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.
You're both talking past one another.
If the rule should be unchanged from the PHB, that ability checks and saving throws have no automatic success and fail conditions, then it isn't unreasonable to ask why. Simply maintaining the status quo isn't good enough. It's never been good enough. Times change, as they always have.
Rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to the rule, because some of us are seemingly resistant to change, we should be asking ourselves why this rule is being proposed. What problem is it attempting to solve? Is this problem actually a problem? And if the problem is real, is there a better way to solve it?
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.
You're both talking past one another.
If the rule should be unchanged from the PHB, that ability checks and saving throws have no automatic success and fail conditions, then it isn't unreasonable to ask why. Simply maintaining the status quo isn't good enough. It's never been good enough. Times change, as they always have.
Rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to the rule, because some of us are seemingly resistant to change, we should be asking ourselves why this rule is being proposed. What problem is it attempting to solve? Is this problem actually a problem? And if the problem is real, is there a better way to solve it?
That is the problem tho, it doesn't solve any problem 5E problem; some people in 5E did homebrew nat 1 & nat 20 on ability checks and saves, which was always fine in 5E, just like fumble tables on nat 1 attack rolls, but that some people use them isn't justification for adding them in as a de facto ruling.
Rather the problem it's trying to fix is another problem they created in regards inspiration, which is they want inspiration to be more common and commonly used, so now you get it any time you get a 20 but there is no downside on the opposite side for a 1. Inspiration has gone crazy and really the concept of inspiration has been broken by one D&D, it needs a roll back or a revisit. Inspiration isn't something you should be able to get 5 times a day...
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.
You're both talking past one another.
If the rule should be unchanged from the PHB, that ability checks and saving throws have no automatic success and fail conditions, then it isn't unreasonable to ask why. Simply maintaining the status quo isn't good enough. It's never been good enough. Times change, as they always have.
Rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to the rule, because some of us are seemingly resistant to change, we should be asking ourselves why this rule is being proposed. What problem is it attempting to solve? Is this problem actually a problem? And if the problem is real, is there a better way to solve it?
That is the problem tho, it doesn't solve any problem 5E problem; some people in 5E did homebrew nat 1 & nat 20 on ability checks and saves, which was always fine in 5E, just like fumble tables on nat 1 attack rolls, but that some people use them isn't justification for adding them in as a de facto ruling.
Rather the problem it's trying to fix is another problem they created in regards inspiration, which is they want inspiration to be more common and commonly used, so now you get it any time you get a 20 but there is no downside on the opposite side for a 1. Inspiration has gone crazy and really the concept of inspiration has been broken by one D&D, it needs a roll back or a revisit. Inspiration isn't something you should be able to get 5 times a day...
Okay, two things:
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
Second, I don't think this breaks Inspiration. It was an underutilized mechanic. Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used. Inspiration isn't even an optional rule. It's right there on the character sheet. It's on their D&D Beyond sheets, which is another business partner with Critical Role. And that lack of use is something WotC wants to fix.
If you're worried about momentum and using that inspiration to garner more inspiration, I get that. I don't like giving them a cherry on top of the 20. I'd rather see it on the 1; because failure is a teacher. That said, other game systems have similar mechanics and aren't shy about handing them out. Rolling dice is fun. Letting your players roll more dice is more fun for them. None of that is wrong.
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.
There are times when, as a GM, I don't let players roll. Two major categories: 1) it's impossible, 2) I give them what they need/want without a roll because it's appropriate.
But when I do let them roll, and success is mathematically impossible, I generally redefine what can be done and chain a success into something else positive. Subsequent checks may be easier or have Advantage for either the same character or the group. It can be the next roll or for a set series of related checks. It's definitely not adversarial. It's about building a story.
If a group I'm running is working as a team they often chain skill checks like the 4e skill challenge. I still use those. What's the group's goal? What is an individual trying to accomplish? How hard is the challenge or task? Was the attempt mathematically possible? Did it fail, but was it greater than the challenge difficulty? It doesn't take long to find this information and evaluate what happens. Most importantly, it helps them build their story while maintaining stakes.
Another problem this rule change highlights is the binary state of skill checks. Other systems forgo pass/fail. They often do so rather elegantly. Genesys has a wide variety of results. Other systems use a negotiation system where a failed roll can become a success with a cost. Others use resources to turn a failure to a success. In every case it's about the story. D&D is not those games. That comes with a price. But in the ability checks section is this gem:
"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success--the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM." An example is jumping across something, failing by only a few points, a GM could say "you hit mid-chest and have the wind knocked out of you. You lose any further actions and will have to stand up next turn." So clearly there is room for negotiation.
All this is to say, the 20/1 change mucks up what could have been cleared up with GMs and players effectively communicating.
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
This rule change ISN'T attempting to fix a problem. In the video WotC stated the reason they are trying it out is because some people didn't realize that the current rules of 5e allowed for a natural 1 to succeed or that natural 20's weren't an auto success. So they proposed the change as part of the UA to see what people think about changing it.
There isn't any need to "think beyond our narrow experiences" to see some bigger picture because there isn't one. They told us exactly what their thought process was for this one.
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
Second, I don't think this breaks Inspiration. It was an underutilized mechanic. Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used. Inspiration isn't even an optional rule. It's right there on the character sheet. It's on their D&D Beyond sheets, which is another business partner with Critical Role. And that lack of use is something WotC wants to fix.
If you're worried about momentum and using that inspiration to garner more inspiration, I get that. I don't like giving them a cherry on top of the 20. I'd rather see it on the 1; because failure is a teacher. That said, other game systems have similar mechanics and aren't shy about handing them out. Rolling dice is fun. Letting your players roll more dice is more fun for them. None of that is wrong.
It's trying to patch what was to begin with, a bad change. A solution searching for a problem, they had a solution but no problem for it and that solution in and of itself creates problems. Simple as.
It actually does break Inspiration, Inspiration is meant to be a reward that DMs can hand out to players for things like good role play, if it's under-utilized then that is down to players and DMs, but now the feature is basically just another "advantage" feature, as if we needed another one. Advantage/Disadvantage is good in some aspects but it's becoming too dominate. Inspiration was good for what it was intended for, it's not good for where it's going, esp when you look at something like the Musician feat. It's stacking inspiration with bardic inspiration now, as if bardic inspiration wasn't already powerful enough!
Inspiration was never meant to be a feature that was regularly used in the first place, which is why players can pass inspiration to another player, it's a rare resource and now it's just been cheapened.
Also, just because some companies don't use inspiration in their content doesn't mean it's broken, D&D should NOT base itself off of critical role, that'd be a dumb decision, D&D gets it's money from players playing the game and that experience is not the same experience as Critical Role; Critical Role is a series that uses D&D, yes, but it is not a series that plays like D&D. Stop feeding into the Matt Mercer Effect, even Matt Mercer hates that.
