I do not have a problem with the possibility of losing concentration but I do have an issue with always making concentration checks. IMHO it is a good balancing mechanism as well as other ways to roll a failed check again, inspiration, abilities, spells and magic items. Note ins general I have trouble with abilities that are essentially meta gaming, in your case how would someone who is not you know you failed your concentration check before it failed. One way it does work is if a person casts spells or uses abilities before it is needed, yes this does mean it might go unused.
Do you have an issue with a nat 1 fumble on attacks rolls?
Funny You should say. At my table, we don't use that rule. I mean, I think that my stance on automatic failures and successes should be obvious by this point. But here is an interesting reason why I don't use it.
Most of the time, when you roll 1 a one, you are likely to fail anyway. But failing knowing that all your bonuses were taken into consideration feels like an earned outcome
"My character tried his very best but it just wasn't enough"
On the other hand, automatically failing because you rolled a 1, and having your bonuses disregarded feels arbitrary and punishing. At least to me. I can tell from the replies to the thread that this is not the case for everyone.
Let's look at my paladin character once again. He's got 20 in STR for a bonus of +5. He's level 10 for his proficiency is +4 and he's got a +2 greatsword (all of this not uncommon at this level). This means that he has a total bonus to his attacks of +11. Meaning that even when I roll a nat 1, I should still be able to hit all creatures which an armor class of 12 or below. This makes sense to me. Even at his worst, at the absolute lowest of his performance, my character is still good enough to hit some creatures that are not prepared for it.
To tie it back to the car example, as many of you have astutely pointed out. We are not crashing our car every 5 miles. We are not fumbling common mundane tasks with any sort of regularity. In Dnd terms, we are so experienced at driving that we can do it effortlessly, that even when we roll a 1, our bonus is so high that we just automatically succeed.
Why then, must there be this outside force that demands that you fail on a 1? I find that asinine. Again, some people might enjoy that, and that is alright.
I think the biggest flaw in my own argument is that I was presenting as if am making "objective" observations in the absence of objective data to support them.
I suppose this, as with many other things in DND, shall remain inherently subjective. I think One-Dnd as a whole will be defined by high levels of subjectiveness and vagueness.
I think part of the problem here, as with so many issues in D&D is that we're not just dealing with the rule, but the culture and baggage surrounding the rule. The playtest packet does not have a "critical failure" rule, it has a rule that says that a roll of 1 always fails. Taking the rule itself, the only issue is that is raises the question of why anyone would be rolling if there's no chance of failure outside of the automatic failure rule. If the DM shouldn't be calling for rolls when there's no real chance of failure, why is the automatic failure rule needed in the first place? There are a handful of situations where a roll is always required (attack rolls, saving throws), so the rule could be narrowly intended to cover those situations. But there's also a long-standing tradition in D&D of DMs reflexively calling for rolls because they're stalling for time, they aren't sure what should happen, or they want to use the result as a narrative prompt. This is where the issue of induced failure that Stusano is highlighting can crop up, as the DM probably isn't stopping to gauge whether there truly is a reasonable chance of failure (this also works in reverse with the automatic success rules; the DM just wanted to gauge how far the PC gets, but they rolled a twenty and now they expect everything). This part could be addressed with a sidebar explaining what the auto success/fail rule is for and when it is meant to come up, but it's an uphill battle.
The other part of the problem is the influence of prior "critical" failure rules. RAW, rolling a 1 and automatically failing is no worse than a roll that narrowly misses the DC, but we expect it to be worse. Natural 20's mean the player gets to narrate something awesome, right? That must mean a Natural 1 should result in something awful, is how the logic goes. So where a normally failed driving roll might mean something like "you missed your turn," a Natural 1 becomes "you plow into a parked car at full speed." Your character gets put into clown shoes and looks utterly incompetent at something they're supposed to be an expert at, which is okay on very rare occasions, but a 5% chance isn't all that rare. And to reiterate, this isn't actually in the rules as written, any more that a "critical success" on a Natural 20 is in the rules, but there's a strong cultural push towards "20's are awesome and 1's are terrible," and if the 1's feel disproportionately bad (as they often do), then it will have the effect Stusano describes of discouraging players from rolling when they can get around it.
Experts still fail at things. But I also see you point in how the numbers work (5%) and how some GM's deal with nat 20 and nat 1's.
1) The numbers can be fixed by other rules that are specific instead of trying for a "one rule to rule them all method" so as to still allow for non-successes. Note I for one have not problem with experts failing, especially in combat and especially with spell concentration. Note you could also just have a rule that changes a spell or a number of spells to provide them to not have concentration rolls vs removing the idea completely.
2) In general the game is about failing as well as succeeding, every time you get hit you fail to defend, you do not roll max on a die you fail to be as successful as you can be. In general 5e is a very simple system and the idea put forth by the OP needs a lot of clarification and possibly rules to make it work or simply play in a director/author type game where they direct the action and your rolls mean very little.
3) Other fix's are have an ability that grants a number of concentration re-rolls for a class and or sub-class, fixed value to break concentration or expansion of feats, or some other redesign.
I do not have a problem with the possibility of losing concentration but I do have an issue with always making concentration checks. IMHO it is a good balancing mechanism as well as other ways to roll a failed check again, inspiration, abilities, spells and magic items. Note ins general I have trouble with abilities that are essentially meta gaming, in your case how would someone who is not you know you failed your concentration check before it failed. One way it does work is if a person casts spells or uses abilities before it is needed, yes this does mean it might go unused.
Do you have an issue with a nat 1 fumble on attacks rolls?
Funny You should say. At my table, we don't use that rule. I mean, I think that my stance on automatic failures and successes should be obvious by this point. But here is an interesting reason why I don't use it.
