I'm just going to say this and run off. In my personal experience by playing the game? Nat 1s and Nat 20s on skills really aren't a big deal. It just a thing that doesn't really impact play as much as some people think it does.
I'm just going to say this and run off. In my personal experience by playing the game? Nat 1s and Nat 20s on skills really aren't a big deal. It just a thing that doesn't really impact play as much as some people think it does.
At least at my table. YMMV.
Overall not so much as its pretty rare a one wouldn't fail anyways or a 20 would not succeed anyways and on the 20 side lots of times its obvious and the people who would need a 20 might not try due to problems with the failure outcome. If you know the climb wall test is DC 20+ and failing means falling and taking damage or maybe even death at some levels you just wont make the attempt. And outside mid/high level builds who focus on it most tests will fail on a one anyways, there are some DC 5 tests like climbing a knotted rope etc and by some I mean that is literally the only DC5 test I ever remember being asked for or asking for. I'm sure there are some other very easy but not automatic tests out there but they have literally never come up for us. There have been no DC 5 door locks, no DC 5 persuasion attempts, no DC 5 balance tests etc as whenever that type of challenge is put in its meant to be a challenge, climbing is one of the few tests where the player will call for it and have a rules method of reducing the DC.
But when it does happen its either feels kind of dumb the 8 strength wizard just bent bars or lifted a portcullis after the raging barbarian failed, something similar can happen on lower DC tests as 5e put more weight on the d20 at all levels of play than previous editions which for me is a flaw but so be it, but it gets more absurd when it is something that probably should be beyond the 8 stat no skill dudes capabilities but within the normal range of the trained person. As here you are allowing a test, and you have a DC. Its one thing to say well a good DM wont give them a roll and its for anyone who would attempt the impossible, scaling a wall of force or something its another when you do allow it but then say, but not you. Or its irritating as hell for the person who spent so much time building their character to be the worlds greatest acrobat then to fail on a simple DC5 or DC10 test when they have +15 in that skill. So overall no it does not impact play very much, but when it does it sucks more often than it helps the game.
I myself often roll a lot of 1's and 20's, last time in person I rolled around 8 (1's) and 5 (20's) during out 6 hour sessions. It is one of the reasons I do not play halflings or often play classes that focus a lot on rerolling...as if I use those options all the time it makes my PC very unbalancing. I also realize this is not necessarily other players experience.
Again are there classes, spells and items that solve this issue in 5e? IMHO yes there are and it is why they are there.
In the past during the PFII playtest there was a very vocal group on this issue and after some posts to me it seemed like most of them played Ponyfinder a subset of PF and in general very different game then I have seen PF played. The simple idea to that group that you could fail seemed to be an issue as often they ascribed "text" in a way that was not reflected in the math of the rules. A clear example of that IMHO is on display above "My Goliath is supposed to ....." when that is not what the math says in the game. Please note I am not picking on the person who posted this and their opinion and experience is just as valid as mine but it is vastly different game if you and your group ascribe things that occur in text vs the math of the system. A will repeat an personal example "We just killed a dragon and now my PC is going to die by failing a climbing roll" I have also heard when talking to game designers "I want a system in which simply a person who climbs mount Everest means they do not have to make any climbing rolls. Me Why? Well because mount Everest is the tallest mountain and very difficult. Me Why do you think so? Well I read it. Me what did you read about it. And then they go on to list some very basic things without really understanding the difficulty of the entire trek.
Note somethings are binary you either are pregnant or you are not, you hit or you do not, you make a save or you do not and other things you can have varying degrees of success.
1 is a problem in my game: It seems people have this issue, I do not and the people I have played with and play with also do not, but I am glad that they can simply ignore the rule and rules like it. I do not think it is a huge issue or an issue that I would change the rules for in most cases. I would consider the change above if I was working with a vulnerable group in which my job was to promote confidence but I probably do it in a different way as in life problems occur and things do not happen like people and the experts think they would. A good example is the Thai Cave Rescue situation (there is a interesting miniseries on Amazon Prime and Netflix about this) and all of the setbacks and things they want to do but do not work.
Auto success just in a limited form can be bad in game as it can promote unrealistic expatiations in life. I do understand that people can be in a very tough situation in real life and when something happens in game it can seem to pile on (I have been there) but at the same time there are times it can do the opposite and help with those bad days. In the past game dev's have said I only want the good stuff and I often use an example of a drug that potentially only as good effects and no negative effects, then say what happens when the drug is taken away and is that experience worth taking the happy drug in the first place. Now think of real life and very few drugs have no negative side effects and a lot of drugs that are beneficial have potentially serious side effects.
