Automatically succeeding on an ability check by rolling a 20 on the d20 (and vice-versa on a 1), appears to be one of the highly debated topic for the new playtest material. Let's keep the discussion in this thread as oppose to scattered across multiple threads.
In my opinion, this new rule doesn't actually change anything for ability checks. Hear me out here. In the current rule, it is already implied (at least intuitively) that a natural 20 will succeed. Otherwise, why waste time by making the roll? This new playtest rule simply solidifies this concept into words and acts as a great DM tip: If a DM doesn't want something to happen, don't back yourself into a corner by allowing for a roll.
Let's consider an example to analyze the new rule in practice: Your party of players arrive at a locked gate. The gate is bared tight on the other side by sturdy iron bars. A player decides to try to push open the gate using brute force. A natural 20 is rolled. Under the current rules, the DM has two options:
1) Narrate to the players that they are able to open the gate even though this was not originally possible. Maybe one of the iron bars suddenly become rusty or not installed properly. Using the new playtest rules, the outcome is the same. Rolling a natural 20 made something that was originally not possible a success.
2) Narrate to the players that the gate is bared tight, perhaps by sturdy iron bars on the other side. At which point the player might wonder why even bother proceeding with the action of rolling when there is no chance of success. Using the new playtest rules, the action of pushing open the gate in this situation is considered impossible (or having a DC above 30) and thus the DM simply narrates to the players that the gate is bared tight by sturdy iron bars on the other side without calling for a roll. The outcome is the same.
Hopefully this example demonstrates that the new playtest rule of automatically succeeding on an ability check by rolling a 20 on the d20 (and vice-versa on a 1) doesn't actually change anything in practice, but solidifies the great DM tip that: if a DM doesn't want something to happen, don't back yourself into a corner by allowing for a roll.
On the other hand, this new playtest rule does change how saving throws work. Using the new playtest rules, it is possible for a creature to fail a saving throw that would have been impossible under the current rule due to modifier, by rolling a natural 1.
The DC was 21. An 11 strength character couldn't make it, even if he rolled the Big Number. A character with higher strength could have. New rule would absolutely change that.
The DC was 21. An 11 strength character couldn't make it, even if he rolled the Big Number. A character with higher strength could have. New rule would absolutely change that.
Are you referring to my example or are you proving another example?
If there is an ability check where the DC is 21 and it is possible for a character to succeed, then under both rules a roll will be made. This new rule doesn't actually change anything. Can you elaborate why you think the new rule would change that?
Character 1 has a strength of 11, hence +0 to rolls, Character 2 has a strength of 16, so +3 to rolls.
If the DC to break down the door is 21, under the current rules, there is no way that character 1 could succeed breaking the door even with a nat 20. Character 2 could do it with an 18 or higher.
There are definitely cases where a DM might have multiple characters make rolls that are impossible for some characters and not others (if, for example, they each try to break the door separately). Having a nat 20 be an automatic success means that character 1 would have succeeded on something that would have been impossible under the current rules.
Character 1 has a strength of 11, hence +0 to rolls, Character 2 has a strength of 16, so +3 to rolls.
If the DC to break down the door is 21, under the current rules, there is no way that character 1 could succeed breaking the door even with a nat 20. Character 2 could do it with an 18 or higher.
There are definitely cases where a DM might have multiple characters make rolls that are impossible for some characters and not others (if, for example, they each try to break the door separately). Having a nat 20 be an automatic success means that character 1 would have succeeded on something that would have been impossible under the current rules.
It depends on how you define success. In that case, for me as a DM, a success for STR 11 guy would be that he doesn't, for example, break a bone trying to kick down the door and take damage. Or something similar. Rolling to seduce the dragon, on a nat 20 the dragon isn't seduced, it just chooses not to kill the bard and instead give him a 3 minute headstart before attacking.
Generally speaking, if a player tells me he/she/they are trying to break the door down and I ask them for a strength check, it's to determine whether or not they are able to successfully accomplish what they are stating is their intention. Not breaking a bone is definitely a good thing, but player 1 has still failed at his stated intention, which was the primary reason for the roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players, performers and portrayers...
Character 1 has a strength of 11, hence +0 to rolls, Character 2 has a strength of 16, so +3 to rolls.
If the DC to break down the door is 21, under the current rules, there is no way that character 1 could succeed breaking the door even with a nat 20. Character 2 could do it with an 18 or higher.