Most of the time, when you roll 1 a one, you are likely to fail anyway. But failing knowing that all your bonuses were taken into consideration feels like an earned outcome
"My character tried his very best but it just wasn't enough"
On the other hand, automatically failing because you rolled a 1, and having your bonuses disregarded feels arbitrary and punishing. At least to me. I can tell from the replies to the thread that this is not the case for everyone.
Let's look at my paladin character once again. He's got 20 in STR for a bonus of +5. He's level 10 for his proficiency is +4 and he's got a +2 greatsword (all of this not uncommon at this level). This means that he has a total bonus to his attacks of +11. Meaning that even when I roll a nat 1, I should still be able to hit all creatures which an armor class of 12 or below. This makes sense to me. Even at his worst, at the absolute lowest of his performance, my character is still good enough to hit some creatures that are not prepared for it.
To tie it back to the car example, as many of you have astutely pointed out. We are not crashing our car every 5 miles. We are not fumbling common mundane tasks with any sort of regularity. In Dnd terms, we are so experienced at driving that we can do it effortlessly, that even when we roll a 1, our bonus is so high that we just automatically succeed.
Why then, must there be this outside force that demands that you fail on a 1? I find that asinine. Again, some people might enjoy that, and that is alright.
I think the biggest flaw in my own argument is that I was presenting as if am making "objective" observations in the absence of objective data to support them.
I suppose this, as with many other things in DND, shall remain inherently subjective. I think One-Dnd as a whole will be defined by high levels of subjectiveness and vagueness.
"Lol do whatever you want"
Thanks for the info and it explains a lot. In general people I have talked to in the past who have used some sort of downward adjustment to fumble or crit rules also are more director/writer type games vs die roll (yes they roll dice but it has limited influence and bound by the game director vs the GM officiating the rules of the system), now days also like consolation prize type spells (ie the target succeeds on their save but they still get an effect because the caster "used a resource" so the caster should get something.
In general your bonuses are fixed values but the roll means you have not used your fixed values to your potential. So you have a St bonus but when you used it you used it incorrectly. Again just because you are an expert does not mean you do not make mistakes and or have problems or issues. So yes because you are an expert in making cloths your cloths can still fall apart, an combat expert still can have their weapon fly from their hand and or break, expert climbers can still fall because expert means you have a less chance of failing and does not mean auto succeeding.
To me it seems like an book idea for a supplement, with a number of rules that are more cinematic and author/director in nature vs a change to core rules.
Also if your group likes it then play that way, as long as no harm is occurring to anyone and be sure to explain how your rules are different from the core game so if and when players shift to other games or play in a convention or tournament they hopefully will be prepared for the basic differences.
In general your bonuses are fixed values but the roll means you have not used your fixed values to your potential. So you have a St bonus but when you used it you used it incorrectly. Again just because you are an expert does not mean you do not make mistakes and or have problems or issues. So yes because you are an expert in making cloths your cloths can still fall apart, an combat expert still can have their weapon fly from their hand and or break, expert climbers can still fall because expert means you have a less chance of failing and does not mean auto succeeding.
The other thing we're dancing around here is the question of what failure means in play. Most of the time, the rules call for failure to be boring: Nothing happens, and you either try again or are forced to try something else. A lot of the dislike for critical failure/fumble rules, in my experience, comes from the fact that they usually call for failure to be punitive: It's not enough that your character doesn't succeed, they have to be punished for rolling a 1, regardless of their skill level.
With the expert tailor, for instance, there are a lot of things failure could mean. Maybe the clothes don't fit well. Maybe they look unfashionable, or accentuate the wrong aspects of the wearer's appearance. Maybe the tailor has to painstaking pick out and redo a stitch that they got wrong. There are a lot of ways to make failure more interesting than simply wasting time and resources while making the character look incompetent, but that's what DMs jump to, because the rules generally favor failure being boring or punitive and provide little to no support for making failure exciting or interesting.
Since I doubt we'll see a dramatic shift in design philosophy towards treating failure as an opportunity rather than a punishment, however, here's one quick and easy bandage: Instead of giving PCs Inspiration on a natural 20, give them Inspiration on a natural 1. In-game it's about the character learning something from failure and finding an opportunity to leverage that insight. Out-of-game, it's something to ease the sting of being told "you fail no matter what."
In general your bonuses are fixed values but the roll means you have not used your fixed values to your potential. So you have a St bonus but when you used it you used it incorrectly. Again just because you are an expert does not mean you do not make mistakes and or have problems or issues. So yes because you are an expert in making cloths your cloths can still fall apart, an combat expert still can have their weapon fly from their hand and or break, expert climbers can still fall because expert means you have a less chance of failing and does not mean auto succeeding.
The other thing we're dancing around here is the question of what failure means in play. Most of the time, the rules call for failure to be boring: Nothing happens, and you either try again or are forced to try something else. A lot of the dislike for critical failure/fumble rules, in my experience, comes from the fact that they usually call for failure to be punitive: It's not enough that your character doesn't succeed, they have to be punished for rolling a 1, regardless of their skill level.
With the expert tailor, for instance, there are a lot of things failure could mean. Maybe the clothes don't fit well. Maybe they look unfashionable, or accentuate the wrong aspects of the wearer's appearance. Maybe the tailor has to painstaking pick out and redo a stitch that they got wrong. There are a lot of ways to make failure more interesting than simply wasting time and resources while making the character look incompetent, but that's what DMs jump to, because the rules generally favor failure being boring or punitive and provide little to no support for making failure exciting or interesting.
