The Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is essentially a 10% chance the players' stats do not matter and they essentially have no agency. My group actually did use nat 1/20 autofail/success rules early on in 5E's lifetime and whenever someone rolled a nat 1 on something they had the bonus to just succeed if the auto fail was not a thing, it just felt miserable. There was a reason why the moment we realized that the RAW rule was that a nat 1 only applied to attacks and death saves, we immediately switched over.
It takes mechanical investment to be able to succeed on a nat 1; people should be able to fully use that investment. You also cannot really compare a nat 1 on an attack to a nat 1 on a save; saves generally have far more severe consequences.
I forget the exact number but I was curious about the exact odds anyone could make their save over the duration of a standard spell like hold person which lasts 10 rounds. And it was around 37% chance that the greatest arch mage in the universes spell will get broken by the most weak willed of random peasants. The corollary to this is over 10 tests you have about a 37% chance to fail at least one of them no matter how easy it is. Now some times it will fall on a test where you'd fail anyways, a wizard making a climb test or something, but in play I do notice a tendency for players to attempt tasks they are good in so the odds of it being something they'd need a 1 to fail in aren't that low even at lower levels. They will use a knotted rope or create other situational advantages in order to reduce the DC to something where its basically guaranteed.
Now consider there are probably 4-5 players making rolls so 10 rolls will be coming up often in play, that is a lot of guaranteed failures and successes. I think it really starts to skew the feel of the game and setting. Rules should help reinforce the narrative and setting, now everyone has a different style of play but for me this would be counter to that idea.
Speaking of different play styles.When you really think about it, the people most affected by the Nat 1 Auto Fail are the ones who would not enjoy it, the people who optimize their builds to be able to succeed on a nat 1. Generally, the people who are fine with the nat 1 autofail would not see any change in play regardless of nat 1's being auto fails or not because for them a nat 1 is a failure regardless of auto failure due to their modifiers not being high enough to succeed on a nat 1; they generally don't build a characters that have the stats to succeed on a nat 1.
So this rule generally does nothing for the people who are fine with it while being a detriment to the enjoyment of the people who dislike the rule.
Also, on the argument that even experts make mistakes, you have to ask what constitutes a success. A success is not doing the task perfectly, it is doing the task adequetely. A professional musician can make a mistake now and then, such as missing a note, but that mistake won't make their performance a failure. If someone can succeed on a nat 1, then the task is essentially so trivial to them that it is akin to breathing. In the case of them actually failing something, it would mean that the DC is high enough that they have a chance at failing. If an expert fails at a task that they nornally would always succeed, that should mean some other factor caused the DC to be raised.
5% isn't some insignificant probaility; 1/20 is actually quite statistically significant.
Your Game: I just wanted to state that if you and your group are having fun and no one is getting hurt (physically, mentally, socially or in any other way) then I am generally for it. So if you group agrees to hire MMA fighter and melee weapon specialist to take the place of monsters and you physically fight out every combat, I am ok with that. I can also say that since I started playing at age 10 I and the GM's and players I have played with have gone through many phases of what we enjoy and do not enjoy when RPG'ing.
I forget the exact number but I was curious about the exact odds anyone could make their save over the duration of a standard spell like hold person which lasts 10 rounds. And it was around 37% chance that the greatest arch mage in the universes spell will get broken by the most weak willed of random peasants. The corollary to this is over 10 tests you have about a 37% chance to fail at least one of them no matter how easy it is. Now some times it will fall on a test where you'd fail anyways, a wizard making a climb test or something, but in play I do notice a tendency for players to attempt tasks they are good in so the odds of it being something they'd need a 1 to fail in aren't that low even at lower levels. They will use a knotted rope or create other situational advantages in order to reduce the DC to something where its basically guaranteed.
Now consider there are probably 4-5 players making rolls so 10 rolls will be coming up often in play, that is a lot of guaranteed failures and successes. I think it really starts to skew the feel of the game and setting. Rules should help reinforce the narrative and setting, now everyone has a different style of play but for me this would be counter to that idea.
Funny you should mention, I haven't talked much about the Nat 20 auto success rule because it sort of goes hand in hand with auto failure. After all, it can be viewed as an auto failure for the DM.
Assume that a level 20 Archwizard casts hold Person on a commoner with 6(-2) wisdom. Under the rules of the spell, and under OnDnd rules, the commoner must roll the saves even if the wizards spell DC is 26 for he can succeed on a Nat 20. The chance that he will roll at least one nat 20 in ten rounds is about 31% Math Here.
This is where things get a bit tricky, and you start to have the counter-control issue I spoke about earlier. The players would be entirely justified to ask to roll for things that they know they are unlikely to succeed on because they might roll a nat 20.
