Sometimes the roll isn’t to define success or failure but to define how long it took.
I do this a lot with investigation, the player rolls, I know what will be found, I know it’s going to be found regardless, the dice roll however tells me if the party will be interrupted by a guard, be late to the next event etc. It helps give players another choice to make, to loot or to just move on.
How does the new playtest rule change any of that? The player(s) roll for how long will take to complete a task. It's the same under either rule.
Sometimes the roll isn’t to define success or failure but to define how long it took.
I do this a lot with investigation, the player rolls, I know what will be found, I know it’s going to be found regardless, the dice roll however tells me if the party will be interrupted by a guard, be late to the next event etc. It helps give players another choice to make, to loot or to just move on.
How does the new playtest rule change any of that? The player(s) roll for how long will take to complete a task. It's the same under either rule.
This was more for the argument that you only call a roll if the DC is more then 5. In these cases, and there are many, the locked door that will always be unlocked, the bar tender who the party need to charm.
These rolls have a DC of 1 but the dice result combined with the players describing what happens, feeds into my on the spot narration if what happens. The tension that builds as the party, seeing a low roll, listen as I describe what happened unsure if they succeeded or not. With a 1 always failing now I will have to just ignore that rule in these instances. But players will know, and that will break immersion. They know what I do already and they really enjoy it.
You could say "The 11 Strength Character cannot break the door open", however to me that just feels so...uninspired?
Good example. Let's consider the opposite the situation: the strength 11 character rolled a natural 20 and the player still cannot break the door open. Doesn't that feel uninspired as well? I mean, rolling a natural 20 is supposed to be filled with excitement. Wouldn't failing at a task, even after beating the odds, be even more uninspiring?
Sometimes the roll isn’t to define success or failure but to define how long it took.
I do this a lot with investigation, the player rolls, I know what will be found, I know it’s going to be found regardless, the dice roll however tells me if the party will be interrupted by a guard, be late to the next event etc. It helps give players another choice to make, to loot or to just move on.
How does the new playtest rule change any of that? The player(s) roll for how long will take to complete a task. It's the same under either rule.
This was more for the argument that you only call a roll if the DC is more then 5. In these cases, and there are many, the locked door that will always be unlocked, the bar tender who the party need to charm.
These rolls have a DC of 1 but the dice result combined with the players describing what happens, feeds into my on the spot narration if what happens. The tension that builds as the party, seeing a low roll, listen as I describe what happened unsure if they succeeded or not. With a 1 always failing now I will have to just ignore that rule in these instances. But players will know, and that will break immersion. They know what I do already and they really enjoy it.
I understand your concern, but I feel like you are just splitting hairs at this point. Consider your example of a time sensitive task, such as picking a lock that will always be unlocked, a failure on a roll can be taking the full 30 minuets, whereas a success would be opening the lock sooner (with the duration reduced by various degrees as the DM sees fit. Maybe a natural 20 is opening it on the first try and really quietly). This is the same using either rules.
It is important to remember that the spirit of the new playtest rule is to remind DMs to only warrant rolls when it is possible to succeed or to fail. In other words, don't make rolls that have no consequences. Don't make rolls when it is impossible to succeed (i.e. the players end up with in same situation and/or with the same information regardless of what they rolled). It is extremally intuitive and the new playtest rule simply put it into words.
You could say "The 11 Strength Character cannot break the door open", however to me that just feels so...uninspired?
Good example. Let's consider the opposite the situation: the strength 11 character rolled a natural 20 and the player still cannot break the door open. Doesn't that feel uninspired as well? I mean, rolling a natural 20 is supposed to be filled with excitement. Wouldn't failing at a task, even after beating the odds, be even more uninspiring?
Nope. 'Beating the odds' when the odds are as low as 1/20 shouldn't completely override the strengths and weaknesses of a character. If the character is a weak wizard, or a dumb barbarian, or a blunt, uncharismatic druid, rolling a 1 in 20 shouldn't magically override something that is completely beyond their capabilities. If the DC to force open the reinforced steel door is 25, and said wizard has a modifier of -1, that's simply an aspect of the character that shouldn't be ignored just because of a nat 20. Said wizard has their strengths and their weaknesses, and I feel that it is important for both of those things to be respected.