Since I doubt we'll see a dramatic shift in design philosophy towards treating failure as an opportunity rather than a punishment, however, here's one quick and easy bandage: Instead of giving PCs Inspiration on a natural 20, give them Inspiration on a natural 1. In-game it's about the character learning something from failure and finding an opportunity to leverage that insight. Out-of-game, it's something to ease the sting of being told "you fail no matter what."
I agree with you that often GM's rule "when you roll a 1 something very bad happens" and there should be very clear rules on when something bad happens and when it does not. An example I have used in the past "just because you roll a nat 1 while writing with a pen on a piece of paper it does not mean you put the pen through your eye blinding and killing you."
I can say when I started playing around age 10 our GMing was what you call punitive in nature and as time went on we changed how we interpreted what a fumble meant, we even used some crit fumble tables in an early number Dragon Mag and then made our own tables after losing the Xerox copies we made of the Dragon tables.
In 5e right now vs 1D&D the issue the OP is talking about has been dealt with by inspiration, spells and class abilities and now I know of a group that uses a 3pp supplement to adds options for using "recovery dice" (RD) to do other things and not allow RD to heal hits during short rests.
I do think the 1D&D interpretation of inspiration does fix some issues but it also raises other issue, like the OP's case when the player could use it.
Baseball and cycling: IMHO baseball is a great example of how "expert's" often only succeed 3.5 times out of 10 and are considered great because of it. There are other sports such as long distance single rider cycling that in which (IMHO) the frequency of a 1 (by D&D 5% standards) is too high for serious errors to be reflected. But again that can be handled by better rules for GM's on how to deal with 1's in situations and or expanded class, race and feats.
In general I have felt when reading 5e that it dealt with 80% to 90% of the issues in their basic descriptions and left edge cases at the top of bottom of the rules to be ignored because of the rules systems focus on simplicity.
I just noticed something quite funny after going back and reading some of the responses. In response to my "Driving a car" example, some people seem to have the following thoughts.
"There is no way we would ever crash every 5 miles. We are so good at driving that we would automatically succeed on those standard checks. We don't need to roll for unnecessary checks"
However, in response to the example about "Paladin" automatically succeeding in Concentration saves and on attack rolls against AC 12 or lower, people seem to have the following thoughts.
"Even experts fail sometimes. Just because your character had a bonus that would allow him to succeed doesn't mean he can't fail sometimes"
So which is it? Arent those contradictory stances? Either we are so good at something that we don't need to roll for mundane tasks that we would auto succeed on, or even experts can fail and should be allowed to fail, in which case we should roll every time, cause you know, they might just roll a 1.
I just noticed something quite funny after going back and reading some of the responses. In response to my "Driving a car" example, some people seem to have the following thoughts.
"There is no way we would ever crash every 5 miles. We are so good at driving that we would automatically succeed on those standard checks. We don't need to roll for unnecessary checks"
However, in response to the example about "Paladin" automatically succeeding in Concentration saves and on attack rolls against AC 12 or lower, people seem to have the following thoughts.
"Even experts fail sometimes. Just because your character had a bonus that would allow him to succeed doesn't mean he can't fail sometimes"
So which is it? Arent those contradictory stances? Either we are so good at something that we don't need to roll for mundane tasks that we would auto succeed on, or even experts can fail and should be allowed to fail, in which case we should roll every time, cause you know, they might just roll a 1.
The issue is what is a fail? Is a fail in driving mean you crash or have you missed something or do you need to adjust your speed or wheel position in some way? In the terms of concentration checks I have often seen the task described as anything that disrupts your thought process causes the spell to fail.
I will try and think up an a better example if you need one.
Your driving example is the same that I have seen before did you ask your question in either the Pathfinder II playtest or the last time the 1D&D playtest doc was released?
in the past when talking to game dev's they have asked or stated "I want to create a game in which support PC's are viable or more viable then games X.Y and Z. Do you think that is possible with my rules?" In general my answer is the same for all classes or PC "themes" they want in their game. provide a means in which the theme contributes, fun and does not unbalance the game. So your concentration situation might be a design feature to allow for support classes, abilities and magic items in 1D&D. I can think of some bardic and alchemist abilities that would help with concentration. The issue here would be if the game is designed to have a support person and your group does not, I have also seen proposals in which the support option was a must to play the game or very unbalancing due to the bonuses the support class brought to the games math balance. In D&D 5e terms a support person I have seen in other systems were worth a +3 weapon, +4 AC, advantage on saves and an extra pool of HP and if you did not have that support it was like playing in super hard mode.
I just noticed something quite funny after going back and reading some of the responses. In response to my "Driving a car" example, some people seem to have the following thoughts.
"There is no way we would ever crash every 5 miles. We are so good at driving that we would automatically succeed on those standard checks. We don't need to roll for unnecessary checks"
However, in response to the example about "Paladin" automatically succeeding in Concentration saves and on attack rolls against AC 12 or lower, people seem to have the following thoughts.
"Even experts fail sometimes. Just because your character had a bonus that would allow him to succeed doesn't mean he can't fail sometimes"
So which is it? Arent those contradictory stances? Either we are so good at something that we don't need to roll for mundane tasks that we would auto succeed on, or even experts can fail and should be allowed to fail, in which case we should roll every time, cause you know, they might just roll a 1.
The road is not a hostile entity that's trying its best to make you crash because its survival depends on it.
Besides, why every 5 miles? Why not every 5 meters? Or every 50 miles? Or every inch? Or every day of driving? It's because you yourself just decided how often you want a check. And so does every DM.
In the past I have used examples of lasers, digital vs analog transition, a medical example, walking over a balance beam on the ground vs a beam over the grand canyon, position of an electron and number of protons in an atom to describe (or try to) the basic difference of some skills or tasks are all or nothing and failure does not mean you die or necessarily an extreme event.