I did not go trough the whole tread and assume that somebody will have mentioned it before.
If you introduce that a 20 always succeed you need to have good guidelines and rules about re trying a skill checks. So that situations where there is no time pressure don't become the player just rolling over and over again until they get that 20.
They can go in 2 directions for this.
1: saying that you can not re try skill checks unless something about the situation has substantially changed.
2: re introduce the take 20 from older editions where it is assumed you will succeed on any task with a DC lower the 20+your modifier eventually if you take enough time.
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.
Everyone makes mistakes but a mistake or even multiple mistakes does not always equal failure. 5% is 1 in 20, that is not statistucally insignificant. I don't see professional musicians utterly failing a concert 1/20 times. A success only requires an adequete job.
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.
I took a couple days off to enjoy the long weekend. Can't be on here all the time. Anyway...
Being able to succeed on a nat 1 means the action is absolutely trivial to you where it is akin to breathing. You should not be pressured at all if you can succeed on a nat 1. If you are pressured then it should be reflected by the DC rising.
Even if a mistake is made, it does not equate into failure. You don't fail a math test by getting a 99%; even a 60% is considered passing (albeit below average) by US standards. Success simply means you at least did an adequete job.
1/20 is not statistically insignificant. If you told a mathematician that 5% is statistically insignificant, they'd think you're insane.
1 in 20 times is very significant when you actually consider the population of rolls. If 1 in 20 people suddenly died to a plague, that would be an insanely deadly plague. Covid-19 has an overall fatality rate of 1.07% (granted it varies by age) yet it was and still is a world wide crisis. If 1 out of 20 people randomly died, it would be a catostrophy of the utmost proportions. 1/20 is no way an insignificant probability.
The only reason why this rule was made was because a bunch of people mistook it as the default 5E rule. Jeremy Crawford confirmed this himself. There was no balancing reason or any real game design reason. Frankly, this was not a good reason for the change.
It, combined with the how the DM can freely decide which rolls are warranted, will lead to unncessary variance in organized play.
The people most affected by this rule are the ones that would generally not find it fun nor enjoyable. The ones that like this rule would see little to no change whether this rule makes it through or not. This rule will cause more negative experiences than positive.
It can be a decent optional rule but not a default rule.
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
Second, I don't think this breaks Inspiration. It was an underutilized mechanic. Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used. Inspiration isn't even an optional rule. It's right there on the character sheet. It's on their D&D Beyond sheets, which is another business partner with Critical Role. And that lack of use is something WotC wants to fix.
If you're worried about momentum and using that inspiration to garner more inspiration, I get that. I don't like giving them a cherry on top of the 20. I'd rather see it on the 1; because failure is a teacher. That said, other game systems have similar mechanics and aren't shy about handing them out. Rolling dice is fun. Letting your players roll more dice is more fun for them. None of that is wrong.
It's trying to patch what was to begin with, a bad change. A solution searching for a problem, they had a solution but no problem for it and that solution in and of itself creates problems. Simple as.
It actually does break Inspiration, Inspiration is meant to be a reward that DMs can hand out to players for things like good role play, if it's under-utilized then that is down to players and DMs, but now the feature is basically just another "advantage" feature, as if we needed another one. Advantage/Disadvantage is good in some aspects but it's becoming too dominate. Inspiration was good for what it was intended for, it's not good for where it's going, esp when you look at something like the Musician feat. It's stacking inspiration with bardic inspiration now, as if bardic inspiration wasn't already powerful enough!
Inspiration was never meant to be a feature that was regularly used in the first place, which is why players can pass inspiration to another player, it's a rare resource and now it's just been cheapened.
Also, just because some companies don't use inspiration in their content doesn't mean it's broken, D&D should NOT base itself off of critical role, that'd be a dumb decision, D&D gets it's money from players playing the game and that experience is not the same experience as Critical Role; Critical Role is a series that uses D&D, yes, but it is not a series that plays like D&D. Stop feeding into the Matt Mercer Effect, even Matt Mercer hates that.
Can you explain some of this thought process for me? Nothing about the description for Inspiration hints at it being a rare occurrence. If that's how you see it, then fine. To each their own. But I just don't see it. I can envision a table where everyone is so into it that inspiration can flow like water.
And I'm not feeding the Mercer Effect. Do you even know what that is, or did you just see the name and respond to that alone? You act like so many teenagers I've been teaching to play for the last three years. Please don't. The topic of streams eventually comes up, and every time I tell my students not to compare themselves to the professionals. Every player and DM is different, so not being able to emulate X style of game is fine. Because those same pros can't do their style of game, either.
It's like telling someone not to over prepare. Poll a hundred people, and you can get a hundred answers. It's useless advice.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
Second, I don't think this breaks Inspiration. It was an underutilized mechanic. Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used. Inspiration isn't even an optional rule. It's right there on the character sheet. It's on their D&D Beyond sheets, which is another business partner with Critical Role. And that lack of use is something WotC wants to fix.
If you're worried about momentum and using that inspiration to garner more inspiration, I get that. I don't like giving them a cherry on top of the 20. I'd rather see it on the 1; because failure is a teacher. That said, other game systems have similar mechanics and aren't shy about handing them out. Rolling dice is fun. Letting your players roll more dice is more fun for them. None of that is wrong.
It's trying to patch what was to begin with, a bad change. A solution searching for a problem, they had a solution but no problem for it and that solution in and of itself creates problems. Simple as.
It actually does break Inspiration, Inspiration is meant to be a reward that DMs can hand out to players for things like good role play, if it's under-utilized then that is down to players and DMs, but now the feature is basically just another "advantage" feature, as if we needed another one. Advantage/Disadvantage is good in some aspects but it's becoming too dominate. Inspiration was good for what it was intended for, it's not good for where it's going, esp when you look at something like the Musician feat. It's stacking inspiration with bardic inspiration now, as if bardic inspiration wasn't already powerful enough!
Inspiration was never meant to be a feature that was regularly used in the first place, which is why players can pass inspiration to another player, it's a rare resource and now it's just been cheapened.
Also, just because some companies don't use inspiration in their content doesn't mean it's broken, D&D should NOT base itself off of critical role, that'd be a dumb decision, D&D gets it's money from players playing the game and that experience is not the same experience as Critical Role; Critical Role is a series that uses D&D, yes, but it is not a series that plays like D&D. Stop feeding into the Matt Mercer Effect, even Matt Mercer hates that.
Can you explain some of this thought process for me? Nothing about the description for Inspiration hints at it being a rare occurrence. If that's how you see it, then fine. To each their own. But I just don't see it. I can envision a table where everyone is so into it that inspiration can flow like water.