Currently the barb with a religion modifer of -1 who rolls a nat 20, knows exactly the same as the wizard (religion +8) who rolls an 11. In one D&D does the barb know absolutely everything about Umberlee? in which case should I not allow him to roll (so we can not fnd out if he has heard the name at all)
I disagree with this part. Why can't the barb know? I'm not a bee keeper or a biologist but I can name several flowers that bees prefer over others. I also know that they call each other "beeks". Sometimes people know weird things for the most arbitrary reasons. The barb doesn't have to be an expert in religion to have to hung out in a local pub with the sailors you mention in your post. Of course he's going to hear the sailors talk about some deity with meaning to them. Nat 20 just means he had extra chatty friends. "Umberlee? Ye, I know 'er. Me old mates back in me 'ome town would talk y'er ears off somm'in fierce I tell you..." You ever hang out with a vegan and walk passed the food court? You'll learn a lot of vegan facts regardless of your beliefs of preferences.
As a DM, if my barb rolled that nat 20, I'd give it to him. Some of my most favorite moments in sessions have been from the shenanigans that happen because of crazy 1's and 20's. Of course, a nat 20 isn't a license to do whatever they want, but I definitely believe that it's the DM's job to create a special award a for one and my players practically jump and shout when they get a 20 because they know something grand is coming.
Of course, I also believe that if you as the DM don't like the new rule, don't use it. Regardless of what me or my players like, at the end of the day, you only have to make sure that you and yours have fun.
Currently the barb with a religion modifer of -1 who rolls a nat 20, knows exactly the same as the wizard (religion +8) who rolls an 11. In one D&D does the barb know absolutely everything about Umberlee? in which case should I not allow him to roll (so we can not fnd out if he has heard the name at all)
I disagree with this part. Why can't the barb know? I'm not a bee keeper or a biologist but I can name several flowers that bees prefer over others. I also know that they call each other "beeks". Sometimes people know weird things for the most arbitrary reasons. The barb doesn't have to be an expert in religion to have to hung out in a local pub with the sailors you mention in your post. Of course he's going to hear the sailors talk about some deity with meaning to them. Nat 20 just means he had extra chatty friends. "Umberlee? Ye, I know 'er. Me old mates back in me 'ome town would talk y'er ears off somm'in fierce I tell you..." You ever hang out with a vegan and walk passed the food court? You'll learn a lot of vegan facts regardless of your beliefs of preferences.
As a DM, if my barb rolled that nat 20, I'd give it to him. Some of my most favorite moments in sessions have been from the shenanigans that happen because of crazy 1's and 20's. Of course, a nat 20 isn't a license to do whatever they want, but I definitely believe that it's the DM's job to create a special award a for one and my players practically jump and shout when they get a 20 because they know something grand is coming.
Of course, I also believe that if you as the DM don't like the new rule, don't use it. Regardless of what me or my players like, at the end of the day, you only have to make sure that you and yours have fun.
Recalling trivia is not the same thing as being able to write out and apply an advanced mathematical model or understand the significance of certain arcane sigils in the context of a particular location or larger serquences. Your "beek" example would probably rate a DC 10 at most in the context of "trying to remember a particular buzzword to make someone think you're knowledgeable on a subject"; in contrast a DC 20 check might be to recognize not only that certain the various implements on a shipment list are significant to Umberlee, but that they're a part of a ritual to bring in some straight divine intervention from the deity, what components are still needed, and what the best way to stop the ritual is. Recognizing the implements is reasonable for pub gossip, but being able to extrapolate from that into their larger significance and how you can then interact with that requires a thorough comprehension of several different fields and the ability to think critically. Any characer with a -1 to Religion clearly does not have the background to put those pieces together unless you want to use the "idiot savant as comedic plot device/handwave" technique. High DC checks are high because they require some tangible edge in the area to be able to achieve them. Having a negative mod is the opposite of that, and so by definition those checks are unachievable by someone with that mod.
As a DM, if my barb rolled that nat 20, I'd give it to him. Some of my most favorite moments in sessions have been from the shenanigans that happen because of crazy 1's and 20's. Of course, a nat 20 isn't a license to do whatever they want, but I definitely believe that it's the DM's job to create a special award a for one and my players practically jump and shout when they get a 20 because they know something grand is coming.
Wow I didn't think anyone would respond to this after over a year.
The most scholerly cleric I can find is a drow matron mother with a +9 to religion. As the rules stand a DC20 religion check is for a piece of information that someone who is very intelligent generally and has studied relgion extensively has a 50% chance of knowing / working out and an average intelligence barbarian has a 5% chance of having picked up somewhere. In reality I think that if something is known by 5% of commoners then an expert in the field is almost certain to know it but I will go with that. Now consider something of a DC30 this is supposed to be nearly immpossible like breaking out of dimensional shackles. With the Nat 20 auto success for a piece of information so obscure it it also impossible to know not only does the Drow Matron mother have 5% chance of knowing it so does every commoner. If you want ot find it out go into a pub and ask everyone, someone will know the answer.
Linking a critical success or failure to a specific value on a d20 removes agency from the player-character and eliminates the difficulty of the challenge.
An alternative idea is to provide a skill check with a DC value and include relative values that address critical success and failure. For example, replace a critical occurring a natural 1 or 20 on a d20 with a critical success of being greater than the DC by +10 (+5 or +20) and a critical failure of being less than the DC by -10 (-5 or -20). Adding the criteria for a critical success or failure gives the player-character a decision to make because something is at risk.
