Why have any rules then? Let the DM create them all. Why have Stats or ability checks or saving throws?
If the DM says a 1 doesn't fail, are you going to complain? It seems you're continue to make the same mistake over and over.
I've never complained when a DM says an action fails, because I play with sensible DMs that homebrew away nonsense like this, you know, that things where DMs can in fact create rules and is encouraged. But that is the thing with these D20 tests, is that they are things that should be in as optional or homebrew rules, not the de facto, that is the mistake you're continuing to make, you can't see the distinction that should be here and so you're basically acting like you know a DM's table better than the DM of that table.
The best cooks would never make a bad dish if it counted. If a single bad dish gets out, it can be disastrous. The best restaurants strive to make sure that every single meal is a success.
The best musicians can make a bad note, but that single bad note does not equal immediately failure. Success does not require the performance went perfectly, but that it went adequately. The best musicians can make a mistake but at the same time continue in a manner that no one notices the mistake, making the entire performance a success. A nat 1 failure would mean 1 in every 20 performance would be a disastrous failure.
For sports, it is a contested roll so there are a lot more factors going on.
If that rogue has reliable talent, then he will absolutely never make a bad pair of shoes because reliable talent ensures he rolls at least a 10.
Also we are not looking at simple proficiency. We are looking at a high enough modifier to succeed on a nat 1. So if a heart transplant is a DC25, then if someone has a +24, then yes they should never fail at it. However, that +24 takes investment to build into. It is not you are proficient and you get the stat point to 20 and boom you can't fail on a nat 1; no in most cases that only gets you to a +11 at T4. We are looking at getting to much higher modifiers.
5% is not statistically insignificant and it is still a 5% that your mechanical investment is negated; there shouldn't be any chance of that. Just because there are ways to negate a 1 doesn't make it any better. You shouldn't have to take a specific race or 11 levels in a class to not have a 5% auto fail chance especially when it takes investment to get a modifier that does not fail on a nat 1; there just shouldn't be an auto fail chance.
Also, we are not going to succeed 100% of the time. The DC can become too high for us to succeed on a nat 1. The highest I ever got a Saving Throw was +21 so if it was a DC23, then a nat 1 would still be a failure and I am fine with that. Not all of our rolls are going to succeed on a nat 1; I may have a +19 Con Save but that is not going to let me auto succeed a DC15 Int Save if my Int Save is +9.
Being able to succeed on a nat 1 for some rolls does not make adventuring non-risky. You aren't going to be able to succeed on a nat 1 for every roll. And a 5% auto fail does not make things more interesting; a 5% chance that any choices you made with your character's mechanics is not interesting. Failure in it of itself can (keyword: CAN) be interesting yes, but an inherent 5% auto fail chance does not make it interesting. Like failing a DC10 concentration check when you have +19 to Con saves because you rolled a nat 1? That's not interesting, that just feels miserable. Failing a DC15 disintegration when you have a +14 Dex Save, then getting disintegrated because it brought you to 0? Nothing interesting in that; just meant that the effort you put into pumping up your dex save didn't matter.
Just because you can succeed on some rolls with a nat 1 doesn't mean you will be able to succeed on a nat 1 with all roll. Being able to succeed on a nat 1 takes effort and investment, and it doesn't always mean you are completely immune as plenty of effects have things happen on a successful save. When your character is able to succeed on a nat 1, it can feel so satisfying to finally see your character reach this point.
There are people who have fun with being able to succeed on a nat 1 and this rule takes that away and gives nothing in return. For the people who are for it, it is unlikely anything changed for them because they are unlikely to stack bonuses to begin with so a nat 1 would be a failure to them with or without the autofail.
So this rule making it through or not changes absolutely nothing for the people who are for it, but hinders the fun of the people that would see a change from the rule being implemented. How is that a good thing?
If it is DC40 and my modifier is a +19, then I am fine with failing because nothing I roll can make my +19 into a 40.
Though if nothing comes from failing on a nat20+bonuses, then I would only ask why even have me roll? Like it is fine that the task is impossible, just tell me it is not possible rather than have me roll for it and tell me afterwards. If something comes from that failure, like it opens new possibilities based on what I rolled then I would be fine with rolling against a DC I can't make, even with a Nat 20.
First off even the best make mistakes. No one is perfect. Now use the example of the example of the party posing as cooks for the cook. One is proficient in cooking, They could have been an army cook. Does that mean they can cook for a king? Should rolling low have an effect?
You missed the part earlier that I said that a musician could make multiple mistakes. Then it is bad.
5% does not happen often. I know you seem to think it happens
What are you going to do when you like the changes they make but others don't? Are you going to say they should not make a change because it effects others? I mean you are going to be fair.