And I'm not feeding the Mercer Effect. Do you even know what that is, or did you just see the name and respond to that alone? You act like so many teenagers I've been teaching to play for the last three years. Please don't. The topic of streams eventually comes up, and every time I tell my students not to compare themselves to the professionals. Every player and DM is different, so not being able to emulate X style of game is fine. Because those same pros can't do their style of game, either.
It's like telling someone not to over prepare. Poll a hundred people, and you can get a hundred answers. It's useless advice.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game.
- PHB
Think of inspiration as a spice that you can use to enhance your campaign. Some DMs forgo using inspiration, while others embrace it as a key part of the game. If you take away anything from this section, remember this golden rule: inspiration should make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Award inspiration when players take actions that make the game more exciting, amusing, or memorable.
As a rule of thumb, aim to award inspiration to each character about once per session of play. Over time, you might want to award inspiration more or less often, at a rate that works best for your table. You might use the same rate for your entire DMing career, or you might change it with each campaign.
- DMG
Inspiration is suppose to be as common as the DM wants it to be, which isn't to say rare but it's meant to be a reward for playing your character as they should be or in a compelling way, if it were handed out like candy at Halloween than that isn't really a reward, it's a participation prize. The recommendation in the DMG was 1 point per player per session, which can be adjusted as the DM desires, or they can fore-go Inspiration entirely (that's the DM's choice). It's not something that was mechanically rewarded but a way to encourage certain styles of play which fits with the DMs campaign and the character development of the PC in question, making it mechanically rewarded entirely breaks what Inspiration was entirely designed for.
Also the Matt Mercer Effect is when people try to play DnD expecting it to be like Critical Role, which is the accurate, you were basically saying we should look at the way critical role plays.
Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used.
I do not care if critical role plays a certain way, DnD is not critical role and that is not a good basis for is Inspiration in need of change. The changes to Inspiration in oned&d HAVE broken what Inspiration is, that isn't even debatable, since it turned a non-mechanical reward into a mechanical piece of candy. I do not watch Critical Role, and have no intention too, I'm sure it's good but it's not a good basis for what D&D should be, nor is it a good basis for what works and does not work within D&D.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Can't be Farmed? Except Humans get it every long rest and then the Musician feat gives it to PROFICIENCY number of players per short & long rest!
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
Second, I don't think this breaks Inspiration. It was an underutilized mechanic. Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used. Inspiration isn't even an optional rule. It's right there on the character sheet. It's on their D&D Beyond sheets, which is another business partner with Critical Role. And that lack of use is something WotC wants to fix.
If you're worried about momentum and using that inspiration to garner more inspiration, I get that. I don't like giving them a cherry on top of the 20. I'd rather see it on the 1; because failure is a teacher. That said, other game systems have similar mechanics and aren't shy about handing them out. Rolling dice is fun. Letting your players roll more dice is more fun for them. None of that is wrong.
It's trying to patch what was to begin with, a bad change. A solution searching for a problem, they had a solution but no problem for it and that solution in and of itself creates problems. Simple as.
It actually does break Inspiration, Inspiration is meant to be a reward that DMs can hand out to players for things like good role play, if it's under-utilized then that is down to players and DMs, but now the feature is basically just another "advantage" feature, as if we needed another one. Advantage/Disadvantage is good in some aspects but it's becoming too dominate. Inspiration was good for what it was intended for, it's not good for where it's going, esp when you look at something like the Musician feat. It's stacking inspiration with bardic inspiration now, as if bardic inspiration wasn't already powerful enough!
Inspiration was never meant to be a feature that was regularly used in the first place, which is why players can pass inspiration to another player, it's a rare resource and now it's just been cheapened.
Also, just because some companies don't use inspiration in their content doesn't mean it's broken, D&D should NOT base itself off of critical role, that'd be a dumb decision, D&D gets it's money from players playing the game and that experience is not the same experience as Critical Role; Critical Role is a series that uses D&D, yes, but it is not a series that plays like D&D. Stop feeding into the Matt Mercer Effect, even Matt Mercer hates that.
Can you explain some of this thought process for me? Nothing about the description for Inspiration hints at it being a rare occurrence. If that's how you see it, then fine. To each their own. But I just don't see it. I can envision a table where everyone is so into it that inspiration can flow like water.
And I'm not feeding the Mercer Effect. Do you even know what that is, or did you just see the name and respond to that alone? You act like so many teenagers I've been teaching to play for the last three years. Please don't. The topic of streams eventually comes up, and every time I tell my students not to compare themselves to the professionals. Every player and DM is different, so not being able to emulate X style of game is fine. Because those same pros can't do their style of game, either.
It's like telling someone not to over prepare. Poll a hundred people, and you can get a hundred answers. It's useless advice.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game.
- PHB
Think of inspiration as a spice that you can use to enhance your campaign. Some DMs forgo using inspiration, while others embrace it as a key part of the game. If you take away anything from this section, remember this golden rule: inspiration should make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Award inspiration when players take actions that make the game more exciting, amusing, or memorable.
As a rule of thumb, aim to award inspiration to each character about once per session of play. Over time, you might want to award inspiration more or less often, at a rate that works best for your table. You might use the same rate for your entire DMing career, or you might change it with each campaign.
- DMG
Inspiration is suppose to be as common as the DM wants it to be, which isn't to say rare but it's meant to be a reward for playing your character as they should be or in a compelling way, if it were handed out like candy at Halloween than that isn't really a reward, it's a participation prize. The recommendation in the DMG was 1 point per player per session, which can be adjusted as the DM desires, or they can fore-go Inspiration entirely (that's the DM's choice). It's not something that was mechanically rewarded but a way to encourage certain styles of play which fits with the DMs campaign and the character development of the PC in question, making it mechanically rewarded entirely breaks what Inspiration was entirely designed for.
Also the Matt Mercer Effect is when people try to play DnD expecting it to be like Critical Role, which is the accurate, you were basically saying we should look at the way critical role plays.
Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used.
I do not care if critical role plays a certain way, DnD is not critical role and that is not a good basis for is Inspiration in need of change. The changes to Inspiration in oned&d HAVE broken what Inspiration is, that isn't even debatable, since it turned a non-mechanical reward into a mechanical piece of candy. I do not watch Critical Role, and have no intention too, I'm sure it's good but it's not a good basis for what D&D should be, nor is it a good basis for what works and does not work within D&D.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Can't be Farmed? Except Humans get it every long rest and then the Musician feat gives it to PROFICIENCY number of players per short & long rest!
You can't farm it as you can only have one. If you get another you have to give it to someone else.