"Oh silly stusano, the DM determines when you should roll" "Players don't ask to roll, the DM does" "Rule zero baby"
This opens the door for arbitrary (and potentially punishing) use of the rules. If the players should be allowed to fail and have their bonuses and their choices disregarded. Then so too should players be allowed to succeed against all odds and have the monster's abilities and powers disregarded. But because the DM decides when and who rolls and who succeeds or fails automatically, players are likely to get screwed over by bad DMs.
Thanks, 31% I forgot the exact number after I had done it on a calculator earlier I knew it was 30 something but thought it was 37 for some reason. For the saves I will admit I was looking more at it from the PC perspective as the spell caster. It sucks to get to some epic level and put a basic effect on the town guard and them to have such a high chance to break it. For PCs I think the save system needs to be reworked a bit so outside something like fighting a god your odds to make a save vs a challenging foe is decent. The whole fighters will almost always get nailed by hold spells at higher levels and be out of the fight for 4+ rounds thing sucks. Basically the saves you are likely to need to roll at level 1 13s or 14s in your bad saves should remain constant through your career, getting effectively worse at resisting magic as you improve is kind of lame. Maybe the 3e you get 1/2 proficiency bonus in all non trained saves thing or something.
Thanks, 31% I forgot the exact number after I had done it on a calculator earlier I knew it was 30 something but thought it was 37 for some reason. For the saves I will admit I was looking more at it from the PC perspective as the spell caster. It sucks to get to some epic level and put a basic effect on the town guard and them to have such a high chance to break it. For PCs I think the save system needs to be reworked a bit so outside something like fighting a god your odds to make a save vs a challenging foe is decent. The whole fighters will almost always get nailed by hold spells at higher levels and be out of the fight for 4+ rounds thing sucks. Basically the saves you are likely to need to roll at level 1 13s or 14s in your bad saves should remain constant through your career, getting effectively worse at resisting magic as you improve is kind of lame. Maybe the 3e you get 1/2 proficiency bonus in all non trained saves thing or something.
I get ya. To an extent, Wizards of the coast thought of this. Fighters get Indomitable, Rogues get Slippery Mind and Monks get Diamond Soul at higher levels, all of which help with mental saving throws. There is also the option to compensate for those weaknesses through gameplay by taking feats like "Resilient" and items that offer protection In those areas. It is precisely for this reason that I personally don't use Critical Failure. As mentioned before by Mana it invalidates a player's choices 10% of the time.
Storytime:
In one of my games, I play as a changeling Warlock, and as is often the case with Warlocks, I got into trouble with my patron. See my patron (some eldritch abomination) came to me in a dream and demanded I gave myself over to him or surrendered some part of my body to be permanently under his control in order to keep my powers. When I refused to surrender myself willingly, it tried to take my body by force and the DM asked me to make a Charisma saving throw. Unfortunately, I rolled a natural 1 and failed miserably. Now my DM really needed me to succeed, cause he wasn't prepared or hadn't thought ahead enough as to how things would turn out if I failed. But working together we managed to create a cool story out of it. My patron didn't end up taking my body (the worst possible outcome) because even with a natural 1, my naturally high charisma and proficiency in charisma saving throws allowed me to put up a decent fight, even if I eventually failed. As a result of the ordeal, my character became paranoid, and permanently shape shifted into an elf to avoid having to sleep. Refused to use his Warlock powers for a while and desperately searched for an item that would let him cast Intellect fortress at will.
The point of the story is to illustrate, that sometimes failure can be a good thing. It can lead to new opportunities to develop your character and introduce new twists in the story. I don't think that players should always succeed. However, there is a big difference between encountering failure with agency and with your choices respected and encountering failure that was handed down to you by the system.
I forget the exact number but I was curious about the exact odds anyone could make their save over the duration of a standard spell like hold person which lasts 10 rounds. And it was around 37% chance that the greatest arch mage in the universes spell will get broken by the most weak willed of random peasants. The corollary to this is over 10 tests you have about a 37% chance to fail at least one of them no matter how easy it is. Now some times it will fall on a test where you'd fail anyways, a wizard making a climb test or something, but in play I do notice a tendency for players to attempt tasks they are good in so the odds of it being something they'd need a 1 to fail in aren't that low even at lower levels. They will use a knotted rope or create other situational advantages in order to reduce the DC to something where its basically guaranteed.
Now consider there are probably 4-5 players making rolls so 10 rolls will be coming up often in play, that is a lot of guaranteed failures and successes. I think it really starts to skew the feel of the game and setting. Rules should help reinforce the narrative and setting, now everyone has a different style of play but for me this would be counter to that idea.