So lets try this example in 5e you are either proficient with a weapon or not and you get a mod or a penalty based on that definition. That is an either or situation where as it is different if you have an inferior weapon (-3 to -1) a normal weapon (no mod) or a bonus weapon (+1 to+3). The weapon inferiority/superiority is different then the either or situation of proficiency because of how they are defined.
So in the case of concentration it is often defined as once you lose it the spell ends so it is like being pregnant you either are pregnant or not. Where as other skills and situations you can be not as goof or 1/2 as good or fail and still succeed.
The rule says, "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."
The first part is the most important. A roll is NEVER demanded. Not attack rolls, not saving throws, not ability checks, not concentration checks, nothing. There is nothing in the rules that will ever force the DM to do anything they don't think is necessary. The DM determines whether a d20 is warranted in any given circumstance.
So in all the examples given, the DM can simply say, "No need to roll." And sometimes the DM might have you roll even if your bonus is so high that a 1 would succeed by the numbers, but you still fail. Because there SHOULD always be a chance of failure. Things happen. No one is so good that they can't fail. Unexpected events outside your control will happen. But if the DM is good and hasn't asked you to roll 20 times, that 1 will come up less often. Exactly as you desire.
The rule says, "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."
The first part is the most important. A roll is NEVER demanded. Not attack rolls, not saving throws, not ability checks, not concentration checks, nothing. There is nothing in the rules that will ever force the DM to do anything they don't think is necessary. The DM determines whether a d20 is warranted in any given circumstance.
So in all the examples given, the DM can simply say, "No need to roll." And sometimes the DM might have you roll even if your bonus is so high that a 1 would succeed by the numbers, but you still fail. Because there SHOULD always be a chance of failure. Things happen. No one is so good that they can't fail. Unexpected events outside your control will happen. But if the DM is good and hasn't asked you to roll 20 times, that 1 will come up less often. Exactly as you desire.
If the rules quality is based on there being a good DM its a bad rule.
The rule itself DEMANDS that you roll because the possibility of failure must be given
Where does it say that?
Is it not obvious from my example? It doesn't need to SAY it, half the rules in Dnd are not explicit but rather implicit. With critical failure rules in place, there is always a 5% chance that you might fail on an otherwise mundane task like hitting a door with 10 AC. So it's reasonable to assume that because your failure must be allowed to happen, you must roll to hit that door. "Even experts fail sometimes" remember?
If the rules quality is based on there being a good DM its a bad rule.
THANK YOU! This guy gets it! Ideally, the DM should be an impartial arbiter of the rules. But said rules need to be clearly defined and their interpretation has to be as objective as possible.
The rule says, "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."
The first part is the most important. A roll is NEVER demanded. Not attack rolls, not saving throws, not ability checks, not concentration checks, nothing. There is nothing in the rules that will ever force the DM to do anything they don't think is necessary. The DM determines whether a d20 is warranted in any given circumstance.
So in all the examples given, the DM can simply say, "No need to roll." And sometimes the DM might have you roll even if your bonus is so high that a 1 would succeed by the numbers, but you still fail. Because there SHOULD always be a chance of failure. Things happen. No one is so good that they can't fail. Unexpected events outside your control will happen. But if the DM is good and hasn't asked you to roll 20 times, that 1 will come up less often. Exactly as you desire.
If the rules quality is based on there being a good DM its a bad rule.
I don't know if I'd go that far (every rule is reliant on having a good DM to some degree in any Rule Zero system), but I agree here on the basis that there's virtually no guidance for the DM on how to decide when a roll is called for. The DMG discusses how it affects the game when you're rolling constantly vs. rolling seldomly, but offers almost nothing on how to make the determination of whether to ask for a roll or call it an automatic success/failure. When should a DM call for a roll with a DC of 5, given that it's likely to only fail on a 1? When should a DM call for a roll against DC 30, given that anyone could succeed with a lucky natural 20?
Chapter 7 of the PHB says "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results," but as Stusano is pointing out, a system with automatic failure on a natural 1 always assumes a chance of failure, and any action has an uncertain outcome. So even the limited suggestions offered are undermined by this addition.
Professional race car drivers crash; during pro races, when in practice and on public roads. The same idea applies to Olympic gymnasts and other "experts" and or "pros" and problems and issues that arise when trying to do things.
There is a game that uses the expert idea and during the playtest people had issue with the idea as written. In that game it seemed that an expert fisherman could throw a pole in a lake and fish would jump on his hook...even if there were no fish in the lank. I brought up to friends the problem with how the rule was written in that game and it took them a while to realize the issue along with others and I think that is also reflected in the dramatic drop in people playing the game from version 1 to version II.
Your Goliath example has flaws: The 1 result on the chance to hit the door is a chance to roll for damage on the door it is more then simply hitting the door. Also if your PC said he was touching the door or patting the door wanted the chance to hit the door and make a noise vs hit the door to break it are all different actions that a GM might rule you do not have to roll. The issue often revolves around what you are trying to do with other impeding factors and how your action is described.
I am the person who first stated rule zero followed by the idea behind it as in zero is the base rule and other things should build upon that or be modified by that. The idea was around before that as stated in many produce but just not as forcefully or clearly, IMHO.
So back to the topic you seem to ascribe competence or ability to doing something with the fact you could fail or even fail and have something happen if you fail.
Clear Rules: I agree clear writing and well throughout rules are very important.
Professional race car drivers crash; during pro races, when in practice and on public roads. The same idea applies to Olympic gymnasts and other "experts" and or "pros" and problems and issues that arise when trying to do things.
There is a game that uses the expert idea and during the playtest people had issue with the idea as written. In that game it seemed that an expert fisherman could throw a pole in a lake and fish would jump on his hook...even if there were no fish in the lank. I brought up to friends the problem with how the rule was written in that game and it took them a while to realize the issue along with others and I think that is also reflected in the dramatic drop in people playing the game from version 1 to version II.