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
Second, I don't think this breaks Inspiration. It was an underutilized mechanic. Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used. Inspiration isn't even an optional rule. It's right there on the character sheet. It's on their D&D Beyond sheets, which is another business partner with Critical Role. And that lack of use is something WotC wants to fix.
If you're worried about momentum and using that inspiration to garner more inspiration, I get that. I don't like giving them a cherry on top of the 20. I'd rather see it on the 1; because failure is a teacher. That said, other game systems have similar mechanics and aren't shy about handing them out. Rolling dice is fun. Letting your players roll more dice is more fun for them. None of that is wrong.
It's trying to patch what was to begin with, a bad change. A solution searching for a problem, they had a solution but no problem for it and that solution in and of itself creates problems. Simple as.
It actually does break Inspiration, Inspiration is meant to be a reward that DMs can hand out to players for things like good role play, if it's under-utilized then that is down to players and DMs, but now the feature is basically just another "advantage" feature, as if we needed another one. Advantage/Disadvantage is good in some aspects but it's becoming too dominate. Inspiration was good for what it was intended for, it's not good for where it's going, esp when you look at something like the Musician feat. It's stacking inspiration with bardic inspiration now, as if bardic inspiration wasn't already powerful enough!
Inspiration was never meant to be a feature that was regularly used in the first place, which is why players can pass inspiration to another player, it's a rare resource and now it's just been cheapened.
Also, just because some companies don't use inspiration in their content doesn't mean it's broken, D&D should NOT base itself off of critical role, that'd be a dumb decision, D&D gets it's money from players playing the game and that experience is not the same experience as Critical Role; Critical Role is a series that uses D&D, yes, but it is not a series that plays like D&D. Stop feeding into the Matt Mercer Effect, even Matt Mercer hates that.
Can you explain some of this thought process for me? Nothing about the description for Inspiration hints at it being a rare occurrence. If that's how you see it, then fine. To each their own. But I just don't see it. I can envision a table where everyone is so into it that inspiration can flow like water.
And I'm not feeding the Mercer Effect. Do you even know what that is, or did you just see the name and respond to that alone? You act like so many teenagers I've been teaching to play for the last three years. Please don't. The topic of streams eventually comes up, and every time I tell my students not to compare themselves to the professionals. Every player and DM is different, so not being able to emulate X style of game is fine. Because those same pros can't do their style of game, either.
It's like telling someone not to over prepare. Poll a hundred people, and you can get a hundred answers. It's useless advice.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game.
- PHB
Think of inspiration as a spice that you can use to enhance your campaign. Some DMs forgo using inspiration, while others embrace it as a key part of the game. If you take away anything from this section, remember this golden rule: inspiration should make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Award inspiration when players take actions that make the game more exciting, amusing, or memorable.
As a rule of thumb, aim to award inspiration to each character about once per session of play. Over time, you might want to award inspiration more or less often, at a rate that works best for your table. You might use the same rate for your entire DMing career, or you might change it with each campaign.
- DMG
Inspiration is suppose to be as common as the DM wants it to be, which isn't to say rare but it's meant to be a reward for playing your character as they should be or in a compelling way, if it were handed out like candy at Halloween than that isn't really a reward, it's a participation prize. The recommendation in the DMG was 1 point per player per session, which can be adjusted as the DM desires, or they can fore-go Inspiration entirely (that's the DM's choice). It's not something that was mechanically rewarded but a way to encourage certain styles of play which fits with the DMs campaign and the character development of the PC in question, making it mechanically rewarded entirely breaks what Inspiration was entirely designed for.
Also the Matt Mercer Effect is when people try to play DnD expecting it to be like Critical Role, which is the accurate, you were basically saying we should look at the way critical role plays.
Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used.
I do not care if critical role plays a certain way, DnD is not critical role and that is not a good basis for is Inspiration in need of change. The changes to Inspiration in oned&d HAVE broken what Inspiration is, that isn't even debatable, since it turned a non-mechanical reward into a mechanical piece of candy. I do not watch Critical Role, and have no intention too, I'm sure it's good but it's not a good basis for what D&D should be, nor is it a good basis for what works and does not work within D&D.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Can't be Farmed? Except Humans get it every long rest and then the Musician feat gives it to PROFICIENCY number of players per short & long rest!
You can't farm it as you can only have one. If you get another you have to give it to someone else.
you can't have multiple, yes, but getting it once per short rest from musician means you can basically keep half the party with inspiration at any given point, probably the entire party when you progress into the mid-game. It's basically stupidly easy to get now from a single feat, and it gives advantage on use which means most players are going to use it soon since it's a 9.75% chance to get a nat 20. Which is why I say it's no longer a valuable reward but a piece of cheap candy.
Also the Matt Mercer Effect is when people try to play DnD expecting it to be like Critical Role, which is the accurate, you were basically saying we should look at the way critical role plays.
Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used.
I do not care if critical role plays a certain way, DnD is not critical role and that is not a good basis for is Inspiration in need of change. The changes to Inspiration in oned&d HAVE broken what Inspiration is, that isn't even debatable, since it turned a non-mechanical reward into a mechanical piece of candy. I do not watch Critical Role, and have no intention too, I'm sure it's good but it's not a good basis for what D&D should be, nor is it a good basis for what works and does not work within D&D.
Your formatting is annoying.
You're right about what the Mercer Effect is, which is why it's so mind-boggling that you think I'm trying to prop it up. I'm not. I made an observation, which may or may not be something WotC sees, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was noticed by the higher ups. That observation was a literal business partner and high-profile advertiser wasn't using a mechanic in the Player's Handbook. House rules and the implementation of numerous optional and variant rules aside, that's a glaring omission. There's a Reddit post on the subject from five years ago, but that's it. And, to be clear, his explanation is completely justified. He had, and still has, a lot to keep track of.
But I digress, and I think you had it backwards. If anything, invoking the Mercer Effect would mean fewer people are using Inspiration. And, clearly, that's not what WotC wants. So, for whatever reason, they're changing it up.
I'm going to stick to my guns and say nothing has been broken. Inspiration can still a reward for doing something "particularly heroic or amusing." There's just another way to earn it; a tried and true method in case the DM forgets. I'm sorry you think that's bad, and I think you need to lighten up. Because, in the games I've played since the playtest has come out, I haven't noticed a change.
This playtest is in its infancy. We have a long way to go between now and probably Autumn 2024. Because that's when all the big rules releases have been.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Can't be Farmed? Except Humans get it every long rest and then the Musician feat gives it to PROFICIENCY number of players per short & long rest!