The Percentage will vary based on the number needed to make an initial save, even the difference between a 20 or a 19 and 20 to make the save can dramatically affect the percentage after 10 rolls. You calculate it by determining what is the probability that I never roll the 20 or the 19 in 20. So, say the roll needed to save is a 19 or better, Then take 18 to the power of ten, the number of roll outcomes one can make never getting an 19 or 20 and divide by 20 to the power of 10, total number of outcome this is approx 3.5 quartrillion / 10 quartertrillion or 34.87%. This though is the chance the character does not make a save in 10 rounds. The Chance they do make a save in 10 rounds is 1 minus that or 65.13%.
If they need a 20 to save this is now 59.87% they won't save and 40.13% they will make the save. You need excel to do these calculations if you want to double check the math.
The idea of Hold Person is and I am not sure if it is the same in 5e but being paralyzed you can be automatically couup d'graced which was either instant death and then a buttload of damage in one round by anyone that has an action available. It made the spell prior absolutely overpowered as you could use a second level spell to either kill or tie up any humanoid and a 4th level version any creature. So they went to a save a round to give PC's hit with it a chance to survive.
Thanks, 31% I forgot the exact number after I had done it on a calculator earlier I knew it was 30 something but thought it was 37 for some reason. For the saves I will admit I was looking more at it from the PC perspective as the spell caster. It sucks to get to some epic level and put a basic effect on the town guard and them to have such a high chance to break it. For PCs I think the save system needs to be reworked a bit so outside something like fighting a god your odds to make a save vs a challenging foe is decent. The whole fighters will almost always get nailed by hold spells at higher levels and be out of the fight for 4+ rounds thing sucks. Basically the saves you are likely to need to roll at level 1 13s or 14s in your bad saves should remain constant through your career, getting effectively worse at resisting magic as you improve is kind of lame. Maybe the 3e you get 1/2 proficiency bonus in all non trained saves thing or something.
I get ya. To an extent, Wizards of the coast thought of this. Fighters get Indomitable, Rogues get Slippery Mind and Monks get Diamond Soul at higher levels, all of which help with mental saving throws. There is also the option to compensate for those weaknesses through gameplay by taking feats like "Resilient" and items that offer protection In those areas. It is precisely for this reason that I personally don't use Critical Failure. As mentioned before by Mana it invalidates a player's choices 10% of the time.
Storytime:
In one of my games, I play as a changeling Warlock, and as is often the case with Warlocks, I got into trouble with my patron. See my patron (some eldritch abomination) came to me in a dream and demanded I gave myself over to him or surrendered some part of my body to be permanently under his control in order to keep my powers. When I refused to surrender myself willingly, it tried to take my body by force and the DM asked me to make a Charisma saving throw. Unfortunately, I rolled a natural 1 and failed miserably. Now my DM really needed me to succeed, cause he wasn't prepared or hadn't thought ahead enough as to how things would turn out if I failed. But working together we managed to create a cool story out of it. My patron didn't end up taking my body (the worst possible outcome) because even with a natural 1, my naturally high charisma and proficiency in charisma saving throws allowed me to put up a decent fight, even if I eventually failed. As a result of the ordeal, my character became paranoid, and permanently shape shifted into an elf to avoid having to sleep. Refused to use his Warlock powers for a while and desperately searched for an item that would let him cast Intellect fortress at will.
The point of the story is to illustrate, that sometimes failure can be a good thing. It can lead to new opportunities to develop your character and introduce new twists in the story. I don't think that players should always succeed. However, there is a big difference between encountering failure with agency and with your choices respected and encountering failure that was handed down to you by the system.
To add on: For story things like that, I would just make the DC high enough in which they could fail rather than relying on a nat 1 to happen, and the threat would obviously scale to reflect the needed oomph to justify the higher DC. Just because someone can always succeed a DC 20 on a nat 1 because they have a +19, doesn't mean they can't fail a DC 21 or higher. So if someone did have an incredibly high save, then maybe they can hook a bigger fish and if they succeed they can get an even greater reward. Obviously this should be done sparingly; you shouldn't just scale every DC up because that would defeat the purpose of them stacking their modifiers to begin with. However, if you want to introduce a chance of failure, let them tackle something even bigger and in return give them a bigger prize if they still beat the odds.
Plus, no one is going to be able to succeed on a nat 1 on every type of roll. It is often a specific set of rolls that they purposely choose to specialize in. They can still fail in other areas.
%: Percent and percentage's; can be very useful but it can also be misleading. In a AD&D game a friend loved dwarves but failed 45 out of 50 poison saves (IIRC) when they got a +4 bonus to. On the other hand I played in a home game that had a luck stat and I almost always made my roll, so during stat buy I had a very low luck stat and had higher other stats. Since my stat bonus was low I should have failed a lot more then I did but that was not the case.