Your Goliath example has flaws: The 1 result on the chance to hit the door is a chance to roll for damage on the door it is more then simply hitting the door. Also if your PC said he was touching the door or patting the door wanted the chance to hit the door and make a noise vs hit the door to break it are all different actions that a GM might rule you do not have to roll. The issue often revolves around what you are trying to do with other impeding factors and how your action is described.
I am the person who first stated rule zero followed by the idea behind it as in zero is the base rule and other things should build upon that or be modified by that. The idea was around before that as stated in many produce but just not as forcefully or clearly, IMHO.
So back to the topic you seem to ascribe competence or ability to doing something with the fact you could fail or even fail and have something happen if you fail.
Clear Rules: I agree clear writing and well throughout rules are very important.
Wizards of the Coast themselves Adress this problem in the Dungeon Master Guide.
Chapter 8: Running the Game. Subsection: The role of the Dice.
Remember that dice don’t run your game — you do. Dice are like rules. They’re tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character’s plans.
Subsection: Automatic Success
Sometimes the randomness of a d20 roll leads to ludicrous results. Let’s say a door requires a successful DC 15 Strength check to be battered down. A fighter with a Strength of 20 might helplessly flail against the door because of bad die rolls. Meanwhile, the rogue with a Strength of 10 rolls a 20 and knocks the door from its hinges.
If such results bother you, consider allowing automatic success on certain checks. Under this optional rule, a character automatically succeeds on any ability check with a DC less than or equal to the relevant ability score minus 5. So in the example above, the fighter would automatically kick in the door. This rule doesn’t apply to contests, saving throws, or attack rolls.
Having proficiency with a skill or tool can also grant automatic success. If a character’s proficiency bonus applies to his or her ability check, the character automatically succeeds if the DC is 10 or less. If that character is 11th level or higher, the check succeeds if the DC is 15 or less.
As shown here, Firth edition DnD allows for automatic successes in instances where the character is immensely likely to succeed anyway. In cased it wasn't obvious by this point, this is my preferred style of play. It's just refreshing to find that it is, in fact, part of the core rules.
The question now becomes, will One-DnD allow for the same bypassing of dice rolls? especially when the critical failure rule introduces an ever-present possibility of failure.
As I have pointed out before, there is an inherent contradiction here. Ether you must always roll because you can always roll a 1. Or you can automatically succeed sometimes and fail other times. In either case, it's far too inconsistent and subjective for my taste.
As mentioned by MyDudeicus, Such as rule necessitates a good DM making good judgment calls. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the case.
In general yes the GM should be allowed to bypass rolling and decide when a roll is necessarily and I would also say consistently rule the same way. GM's are human so things can vary just like players enacting what their PC is going to do.
I have played in a few games that sound like how you play (home games at a game store and at a convention) and I had poor experiences every time. Why because the GM seemed to rule very unevenly based on the info presented (again people are people and they were not a deity dent to earth the run the game) but even so seemed to lack some basic knowledge in many areas and were very like being directed by the GM/Storyteller/Judge/Arbitrator/etc vs a player saying I want my PC to do this how would they do it based on their skills or the GM taking that into account when the player decides on what they want their PC to do.
For your post I picked up, expert in concentration therefor X and Goliath race therefor Y and your assumption (my word) that descriptive text is accurately represented by the rules as written. I have seen this in other games and in specific situations, such as Dwarves like alcohol there for all dwarves are drunks or Rogues know how to use thieves tools there for they are all crooks, etc.
Traps are supposed to be difficult and dangerous. So having to perceive, roll sleight of hand to get to the trap (not sure why but OK) and then Disarm the trap. Three rolls.
Chance of any one roll being a 1 is 5% (for either of two dice is 1 - 19^2/20^2 or 1 - 361/400 or 1 - 0.9025 or a 9.75% chance of failure (for ease of math let's just go with the two rolls.
If the DC is say 12 and the wrong has a +4 proficiency and a +4 Dex that is +8 to the roll or a 4 or more to succeed. If the Rogue has expertise then it is 8+4 or +12 then it is automatic. Let us say that the Rogue is in a minefield and we don't have fumble rolls. This means said Rogue could use his thieves tools to clear an entire minefield in a few hours without even worrying. Not realistic. If the Rogue has a almost 10% chance of setting one off then yes he will be worried about it and no he won't attempt to even walk through the minefield if he can even help it and realistically he shouldn't no matter his level. Why, because Minefields are dangerous.
If the rogue insists on doing it and attempting to clear 100 mines then yes he should have a 9.75% of being caught in an explosion.
The game is supposed to be played limiting rolls to only when it is required for dramatic effect. Driving to the grocery store has no dramatic effect so no roll unless for some reason the character has no clue how to drive. Clearing a mine field however should have a dramatic effect. Player should sweat every die roll hoping they don't throw that 1. They should be spending time limiting the path through the field limiting the rolls they need to make because they do have a 1 in 10 chance of being blown up. We want that because now the character has to do some problem solving and puzzling out logical ways to avoid the mistake. We don't want players saying "eeehhh" my skill check is good enough I'll just run through real quick disarming all the mines so we don't have to worry about it no more cause why not , I can't fail the roll.
By your logic why is failures or successes also not affecting behavior instead of just 1's and 20's. Why ask for rolls at all?
I think a better way to look at it is, we only ask for rolls when the outcome means something for the player and long complex tasks should be summarized by one roll when each part of the task is just mundane. If the outcome of the activity is meaningful to the player then they will choose not to avoid it even if it does mean risking rolling a one. That would be what mitigates the risk you talk about which I do not deny as a real issue.