I should rephrase slightly. The barb knowing everything, no, but I've never heard of any DM going, "Ok, roll to see if you know every single detail there is about this one goddess." A critical success is passing the roll regardless of DC/modifiers, it doesn't mean that the DM just hands over their notes.
A better example would be, say, lockpicking. You attempt to pick the lock, you nat 20, the lock opens if it is possible to unlock with a pick set. If it cannot be picked (for instance, some kind of magic or damage to the lock prevents it), then the roll doesn't matter because the lock can't be opened by mundane means. A critical success/failure isn't "you are now god" it's, "You managed to fluke forward and pass the check." On a religion check, that could be just one or two extra little facts or "trivia" about the goddess. That doesn't mean you have to know *every* fact, just that you passed the check.
I do realize my wording in my post was poor on this aspect of it. I'm not advocating a nat 20 is equivalent to becoming a momentary god, but it should be an automatic success/extra bonus. Even one extra fact is a boon. It's a 5% chance that the players get to be awesome for one thing for a moment.
Again, I also reiterate that this is my personal style of DM'ing and that I think all styles, even those that don't use critical success/failure is valid. It's the fact that we all DM different ways that make each experience unique and fun for our players.
I should rephrase slightly. The barb knowing everything, no, but I've never heard of any DM going, "Ok, roll to see if you know every single detail there is about this one goddess." A critical success is passing the roll regardless of DC/modifiers, it doesn't mean that the DM just hands over their notes.
A better example would be, say, lockpicking. You attempt to pick the lock, you nat 20, the lock opens if it is possible to unlock with a pick set. If it cannot be picked (for instance, some kind of magic or damage to the lock prevents it), then the roll doesn't matter because the lock can't be opened by mundane means. A critical success/failure isn't "you are now god" it's, "You managed to fluke forward and pass the check." On a religion check, that could be just one or two extra little facts or "trivia" about the goddess. That doesn't mean you have to know *every* fact, just that you passed the check.
I do realize my wording in my post was poor on this aspect of it. I'm not advocating a nat 20 is equivalent to becoming a momentary god, but it should be an automatic success/extra bonus. Even one extra fact is a boon. It's a 5% chance that the players get to be awesome for one thing for a moment.
Again, I also reiterate that this is my personal style of DM'ing and that I think all styles, even those that don't use critical success/failure is valid. It's the fact that we all DM different ways that make each experience unique and fun for our players.
The issue with the concept of "guaranteed success" is that it either undercuts immersion by allowing things that should not be possible to occur- such as a -1 mod character succeeding on a DC 30 check- or undercuts the sense of player agency because the DM needs to be more tightfisted in rolls as opposed to taking the "you can certainly try" approach lest they find themselves obliged/pressured to let something that should not be possible happen because of the nat 20. A nat 20 on any roll means that a character is succeeding to the best of their ability. This is in much the same way that rolling a nat 20 with a non-magic weapon won't suddenly allow that CR 1/8 town guard to harm a Lich; yes they struck perfectly, but that doesn't change the fact that the creature cannot be affected by their weapon.
Regarding the example of Religion checks, a DC 20 check is not about recalling trivia; DC 20 represents a Hard task, and by explicit design in the DMG it is supposed to call for having both proficiency and a high ability score to give the character favorable odds of success. The hypothecial Barbarian with a -1 to the roll is therefore the exact opposite of what is called for, and so there is no logical reason why they should have the capacity to outright succeed in the task. Partially succeed and get some hint or mitigate something about their circumstance, sure, but the purpose of using 20+ DC's is specifically to gate whatever action is being attempted so that the characters are reliant on their ability mod rather than a favorable die roll to succeed.
I should rephrase slightly. The barb knowing everything, no, but I've never heard of any DM going, "Ok, roll to see if you know every single detail there is about this one goddess." A critical success is passing the roll regardless of DC/modifiers, it doesn't mean that the DM just hands over their notes.
A better example would be, say, lockpicking. You attempt to pick the lock, you nat 20, the lock opens if it is possible to unlock with a pick set. If it cannot be picked (for instance, some kind of magic or damage to the lock prevents it), then the roll doesn't matter because the lock can't be opened by mundane means. A critical success/failure isn't "you are now god" it's, "You managed to fluke forward and pass the check." On a religion check, that could be just one or two extra little facts or "trivia" about the goddess. That doesn't mean you have to know *every* fact, just that you passed the check.
I do realize my wording in my post was poor on this aspect of it. I'm not advocating a nat 20 is equivalent to becoming a momentary god, but it should be an automatic success/extra bonus. Even one extra fact is a boon. It's a 5% chance that the players get to be awesome for one thing for a moment.
Again, I also reiterate that this is my personal style of DM'ing and that I think all styles, even those that don't use critical success/failure is valid. It's the fact that we all DM different ways that make each experience unique and fun for our players.