There are definitely cases where a DM might have multiple characters make rolls that are impossible for some characters and not others (if, for example, they each try to break the door separately). Having a nat 20 be an automatic success means that character 1 would have succeeded on something that would have been impossible under the current rules.
Great example! This also adds to what I was trying to explain in my original post.
Let's look at this example in practice. The DM has multiple characters make rolls that are possible for some characters but not others. Lets say character 1 who has a +0 to roll makes a natural 20 where the DC is 21. Using the current rule, the DM can state that even with a natural 20, character 1 does not succeed in breaking down the door. At which point, character 1 might question why even bother allowing the roll if there is no way to succeed. Indeed, wouldn't it be better for the DM to simple state upfront something along the lines of, "only characters with +1 or more to rolls can attempt this ability check."? Couldn't the DM do the same under the new playtest rule and have the same result?
I feel that your example further demonstrates that the current rules create Feel Bad moments for the players by allowing them to make rolls that they cannot possibly succeed in. As a sidenote, I suspect most games that I played or watched invent a reason to force a natural 20 into a success in order to avoid these Feel Bad moments. I know that I am guilty of doing so when I am the DM. In this case, the new playtest rule does a good job of pointing out to DMs that they shouldn't let players make rolls in which there are no way that the players can succeed. Which is a great rule.
"I try to seduce the dragon" "You can´t the DC..." "NAT 20!" "*sigh*" I was really happy in 5th that wasn´t the case anymore. I feel that it makes it more "gaming" than roleplay, if you could just try and succeed in impossible things, only because you rolled a Nat 20. Sure it says "Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll." But there will be old arguments again that "BUT I ROLLED A NAT 20!!".
It should not happen but players often role before bing asked especially if 2 or 3 players ask different things.
Ann: are there any other exits?
Bob (at same time) I try to seduce the dragon
DM Ann you see a beam of daylight coming through a hole in the rock about 30ft up on the opposite wall (no roll as would alway succeed)
Bob I rolled a Nat 20.
Generally I try to avoid meaningless rolls but sometimes it is easier to let everyone roll even if they can not succeed. If you can try to open the door if your strength modifier is 2 or more the barb player knows the dc will be 22 so if he roll 21 will use bardic inspiration knowing it will turn failure to success.
It's better IMHO to have a means of success beyond the ability to meet the DC. The 3e UA had a varient option for people who didn't like the 'automatic success' on a d20 roll where the 20 would count as a 30, so increased chance of success but not necessarily automatic sucess. Similarly, Nat 1 would count as -10 for the roll, so theoretically enough stacked bonus's would allow an avoidance of critical failure even on a roll of a nat 1.
The other option of course was 2d10. As discussed at least once before on this site, gives reduced chances of nat 20, eliminates nat 1's and allows more predictable planning around rolls of 11.
I think this an example of D&D making a ruling on something that was best left vague and in the DM's control.
Take for example, some idjut decides they want to jump a mile wide canyon. Under 5e, I'd have them roll to see how badly this goes. They get 20? They jump and land on a ledge a few feet down, and realise their foolishness. 15-19? They realise their foolishness and get a Dex check to see if they manage to grab onto something and prevent damage. 5-14? They don't realise until too late, tumble down the side, same deal but the save is for half damage instead of avoiding it. 2-4? They don't realise what's happening and just take the damage, no save possible. Nat1? They run off cartoon style, and manage to hit half a dozen things on the way down, taking extra damage. Possibly.several to the crotch, if they're a bloke.
1D&D? Well, that nat20 now makes me nervous to allow rolls. What if they get it? That's an argument just waiting to happen. What does success mean? Because that player is going to insist that it means they jump that mile. I'm not going to be happy with that, but it means an argument which I would much rather prefer to avoid. So do I have the roll or not?
I prefer the idea that nat20 is simply the best possible result. I could run that easily in 5e, 1D&D makes it against RAW. I'd prefer that WotC left these decisions to DMs rather than causing these kinds of issues. I've said it before in the forum, but I'd rather they taught us how to be good DMs and how to run these scenarios than to keep us handing premade rulings that aren't always the best way to handle what's happening on the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Nothing that has been said to counter the OP has swayed me. If as a DM, a door is not meant to be opened by a skill check, then don't allow a skill check.
If you have a door with a DC where half the party can succeed and half the party can't, then what's the point of telling one player, "your character can't, but his can." If it is possible to be opened because you allow a skill check, then that Nat 20 by the weakling character is a nice roleplay opportunity to one-up the other characters. In the end, the door being opened is a possibility that was intended from the start, so who cares who opened it?