As has been stated a few times, the change/rule can simply be made an optional rule in the book, it shouldn't be de facto. Then the people who WANT that rule can use it and those that do NOT WANT that rule do not need to use it, most groups are mature enough to figure out between themselves which they would prefer. It's the de facto nature of these new nat1/nat20 rules that is the issue.
You're the one that is imposing your views over others, we are just saying we do not like these rules and do not want to be forced into them, make it optional, leave to groups to talk about if they want to use it or not.
Everyone should fill out the survey based off of what THEY want to see in the next book. That is the whole point of the UA process. There are certain to be things I like that won't make it into the books because enough people don't like them. What sense does it make to vote in favor for changes you don't like? If you like it, say so in the survey and maybe you will be lucky and it makes it through the process.
That being said, in this specific instance, I think both rules should appear in the next PHB. I am almost always in favor of there being optional rules to choose from.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So then every rule should be optional. Right?
I mean you don't want to impose your view on others so won't do it when you like the rule.
Okay, that was oddly helpful. I haven't seen anything by Mana for the last couple of days. (I've had them set to "Ignore" for my own well-being, and a moderator removed that comment.) But they can still see me, so I guess I'll respond.
Everyone makes mistakes. Nobody is perfect. We are not always going to succeed in everything we do, not matter how much we might master our respective crafts. The idea that "cooks would never make a bad dish if it counted" is, in all honesty, silly. Even in game terms, we don't need to roll for something routine. But in a high-pressure environment, like cooking a meal for a competition, you absolutely roll. You can forget things in the chaos. Something horrible can happen. I just need to watch an episode of Chopped to see that in action.
Musicians and singers make mistakes with every performance. That's a given. I know because that's one of the cultures I grew up in. But as long as the audience doesn't know, it doesn't matter. Now, we're not trying to actually simulate anything with the game. The rules are an abstraction. If you want a simulator, find a game designed to do that. When the question of success or failure is raised, you need to define what that means in the given scenario. A 1 when cooking a dish doesn't have to mean you fail to plate anything. A 1 when playing an instrument doesn't mean you accidentally break it and the concert ends. We need to be more open in our thinking.
As to the issue of statistical significance, that's an actual mathematical term. And if it's going to be thrown around, someone needs to back up their work. Generally speaking, the p-value needs to be below 0.05. A 1/20 is right on the edge, but it doesn't cross that threshold. It's also a sample size of one. We don't bother with sample sizes of just one. Sorry.
Always having a chance to fail, however you wish to define failure, means every roll is inherently risky. There will always be something, anything, on the line. That's what I mean by risk, even if it is a statistically insignificant 5% of the time. And that, in of itself, isn't a bad thing. It means there comes a point when staking modifiers won't help you anymore. Which has always been true with 5th edition. That threshold is just slightly lower than before. And by the same token, a character with a negative modifier can still succeed against a DC that is higher than 20 if they roll that statistically insignificant 20. It means nobody is helpless; that players always have a fighting chance. Again, this is a good thing. I can't see how it's not, and I haven't seen anyone make the point that it's not.
(The one person who tried argued that it stripped the DM of agency, and no. If "stripping the DM of agency" means a loss of agency for the players, you find another way.)
If you think you should automatically succeed in something, then make the case for that something being routine. There are already rules in place to cover that. But an ability check, attack roll, and saving throw are, by definition, not routine activities. You're making those rolls because you're under pressure. That's why WotC is bundling them all under the umbrella of a D20 Test. And no, there's no mechanic in the game where a previously pressuring activity becomes routine. Your character might be used to the pressure, it might be something they've've done a thousand times, but it's still pressuring. And maybe they're better at managing it than they used to be, but they can all still crack. And so can we.
We can fail to see a patch of black ice on the road. We can accidentally slice our finger while cutting vegetables, or burn our hand over an open flame. We can lose our tempers, or run out of patience with someone.
The point of the rule is to lay out a basic social contract between the player and the DM, setting player expectations for when a 20 Test is going to be called for and how they're supposed to work. The expectation is failure and success will always be an option. And some people don't like that. I get it. They want to box people in.
I prefer unlimited potential. And if anyone has a better idea for how this social contract should look, what expectations should be set forth in these player-facing rules, I'd love to see them. No, really. I'm being honest. Put on your designer caps and draft something up.
Your argument here seems to imply you see zero rule for any optional rules at all, I mean everything in the book MUST BE ENFORCED TO THE LETTER WITH NO VARIANCE.
encase you haven't understood my response here, it's this. you're not actually making any points here, you're just continuing to try and enforce your views on others.
But encase you still don't get it, there are optional rules in the first place because different people and groups like to play in different ways, the optional rules are for the contested rules that both a lot of people like and a lot of people hate; this rule of nat 1/20 on D20 tests is clearly falling into this category.