I'm sure there are some skills where you can accident your way to success no matter the difficulty, like perhaps a lock pick test though I suspect not 5% of the time. But I will never clear a 25 foots gap no matter how many times I try to make the leap in my current condition, and certainly not 5% of the time. I wont bust out advanced math skills 5% of the time, I wont answer detailed philosophy questions from a religion even if I know some quirks about it, I mean I saw the book of mormon on broadway I now clearly can answer deep questions about the referenced religion. Most skills will have aspects in them that can only be answered by someone trained and tasks that can only be done by an expert.
Yep, automatic success doesn't make sense for most rolls.
Automatic failure on the other hand makes perfect sense. No matter how good you are at something, you can always make mistakes. The OP's example about driving a car has the fundamental flaw that this is simply not a task that should ever require a roll. Even a novice driver doesn't have an accident once a week. If a task is so easy that literally noone should fail it regularily, there is no roll required. In contrast, if e.g. the guy in front of you suddenly slams on the breaks, you make a roll and no matter how experienced you are at driving, there is a chance you don't react in time.
If it isn't possible, it isn't possible, like my example of trying to pick an arcane lock. A critical success doesn't mean you can jump impossible gaps or hit targets that you otherwise can't. It means if there is a chance for success, you get it. If it's a DC 25 but you only have a +4 mod? Nat 20 makes up the difference. It doesn't mean you lockpick arcane locks, jump impossible distances, or suddenly damage foes with ineffective damage types. Otherwise the person could literally roll to Crack the world in half with their bare hands. The examples given by the counterpoints i have received are, "crit success allows this totally impossible thing to happen." No. It allows someone to go above and beyond their normal capabilities to the extent that someone trained in that ability could. Jumping a gap but your athletics sucks? Ask this, "could a reasonably stat'ed pc make the jump without flying or special abilities?" If literally nobody can do the thing then it doesn't matter what they roll, it's impossible. Like I said, critical success doesn't make you a god or alter reality, it allows you to simply perform at a higher level.
Yep, automatic success doesn't make sense for most rolls.
Automatic failure on the other hand makes perfect sense. No matter how good you are at something, you can always make mistakes. The OP's example about driving a car has the fundamental flaw that this is simply not a task that should ever require a roll. Even a novice driver doesn't have an accident once a week. If a task is so easy that literally noone should fail it regularily, there is no roll required. In contrast, if e.g. the guy in front of you suddenly slams on the breaks, you make a roll and no matter how experienced you are at driving, there is a chance you don't react in time.
Eh, automatic failure makes a limited amount of sense, but really the current iteration of D&D doesn't favor it. The capacity to make mistakes is covered by the d20, with your bonus partly covering your ability to then compensate for mistakes. DC, likewise, encompasses the capacity for the environment to induce failure. For most of the game, a DC 10 still has a hypothetical capacity for failure on most setups, but someone with Expertise can hit +10 by 4th level. It defeats the point of that feature if they are then still liable to fail at a task that by the numbers they should not be capable of failing 5% of the time. To use your car example, at DC 10 there's a window at which even a very competent regular driver (represented by +4 ability and +4 prof to the roll) cannot react in time, but someone with a background not just in everyday driving but defensive driving (represented by say +4 ability and +6 expertise proficiency) is considered to have the necessary skills that they will always react in time, although at DC 15 that window will now exist. Basically, that is to say that when you set a DC you are not only setting the threshold to succeed, but a threshold at which a certain skill level renders failure so remote that for the purposes of the game it is an impossibility.
If it isn't possible, it isn't possible, like my example of trying to pick an arcane lock. A critical success doesn't mean you can jump impossible gaps or hit targets that you otherwise can't. It means if there is a chance for success, you get it. If it's a DC 25 but you only have a +4 mod? Nat 20 makes up the difference. It doesn't mean you lockpick arcane locks, jump impossible distances, or suddenly damage foes with ineffective damage types. Otherwise the person could literally roll to Crack the world in half with their bare hands. The examples given by the counterpoints i have received are, "crit success allows this totally impossible thing to happen." No. It allows someone to go above and beyond their normal capabilities to the extent that someone trained in that ability could. Jumping a gap but your athletics sucks? Ask this, "could a reasonably stat'ed pc make the jump without flying or special abilities?" If literally nobody can do the thing then it doesn't matter what they roll, it's impossible. Like I said, critical success doesn't make you a god or alter reality, it allows you to simply perform at a higher level.
The point is that if your DC is 25, then succeeding with a modifier of +4 is in point of fact "totally impossible" using the printed and intended rules for ability checks. Therefore the critical success is indeed altering reality, because if it was possible to succeed with only a +4 then the DC would be 24. Going beyond one's capabilities is- by definition- impossible. Yes, it makes for a cool line when the protagonist defiantly declares that they are surpassing their limits or whatever in the face of a sneering villain, but unless they literally are rewriting reality via some magic/power to make the action possible, then in actuality all they are doing is showing that their limits are higher than was thought. Which does make a nice scene, but has nothing to do with the hard mechanics of ability scores as used in the D&D 5e system. If you choose to allow a nat 20 to exceed its printed capabilities- particularly in a case where no one in the party should be able to succeed on the roll- that is your prerogative, but in practical terms all that means is that your are lowering the DC of the check so that it equals the mod + 20.