As for the jumping example... impossible is impossible. If someone asks to be able to jump a mile, the answer is NO. There's even jumping rules defined in RAW. With a 10 foot running start, a character can jump their STR score in feet.
For every scenario someone creates to reason why a nat 20 skill check always being a success is bad, someone can come up with a scenario why the skill roll shouldn't be allowed at all.
To me this change isn’t really a big deal. In my games 99% of the time when a character tries something a roll would fail and a 20 would succeed. Players typically don’t try something they don’t have a chance of succeeding at. There is usually someone else in the party would be better able to handle it. Maybe some PCs will try things now that they wouldn’t have before but I don’t see it as a big deal.
I do wonder how this rule will interact with something like Reliable Talent. Will that override a Nat 1?
It's nice to have the rules feel more consistent. Practically speaking, I don't see it making much of a difference, except to very slightly nerf spellcasting. But spellcasting can certainly handle the nerf. It'll be fine. I guess it also very slightly buffs any reroll mechanics.
As for the jumping example... impossible is impossible. If someone asks to be able to jump a mile, the answer is NO. There's even jumping rules defined in RAW. With a 10 foot running start, a character can jump their STR score in feet.
I think you've demonstrated that you didn't actually read and understand what was being discussed in the jump scenario.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think I did understand just fine. You want to have them roll a skill check to see how badly they fail. That's a house rule. You do house rules how you want to do house rules. House rules don't need to follow the Nat 20/Nat 1 rules... they're house rules.
Otherwise, jumping one mile is just flat out - no roll check.
"I try to seduce the dragon" "You can´t the DC..." "NAT 20!" "*sigh*" I was really happy in 5th that wasn´t the case anymore. I feel that it makes it more "gaming" than roleplay, if you could just try and succeed in impossible things, only because you rolled a Nat 20. Sure it says "Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll." But there will be old arguments again that "BUT I ROLLED A NAT 20!!".
So I am really mixed about this change.
The simple catch all solution: Only the DM calls for a test. No test, no nat 20, no sad DM.
If you have a door with a DC where half the party can succeed and half the party can't, then what's the point of telling one player, "your character can't, but his can." If it is possible to be opened because you allow a skill check, then that Nat 20 by the weakling character is a nice roleplay opportunity to one-up the other characters. In the end, the door being opened is a possibility that was intended from the start, so who cares who opened it?
As for the jumping example... impossible is impossible. If someone asks to be able to jump a mile, the answer is NO. There's even jumping rules defined in RAW. With a 10 foot running start, a character can jump their STR score in feet.
To me, having things this way with 1DND will definitely make people feel less unique. What's the point of being the strong barbarian or the dexterous lock picking rogue, if the -2 str Bard can bust open a locked door too? The point of having some rolls be impossible for some characters is to reinforce the fact that each character is specialized and unique.
Saying "you don't succeed" isn't necessarily a feels bad moment - differences in character abilities is kind of a huge point in the game IMO. But if we build every encounter- combat otherwise - around the idea that every character could theoretically do it, then that just sets us up for homogeneity which I want to avoid in my games.
I see the argument for simply not allowing rolls, but that seems more like a bandaid than a solution. That's my 10 cp, at least.
Automatically succeeding on an ability check by rolling a 20 on the d20 (and vice-versa on a 1), appears to be one of the highly debated topic for the new playtest material. Let's keep the discussion in this thread as oppose to scattered across multiple threads.
In my opinion, this new rule doesn't actually change anything for ability checks. Hear me out here. In the current rule, it is already implied (at least intuitively) that a natural 20 will succeed. Otherwise, why waste time by making the roll? This new playtest rule simply solidifies this concept into words and acts as a great DM tip: If a DM doesn't want something to happen, don't back yourself into a corner by allowing for a roll.
Let's consider an example to analyze the new rule in practice: Your party of players arrive at a locked gate. The gate is bared tight on the other side by sturdy iron bars. A player decides to try to push open the gate using brute force. A natural 20 is rolled. Under the current rules, the DM has two options:
1) Narrate to the players that they are able to open the gate even though this was not originally possible. Maybe one of the iron bars suddenly become rusty or not installed properly. Using the new playtest rules, the outcome is the same. Rolling a natural 20 made something that was originally not possible a success.