Furthermore, letting players roll a skill check even though they might not have a chance at succeeding makes sense when the DM doesn't know all the skill scores of each character at the table.The DM simply doesn't know this, thus the DM just sets a DC and asks players to roll a check when they tell the DM they want to do a specific action, then the DM calls for the check, not knowing the character's skill attribute.
Why wouldn't you as the DM know your player's modifiers?! Do... do you not review your players sheets to know what they're capable of?
The DM should have access but may not know them by heart.
The party decide to attempt to sneak into the lai of an adult red dragon ( PP 23). The DM will now need to check everyone's stealth before announcing who can role. They could say if you have a stealth modifier of 3 or more you can role but then the players know the DC which makes avoiding metagaming with things like flash of genius difficult.
In fact rhings like FoG and dark one's own luck do muddy the waters adding a d10 makes a huge difference, If the warlock with +0 stealth burns their DOOL they can make that DC 30 check. So the new rule would not only turn it front a 0.5% chance to a 5% chance but also mean they do not need to use the DOOL.
yet they can still harm something with ac 30 so whats the difference
Well seeing as how the highest official armor class (from what I can tell) other than the Tarrasque is only 22 (which is equal to a nat 20 + starting proficiency bonus), that isn't really much of an issue.
Oh, excuse me. Technically the Aspects of Tiamat and Bahamut from Fizbans have 23. The only creature below like CR 20 with higher than 20 ac is the CR 14 Fire Giant Dreadnought. Generally, anything you fight at anything even approaching level appropriate would be hit anyways with a nat 20.
Telling the players whether they should try doing something or not takes away from player agency. They might start to expect you to give them instructions on which objects are "interactive". Even if the iron gate has a DC 30 to break it, how would they know until they try (or have an expert metallurgist/builder examine it)?
Besides, then there's saving throws. You can roll 1 on those.
Telling the players whether they should try doing something or not takes away from player agency. They might start to expect you to give them instructions on which objects are "interactive". Even if the iron gate has a DC 30 to break it, how would they know until they try (or have an expert metallurgist/builder examine it)?
Besides, then there's saving throws. You can roll 1 on those.
So I have slowly been coming round to the idea of a halfway point between things. The party can still check the lock (investigation roll or passive investigation depending on how you do it) and then determine the lock is made of the finest Crozian steel, heated by the breath of a dragon and un breakable by mortal hands. It might be pickable but would take a picklock of immeasurable skill to manage it.
If the character decides to try to break it anyway then no rolling dice, you simply say, you try, your muscles bulge to the point of breaking but, this lock isn't being forced open.
Now, if they get creative and start making levers, tools to weaken it etc then I might start amending the DC and give them an opportunity to break it, but they have to give me a reason.
You could say "The 11 Strength Character cannot break the door open", however to me that just feels so...uninspired? Might as well just say when they approach the door "The only character that can open the door with strength is the Barbarian. Otherwise the Wizard can use the Knock spell." It just diminishes options.
Also, if you just say to the Strength 11 character, "Sorry, you can't push the door open" without asking for a roll, there's a good chance that the rest of the party assumes the door is too strong to be pushed open by anyone in the party.
Also it just feels...wrong on so many levels. So now the STR 7 gnome can somehow push this door open because they rolled a Natural 20?
I like to let players try things that are impossible for them, but possible for someone in the party, or possible with some thinking and creativity. Plus if you just tell the STR 11 character "Nope, you can't attempt to push open the door" then that doesn't allow for anyone to use things like the Guidance spell or any other boosting magic on them.
Telling the 11 str character 'sorry you can't do it' isn't ideal but imo neither is letting them roll then telling them 'sorry but you still fail.' If the roll doesn't affect the outcome, they shouldn't be rolling imo. Personally I'm in favor of just using the new rules, letting them succeed on a nat 20 if pushing the door open is something within the realm of possibility for a PC to do. Sure, it's possible you could have rare moments where the puny wizard outrolls a barbarian on a strength check, but these tend to be amusing outliers not things that happen consistently, so I don't really see it as a problem.
I'm not in favor of telling the wizard 'sorry you can't push the door open but the barbarian can try' but I find it better than letting the wizard try only to still tell them they fail on a nat 20. Rolling for something should be done when you have a chance of succeeding and also a chance at failure. Even if the roll isn't for what the PC originally intended, like in the classic 'charisma roll for the king to not arrest you' example.