Thanks, 31% I forgot the exact number after I had done it on a calculator earlier I knew it was 30 something but thought it was 37 for some reason. For the saves I will admit I was looking more at it from the PC perspective as the spell caster. It sucks to get to some epic level and put a basic effect on the town guard and them to have such a high chance to break it. For PCs I think the save system needs to be reworked a bit so outside something like fighting a god your odds to make a save vs a challenging foe is decent. The whole fighters will almost always get nailed by hold spells at higher levels and be out of the fight for 4+ rounds thing sucks. Basically the saves you are likely to need to roll at level 1 13s or 14s in your bad saves should remain constant through your career, getting effectively worse at resisting magic as you improve is kind of lame. Maybe the 3e you get 1/2 proficiency bonus in all non trained saves thing or something.
I get ya. To an extent, Wizards of the coast thought of this. Fighters get Indomitable, Rogues get Slippery Mind and Monks get Diamond Soul at higher levels, all of which help with mental saving throws. There is also the option to compensate for those weaknesses through gameplay by taking feats like "Resilient" and items that offer protection In those areas. It is precisely for this reason that I personally don't use Critical Failure. As mentioned before by Mana it invalidates a player's choices 10% of the time.
Storytime:
In one of my games, I play as a changeling Warlock, and as is often the case with Warlocks, I got into trouble with my patron. See my patron (some eldritch abomination) came to me in a dream and demanded I gave myself over to him or surrendered some part of my body to be permanently under his control in order to keep my powers. When I refused to surrender myself willingly, it tried to take my body by force and the DM asked me to make a Charisma saving throw. Unfortunately, I rolled a natural 1 and failed miserably. Now my DM really needed me to succeed, cause he wasn't prepared or hadn't thought ahead enough as to how things would turn out if I failed. But working together we managed to create a cool story out of it. My patron didn't end up taking my body (the worst possible outcome) because even with a natural 1, my naturally high charisma and proficiency in charisma saving throws allowed me to put up a decent fight, even if I eventually failed. As a result of the ordeal, my character became paranoid, and permanently shape shifted into an elf to avoid having to sleep. Refused to use his Warlock powers for a while and desperately searched for an item that would let him cast Intellect fortress at will.
The point of the story is to illustrate, that sometimes failure can be a good thing. It can lead to new opportunities to develop your character and introduce new twists in the story. I don't think that players should always succeed. However, there is a big difference between encountering failure with agency and with your choices respected and encountering failure that was handed down to you by the system.
The point of the story seems to be that your DM didn't follow through with what the roll seemed to indicate it was for. It isn't that failure made things interesting, it's that your DM allowed you to soft succeed instead of actually fail.
The point of the story seems to be that your DM didn't follow through with what the roll seemed to indicate it was for. It isn't that failure made things interesting, it's that your DM allowed you to soft succeed instead of actually fail.
I mean, that's on me, I didn't tell the complete story of what happened. I actually did fail and my patron took over one of my arms. Said arm became covered in scales and had sea urchin-like spikes poking out of it. It also caused my character to take psychic damage whenever I did anything contrary to my patron's wishes and every time I cast a spell or used any of my Warlock features, the "corruption" would slowly spread to the rest of my body. Hence, I had to stop using my powers for a while and became just a dude with a crossbow. I had to go on a whole quest in a depowered state in order to find a solution to my predicament. So yeah, I actually did FAIL and the consequences were severe.
My bonuses merely helped me avoid a totally catastrophic outcome --> (patron takes over my entire body)
The point of the story seems to be that your DM didn't follow through with what the roll seemed to indicate it was for. It isn't that failure made things interesting, it's that your DM allowed you to soft succeed instead of actually fail.
I mean, that's on me, I didn't tell the complete story of what happened. I actually did fail and my patron took over one of my arms. Said arm became covered in scales and had sea urchin-like spikes poking out of it. It also caused my character to take psychic damage whenever I did anything contrary to my patron's wishes and every time I cast a spell or used any of my Warlock features, the "corruption" would slowly spread to the rest of my body. Hence, I had to stop using my powers for a while and became just a dude with a crossbow. I had to go on a whole quest in a depowered state in order to find a solution to my predicament. So yeah, I actually did FAIL and the consequences were severe.
My bonuses merely helped me avoid a totally catastrophic outcome --> (patron takes over my entire body)
Were your bonuses high enough and the DC low enough that you would have succeeded on that nat 1 normally?
Were your bonuses high enough and the DC low enough that you would have succeeded on that nat 1 normally?
Does it matter? I don't know why you are trying to derail my example when I very EXPLICITLY told you that is meant to illustrate ways in which failure can be a good thing.
90% of the time, when you roll a 1, you are going to fail anyway. I am ok with that. Like I have said before, I am perfectly ok with failure as long as my bonuses, proficiencies, and Items are taken into account when determining the outcome (The scale or degree of failure as discussed previously). What I am NOT ok with, is the system deciding that 5% of the time, my choices don't matter.