Yeah, I'm standing by that one, too. So what? I was specifically referring to the idea of rolling pointless ability checks over and over for that 20, anyway. Wasn't that obvious. And I've already talked about those, so I don't need to go over them again. It's just not a big deal, mechanically. If you're worried about a lack of roleplaying, there's no rule to fix that. That's a player issue.
Like I told Mana before I blocked hr, it's not the Nat1/Nat20 that's her problem. Her problem is with a DM who might make her roll when she doesn't want to. Or with players who might try and bully the DM. And...fair, I guess. But, again, those are interpersonal issues. There are no rules which can fix people. This has now been 22 pages on what happens when you roll the die, and people are losing their minds over it. In a game where you're supposed to roll dice.
And if someone rolling a D20 twice does somehow break a game, I mean utterly derailing it, I'd love to read about it.
This was supposed to be all one post. Some of it got deleted when I was trying to clean up your mess. For the love of all that is holy, find a better way to reply. Saying dealing with this is inconvenient is putting it mildly.
Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game.
- PHB
Think of inspiration as a spice that you can use to enhance your campaign. Some DMs forgo using inspiration, while others embrace it as a key part of the game. If you take away anything from this section, remember this golden rule: inspiration should make the game more enjoyable for everyone. Award inspiration when players take actions that make the game more exciting, amusing, or memorable.
As a rule of thumb, aim to award inspiration to each character about once per session of play. Over time, you might want to award inspiration more or less often, at a rate that works best for your table. You might use the same rate for your entire DMing career, or you might change it with each campaign.
- DMG
Inspiration is suppose to be as common as the DM wants it to be, which isn't to say rare but it's meant to be a reward for playing your character as they should be or in a compelling way, if it were handed out like candy at Halloween than that isn't really a reward, it's a participation prize. The recommendation in the DMG was 1 point per player per session, which can be adjusted as the DM desires, or they can fore-go Inspiration entirely (that's the DM's choice). It's not something that was mechanically rewarded but a way to encourage certain styles of play which fits with the DMs campaign and the character development of the PC in question, making it mechanically rewarded entirely breaks what Inspiration was entirely designed for.
You know what? I already wrote a lot for this that got deleted, and I honestly don't think I care enough to retype all that. Heaven help me, I'll try, but it might not be recognizably the same.
So what if Inspiration can now also be earned mechanically? It can still be an award for whatever you think is strong roleplaying; which is entirely subjective. It's just now also accessible via another means. If we're honestly going to say there's no wrong way to play the game, then why does Inspiration being a "participation prize" offend you so much? Are you trying to be elitist, or is that just coming out naturally?
I'm in two games. Nobody was playing a human in the ongoing one, and nobody chose to start as a human in the one that started up during the playtest. (And I specifically said we'd be using the playtest document going forward, so that was the human they had to choose if they did.) So I haven't seen how they start every day with Inspiration, but so what? If you don't lie it, then set a slower pace for the game. It could be sessions between long rests.
The new Musician feat is interesting, but only because Inspiration can be doled out after a short rest as well. It means WotC hasn't forgotten about it, and it will still be encouraged. This gives me hope for what the classes might look like down the line. That said, it's another pacing tool for the players. They decide how often they short rest, and Inspiration goes away at the end of the day. It's a temporary resource that either gets used or lost. If it happens a little more often, so what?
"Inspiration is suppose to be as common as the DM wants it to be..."
You cannot have this both ways. If the DM wants to hand out Inspiration like dang Halloween candy, they darn well can. And you don't have the right to be upset over that. You want Inspiration to be special because, I think, you want to feel special. And that's fine. We all want to feel special sometimes. That said, you're no more special than anyone else playing the game. Not at your table, not at mine, and not at anyone else's.
Inspiration does not need to be or feel special. It never did, and even if it was before, it doesn't need to stay that way.
Do you want people to roll dice or not? Do you want them to fail and not succeed? To not had fun? Your entire, emotional, argument is hiding behind a veneer of game design I don't think you fully grasp. Inspiration couldn't break the game before, so it can't now. The frequency is irrelevant. I don't know that it should be awarded on a 20, because I don't think players need a cherry on top of automatically succeeding, but that's about it.
Do you even know the odds of using Inspiration (or some other source of Advantage) to earn a point of Inspiration via the D20? It's 9.75%. I know that sounds like a lot, but it really isn't.
It's advantage, as a mechanic. That's it. That's what you're arguing against: easy advantage. The new Unarmed Strike rules do it, too. I don't know what else to tell you, except don't play with the optional flanking rules from the DMG.
Like I told Mana before I blocked hr, it's not the Nat1/Nat20 that's her problem. Her problem is with a DM who might make her roll when she doesn't want to. Or with players who might try and bully the DM. And...fair, I guess. But, again, those are interpersonal issues. There are no rules which can fix people. This has now been 22 pages on what happens when you roll the die, and people are losing their minds over it. In a game where you're supposed to roll dice.
No, it definitely is the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule that I have an issue with. If the nat 1/20 auto fail/success was not there, I wouldn't have any problem at all. I am fine with the DM being able to decide when a roll is warranted or not warranted; I am not fine with the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rules because they remove agency from the player and negate character investment. When combined with how DM's can decide whether a roll is warranted or not, it adds unnecessary variance to Organize Play because you will have DMs that will use it to ignore the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule and you will have DM's making people roll because a 5% auto fail/success chance. It will hinder fun in more cases when it actually matters and the people who are for it are unlikely to see a difference in gameplay regardless of whether it makes it to the release version or not.
Making this clear to everyone now, my issue is the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule. I do not have any issue with DM's being able to decide by RAW when a roll is warranted or unwarranted. Only when the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule comes into play do I have issues with the system.
So what if Inspiration can now also be earned mechanically? It can still be an award for whatever you think is strong roleplaying; which is entirely subjective. It's just now also accessible via another means. If we're honestly going to say there's no wrong way to play the game, then why does Inspiration being a "participation prize" offend you so much? Are you trying to be elitist, or is that just coming out naturally?
My problem with gaining inspiration on rolling a 20 is that it makes the game more complicated without making it better. It's not like people need to be motivated to roll 20s.
So what if Inspiration can now also be earned mechanically? It can still be an award for whatever you think is strong roleplaying; which is entirely subjective. It's just now also accessible via another means. If we're honestly going to say there's no wrong way to play the game, then why does Inspiration being a "participation prize" offend you so much? Are you trying to be elitist, or is that just coming out naturally?
My problem with gaining inspiration on rolling a 20 is that it makes the game more complicated without making it better. It's not like people need to be motivated to roll 20s.
I address that further down.