I have to say I'm erring further from it now that I think of party dynamics.
In isolation, yes, you can just say "no roll needed, you're not strong enough", but in a party, you will get people saying "I will try to knock the door down as well" in an attempt to get a nat 20.
It also makes difficult things trivialise peoples choices, which I dislike intensely:
"Buff the Musclewizard has +5 to Strength, but the DC is too high, so a nat 20 is needed to succeed"
"Weeds the remarkably puny barbarian has -4 to Strength, but thanks to the new rules, they can also succeed on a natural 20!"
I much prefer the flexibility of the current system, where I can use natural 20's on impossible checks to do something, but not necessarily succeed:
"You rolled a natural 20 for the door, and it even moves slightly; a gap scarcely a fingers breadth, appears at the edge, but you feel it ready to fall back any second"
If someone reacts quickly, they can get a pry bar, piton or whatever into the gap to try and force the door. I'd give 10-15 seconds in real time to make that decision, before the door pushes back.
I have to say I'm erring further from it now that I think of party dynamics.
In isolation, yes, you can just say "no roll needed, you're not strong enough", but in a party, you will get people saying "I will try to knock the door down as well" in an attempt to get a nat 20.
It also makes difficult things trivialise peoples choices, which I dislike intensely:
"Buff the Musclewizard has +5 to Strength, but the DC is too high, so a nat 20 is needed to succeed"
"Weeds the remarkably puny barbarian has -4 to Strength, but thanks to the new rules, they can also succeed on a natural 20!"
I much prefer the flexibility of the current system, where I can use natural 20's on impossible checks to do something, but not necessarily succeed:
"You rolled a natural 20 for the door, and it even moves slightly; a gap scarcely a fingers breadth, appears at the edge, but you feel it ready to fall back any second"
If someone reacts quickly, they can get a pry bar, piton or whatever into the gap to try and force the door. I'd give 10-15 seconds in real time to make that decision, before the door pushes back.
You can still do this example in the new rules. The DM decides what success looks like, not the player. In this case, success might be opening that small gap.
It is simple. It even says it in the rule The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30. So if they can't succeed then you just don't roll. DM's complain that the player shouldn't just succeed if the roll a 20 Players complain they shouldn't fail just because they roll a 1 Simple thing. Don't ask for a roll unless you are clear on what they are rolling for and what a success or failure means.
Thank you for pointing out what is so clearly stated in the materials. The DM makes the determination whether the test is warranted in the first place. I feel like a lot of this conversation is just looking straight past that bit of info. I don't know why the DM would surrender that to the players. I don't know why a player reading that would assume they make the determination and not the DM. If a player reads that rule and asks for a roll, and the DM says no, the player can safely assume that the DM has determined that a test is not warranted under the rule. This is not rocket science.
You could say "The 11 Strength Character cannot break the door open", however to me that just feels so...uninspired? Might as well just say when they approach the door "The only character that can open the door with strength is the Barbarian. Otherwise the Wizard can use the Knock spell." It just diminishes options.
Also, if you just say to the Strength 11 character, "Sorry, you can't push the door open" without asking for a roll, there's a good chance that the rest of the party assumes the door is too strong to be pushed open by anyone in the party.
Also it just feels...wrong on so many levels. So now the STR 7 gnome can somehow push this door open because they rolled a Natural 20?
I like to let players try things that are impossible for them, but possible for someone in the party, or possible with some thinking and creativity. Plus if you just tell the STR 11 character "Nope, you can't attempt to push open the door" then that doesn't allow for anyone to use things like the Guidance spell or any other boosting magic on them.
Telling the 11 str character 'sorry you can't do it' isn't ideal but imo neither is letting them roll then telling them 'sorry but you still fail.' If the roll doesn't affect the outcome, they shouldn't be rolling imo. Personally I'm in favor of just using the new rules, letting them succeed on a nat 20 if pushing the door open is something within the realm of possibility for a PC to do. Sure, it's possible you could have rare moments where the puny wizard outrolls a barbarian on a strength check, but these tend to be amusing outliers not things that happen consistently, so I don't really see it as a problem.
I'm not in favor of telling the wizard 'sorry you can't push the door open but the barbarian can try' but I find it better than letting the wizard try only to still tell them they fail on a nat 20. Rolling for something should be done when you have a chance of succeeding and also a chance at failure. Even if the roll isn't for what the PC originally intended, like in the classic 'charisma roll for the king to not arrest you' example.