One thing is, rolling a natural 1 and boom, now my patron has taken over my entire body.
Another thing is, rolling a 1, but thanks to my choices and preparations, though I still fail, I fail to a lesser degree.
There is a small, qualitative difference between those two scenarios, and (as discussed prior) it takes a good DM to make those judgment calls.
Were your bonuses high enough and the DC low enough that you would have succeeded on that nat 1 normally?
Does it matter? I don't know why you are trying to derail my example when I very EXPLICITLY told you that is meant to illustrate ways in which failure can be a good thing.
90% of the time, when you roll a 1, you are going to fail anyway. I am ok with that. Like I have said before, I am perfectly ok with failure as long as my bonuses, proficiencies, and Items are taken into account when determining the outcome (The scale or degree of failure as discussed previously). What I am NOT ok with, is the system deciding that 5% of the time, my choices don't matter.
One thing is, rolling a natural 1 and boom, now my patron has taken over my entire body.
Another thing is, rolling a 1, but thanks to my choices and preparations, though I still fail, I fail to a lesser degree.
There is a small, qualitative difference between those two scenarios, and (as discussed prior) it takes a good DM to make those judgment calls.
But failure being a good thing is going to be a rarity than something common and takes an experienced DM essentially custom designing the effects of a failure. What is more of a concern at the moment is basic failure and success for things like ability checks and saves for enemy effects and spells. Failure potentially leading into story stuff is kind of a different discussion altogether. This is more about that 5% auto fail that disregards player agency which you have noted to be bad design.
Also, it does matter if you would have succeeded on a nat 1 if there was not an auto fail. It is the main crux of the debate. The feeling of failing on a nat 1 purely because of the autofail just sucks.
If you have issue with critical success and critical failure
SOLUTION
Then run passive checks. PASSIVE CHECKS dont roll.
That does not resolve the issue. Passive checks do not apply to saving throws and it doesn't address the underlying issue where a nat 1 is negating player agency. That is not a solution.
Are there classes, spells, abilities and magic items that deal with this issue. IMHO yes and this by design or a simple fact due to the random number range used and or the method random numbers are generated.
The idea an expert cannot fail is a problem, a friend in high schools father die on a public road as was a professional race car driver. And there are lots of other cases in which experts fail.
In general and IMO, most cases experts know how much time is required to do a task and realize attempting such tasks in a shorter time can cause issues. Or when it is safe to push something and when it is unsafe to push something. And when you have to push something due to external forces even though there is a chance of problems.
Are there classes, spells, abilities and magic items that deal with this issue. IMHO yes and this by design or a simple fact due to the random number range used and or the method random numbers are generated.
The idea an expert cannot fail is a problem, a friend in high schools father die on a public road as was a professional race car driver. And there are lots of other cases in which experts fail.
In general and IMO, most cases experts know how much time is required to do a task and realize attempting such tasks in a shorter time can cause issues. Or when it is safe to push something and when it is unsafe to push something. And when you have to push something due to external forces even though there is a chance of problems.
I think the question isn't whether Experts can fail or not. Clearly, they do. My main point of disagreement is that the circumstances in which experts fail cannot be accurately replicated by a mere 5%.
Let me say this. A 5% failure rate is absolutely and utterly high for a number of "Expert" level performers. What if a NASA engineer, made a critical error on 5% of their calculations? What if a doctor gave 5% of their patients a completely wrong prescription or treatment? What if a programmer made a critical error in 5% of all code they wrote?
The funny thing is, all of those things I just listed absolutely can and do happen all the time. But we generally view a 5% failure rate as unacceptable. So why then BAKE IT INTO THE CAKE why add such an unnecessary fixed failure rate straight into the rules of the game?
In the past during game design it was to make support classes, abilities, magic items, etc significantly meaningful in the game. Also the dice you use as your core mechanic has advantages and limitations in how the game plays and what things happen when. For example a game wants to use a d6 for its random generator and it wants a fail option, so it is 1 in 6 vs 1 in 20 in D&D.
You can create rules to change this, I would suggest you look back on some of the options for crits and modify them for fumbles.
All skills calculate their passives in the same way as Passive Perception: 10 + the character's skill mod. However, just like other skills, certain effects can raise or lower the passive value. For example, having advantage on a skill check grants a +5 to its passive value. Conversely, disadvantage grants a -5 penalty to the passive. This means the Poisoned condition would give a character -5 to all of their passive values.
Passives are also great for maintaining the mood. If the players are walking through a dungeon, calling for perception checks sends up a red flag that something in the room is worth finding, undermining the element of surprise. However, if the DM maintains a list of a player's passives, this can allow for a much more dramatic event when the ninjas suddenly attack. While not often touched on, passive skills can elevate a D&Dgame to new heights. Players will be grateful to see their high skill values aren't solely at the whims of fate., and DMs will be grateful for an easy access break.