If it isn't possible, it isn't possible, like my example of trying to pick an arcane lock. A critical success doesn't mean you can jump impossible gaps or hit targets that you otherwise can't. It means if there is a chance for success, you get it. If it's a DC 25 but you only have a +4 mod? Nat 20 makes up the difference. It doesn't mean you lockpick arcane locks, jump impossible distances, or suddenly damage foes with ineffective damage types. Otherwise the person could literally roll to Crack the world in half with their bare hands. The examples given by the counterpoints i have received are, "crit success allows this totally impossible thing to happen." No. It allows someone to go above and beyond their normal capabilities to the extent that someone trained in that ability could. Jumping a gap but your athletics sucks? Ask this, "could a reasonably stat'ed pc make the jump without flying or special abilities?" If literally nobody can do the thing then it doesn't matter what they roll, it's impossible. Like I said, critical success doesn't make you a god or alter reality, it allows you to simply perform at a higher level.
If it's not possible FOR A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, it's not possible for that individual. How doable it is for someone else doesn't impact that.
For example rock climbing: I am a somewhat experienced climber and usualy climb a 7a on the first try. For a 7c I need several tries. I never did an 8a but maybe it's possible but if I attempt to climb a 9a, I will NEVER make it (and certainly not 5% of the time). It's just not possible for me. For people like Adam Ondra or Alexander Megos, those routes aren't a big deal though. They might do them on the first try.
Another example: If I try to do an appendectomy, I will most likely kill the patient. For a surgeon this is one of the most routine procedures. Clearly, it is a possible task but simply not possible for me.
In game terms, automatic success might make sense in situations where the DC is just slightly to high for me (maybe 2,3 or even 5 but not 10). But then again this only shifts the impossible a bit further for the price of making everything more complicated (i.e., the DM has to decide whether a situation qualifies for automatic success being enabled)
Yep, automatic success doesn't make sense for most rolls.
Automatic failure on the other hand makes perfect sense. No matter how good you are at something, you can always make mistakes. The OP's example about driving a car has the fundamental flaw that this is simply not a task that should ever require a roll. Even a novice driver doesn't have an accident once a week. If a task is so easy that literally noone should fail it regularily, there is no roll required. In contrast, if e.g. the guy in front of you suddenly slams on the breaks, you make a roll and no matter how experienced you are at driving, there is a chance you don't react in time.
Eh, automatic failure makes a limited amount of sense, but really the current iteration of D&D doesn't favor it. The capacity to make mistakes is covered by the d20, with your bonus partly covering your ability to then compensate for mistakes. DC, likewise, encompasses the capacity for the environment to induce failure. For most of the game, a DC 10 still has a hypothetical capacity for failure on most setups, but someone with Expertise can hit +10 by 4th level. It defeats the point of that feature if they are then still liable to fail at a task that by the numbers they should not be capable of failing 5% of the time. To use your car example, at DC 10 there's a window at which even a very competent regular driver (represented by +4 ability and +4 prof to the roll) cannot react in time, but someone with a background not just in everyday driving but defensive driving (represented by say +4 ability and +6 expertise proficiency) is considered to have the necessary skills that they will always react in time, although at DC 15 that window will now exist. Basically, that is to say that when you set a DC you are not only setting the threshold to succeed, but a threshold at which a certain skill level renders failure so remote that for the purposes of the game it is an impossibility.
EVERYONE makes mistakes, no matter how experienced they are. Your defensive driving guy could look at his phone or be distracted by something going on on the boardwalk, sneeze in that same moment, etc. And none of these situations should be something the DM invents to increase the DC of the task, it's just coincidences that happen from time to time. Maybe 5% is a bit too often but I think it's still ok.
There are also ingame ways to mitigate that: Rogues have Reliable Talent reducing automatic failure to 0%, getting help grants you advantage which reduces it to 0.25%.
Consider a natural 1 or 20 indicating a character has an extraordinary result rather than a failure or success: give the character an extra 1d4 or 1d6 to subtract or add to their d20 to reflect the extraordinary outcome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm just going to say this and run off. In my personal experience by playing the game? Nat 1s and Nat 20s on skills really aren't a big deal. It just a thing that doesn't really impact play as much as some people think it does.
At least at my table. YMMV.
Overall not so much as its pretty rare a one wouldn't fail anyways or a 20 would not succeed anyways and on the 20 side lots of times its obvious and the people who would need a 20 might not try due to problems with the failure outcome. If you know the climb wall test is DC 20+ and failing means falling and taking damage or maybe even death at some levels you just wont make the attempt. And outside mid/high level builds who focus on it most tests will fail on a one anyways, there are some DC 5 tests like climbing a knotted rope etc and by some I mean that is literally the only DC5 test I ever remember being asked for or asking for. I'm sure there are some other very easy but not automatic tests out there but they have literally never come up for us. There have been no DC 5 door locks, no DC 5 persuasion attempts, no DC 5 balance tests etc as whenever that type of challenge is put in its meant to be a challenge, climbing is one of the few tests where the player will call for it and have a rules method of reducing the DC.