Of course , that is easier said than done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Funny You should say. At my table, we don't use that rule. I mean, I think that my stance on automatic failures and successes should be obvious by this point. But here is an interesting reason why I don't use it.
Most of the time, when you roll 1 a one, you are likely to fail anyway. But failing knowing that all your bonuses were taken into consideration feels like an earned outcome
"My character tried his very best but it just wasn't enough"
On the other hand, automatically failing because you rolled a 1, and having your bonuses disregarded feels arbitrary and punishing. At least to me. I can tell from the replies to the thread that this is not the case for everyone.
Let's look at my paladin character once again. He's got 20 in STR for a bonus of +5. He's level 10 for his proficiency is +4 and he's got a +2 greatsword (all of this not uncommon at this level). This means that he has a total bonus to his attacks of +11. Meaning that even when I roll a nat 1, I should still be able to hit all creatures which an armor class of 12 or below. This makes sense to me. Even at his worst, at the absolute lowest of his performance, my character is still good enough to hit some creatures that are not prepared for it.
To tie it back to the car example, as many of you have astutely pointed out. We are not crashing our car every 5 miles. We are not fumbling common mundane tasks with any sort of regularity. In Dnd terms, we are so experienced at driving that we can do it effortlessly, that even when we roll a 1, our bonus is so high that we just automatically succeed.
Why then, must there be this outside force that demands that you fail on a 1? I find that asinine. Again, some people might enjoy that, and that is alright.
I think the biggest flaw in my own argument is that I was presenting as if am making "objective" observations in the absence of objective data to support them.
I suppose this, as with many other things in DND, shall remain inherently subjective. I think One-Dnd as a whole will be defined by high levels of subjectiveness and vagueness.
"Lol do whatever you want"
Experts still fail at things. But I also see you point in how the numbers work (5%) and how some GM's deal with nat 20 and nat 1's.
1) The numbers can be fixed by other rules that are specific instead of trying for a "one rule to rule them all method" so as to still allow for non-successes. Note I for one have not problem with experts failing, especially in combat and especially with spell concentration. Note you could also just have a rule that changes a spell or a number of spells to provide them to not have concentration rolls vs removing the idea completely.
2) In general the game is about failing as well as succeeding, every time you get hit you fail to defend, you do not roll max on a die you fail to be as successful as you can be. In general 5e is a very simple system and the idea put forth by the OP needs a lot of clarification and possibly rules to make it work or simply play in a director/author type game where they direct the action and your rolls mean very little.
3) Other fix's are have an ability that grants a number of concentration re-rolls for a class and or sub-class, fixed value to break concentration or expansion of feats, or some other redesign.
Thanks for the info and it explains a lot. In general people I have talked to in the past who have used some sort of downward adjustment to fumble or crit rules also are more director/writer type games vs die roll (yes they roll dice but it has limited influence and bound by the game director vs the GM officiating the rules of the system), now days also like consolation prize type spells (ie the target succeeds on their save but they still get an effect because the caster "used a resource" so the caster should get something.
In general your bonuses are fixed values but the roll means you have not used your fixed values to your potential. So you have a St bonus but when you used it you used it incorrectly. Again just because you are an expert does not mean you do not make mistakes and or have problems or issues. So yes because you are an expert in making cloths your cloths can still fall apart, an combat expert still can have their weapon fly from their hand and or break, expert climbers can still fall because expert means you have a less chance of failing and does not mean auto succeeding.
To me it seems like an book idea for a supplement, with a number of rules that are more cinematic and author/director in nature vs a change to core rules.
Also if your group likes it then play that way, as long as no harm is occurring to anyone and be sure to explain how your rules are different from the core game so if and when players shift to other games or play in a convention or tournament they hopefully will be prepared for the basic differences.
The other thing we're dancing around here is the question of what failure means in play. Most of the time, the rules call for failure to be boring: Nothing happens, and you either try again or are forced to try something else. A lot of the dislike for critical failure/fumble rules, in my experience, comes from the fact that they usually call for failure to be punitive: It's not enough that your character doesn't succeed, they have to be punished for rolling a 1, regardless of their skill level.
With the expert tailor, for instance, there are a lot of things failure could mean. Maybe the clothes don't fit well. Maybe they look unfashionable, or accentuate the wrong aspects of the wearer's appearance. Maybe the tailor has to painstaking pick out and redo a stitch that they got wrong. There are a lot of ways to make failure more interesting than simply wasting time and resources while making the character look incompetent, but that's what DMs jump to, because the rules generally favor failure being boring or punitive and provide little to no support for making failure exciting or interesting.
Since I doubt we'll see a dramatic shift in design philosophy towards treating failure as an opportunity rather than a punishment, however, here's one quick and easy bandage: Instead of giving PCs Inspiration on a natural 20, give them Inspiration on a natural 1. In-game it's about the character learning something from failure and finding an opportunity to leverage that insight. Out-of-game, it's something to ease the sting of being told "you fail no matter what."
I agree with you that often GM's rule "when you roll a 1 something very bad happens" and there should be very clear rules on when something bad happens and when it does not. An example I have used in the past "just because you roll a nat 1 while writing with a pen on a piece of paper it does not mean you put the pen through your eye blinding and killing you."
I can say when I started playing around age 10 our GMing was what you call punitive in nature and as time went on we changed how we interpreted what a fumble meant, we even used some crit fumble tables in an early number Dragon Mag and then made our own tables after losing the Xerox copies we made of the Dragon tables.
In 5e right now vs 1D&D the issue the OP is talking about has been dealt with by inspiration, spells and class abilities and now I know of a group that uses a 3pp supplement to adds options for using "recovery dice" (RD) to do other things and not allow RD to heal hits during short rests.