2) Narrate to the players that the gate is bared tight, perhaps by sturdy iron bars on the other side. At which point the player might wonder why even bother proceeding with the action of rolling when there is no chance of success. Using the new playtest rules, the action of pushing open the gate in this situation is considered impossible (or having a DC above 30) and thus the DM simply narrates to the players that the gate is bared tight by sturdy iron bars on the other side without calling for a roll. The outcome is the same.
Hopefully this example demonstrates that the new playtest rule of automatically succeeding on an ability check by rolling a 20 on the d20 (and vice-versa on a 1) doesn't actually change anything in practice, but solidifies the great DM tip that: if a DM doesn't want something to happen, don't back yourself into a corner by allowing for a roll.
On the other hand, this new playtest rule does change how saving throws work. Using the new playtest rules, it is possible for a creature to fail a saving throw that would have been impossible under the current rule due to modifier, by rolling a natural 1.
This whole post relies on a weird assumption that DCs greater than 20 don't exist.
I don't follow. Can you elaborate?
The DC was 21. An 11 strength character couldn't make it, even if he rolled the Big Number. A character with higher strength could have. New rule would absolutely change that.
Are you referring to my example or are you proving another example?
If there is an ability check where the DC is 21 and it is possible for a character to succeed, then under both rules a roll will be made. This new rule doesn't actually change anything. Can you elaborate why you think the new rule would change that?
Character 1 has a strength of 11, hence +0 to rolls, Character 2 has a strength of 16, so +3 to rolls.
If the DC to break down the door is 21, under the current rules, there is no way that character 1 could succeed breaking the door even with a nat 20. Character 2 could do it with an 18 or higher.
There are definitely cases where a DM might have multiple characters make rolls that are impossible for some characters and not others (if, for example, they each try to break the door separately). Having a nat 20 be an automatic success means that character 1 would have succeeded on something that would have been impossible under the current rules.
All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players, performers and portrayers...
It depends on how you define success. In that case, for me as a DM, a success for STR 11 guy would be that he doesn't, for example, break a bone trying to kick down the door and take damage. Or something similar. Rolling to seduce the dragon, on a nat 20 the dragon isn't seduced, it just chooses not to kill the bard and instead give him a 3 minute headstart before attacking.
Generally speaking, if a player tells me he/she/they are trying to break the door down and I ask them for a strength check, it's to determine whether or not they are able to successfully accomplish what they are stating is their intention. Not breaking a bone is definitely a good thing, but player 1 has still failed at his stated intention, which was the primary reason for the roll.
All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players, performers and portrayers...
Great example! This also adds to what I was trying to explain in my original post.
Let's look at this example in practice. The DM has multiple characters make rolls that are possible for some characters but not others. Lets say character 1 who has a +0 to roll makes a natural 20 where the DC is 21. Using the current rule, the DM can state that even with a natural 20, character 1 does not succeed in breaking down the door. At which point, character 1 might question why even bother allowing the roll if there is no way to succeed. Indeed, wouldn't it be better for the DM to simple state upfront something along the lines of, "only characters with +1 or more to rolls can attempt this ability check."? Couldn't the DM do the same under the new playtest rule and have the same result?
I feel that your example further demonstrates that the current rules create Feel Bad moments for the players by allowing them to make rolls that they cannot possibly succeed in. As a sidenote, I suspect most games that I played or watched invent a reason to force a natural 20 into a success in order to avoid these Feel Bad moments. I know that I am guilty of doing so when I am the DM. In this case, the new playtest rule does a good job of pointing out to DMs that they shouldn't let players make rolls in which there are no way that the players can succeed. Which is a great rule.
I reminds me of old memes. Something like
"I try to seduce the dragon"
"You can´t the DC..."
"NAT 20!"
"*sigh*"
I was really happy in 5th that wasn´t the case anymore. I feel that it makes it more "gaming" than roleplay, if you could just try and succeed in impossible things, only because you rolled a Nat 20. Sure it says "Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll." But there will be old arguments again that "BUT I ROLLED A NAT 20!!".
So I am really mixed about this change.
It should not happen but players often role before bing asked especially if 2 or 3 players ask different things.
Ann: are there any other exits?
Bob (at same time) I try to seduce the dragon
DM Ann you see a beam of daylight coming through a hole in the rock about 30ft up on the opposite wall (no roll as would alway succeed)
Bob I rolled a Nat 20.
Generally I try to avoid meaningless rolls but sometimes it is easier to let everyone roll even if they can not succeed. If you can try to open the door if your strength modifier is 2 or more the barb player knows the dc will be 22 so if he roll 21 will use bardic inspiration knowing it will turn failure to success.