PASSIVE VS ACTIVE SKILLS
YOU CANNOT ROLL LESS THAN YOUR PASSIVE SKILL IN A SKILL YOU ARE HIGHLY TRAINED AT (ONLY ADVANTAGE ADDS +5 and DISADVANTAGE Cost -5 from your PASSIVE CHECKS) Only blindness, deafness, stunned, paralyzed, or unconscious nullifies passive checks, when passive checks are IMPOSSIBLE.
IF YOUR PC HAS NO CHANCE TO FAIL IN THE CHECK OR SAVE FOR ITS HIGH TRAINED SKILL THEN DO NOT MAKE A ROLL.
if it is impossible to miss or do a 100 ft jump DO NOT ASK FOR A ROLL wheneither nat 20 nor nat 1 would function.
Only do checks and saves when there is a chance to nat 1 or nat 20, if neither are possible in the moment then do passive checks or Just ROLEPLAY the occasion.
Unless I am misunderstanding something using passive checks like that devalues the rogues' reliable talent. Reliable talent prevents you from rolling less than 10+proficiency, essentially doing what you say we should be done.
Passive checks are used when something is routine; when a player is doing something actively, you tend to use active rolls. Furthermore, this means nothing when you are rolling saves.
This topic is not just about skill checks, Saving Throws are a part of it as well. This is about the nat 1 auto fail aoplying to both ability checks and saving throws.
So again, your solution is not really a solution. The Nat 1 auto fail rule should not be the default RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Nat 1/20 auto fail/success is essentially a 10% chance the players' stats do not matter and they essentially have no agency. My group actually did use nat 1/20 autofail/success rules early on in 5E's lifetime and whenever someone rolled a nat 1 on something they had the bonus to just succeed if the auto fail was not a thing, it just felt miserable. There was a reason why the moment we realized that the RAW rule was that a nat 1 only applied to attacks and death saves, we immediately switched over.
It takes mechanical investment to be able to succeed on a nat 1; people should be able to fully use that investment. You also cannot really compare a nat 1 on an attack to a nat 1 on a save; saves generally have far more severe consequences.
I forget the exact number but I was curious about the exact odds anyone could make their save over the duration of a standard spell like hold person which lasts 10 rounds. And it was around 37% chance that the greatest arch mage in the universes spell will get broken by the most weak willed of random peasants. The corollary to this is over 10 tests you have about a 37% chance to fail at least one of them no matter how easy it is. Now some times it will fall on a test where you'd fail anyways, a wizard making a climb test or something, but in play I do notice a tendency for players to attempt tasks they are good in so the odds of it being something they'd need a 1 to fail in aren't that low even at lower levels. They will use a knotted rope or create other situational advantages in order to reduce the DC to something where its basically guaranteed.
Now consider there are probably 4-5 players making rolls so 10 rolls will be coming up often in play, that is a lot of guaranteed failures and successes. I think it really starts to skew the feel of the game and setting. Rules should help reinforce the narrative and setting, now everyone has a different style of play but for me this would be counter to that idea.
Speaking of different play styles.When you really think about it, the people most affected by the Nat 1 Auto Fail are the ones who would not enjoy it, the people who optimize their builds to be able to succeed on a nat 1. Generally, the people who are fine with the nat 1 autofail would not see any change in play regardless of nat 1's being auto fails or not because for them a nat 1 is a failure regardless of auto failure due to their modifiers not being high enough to succeed on a nat 1; they generally don't build a characters that have the stats to succeed on a nat 1.
So this rule generally does nothing for the people who are fine with it while being a detriment to the enjoyment of the people who dislike the rule.
Also, on the argument that even experts make mistakes, you have to ask what constitutes a success. A success is not doing the task perfectly, it is doing the task adequetely. A professional musician can make a mistake now and then, such as missing a note, but that mistake won't make their performance a failure. If someone can succeed on a nat 1, then the task is essentially so trivial to them that it is akin to breathing. In the case of them actually failing something, it would mean that the DC is high enough that they have a chance at failing. If an expert fails at a task that they nornally would always succeed, that should mean some other factor caused the DC to be raised.
5% isn't some insignificant probaility; 1/20 is actually quite statistically significant.
Your Game: I just wanted to state that if you and your group are having fun and no one is getting hurt (physically, mentally, socially or in any other way) then I am generally for it. So if you group agrees to hire MMA fighter and melee weapon specialist to take the place of monsters and you physically fight out every combat, I am ok with that. I can also say that since I started playing at age 10 I and the GM's and players I have played with have gone through many phases of what we enjoy and do not enjoy when RPG'ing.