I mean, you could always just tell them what the DC is when anyone declares they're making an attempt before any dice are rolled. At that point you don't have to even let them make the roll first, they should know their own bonuses and know if it is at all possible to make it or not. So when the wizard goes up to the door and says they want to try breaking it, tell them to make a DC 25 check or whatever and they'll typically not even bother rolling for it and just tell you that they cant make it even with a 20. You're then free to narrate their attempt without having to worry about how they feel about rolling a 20 on something their character had no chance at. It also lets everyone else determine for themselves if their characters are capable of doing it without the need to waste dice rolls.
Thank you for pointing out what is so clearly stated in the materials. The DM makes the determination whether the test is warranted in the first place. I feel like a lot of this conversation is just looking straight past that bit of info. I don't know why the DM would surrender that to the players. I don't know why a player reading that would assume they make the determination and not the DM. If a player reads that rule and asks for a roll, and the DM says no, the player can safely assume that the DM has determined that a test is not warranted under the rule. This is not rocket science.
And i mean that goes both ways, I have had a player ask if they can make a history roll for something and I have just said. "No because I can tell you this information i am giving you now is common knowledge, i just didn't see the point in letting you the player know until this moment".
Or even, "No you can't roll, but, mr Elf you know all this stuff about this special elf forest, if you choose to share I will do an exposition dump now on the party on your behalf".
As a DM I won't be using this rule ever, I'll be sticking with how it is now and deciding if something special happens on a nat 20 depending on the check and the circumstances.
1 being an auto fail is IMO the worst part of this. You have expertise? A +15 modifier and spent years (maybe hundreds) training this skill. Yeah sorry, now you're going to fail 5% of the time at something you deliberately built your character to be good at. No thanks.
The biggest problem I see with this is contested skill checks (Of various kinds that you may want to do for various reasons) Here's an example of something that could happen at the table, I've labelled them Chars but they could be Monsters/PCS/NPCs.
Char1 tells a lie, they roll 1 on deception but have a +12 modifier. Do the others even need to roll? Well yes, because they could also get a 1 and auto fail at their insight. Char2 rolls insight and rolls a 10 with no plus, they know Char 1 is lying despite Char1 having the higher total score. Char3 rolls insight too, they are an expert at it and have a plus 12 but also roll a 1 so they don't know Char1 was lying despite meeting their total of 13.
Char1 feels like crap, they were caught in a lie by Char2 that Char2 wouldn't previously have been able to tell. Char3 feels like crap, they were unable to tell that Char1 was lying even though their character is an expert and they met the total that was required - to make this worse they'll feel bad that Char2 detected the lie despite them not being particularly good at this usually and having no investment at all into the skill. Char2 is probably the only one feeling ok about this situation - But they aren't going to feel great because they did something great, they didn't really succeed, Char1 failed, it's not the same thing. So... Yay?
As a DM I won't be using this rule ever, I'll be sticking with how it is now and deciding if something special happens on a nat 20 depending on the check and the circumstances.
1 being an auto fail is IMO the worst part of this. You have expertise? A +15 modifier and spent years (maybe hundreds) training this skill. Yeah sorry, now you're going to fail 5% of the time at something you deliberately built your character to be good at. No thanks.
The biggest problem I see with this is contested skill checks (Of various kinds that you may want to do for various reasons) Here's an example of something that could happen at the table, I've labelled them Chars but they could be Monsters/PCS/NPCs.
Char1 tells a lie, they roll 1 on deception but have a +12 modifier. Do the others even need to roll? Well yes, because they could also get a 1 and auto fail at their insight. Char2 rolls insight and rolls a 10 with no plus, they know Char 1 is lying despite Char1 having the higher total score. Char3 rolls insight too, they are an expert at it and have a plus 12 but also roll a 1 so they don't know Char1 was lying despite meeting their total of 13.
Char1 feels like crap, they were caught in a lie by Char2 that Char2 wouldn't previously have been able to tell. Char3 feels like crap, they were unable to tell that Char1 was lying even though their character is an expert and they met the total that was required - to make this worse they'll feel bad that Char2 detected the lie despite them not being particularly good at this usually and having no investment at all into the skill. Char2 is probably the only one feeling ok about this situation - But they aren't going to feel great because they did something great, they didn't really succeed, Char1 failed, it's not the same thing. So... Yay?