But when it does happen its either feels kind of dumb the 8 strength wizard just bent bars or lifted a portcullis after the raging barbarian failed, something similar can happen on lower DC tests as 5e put more weight on the d20 at all levels of play than previous editions which for me is a flaw but so be it, but it gets more absurd when it is something that probably should be beyond the 8 stat no skill dudes capabilities but within the normal range of the trained person. As here you are allowing a test, and you have a DC. Its one thing to say well a good DM wont give them a roll and its for anyone who would attempt the impossible, scaling a wall of force or something its another when you do allow it but then say, but not you. Or its irritating as hell for the person who spent so much time building their character to be the worlds greatest acrobat then to fail on a simple DC5 or DC10 test when they have +15 in that skill. So overall no it does not impact play very much, but when it does it sucks more often than it helps the game.
I myself often roll a lot of 1's and 20's, last time in person I rolled around 8 (1's) and 5 (20's) during out 6 hour sessions. It is one of the reasons I do not play halflings or often play classes that focus a lot on rerolling...as if I use those options all the time it makes my PC very unbalancing. I also realize this is not necessarily other players experience.
Again are there classes, spells and items that solve this issue in 5e? IMHO yes there are and it is why they are there.
In the past during the PFII playtest there was a very vocal group on this issue and after some posts to me it seemed like most of them played Ponyfinder a subset of PF and in general very different game then I have seen PF played. The simple idea to that group that you could fail seemed to be an issue as often they ascribed "text" in a way that was not reflected in the math of the rules. A clear example of that IMHO is on display above "My Goliath is supposed to ....." when that is not what the math says in the game. Please note I am not picking on the person who posted this and their opinion and experience is just as valid as mine but it is vastly different game if you and your group ascribe things that occur in text vs the math of the system. A will repeat an personal example "We just killed a dragon and now my PC is going to die by failing a climbing roll" I have also heard when talking to game designers "I want a system in which simply a person who climbs mount Everest means they do not have to make any climbing rolls. Me Why? Well because mount Everest is the tallest mountain and very difficult. Me Why do you think so? Well I read it. Me what did you read about it. And then they go on to list some very basic things without really understanding the difficulty of the entire trek.
Note somethings are binary you either are pregnant or you are not, you hit or you do not, you make a save or you do not and other things you can have varying degrees of success.
1 is a problem in my game: It seems people have this issue, I do not and the people I have played with and play with also do not, but I am glad that they can simply ignore the rule and rules like it. I do not think it is a huge issue or an issue that I would change the rules for in most cases. I would consider the change above if I was working with a vulnerable group in which my job was to promote confidence but I probably do it in a different way as in life problems occur and things do not happen like people and the experts think they would. A good example is the Thai Cave Rescue situation (there is a interesting miniseries on Amazon Prime and Netflix about this) and all of the setbacks and things they want to do but do not work.
Auto success just in a limited form can be bad in game as it can promote unrealistic expatiations in life. I do understand that people can be in a very tough situation in real life and when something happens in game it can seem to pile on (I have been there) but at the same time there are times it can do the opposite and help with those bad days. In the past game dev's have said I only want the good stuff and I often use an example of a drug that potentially only as good effects and no negative effects, then say what happens when the drug is taken away and is that experience worth taking the happy drug in the first place. Now think of real life and very few drugs have no negative side effects and a lot of drugs that are beneficial have potentially serious side effects.
Unless I missed it somewhere, the new UA no longer has nat 1/20 auto fail/success.
Yup its gone. I suspect versions of it and different crit systems will come and go over various play tests.
I disagree with this part. Why can't the barb know? I'm not a bee keeper or a biologist but I can name several flowers that bees prefer over others. I also know that they call each other "beeks". Sometimes people know weird things for the most arbitrary reasons. The barb doesn't have to be an expert in religion to have to hung out in a local pub with the sailors you mention in your post. Of course he's going to hear the sailors talk about some deity with meaning to them. Nat 20 just means he had extra chatty friends. "Umberlee? Ye, I know 'er. Me old mates back in me 'ome town would talk y'er ears off somm'in fierce I tell you..." You ever hang out with a vegan and walk passed the food court? You'll learn a lot of vegan facts regardless of your beliefs of preferences.
As a DM, if my barb rolled that nat 20, I'd give it to him. Some of my most favorite moments in sessions have been from the shenanigans that happen because of crazy 1's and 20's. Of course, a nat 20 isn't a license to do whatever they want, but I definitely believe that it's the DM's job to create a special award a for one and my players practically jump and shout when they get a 20 because they know something grand is coming.
Of course, I also believe that if you as the DM don't like the new rule, don't use it. Regardless of what me or my players like, at the end of the day, you only have to make sure that you and yours have fun.