Do you want people to roll dice or not? Do you want them to fail and not succeed? To not had fun? Your entire, emotional, argument is hiding behind a veneer of game design I don't think you fully grasp. Inspiration couldn't break the game before, so it can't now. The frequency is irrelevant. I don't know that it should be awarded on a 20, because I don't think players need a cherry on top of automatically succeeding, but that's about it.
Do you want people to roll dice or not? Do you want them to fail and not succeed? To not had fun?
The way this is written, you are suggesting any other outcome that does not including rolling a dice and succeeding as not being fun. The logical extension to this, is that failure is bad and therefor players should never fail? Why bother rolling dice at all then, since the very purpose of dice in the construct of the game is to resolve situations where there is a chance of failure. If nothing is risked, what value does success actually have?
I can appreciate that not every table is my table, and that a beer and pretzels style game where random chance and silly outcomes makes for a fun evening. In that style of game, the auto success/fail rules as a houserule is perfectly fine. Where I draw exception however, is that those are not the style of games I run, and making this the mandatory rule is forcing the game towards more of that style.
Now the obvious argument is that I can houserule to remove the auto success/fail. And that is true, to an extent. However there is something to be said about the implied legitimacy of a rule when it is in the rule book, versus what makes more or less sense for a table.
I also find a disturbing number of commentators are focusing on a binary assessment of the scenario. Yes, you can use DM fiat to say "this is impossible for you, so you can't roll" however it is a common situation at my table that something is only possible to some of the characters, as a result of choices those players have made. Those choices matter, the auto success/fail rule now means that either I invalidate those choices by letting everyone roll, or alternatively I have to say to the table that only some people can roll.
Under the current rule, those outcomes are hidden, part of the encounter design and the choices the players make resolve the situation with very little feedback from me.
Since examples can be helpful, let's say I have an situation where listening at a door (a DC 25 perception check) will provide a certain outcome.
Under the current rules, anyone may have the idea and try the action; but some characters will just not be able to make that DC of 25. But this information isn't known, and the party makes a choice and deals with the consequences of that choice. Now, lets imagine the same situation occurs with the new rule. I have two choices:
Tell the player they listen at the door and hear nothing (no roll, I have determined they can't make it)
Allow them to roll, and they have a 5% chance of success when they shouldn't
In the first case, it is telling the party, "You tried with the wrong person" - Now sure, you can have out of game discussions about not kicking the can down the road, fishing for success etc. But all these are added work and drama that just doesn't need to exist. In the second case, I am invalidating the player choice and agency for those characters who DID invest in increasing their perception.
The current rules handle this far more elegantly than the proposed rules do, and it really is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're both talking past one another.
If the rule should be unchanged from the PHB, that ability checks and saving throws have no automatic success and fail conditions, then it isn't unreasonable to ask why. Simply maintaining the status quo isn't good enough. It's never been good enough. Times change, as they always have.
Rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to the rule, because some of us are seemingly resistant to change, we should be asking ourselves why this rule is being proposed. What problem is it attempting to solve? Is this problem actually a problem? And if the problem is real, is there a better way to solve it?
That is the problem tho, it doesn't solve any problem 5E problem; some people in 5E did homebrew nat 1 & nat 20 on ability checks and saves, which was always fine in 5E, just like fumble tables on nat 1 attack rolls, but that some people use them isn't justification for adding them in as a de facto ruling.
Rather the problem it's trying to fix is another problem they created in regards inspiration, which is they want inspiration to be more common and commonly used, so now you get it any time you get a 20 but there is no downside on the opposite side for a 1. Inspiration has gone crazy and really the concept of inspiration has been broken by one D&D, it needs a roll back or a revisit. Inspiration isn't something you should be able to get 5 times a day...
Okay, two things:
First, if the proposed rule change isn't attempting to address anything you think is a problem, when what is it trying to address? Is there something lacking from the current experience? For example, if every choice should have a consequence, then so shouldn't every roll of the dice? That may be what they're trying to do. We should all try to think beyond our narrow experiences and see the bigger picture.
Second, I don't think this breaks Inspiration. It was an underutilized mechanic. Even Critical Role, never once used it in a major campaign. EXU did, when Aabria Iyengar was the DM, and I haven't watched Calamity yet, but Mercer never has. That's literally hundreds of episodes of a high-profile game, run by a business partner, where a core book mechanic isn't used. Inspiration isn't even an optional rule. It's right there on the character sheet. It's on their D&D Beyond sheets, which is another business partner with Critical Role. And that lack of use is something WotC wants to fix.
If you're worried about momentum and using that inspiration to garner more inspiration, I get that. I don't like giving them a cherry on top of the 20. I'd rather see it on the 1; because failure is a teacher. That said, other game systems have similar mechanics and aren't shy about handing them out. Rolling dice is fun. Letting your players roll more dice is more fun for them. None of that is wrong.
There are times when, as a GM, I don't let players roll. Two major categories: 1) it's impossible, 2) I give them what they need/want without a roll because it's appropriate.
But when I do let them roll, and success is mathematically impossible, I generally redefine what can be done and chain a success into something else positive. Subsequent checks may be easier or have Advantage for either the same character or the group. It can be the next roll or for a set series of related checks. It's definitely not adversarial. It's about building a story.
If a group I'm running is working as a team they often chain skill checks like the 4e skill challenge. I still use those. What's the group's goal? What is an individual trying to accomplish? How hard is the challenge or task? Was the attempt mathematically possible? Did it fail, but was it greater than the challenge difficulty? It doesn't take long to find this information and evaluate what happens. Most importantly, it helps them build their story while maintaining stakes.
Another problem this rule change highlights is the binary state of skill checks. Other systems forgo pass/fail. They often do so rather elegantly. Genesys has a wide variety of results. Other systems use a negotiation system where a failed roll can become a success with a cost. Others use resources to turn a failure to a success. In every case it's about the story. D&D is not those games. That comes with a price. But in the ability checks section is this gem:
"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success--the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM." An example is jumping across something, failing by only a few points, a GM could say "you hit mid-chest and have the wind knocked out of you. You lose any further actions and will have to stand up next turn." So clearly there is room for negotiation.
All this is to say, the 20/1 change mucks up what could have been cleared up with GMs and players effectively communicating.
This rule change ISN'T attempting to fix a problem. In the video WotC stated the reason they are trying it out is because some people didn't realize that the current rules of 5e allowed for a natural 1 to succeed or that natural 20's weren't an auto success. So they proposed the change as part of the UA to see what people think about changing it.
There isn't any need to "think beyond our narrow experiences" to see some bigger picture because there isn't one. They told us exactly what their thought process was for this one.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's trying to patch what was to begin with, a bad change. A solution searching for a problem, they had a solution but no problem for it and that solution in and of itself creates problems. Simple as.