Failure can mean a multitude of things.
Picking a lock, "The door opens but even as the last tumbler falls you anticipate the large click" (someone hears it and comes to investigate) or "You manage to work the lock but, maybe its the adrenaline coursing through your body making your hands shake, maybe its the drink you had last night but for some reason it takes you far longer then it should" (again a patrol comes along and sees, or the character leaves obvious signs the lock was picked).
I do this already, it makes for great random story moments and makes me create something new on the fly. When I am designing a situation I will always have an idea of "what if they roll a 1.
But also, in reality it isn't really 5% usually, most parties find ways to get advantage on ability checks, and with more inspiration now it will be less likely.
And why are you making characters roll all the time, you can use passive insight and determine if it was beaten, and yes, sometimes a character makes a mistake, sometimes they can't tell the lie and give the game away. In real life people slip up all the time, and you are combining players and characters in your description.
you say character 1 and 3 feel like crap, I think you mean player and sorry, you are playing a game based on dice rolls, sometimes the dice roll against you and my experiance every time it happens is the players laugh about it and love the unexpected story beat it throws up.
Just as I'm against calling for a roll if a nat 20 won't be a success, I'm against calling for a roll if a nat 1 won't mean a failure. If a rogue has +13 to thieves tools and the Dc on the lock is 10, just don't call for a check if you don't think the rogue should have a chance to fail. Or if you do call for a roll, have it for something secondary like if they're able to open it extra quickly or something, and don't tie the failure to whether they get the lock open or not. If the DC is 15, then they should have a chance to fail, even if small with that modifier.
Not everything a PC does needs a d20 to be rolled. If you decide as DM that nat 20 shouldn't succeed for the character or a nat 1 shouldn't fail for them, either don't call for the roll or make the roll about something secondary like how quickly or effiicnetly they do it etc.
How does the new playtest rule change any of that? The player(s) roll for how long will take to complete a task. It's the same under either rule.
This was more for the argument that you only call a roll if the DC is more then 5. In these cases, and there are many, the locked door that will always be unlocked, the bar tender who the party need to charm.
These rolls have a DC of 1 but the dice result combined with the players describing what happens, feeds into my on the spot narration if what happens. The tension that builds as the party, seeing a low roll, listen as I describe what happened unsure if they succeeded or not. With a 1 always failing now I will have to just ignore that rule in these instances. But players will know, and that will break immersion. They know what I do already and they really enjoy it.
Good example. Let's consider the opposite the situation: the strength 11 character rolled a natural 20 and the player still cannot break the door open. Doesn't that feel uninspired as well? I mean, rolling a natural 20 is supposed to be filled with excitement. Wouldn't failing at a task, even after beating the odds, be even more uninspiring?
I understand your concern, but I feel like you are just splitting hairs at this point. Consider your example of a time sensitive task, such as picking a lock that will always be unlocked, a failure on a roll can be taking the full 30 minuets, whereas a success would be opening the lock sooner (with the duration reduced by various degrees as the DM sees fit. Maybe a natural 20 is opening it on the first try and really quietly). This is the same using either rules.
It is important to remember that the spirit of the new playtest rule is to remind DMs to only warrant rolls when it is possible to succeed or to fail. In other words, don't make rolls that have no consequences. Don't make rolls when it is impossible to succeed (i.e. the players end up with in same situation and/or with the same information regardless of what they rolled). It is extremally intuitive and the new playtest rule simply put it into words.
Nope. 'Beating the odds' when the odds are as low as 1/20 shouldn't completely override the strengths and weaknesses of a character. If the character is a weak wizard, or a dumb barbarian, or a blunt, uncharismatic druid, rolling a 1 in 20 shouldn't magically override something that is completely beyond their capabilities. If the DC to force open the reinforced steel door is 25, and said wizard has a modifier of -1, that's simply an aspect of the character that shouldn't be ignored just because of a nat 20. Said wizard has their strengths and their weaknesses, and I feel that it is important for both of those things to be respected.
yet they can still harm something with ac 30 so whats the difference
The DM should have access but may not know them by heart.
The party decide to attempt to sneak into the lai of an adult red dragon ( PP 23). The DM will now need to check everyone's stealth before announcing who can role. They could say if you have a stealth modifier of 3 or more you can role but then the players know the DC which makes avoiding metagaming with things like flash of genius difficult.