I do think the 1D&D interpretation of inspiration does fix some issues but it also raises other issue, like the OP's case when the player could use it.
Baseball and cycling: IMHO baseball is a great example of how "expert's" often only succeed 3.5 times out of 10 and are considered great because of it. There are other sports such as long distance single rider cycling that in which (IMHO) the frequency of a 1 (by D&D 5% standards) is too high for serious errors to be reflected. But again that can be handled by better rules for GM's on how to deal with 1's in situations and or expanded class, race and feats.
In general I have felt when reading 5e that it dealt with 80% to 90% of the issues in their basic descriptions and left edge cases at the top of bottom of the rules to be ignored because of the rules systems focus on simplicity.
I just noticed something quite funny after going back and reading some of the responses. In response to my "Driving a car" example, some people seem to have the following thoughts.
"There is no way we would ever crash every 5 miles. We are so good at driving that we would automatically succeed on those standard checks. We don't need to roll for unnecessary checks"
However, in response to the example about "Paladin" automatically succeeding in Concentration saves and on attack rolls against AC 12 or lower, people seem to have the following thoughts.
"Even experts fail sometimes. Just because your character had a bonus that would allow him to succeed doesn't mean he can't fail sometimes"
So which is it? Arent those contradictory stances? Either we are so good at something that we don't need to roll for mundane tasks that we would auto succeed on, or even experts can fail and should be allowed to fail, in which case we should roll every time, cause you know, they might just roll a 1.
The issue is what is a fail? Is a fail in driving mean you crash or have you missed something or do you need to adjust your speed or wheel position in some way? In the terms of concentration checks I have often seen the task described as anything that disrupts your thought process causes the spell to fail.
I will try and think up an a better example if you need one.
Your driving example is the same that I have seen before did you ask your question in either the Pathfinder II playtest or the last time the 1D&D playtest doc was released?
in the past when talking to game dev's they have asked or stated "I want to create a game in which support PC's are viable or more viable then games X.Y and Z. Do you think that is possible with my rules?" In general my answer is the same for all classes or PC "themes" they want in their game. provide a means in which the theme contributes, fun and does not unbalance the game. So your concentration situation might be a design feature to allow for support classes, abilities and magic items in 1D&D. I can think of some bardic and alchemist abilities that would help with concentration. The issue here would be if the game is designed to have a support person and your group does not, I have also seen proposals in which the support option was a must to play the game or very unbalancing due to the bonuses the support class brought to the games math balance. In D&D 5e terms a support person I have seen in other systems were worth a +3 weapon, +4 AC, advantage on saves and an extra pool of HP and if you did not have that support it was like playing in super hard mode.
The road is not a hostile entity that's trying its best to make you crash because its survival depends on it.
Besides, why every 5 miles? Why not every 5 meters? Or every 50 miles? Or every inch? Or every day of driving? It's because you yourself just decided how often you want a check. And so does every DM.
In the past I have used examples of lasers, digital vs analog transition, a medical example, walking over a balance beam on the ground vs a beam over the grand canyon, position of an electron and number of protons in an atom to describe (or try to) the basic difference of some skills or tasks are all or nothing and failure does not mean you die or necessarily an extreme event.
So lets try this example in 5e you are either proficient with a weapon or not and you get a mod or a penalty based on that definition. That is an either or situation where as it is different if you have an inferior weapon (-3 to -1) a normal weapon (no mod) or a bonus weapon (+1 to+3). The weapon inferiority/superiority is different then the either or situation of proficiency because of how they are defined.
So in the case of concentration it is often defined as once you lose it the spell ends so it is like being pregnant you either are pregnant or not. Where as other skills and situations you can be not as goof or 1/2 as good or fail and still succeed.
Ok, here is the simplest way I can put this.
Me: "Guys the critical failure rule is bad because the more you roll the more you get punished"
Audience: "Just don't ask for so many rolls dummy. You shouldn't be rolling for mundane tasks silly"
Me: "Guys, you're missing the point. The rule itself DEMANDS that you roll because the possibility of failure must be given"
Where does it say that?
Nowhere.
The rule says, "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."
The first part is the most important. A roll is NEVER demanded. Not attack rolls, not saving throws, not ability checks, not concentration checks, nothing. There is nothing in the rules that will ever force the DM to do anything they don't think is necessary. The DM determines whether a d20 is warranted in any given circumstance.
So in all the examples given, the DM can simply say, "No need to roll." And sometimes the DM might have you roll even if your bonus is so high that a 1 would succeed by the numbers, but you still fail. Because there SHOULD always be a chance of failure. Things happen. No one is so good that they can't fail. Unexpected events outside your control will happen. But if the DM is good and hasn't asked you to roll 20 times, that 1 will come up less often. Exactly as you desire.
If the rules quality is based on there being a good DM its a bad rule.
Is it not obvious from my example? It doesn't need to SAY it, half the rules in Dnd are not explicit but rather implicit. With critical failure rules in place, there is always a 5% chance that you might fail on an otherwise mundane task like hitting a door with 10 AC. So it's reasonable to assume that because your failure must be allowed to happen, you must roll to hit that door. "Even experts fail sometimes" remember?
THANK YOU! This guy gets it! Ideally, the DM should be an impartial arbiter of the rules. But said rules need to be clearly defined and their interpretation has to be as objective as possible.
I don't know if I'd go that far (every rule is reliant on having a good DM to some degree in any Rule Zero system), but I agree here on the basis that there's virtually no guidance for the DM on how to decide when a roll is called for. The DMG discusses how it affects the game when you're rolling constantly vs. rolling seldomly, but offers almost nothing on how to make the determination of whether to ask for a roll or call it an automatic success/failure. When should a DM call for a roll with a DC of 5, given that it's likely to only fail on a 1? When should a DM call for a roll against DC 30, given that anyone could succeed with a lucky natural 20?