Recalling trivia is not the same thing as being able to write out and apply an advanced mathematical model or understand the significance of certain arcane sigils in the context of a particular location or larger serquences. Your "beek" example would probably rate a DC 10 at most in the context of "trying to remember a particular buzzword to make someone think you're knowledgeable on a subject"; in contrast a DC 20 check might be to recognize not only that certain the various implements on a shipment list are significant to Umberlee, but that they're a part of a ritual to bring in some straight divine intervention from the deity, what components are still needed, and what the best way to stop the ritual is. Recognizing the implements is reasonable for pub gossip, but being able to extrapolate from that into their larger significance and how you can then interact with that requires a thorough comprehension of several different fields and the ability to think critically. Any characer with a -1 to Religion clearly does not have the background to put those pieces together unless you want to use the "idiot savant as comedic plot device/handwave" technique. High DC checks are high because they require some tangible edge in the area to be able to achieve them. Having a negative mod is the opposite of that, and so by definition those checks are unachievable by someone with that mod.
Wow I didn't think anyone would respond to this after over a year.
The most scholerly cleric I can find is a drow matron mother with a +9 to religion. As the rules stand a DC20 religion check is for a piece of information that someone who is very intelligent generally and has studied relgion extensively has a 50% chance of knowing / working out and an average intelligence barbarian has a 5% chance of having picked up somewhere. In reality I think that if something is known by 5% of commoners then an expert in the field is almost certain to know it but I will go with that. Now consider something of a DC30 this is supposed to be nearly immpossible like breaking out of dimensional shackles. With the Nat 20 auto success for a piece of information so obscure it it also impossible to know not only does the Drow Matron mother have 5% chance of knowing it so does every commoner. If you want ot find it out go into a pub and ask everyone, someone will know the answer.
Linking a critical success or failure to a specific value on a d20 removes agency from the player-character and eliminates the difficulty of the challenge.
An alternative idea is to provide a skill check with a DC value and include relative values that address critical success and failure. For example, replace a critical occurring a natural 1 or 20 on a d20 with a critical success of being greater than the DC by +10 (+5 or +20) and a critical failure of being less than the DC by -10 (-5 or -20). Adding the criteria for a critical success or failure gives the player-character a decision to make because something is at risk.
I should rephrase slightly. The barb knowing everything, no, but I've never heard of any DM going, "Ok, roll to see if you know every single detail there is about this one goddess." A critical success is passing the roll regardless of DC/modifiers, it doesn't mean that the DM just hands over their notes.
A better example would be, say, lockpicking. You attempt to pick the lock, you nat 20, the lock opens if it is possible to unlock with a pick set. If it cannot be picked (for instance, some kind of magic or damage to the lock prevents it), then the roll doesn't matter because the lock can't be opened by mundane means. A critical success/failure isn't "you are now god" it's, "You managed to fluke forward and pass the check." On a religion check, that could be just one or two extra little facts or "trivia" about the goddess. That doesn't mean you have to know *every* fact, just that you passed the check.
I do realize my wording in my post was poor on this aspect of it. I'm not advocating a nat 20 is equivalent to becoming a momentary god, but it should be an automatic success/extra bonus. Even one extra fact is a boon. It's a 5% chance that the players get to be awesome for one thing for a moment.
Again, I also reiterate that this is my personal style of DM'ing and that I think all styles, even those that don't use critical success/failure is valid. It's the fact that we all DM different ways that make each experience unique and fun for our players.
The issue with the concept of "guaranteed success" is that it either undercuts immersion by allowing things that should not be possible to occur- such as a -1 mod character succeeding on a DC 30 check- or undercuts the sense of player agency because the DM needs to be more tightfisted in rolls as opposed to taking the "you can certainly try" approach lest they find themselves obliged/pressured to let something that should not be possible happen because of the nat 20. A nat 20 on any roll means that a character is succeeding to the best of their ability. This is in much the same way that rolling a nat 20 with a non-magic weapon won't suddenly allow that CR 1/8 town guard to harm a Lich; yes they struck perfectly, but that doesn't change the fact that the creature cannot be affected by their weapon.
Regarding the example of Religion checks, a DC 20 check is not about recalling trivia; DC 20 represents a Hard task, and by explicit design in the DMG it is supposed to call for having both proficiency and a high ability score to give the character favorable odds of success. The hypothecial Barbarian with a -1 to the roll is therefore the exact opposite of what is called for, and so there is no logical reason why they should have the capacity to outright succeed in the task. Partially succeed and get some hint or mitigate something about their circumstance, sure, but the purpose of using 20+ DC's is specifically to gate whatever action is being attempted so that the characters are reliant on their ability mod rather than a favorable die roll to succeed.
I'm sure there are some skills where you can accident your way to success no matter the difficulty, like perhaps a lock pick test though I suspect not 5% of the time. But I will never clear a 25 foots gap no matter how many times I try to make the leap in my current condition, and certainly not 5% of the time. I wont bust out advanced math skills 5% of the time, I wont answer detailed philosophy questions from a religion even if I know some quirks about it, I mean I saw the book of mormon on broadway I now clearly can answer deep questions about the referenced religion. Most skills will have aspects in them that can only be answered by someone trained and tasks that can only be done by an expert.