Funny you should mention, I haven't talked much about the Nat 20 auto success rule because it sort of goes hand in hand with auto failure. After all, it can be viewed as an auto failure for the DM.
Assume that a level 20 Archwizard casts hold Person on a commoner with 6(-2) wisdom. Under the rules of the spell, and under OnDnd rules, the commoner must roll the saves even if the wizards spell DC is 26 for he can succeed on a Nat 20. The chance that he will roll at least one nat 20 in ten rounds is about 31% Math Here.
This is where things get a bit tricky, and you start to have the counter-control issue I spoke about earlier. The players would be entirely justified to ask to roll for things that they know they are unlikely to succeed on because they might roll a nat 20.
"Oh silly stusano, the DM determines when you should roll" "Players don't ask to roll, the DM does" "Rule zero baby"
This opens the door for arbitrary (and potentially punishing) use of the rules. If the players should be allowed to fail and have their bonuses and their choices disregarded. Then so too should players be allowed to succeed against all odds and have the monster's abilities and powers disregarded. But because the DM decides when and who rolls and who succeeds or fails automatically, players are likely to get screwed over by bad DMs.
Thanks, 31% I forgot the exact number after I had done it on a calculator earlier I knew it was 30 something but thought it was 37 for some reason. For the saves I will admit I was looking more at it from the PC perspective as the spell caster. It sucks to get to some epic level and put a basic effect on the town guard and them to have such a high chance to break it. For PCs I think the save system needs to be reworked a bit so outside something like fighting a god your odds to make a save vs a challenging foe is decent. The whole fighters will almost always get nailed by hold spells at higher levels and be out of the fight for 4+ rounds thing sucks. Basically the saves you are likely to need to roll at level 1 13s or 14s in your bad saves should remain constant through your career, getting effectively worse at resisting magic as you improve is kind of lame. Maybe the 3e you get 1/2 proficiency bonus in all non trained saves thing or something.
I get ya. To an extent, Wizards of the coast thought of this. Fighters get Indomitable, Rogues get Slippery Mind and Monks get Diamond Soul at higher levels, all of which help with mental saving throws. There is also the option to compensate for those weaknesses through gameplay by taking feats like "Resilient" and items that offer protection In those areas. It is precisely for this reason that I personally don't use Critical Failure. As mentioned before by Mana it invalidates a player's choices 10% of the time.
The point of the story is to illustrate, that sometimes failure can be a good thing. It can lead to new opportunities to develop your character and introduce new twists in the story. I don't think that players should always succeed. However, there is a big difference between encountering failure with agency and with your choices respected and encountering failure that was handed down to you by the system.
The Percentage will vary based on the number needed to make an initial save, even the difference between a 20 or a 19 and 20 to make the save can dramatically affect the percentage after 10 rolls. You calculate it by determining what is the probability that I never roll the 20 or the 19 in 20. So, say the roll needed to save is a 19 or better, Then take 18 to the power of ten, the number of roll outcomes one can make never getting an 19 or 20 and divide by 20 to the power of 10, total number of outcome this is approx 3.5 quartrillion / 10 quartertrillion or 34.87%. This though is the chance the character does not make a save in 10 rounds. The Chance they do make a save in 10 rounds is 1 minus that or 65.13%.
If they need a 20 to save this is now 59.87% they won't save and 40.13% they will make the save. You need excel to do these calculations if you want to double check the math.
The idea of Hold Person is and I am not sure if it is the same in 5e but being paralyzed you can be automatically couup d'graced which was either instant death and then a buttload of damage in one round by anyone that has an action available. It made the spell prior absolutely overpowered as you could use a second level spell to either kill or tie up any humanoid and a 4th level version any creature. So they went to a save a round to give PC's hit with it a chance to survive.
To add on: For story things like that, I would just make the DC high enough in which they could fail rather than relying on a nat 1 to happen, and the threat would obviously scale to reflect the needed oomph to justify the higher DC. Just because someone can always succeed a DC 20 on a nat 1 because they have a +19, doesn't mean they can't fail a DC 21 or higher. So if someone did have an incredibly high save, then maybe they can hook a bigger fish and if they succeed they can get an even greater reward. Obviously this should be done sparingly; you shouldn't just scale every DC up because that would defeat the purpose of them stacking their modifiers to begin with. However, if you want to introduce a chance of failure, let them tackle something even bigger and in return give them a bigger prize if they still beat the odds.
Plus, no one is going to be able to succeed on a nat 1 on every type of roll. It is often a specific set of rolls that they purposely choose to specialize in. They can still fail in other areas.