Chapter 7 of the PHB says "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results," but as Stusano is pointing out, a system with automatic failure on a natural 1 always assumes a chance of failure, and any action has an uncertain outcome. So even the limited suggestions offered are undermined by this addition.
Best argument in this thread so far.
Professional race car drivers crash; during pro races, when in practice and on public roads. The same idea applies to Olympic gymnasts and other "experts" and or "pros" and problems and issues that arise when trying to do things.
There is a game that uses the expert idea and during the playtest people had issue with the idea as written. In that game it seemed that an expert fisherman could throw a pole in a lake and fish would jump on his hook...even if there were no fish in the lank. I brought up to friends the problem with how the rule was written in that game and it took them a while to realize the issue along with others and I think that is also reflected in the dramatic drop in people playing the game from version 1 to version II.
Your Goliath example has flaws: The 1 result on the chance to hit the door is a chance to roll for damage on the door it is more then simply hitting the door. Also if your PC said he was touching the door or patting the door wanted the chance to hit the door and make a noise vs hit the door to break it are all different actions that a GM might rule you do not have to roll. The issue often revolves around what you are trying to do with other impeding factors and how your action is described.
I am the person who first stated rule zero followed by the idea behind it as in zero is the base rule and other things should build upon that or be modified by that. The idea was around before that as stated in many produce but just not as forcefully or clearly, IMHO.
So back to the topic you seem to ascribe competence or ability to doing something with the fact you could fail or even fail and have something happen if you fail.
Clear Rules: I agree clear writing and well throughout rules are very important.
Wizards of the Coast themselves Adress this problem in the Dungeon Master Guide.
Chapter 8: Running the Game. Subsection: The role of the Dice.
Subsection: Automatic Success
As shown here, Firth edition DnD allows for automatic successes in instances where the character is immensely likely to succeed anyway. In cased it wasn't obvious by this point, this is my preferred style of play. It's just refreshing to find that it is, in fact, part of the core rules.
The question now becomes, will One-DnD allow for the same bypassing of dice rolls? especially when the critical failure rule introduces an ever-present possibility of failure.
As I have pointed out before, there is an inherent contradiction here. Ether you must always roll because you can always roll a 1. Or you can automatically succeed sometimes and fail other times. In either case, it's far too inconsistent and subjective for my taste.
As mentioned by MyDudeicus, Such as rule necessitates a good DM making good judgment calls. Which, unfortunately, isn't always the case.
In general yes the GM should be allowed to bypass rolling and decide when a roll is necessarily and I would also say consistently rule the same way. GM's are human so things can vary just like players enacting what their PC is going to do.
I have played in a few games that sound like how you play (home games at a game store and at a convention) and I had poor experiences every time. Why because the GM seemed to rule very unevenly based on the info presented (again people are people and they were not a deity dent to earth the run the game) but even so seemed to lack some basic knowledge in many areas and were very like being directed by the GM/Storyteller/Judge/Arbitrator/etc vs a player saying I want my PC to do this how would they do it based on their skills or the GM taking that into account when the player decides on what they want their PC to do.
For your post I picked up, expert in concentration therefor X and Goliath race therefor Y and your assumption (my word) that descriptive text is accurately represented by the rules as written. I have seen this in other games and in specific situations, such as Dwarves like alcohol there for all dwarves are drunks or Rogues know how to use thieves tools there for they are all crooks, etc.
Regarding your take on traps....
Traps are supposed to be difficult and dangerous. So having to perceive, roll sleight of hand to get to the trap (not sure why but OK) and then Disarm the trap. Three rolls.
Chance of any one roll being a 1 is 5% (for either of two dice is 1 - 19^2/20^2 or 1 - 361/400 or 1 - 0.9025 or a 9.75% chance of failure (for ease of math let's just go with the two rolls.
If the DC is say 12 and the wrong has a +4 proficiency and a +4 Dex that is +8 to the roll or a 4 or more to succeed. If the Rogue has expertise then it is 8+4 or +12 then it is automatic. Let us say that the Rogue is in a minefield and we don't have fumble rolls. This means said Rogue could use his thieves tools to clear an entire minefield in a few hours without even worrying. Not realistic. If the Rogue has a almost 10% chance of setting one off then yes he will be worried about it and no he won't attempt to even walk through the minefield if he can even help it and realistically he shouldn't no matter his level. Why, because Minefields are dangerous.
If the rogue insists on doing it and attempting to clear 100 mines then yes he should have a 9.75% of being caught in an explosion.
The game is supposed to be played limiting rolls to only when it is required for dramatic effect. Driving to the grocery store has no dramatic effect so no roll unless for some reason the character has no clue how to drive. Clearing a mine field however should have a dramatic effect. Player should sweat every die roll hoping they don't throw that 1. They should be spending time limiting the path through the field limiting the rolls they need to make because they do have a 1 in 10 chance of being blown up. We want that because now the character has to do some problem solving and puzzling out logical ways to avoid the mistake. We don't want players saying "eeehhh" my skill check is good enough I'll just run through real quick disarming all the mines so we don't have to worry about it no more cause why not , I can't fail the roll.
By your logic why is failures or successes also not affecting behavior instead of just 1's and 20's. Why ask for rolls at all?
I think a better way to look at it is, we only ask for rolls when the outcome means something for the player and long complex tasks should be summarized by one roll when each part of the task is just mundane. If the outcome of the activity is meaningful to the player then they will choose not to avoid it even if it does mean risking rolling a one. That would be what mitigates the risk you talk about which I do not deny as a real issue.
Of course , that is easier said than done.