It actually does break Inspiration, Inspiration is meant to be a reward that DMs can hand out to players for things like good role play, if it's under-utilized then that is down to players and DMs, but now the feature is basically just another "advantage" feature, as if we needed another one. Advantage/Disadvantage is good in some aspects but it's becoming too dominate. Inspiration was good for what it was intended for, it's not good for where it's going, esp when you look at something like the Musician feat. It's stacking inspiration with bardic inspiration now, as if bardic inspiration wasn't already powerful enough!
Inspiration was never meant to be a feature that was regularly used in the first place, which is why players can pass inspiration to another player, it's a rare resource and now it's just been cheapened.
Also, just because some companies don't use inspiration in their content doesn't mean it's broken, D&D should NOT base itself off of critical role, that'd be a dumb decision, D&D gets it's money from players playing the game and that experience is not the same experience as Critical Role; Critical Role is a series that uses D&D, yes, but it is not a series that plays like D&D. Stop feeding into the Matt Mercer Effect, even Matt Mercer hates that.
I did not go trough the whole tread and assume that somebody will have mentioned it before.
If you introduce that a 20 always succeed you need to have good guidelines and rules about re trying a skill checks.
So that situations where there is no time pressure don't become the player just rolling over and over again until they get that 20.
They can go in 2 directions for this.
1: saying that you can not re try skill checks unless something about the situation has substantially changed.
2: re introduce the take 20 from older editions where it is assumed you will succeed on any task with a DC lower the 20+your modifier eventually if you take enough time.
Everyone makes mistakes but a mistake or even multiple mistakes does not always equal failure. 5% is 1 in 20, that is not statistucally insignificant. I don't see professional musicians utterly failing a concert 1/20 times. A success only requires an adequete job.
I took a couple days off to enjoy the long weekend. Can't be on here all the time. Anyway...
Being able to succeed on a nat 1 means the action is absolutely trivial to you where it is akin to breathing. You should not be pressured at all if you can succeed on a nat 1. If you are pressured then it should be reflected by the DC rising.
Even if a mistake is made, it does not equate into failure. You don't fail a math test by getting a 99%; even a 60% is considered passing (albeit below average) by US standards. Success simply means you at least did an adequete job.
1/20 is not statistically insignificant. If you told a mathematician that 5% is statistically insignificant, they'd think you're insane.
1 in 20 times is very significant when you actually consider the population of rolls. If 1 in 20 people suddenly died to a plague, that would be an insanely deadly plague. Covid-19 has an overall fatality rate of 1.07% (granted it varies by age) yet it was and still is a world wide crisis. If 1 out of 20 people randomly died, it would be a catostrophy of the utmost proportions. 1/20 is no way an insignificant probability.
The only reason why this rule was made was because a bunch of people mistook it as the default 5E rule. Jeremy Crawford confirmed this himself. There was no balancing reason or any real game design reason. Frankly, this was not a good reason for the change.
It, combined with the how the DM can freely decide which rolls are warranted, will lead to unncessary variance in organized play.
The people most affected by this rule are the ones that would generally not find it fun nor enjoyable. The ones that like this rule would see little to no change whether this rule makes it through or not. This rule will cause more negative experiences than positive.
It can be a decent optional rule but not a default rule.
Can you explain some of this thought process for me? Nothing about the description for Inspiration hints at it being a rare occurrence. If that's how you see it, then fine. To each their own. But I just don't see it. I can envision a table where everyone is so into it that inspiration can flow like water.
And I'm not feeding the Mercer Effect. Do you even know what that is, or did you just see the name and respond to that alone? You act like so many teenagers I've been teaching to play for the last three years. Please don't. The topic of streams eventually comes up, and every time I tell my students not to compare themselves to the professionals. Every player and DM is different, so not being able to emulate X style of game is fine. Because those same pros can't do their style of game, either.
It's like telling someone not to over prepare. Poll a hundred people, and you can get a hundred answers. It's useless advice.
Transitioning back on target. It's not a big deal if a little more inspiration is handed out throughout a game because of 20s. It could always stack with bardic inspiration, and can't be "farmed" unless the DM allows it to be. And that becomes a problem for the table the rules cannot address.
Inspiration is suppose to be as common as the DM wants it to be, which isn't to say rare but it's meant to be a reward for playing your character as they should be or in a compelling way, if it were handed out like candy at Halloween than that isn't really a reward, it's a participation prize. The recommendation in the DMG was 1 point per player per session, which can be adjusted as the DM desires, or they can fore-go Inspiration entirely (that's the DM's choice). It's not something that was mechanically rewarded but a way to encourage certain styles of play which fits with the DMs campaign and the character development of the PC in question, making it mechanically rewarded entirely breaks what Inspiration was entirely designed for.
Also the Matt Mercer Effect is when people try to play DnD expecting it to be like Critical Role, which is the accurate, you were basically saying we should look at the way critical role plays.
I do not care if critical role plays a certain way, DnD is not critical role and that is not a good basis for is Inspiration in need of change. The changes to Inspiration in oned&d HAVE broken what Inspiration is, that isn't even debatable, since it turned a non-mechanical reward into a mechanical piece of candy. I do not watch Critical Role, and have no intention too, I'm sure it's good but it's not a good basis for what D&D should be, nor is it a good basis for what works and does not work within D&D.
Can't be Farmed? Except Humans get it every long rest and then the Musician feat gives it to PROFICIENCY number of players per short & long rest!
You can't farm it as you can only have one. If you get another you have to give it to someone else.
you can't have multiple, yes, but getting it once per short rest from musician means you can basically keep half the party with inspiration at any given point, probably the entire party when you progress into the mid-game. It's basically stupidly easy to get now from a single feat, and it gives advantage on use which means most players are going to use it soon since it's a 9.75% chance to get a nat 20. Which is why I say it's no longer a valuable reward but a piece of cheap candy.
Okay, we'll cover that in chunks
Your formatting is annoying.
You're right about what the Mercer Effect is, which is why it's so mind-boggling that you think I'm trying to prop it up. I'm not. I made an observation, which may or may not be something WotC sees, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was noticed by the higher ups. That observation was a literal business partner and high-profile advertiser wasn't using a mechanic in the Player's Handbook. House rules and the implementation of numerous optional and variant rules aside, that's a glaring omission. There's a Reddit post on the subject from five years ago, but that's it. And, to be clear, his explanation is completely justified. He had, and still has, a lot to keep track of.
But I digress, and I think you had it backwards. If anything, invoking the Mercer Effect would mean fewer people are using Inspiration. And, clearly, that's not what WotC wants. So, for whatever reason, they're changing it up.