%: Percent and percentage's; can be very useful but it can also be misleading. In a AD&D game a friend loved dwarves but failed 45 out of 50 poison saves (IIRC) when they got a +4 bonus to. On the other hand I played in a home game that had a luck stat and I almost always made my roll, so during stat buy I had a very low luck stat and had higher other stats. Since my stat bonus was low I should have failed a lot more then I did but that was not the case.
The point of the story seems to be that your DM didn't follow through with what the roll seemed to indicate it was for. It isn't that failure made things interesting, it's that your DM allowed you to soft succeed instead of actually fail.
I mean, that's on me, I didn't tell the complete story of what happened. I actually did fail and my patron took over one of my arms. Said arm became covered in scales and had sea urchin-like spikes poking out of it. It also caused my character to take psychic damage whenever I did anything contrary to my patron's wishes and every time I cast a spell or used any of my Warlock features, the "corruption" would slowly spread to the rest of my body. Hence, I had to stop using my powers for a while and became just a dude with a crossbow. I had to go on a whole quest in a depowered state in order to find a solution to my predicament. So yeah, I actually did FAIL and the consequences were severe.
My bonuses merely helped me avoid a totally catastrophic outcome --> (patron takes over my entire body)
Were your bonuses high enough and the DC low enough that you would have succeeded on that nat 1 normally?
Does it matter? I don't know why you are trying to derail my example when I very EXPLICITLY told you that is meant to illustrate ways in which failure can be a good thing.
90% of the time, when you roll a 1, you are going to fail anyway. I am ok with that. Like I have said before, I am perfectly ok with failure as long as my bonuses, proficiencies, and Items are taken into account when determining the outcome (The scale or degree of failure as discussed previously). What I am NOT ok with, is the system deciding that 5% of the time, my choices don't matter.
One thing is, rolling a natural 1 and boom, now my patron has taken over my entire body.
Another thing is, rolling a 1, but thanks to my choices and preparations, though I still fail, I fail to a lesser degree.
There is a small, qualitative difference between those two scenarios, and (as discussed prior) it takes a good DM to make those judgment calls.
But failure being a good thing is going to be a rarity than something common and takes an experienced DM essentially custom designing the effects of a failure. What is more of a concern at the moment is basic failure and success for things like ability checks and saves for enemy effects and spells. Failure potentially leading into story stuff is kind of a different discussion altogether. This is more about that 5% auto fail that disregards player agency which you have noted to be bad design.
Also, it does matter if you would have succeeded on a nat 1 if there was not an auto fail. It is the main crux of the debate. The feeling of failing on a nat 1 purely because of the autofail just sucks.
That does not resolve the issue. Passive checks do not apply to saving throws and it doesn't address the underlying issue where a nat 1 is negating player agency. That is not a solution.
Are there classes, spells, abilities and magic items that deal with this issue. IMHO yes and this by design or a simple fact due to the random number range used and or the method random numbers are generated.
The idea an expert cannot fail is a problem, a friend in high schools father die on a public road as was a professional race car driver. And there are lots of other cases in which experts fail.
In general and IMO, most cases experts know how much time is required to do a task and realize attempting such tasks in a shorter time can cause issues. Or when it is safe to push something and when it is unsafe to push something. And when you have to push something due to external forces even though there is a chance of problems.
I think the question isn't whether Experts can fail or not. Clearly, they do. My main point of disagreement is that the circumstances in which experts fail cannot be accurately replicated by a mere 5%.
Let me say this. A 5% failure rate is absolutely and utterly high for a number of "Expert" level performers. What if a NASA engineer, made a critical error on 5% of their calculations? What if a doctor gave 5% of their patients a completely wrong prescription or treatment? What if a programmer made a critical error in 5% of all code they wrote?
The funny thing is, all of those things I just listed absolutely can and do happen all the time. But we generally view a 5% failure rate as unacceptable. So why then BAKE IT INTO THE CAKE why add such an unnecessary fixed failure rate straight into the rules of the game?
In the past during game design it was to make support classes, abilities, magic items, etc significantly meaningful in the game. Also the dice you use as your core mechanic has advantages and limitations in how the game plays and what things happen when. For example a game wants to use a d6 for its random generator and it wants a fail option, so it is 1 in 6 vs 1 in 20 in D&D.
You can create rules to change this, I would suggest you look back on some of the options for crits and modify them for fumbles.
Unless I am misunderstanding something using passive checks like that devalues the rogues' reliable talent. Reliable talent prevents you from rolling less than 10+proficiency, essentially doing what you say we should be done.
Passive checks are used when something is routine; when a player is doing something actively, you tend to use active rolls. Furthermore, this means nothing when you are rolling saves.
This topic is not just about skill checks, Saving Throws are a part of it as well. This is about the nat 1 auto fail aoplying to both ability checks and saving throws.
So again, your solution is not really a solution. The Nat 1 auto fail rule should not be the default RAW.