It's better IMHO to have a means of success beyond the ability to meet the DC. The 3e UA had a varient option for people who didn't like the 'automatic success' on a d20 roll where the 20 would count as a 30, so increased chance of success but not necessarily automatic sucess. Similarly, Nat 1 would count as -10 for the roll, so theoretically enough stacked bonus's would allow an avoidance of critical failure even on a roll of a nat 1.
The other option of course was 2d10. As discussed at least once before on this site, gives reduced chances of nat 20, eliminates nat 1's and allows more predictable planning around rolls of 11.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I think this an example of D&D making a ruling on something that was best left vague and in the DM's control.
Take for example, some idjut decides they want to jump a mile wide canyon. Under 5e, I'd have them roll to see how badly this goes. They get 20? They jump and land on a ledge a few feet down, and realise their foolishness. 15-19? They realise their foolishness and get a Dex check to see if they manage to grab onto something and prevent damage. 5-14? They don't realise until too late, tumble down the side, same deal but the save is for half damage instead of avoiding it. 2-4? They don't realise what's happening and just take the damage, no save possible. Nat1? They run off cartoon style, and manage to hit half a dozen things on the way down, taking extra damage. Possibly.several to the crotch, if they're a bloke.
1D&D? Well, that nat20 now makes me nervous to allow rolls. What if they get it? That's an argument just waiting to happen. What does success mean? Because that player is going to insist that it means they jump that mile. I'm not going to be happy with that, but it means an argument which I would much rather prefer to avoid. So do I have the roll or not?
I prefer the idea that nat20 is simply the best possible result. I could run that easily in 5e, 1D&D makes it against RAW. I'd prefer that WotC left these decisions to DMs rather than causing these kinds of issues. I've said it before in the forum, but I'd rather they taught us how to be good DMs and how to run these scenarios than to keep us handing premade rulings that aren't always the best way to handle what's happening on the table.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Nothing that has been said to counter the OP has swayed me. If as a DM, a door is not meant to be opened by a skill check, then don't allow a skill check.
If you have a door with a DC where half the party can succeed and half the party can't, then what's the point of telling one player, "your character can't, but his can." If it is possible to be opened because you allow a skill check, then that Nat 20 by the weakling character is a nice roleplay opportunity to one-up the other characters. In the end, the door being opened is a possibility that was intended from the start, so who cares who opened it?
As for the jumping example... impossible is impossible. If someone asks to be able to jump a mile, the answer is NO. There's even jumping rules defined in RAW. With a 10 foot running start, a character can jump their STR score in feet.
For every scenario someone creates to reason why a nat 20 skill check always being a success is bad, someone can come up with a scenario why the skill roll shouldn't be allowed at all.
To me this change isn’t really a big deal. In my games 99% of the time when a character tries something a roll would fail and a 20 would succeed. Players typically don’t try something they don’t have a chance of succeeding at. There is usually someone else in the party would be better able to handle it. Maybe some PCs will try things now that they wouldn’t have before but I don’t see it as a big deal.
I do wonder how this rule will interact with something like Reliable Talent. Will that override a Nat 1?
It's nice to have the rules feel more consistent. Practically speaking, I don't see it making much of a difference, except to very slightly nerf spellcasting. But spellcasting can certainly handle the nerf. It'll be fine. I guess it also very slightly buffs any reroll mechanics.
I think you've demonstrated that you didn't actually read and understand what was being discussed in the jump scenario.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think I did understand just fine. You want to have them roll a skill check to see how badly they fail. That's a house rule. You do house rules how you want to do house rules. House rules don't need to follow the Nat 20/Nat 1 rules... they're house rules.
Otherwise, jumping one mile is just flat out - no roll check.
The simple catch all solution: Only the DM calls for a test. No test, no nat 20, no sad DM.
To me, having things this way with 1DND will definitely make people feel less unique. What's the point of being the strong barbarian or the dexterous lock picking rogue, if the -2 str Bard can bust open a locked door too? The point of having some rolls be impossible for some characters is to reinforce the fact that each character is specialized and unique.
Saying "you don't succeed" isn't necessarily a feels bad moment - differences in character abilities is kind of a huge point in the game IMO. But if we build every encounter- combat otherwise - around the idea that every character could theoretically do it, then that just sets us up for homogeneity which I want to avoid in my games.
I see the argument for simply not allowing rolls, but that seems more like a bandaid than a solution. That's my 10 cp, at least.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?