I'm going to stick to my guns and say nothing has been broken. Inspiration can still a reward for doing something "particularly heroic or amusing." There's just another way to earn it; a tried and true method in case the DM forgets. I'm sorry you think that's bad, and I think you need to lighten up. Because, in the games I've played since the playtest has come out, I haven't noticed a change.
This playtest is in its infancy. We have a long way to go between now and probably Autumn 2024. Because that's when all the big rules releases have been.
Yeah, I'm standing by that one, too. So what? I was specifically referring to the idea of rolling pointless ability checks over and over for that 20, anyway. Wasn't that obvious. And I've already talked about those, so I don't need to go over them again. It's just not a big deal, mechanically. If you're worried about a lack of roleplaying, there's no rule to fix that. That's a player issue.
Like I told Mana before I blocked hr, it's not the Nat1/Nat20 that's her problem. Her problem is with a DM who might make her roll when she doesn't want to. Or with players who might try and bully the DM. And...fair, I guess. But, again, those are interpersonal issues. There are no rules which can fix people. This has now been 22 pages on what happens when you roll the die, and people are losing their minds over it. In a game where you're supposed to roll dice.
And if someone rolling a D20 twice does somehow break a game, I mean utterly derailing it, I'd love to read about it.
This was supposed to be all one post. Some of it got deleted when I was trying to clean up your mess. For the love of all that is holy, find a better way to reply. Saying dealing with this is inconvenient is putting it mildly.
You know what? I already wrote a lot for this that got deleted, and I honestly don't think I care enough to retype all that. Heaven help me, I'll try, but it might not be recognizably the same.
So what if Inspiration can now also be earned mechanically? It can still be an award for whatever you think is strong roleplaying; which is entirely subjective. It's just now also accessible via another means. If we're honestly going to say there's no wrong way to play the game, then why does Inspiration being a "participation prize" offend you so much? Are you trying to be elitist, or is that just coming out naturally?
I'm in two games. Nobody was playing a human in the ongoing one, and nobody chose to start as a human in the one that started up during the playtest. (And I specifically said we'd be using the playtest document going forward, so that was the human they had to choose if they did.) So I haven't seen how they start every day with Inspiration, but so what? If you don't lie it, then set a slower pace for the game. It could be sessions between long rests.
The new Musician feat is interesting, but only because Inspiration can be doled out after a short rest as well. It means WotC hasn't forgotten about it, and it will still be encouraged. This gives me hope for what the classes might look like down the line. That said, it's another pacing tool for the players. They decide how often they short rest, and Inspiration goes away at the end of the day. It's a temporary resource that either gets used or lost. If it happens a little more often, so what?
"Inspiration is suppose to be as common as the DM wants it to be..."
You cannot have this both ways. If the DM wants to hand out Inspiration like dang Halloween candy, they darn well can. And you don't have the right to be upset over that. You want Inspiration to be special because, I think, you want to feel special. And that's fine. We all want to feel special sometimes. That said, you're no more special than anyone else playing the game. Not at your table, not at mine, and not at anyone else's.
Inspiration does not need to be or feel special. It never did, and even if it was before, it doesn't need to stay that way.
Do you want people to roll dice or not? Do you want them to fail and not succeed? To not had fun? Your entire, emotional, argument is hiding behind a veneer of game design I don't think you fully grasp. Inspiration couldn't break the game before, so it can't now. The frequency is irrelevant. I don't know that it should be awarded on a 20, because I don't think players need a cherry on top of automatically succeeding, but that's about it.
Do you even know the odds of using Inspiration (or some other source of Advantage) to earn a point of Inspiration via the D20? It's 9.75%. I know that sounds like a lot, but it really isn't.
It's advantage, as a mechanic. That's it. That's what you're arguing against: easy advantage. The new Unarmed Strike rules do it, too. I don't know what else to tell you, except don't play with the optional flanking rules from the DMG.
No, it definitely is the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule that I have an issue with. If the nat 1/20 auto fail/success was not there, I wouldn't have any problem at all. I am fine with the DM being able to decide when a roll is warranted or not warranted; I am not fine with the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rules because they remove agency from the player and negate character investment. When combined with how DM's can decide whether a roll is warranted or not, it adds unnecessary variance to Organize Play because you will have DMs that will use it to ignore the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule and you will have DM's making people roll because a 5% auto fail/success chance. It will hinder fun in more cases when it actually matters and the people who are for it are unlikely to see a difference in gameplay regardless of whether it makes it to the release version or not.
Making this clear to everyone now, my issue is the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule. I do not have any issue with DM's being able to decide by RAW when a roll is warranted or unwarranted. Only when the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule comes into play do I have issues with the system.
My problem with gaining inspiration on rolling a 20 is that it makes the game more complicated without making it better. It's not like people need to be motivated to roll 20s.
I address that further down.
The way this is written, you are suggesting any other outcome that does not including rolling a dice and succeeding as not being fun. The logical extension to this, is that failure is bad and therefor players should never fail? Why bother rolling dice at all then, since the very purpose of dice in the construct of the game is to resolve situations where there is a chance of failure. If nothing is risked, what value does success actually have?
I can appreciate that not every table is my table, and that a beer and pretzels style game where random chance and silly outcomes makes for a fun evening. In that style of game, the auto success/fail rules as a houserule is perfectly fine. Where I draw exception however, is that those are not the style of games I run, and making this the mandatory rule is forcing the game towards more of that style.
Now the obvious argument is that I can houserule to remove the auto success/fail. And that is true, to an extent. However there is something to be said about the implied legitimacy of a rule when it is in the rule book, versus what makes more or less sense for a table.
I also find a disturbing number of commentators are focusing on a binary assessment of the scenario. Yes, you can use DM fiat to say "this is impossible for you, so you can't roll" however it is a common situation at my table that something is only possible to some of the characters, as a result of choices those players have made. Those choices matter, the auto success/fail rule now means that either I invalidate those choices by letting everyone roll, or alternatively I have to say to the table that only some people can roll.
Under the current rule, those outcomes are hidden, part of the encounter design and the choices the players make resolve the situation with very little feedback from me.
Since examples can be helpful, let's say I have an situation where listening at a door (a DC 25 perception check) will provide a certain outcome.
Under the current rules, anyone may have the idea and try the action; but some characters will just not be able to make that DC of 25. But this information isn't known, and the party makes a choice and deals with the consequences of that choice. Now, lets imagine the same situation occurs with the new rule. I have two choices:
In the first case, it is telling the party, "You tried with the wrong person" - Now sure, you can have out of game discussions about not kicking the can down the road, fishing for success etc. But all these are added work and drama that just doesn't need to exist. In the second case, I am invalidating the player choice and agency for those characters who DID invest in increasing their perception.
The current rules handle this far more elegantly than the proposed rules do, and it really is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.