In fact rhings like FoG and dark one's own luck do muddy the waters adding a d10 makes a huge difference, If the warlock with +0 stealth burns their DOOL they can make that DC 30 check. So the new rule would not only turn it front a 0.5% chance to a 5% chance but also mean they do not need to use the DOOL.
Well seeing as how the highest official armor class (from what I can tell) other than the Tarrasque is only 22 (which is equal to a nat 20 + starting proficiency bonus), that isn't really much of an issue.
Oh, excuse me. Technically the Aspects of Tiamat and Bahamut from Fizbans have 23. The only creature below like CR 20 with higher than 20 ac is the CR 14 Fire Giant Dreadnought. Generally, anything you fight at anything even approaching level appropriate would be hit anyways with a nat 20.
Telling the players whether they should try doing something or not takes away from player agency. They might start to expect you to give them instructions on which objects are "interactive". Even if the iron gate has a DC 30 to break it, how would they know until they try (or have an expert metallurgist/builder examine it)?
Besides, then there's saving throws. You can roll 1 on those.
So I have slowly been coming round to the idea of a halfway point between things. The party can still check the lock (investigation roll or passive investigation depending on how you do it) and then determine the lock is made of the finest Crozian steel, heated by the breath of a dragon and un breakable by mortal hands. It might be pickable but would take a picklock of immeasurable skill to manage it.
If the character decides to try to break it anyway then no rolling dice, you simply say, you try, your muscles bulge to the point of breaking but, this lock isn't being forced open.
Now, if they get creative and start making levers, tools to weaken it etc then I might start amending the DC and give them an opportunity to break it, but they have to give me a reason.
Telling the 11 str character 'sorry you can't do it' isn't ideal but imo neither is letting them roll then telling them 'sorry but you still fail.' If the roll doesn't affect the outcome, they shouldn't be rolling imo. Personally I'm in favor of just using the new rules, letting them succeed on a nat 20 if pushing the door open is something within the realm of possibility for a PC to do. Sure, it's possible you could have rare moments where the puny wizard outrolls a barbarian on a strength check, but these tend to be amusing outliers not things that happen consistently, so I don't really see it as a problem.
I'm not in favor of telling the wizard 'sorry you can't push the door open but the barbarian can try' but I find it better than letting the wizard try only to still tell them they fail on a nat 20. Rolling for something should be done when you have a chance of succeeding and also a chance at failure. Even if the roll isn't for what the PC originally intended, like in the classic 'charisma roll for the king to not arrest you' example.
I have to say I'm erring further from it now that I think of party dynamics.
In isolation, yes, you can just say "no roll needed, you're not strong enough", but in a party, you will get people saying "I will try to knock the door down as well" in an attempt to get a nat 20.
It also makes difficult things trivialise peoples choices, which I dislike intensely:
"Buff the Musclewizard has +5 to Strength, but the DC is too high, so a nat 20 is needed to succeed"
"Weeds the remarkably puny barbarian has -4 to Strength, but thanks to the new rules, they can also succeed on a natural 20!"
I much prefer the flexibility of the current system, where I can use natural 20's on impossible checks to do something, but not necessarily succeed:
"You rolled a natural 20 for the door, and it even moves slightly; a gap scarcely a fingers breadth, appears at the edge, but you feel it ready to fall back any second"
If someone reacts quickly, they can get a pry bar, piton or whatever into the gap to try and force the door. I'd give 10-15 seconds in real time to make that decision, before the door pushes back.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
You can still do this example in the new rules. The DM decides what success looks like, not the player. In this case, success might be opening that small gap.
It is simple. It even says it in the rule The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30. So if they can't succeed then you just don't roll.
DM's complain that the player shouldn't just succeed if the roll a 20
Players complain they shouldn't fail just because they roll a 1
Simple thing. Don't ask for a roll unless you are clear on what they are rolling for and what a success or failure means.
Thank you for pointing out what is so clearly stated in the materials. The DM makes the determination whether the test is warranted in the first place. I feel like a lot of this conversation is just looking straight past that bit of info. I don't know why the DM would surrender that to the players. I don't know why a player reading that would assume they make the determination and not the DM. If a player reads that rule and asks for a roll, and the DM says no, the player can safely assume that the DM has determined that a test is not warranted under the rule. This is not rocket science.
I mean, you could always just tell them what the DC is when anyone declares they're making an attempt before any dice are rolled. At that point you don't have to even let them make the roll first, they should know their own bonuses and know if it is at all possible to make it or not. So when the wizard goes up to the door and says they want to try breaking it, tell them to make a DC 25 check or whatever and they'll typically not even bother rolling for it and just tell you that they cant make it even with a 20. You're then free to narrate their attempt without having to worry about how they feel about rolling a 20 on something their character had no chance at. It also lets everyone else determine for themselves if their characters are capable of doing it without the need to waste dice rolls.
And i mean that goes both ways, I have had a player ask if they can make a history roll for something and I have just said. "No because I can tell you this information i am giving you now is common knowledge, i just didn't see the point in letting you the player know until this moment".
Or even, "No you can't roll, but, mr Elf you know all this stuff about this special elf forest, if you choose to share I will do an exposition dump now on the party on your behalf".
As a DM I won't be using this rule ever, I'll be sticking with how it is now and deciding if something special happens on a nat 20 depending on the check and the circumstances.
1 being an auto fail is IMO the worst part of this. You have expertise? A +15 modifier and spent years (maybe hundreds) training this skill. Yeah sorry, now you're going to fail 5% of the time at something you deliberately built your character to be good at. No thanks.
The biggest problem I see with this is contested skill checks (Of various kinds that you may want to do for various reasons) Here's an example of something that could happen at the table, I've labelled them Chars but they could be Monsters/PCS/NPCs.
Char1 tells a lie, they roll 1 on deception but have a +12 modifier.
Do the others even need to roll? Well yes, because they could also get a 1 and auto fail at their insight.
Char2 rolls insight and rolls a 10 with no plus, they know Char 1 is lying despite Char1 having the higher total score.
Char3 rolls insight too, they are an expert at it and have a plus 12 but also roll a 1 so they don't know Char1 was lying despite meeting their total of 13.
Char1 feels like crap, they were caught in a lie by Char2 that Char2 wouldn't previously have been able to tell.
Char3 feels like crap, they were unable to tell that Char1 was lying even though their character is an expert and they met the total that was required - to make this worse they'll feel bad that Char2 detected the lie despite them not being particularly good at this usually and having no investment at all into the skill.
Char2 is probably the only one feeling ok about this situation - But they aren't going to feel great because they did something great, they didn't really succeed, Char1 failed, it's not the same thing. So... Yay?
Failure can mean a multitude of things.
Picking a lock,
"The door opens but even as the last tumbler falls you anticipate the large click" (someone hears it and comes to investigate) or "You manage to work the lock but, maybe its the adrenaline coursing through your body making your hands shake, maybe its the drink you had last night but for some reason it takes you far longer then it should" (again a patrol comes along and sees, or the character leaves obvious signs the lock was picked).
I do this already, it makes for great random story moments and makes me create something new on the fly. When I am designing a situation I will always have an idea of "what if they roll a 1.
But also, in reality it isn't really 5% usually, most parties find ways to get advantage on ability checks, and with more inspiration now it will be less likely.
And why are you making characters roll all the time, you can use passive insight and determine if it was beaten, and yes, sometimes a character makes a mistake, sometimes they can't tell the lie and give the game away. In real life people slip up all the time, and you are combining players and characters in your description.
you say character 1 and 3 feel like crap, I think you mean player and sorry, you are playing a game based on dice rolls, sometimes the dice roll against you and my experiance every time it happens is the players laugh about it and love the unexpected story beat it throws up.
Just as I'm against calling for a roll if a nat 20 won't be a success, I'm against calling for a roll if a nat 1 won't mean a failure. If a rogue has +13 to thieves tools and the Dc on the lock is 10, just don't call for a check if you don't think the rogue should have a chance to fail. Or if you do call for a roll, have it for something secondary like if they're able to open it extra quickly or something, and don't tie the failure to whether they get the lock open or not. If the DC is 15, then they should have a chance to fail, even if small with that modifier.
Not everything a PC does needs a d20 to be rolled. If you decide as DM that nat 20 shouldn't succeed for the character or a nat 1 shouldn't fail for them, either don't call for the roll or make the roll about something secondary like how quickly or effiicnetly they do it etc.