Yep, automatic success doesn't make sense for most rolls.
Automatic failure on the other hand makes perfect sense. No matter how good you are at something, you can always make mistakes. The OP's example about driving a car has the fundamental flaw that this is simply not a task that should ever require a roll. Even a novice driver doesn't have an accident once a week. If a task is so easy that literally noone should fail it regularily, there is no roll required. In contrast, if e.g. the guy in front of you suddenly slams on the breaks, you make a roll and no matter how experienced you are at driving, there is a chance you don't react in time.
If it isn't possible, it isn't possible, like my example of trying to pick an arcane lock. A critical success doesn't mean you can jump impossible gaps or hit targets that you otherwise can't. It means if there is a chance for success, you get it. If it's a DC 25 but you only have a +4 mod? Nat 20 makes up the difference. It doesn't mean you lockpick arcane locks, jump impossible distances, or suddenly damage foes with ineffective damage types. Otherwise the person could literally roll to Crack the world in half with their bare hands. The examples given by the counterpoints i have received are, "crit success allows this totally impossible thing to happen." No. It allows someone to go above and beyond their normal capabilities to the extent that someone trained in that ability could. Jumping a gap but your athletics sucks? Ask this, "could a reasonably stat'ed pc make the jump without flying or special abilities?" If literally nobody can do the thing then it doesn't matter what they roll, it's impossible. Like I said, critical success doesn't make you a god or alter reality, it allows you to simply perform at a higher level.
Eh, automatic failure makes a limited amount of sense, but really the current iteration of D&D doesn't favor it. The capacity to make mistakes is covered by the d20, with your bonus partly covering your ability to then compensate for mistakes. DC, likewise, encompasses the capacity for the environment to induce failure. For most of the game, a DC 10 still has a hypothetical capacity for failure on most setups, but someone with Expertise can hit +10 by 4th level. It defeats the point of that feature if they are then still liable to fail at a task that by the numbers they should not be capable of failing 5% of the time. To use your car example, at DC 10 there's a window at which even a very competent regular driver (represented by +4 ability and +4 prof to the roll) cannot react in time, but someone with a background not just in everyday driving but defensive driving (represented by say +4 ability and +6 expertise proficiency) is considered to have the necessary skills that they will always react in time, although at DC 15 that window will now exist. Basically, that is to say that when you set a DC you are not only setting the threshold to succeed, but a threshold at which a certain skill level renders failure so remote that for the purposes of the game it is an impossibility.
The point is that if your DC is 25, then succeeding with a modifier of +4 is in point of fact "totally impossible" using the printed and intended rules for ability checks. Therefore the critical success is indeed altering reality, because if it was possible to succeed with only a +4 then the DC would be 24. Going beyond one's capabilities is- by definition- impossible. Yes, it makes for a cool line when the protagonist defiantly declares that they are surpassing their limits or whatever in the face of a sneering villain, but unless they literally are rewriting reality via some magic/power to make the action possible, then in actuality all they are doing is showing that their limits are higher than was thought. Which does make a nice scene, but has nothing to do with the hard mechanics of ability scores as used in the D&D 5e system. If you choose to allow a nat 20 to exceed its printed capabilities- particularly in a case where no one in the party should be able to succeed on the roll- that is your prerogative, but in practical terms all that means is that your are lowering the DC of the check so that it equals the mod + 20.
If it's not possible FOR A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, it's not possible for that individual. How doable it is for someone else doesn't impact that.
For example rock climbing: I am a somewhat experienced climber and usualy climb a 7a on the first try. For a 7c I need several tries. I never did an 8a but maybe it's possible but if I attempt to climb a 9a, I will NEVER make it (and certainly not 5% of the time). It's just not possible for me. For people like Adam Ondra or Alexander Megos, those routes aren't a big deal though. They might do them on the first try.
Another example: If I try to do an appendectomy, I will most likely kill the patient. For a surgeon this is one of the most routine procedures. Clearly, it is a possible task but simply not possible for me.
In game terms, automatic success might make sense in situations where the DC is just slightly to high for me (maybe 2,3 or even 5 but not 10). But then again this only shifts the impossible a bit further for the price of making everything more complicated (i.e., the DM has to decide whether a situation qualifies for automatic success being enabled)
EVERYONE makes mistakes, no matter how experienced they are. Your defensive driving guy could look at his phone or be distracted by something going on on the boardwalk, sneeze in that same moment, etc. And none of these situations should be something the DM invents to increase the DC of the task, it's just coincidences that happen from time to time. Maybe 5% is a bit too often but I think it's still ok.
There are also ingame ways to mitigate that: Rogues have Reliable Talent reducing automatic failure to 0%, getting help grants you advantage which reduces it to 0.25%.
Consider a natural 1 or 20 indicating a character has an extraordinary result rather than a failure or success: give the character an extra 1d4 or 1d6 to subtract or add to their d20 to reflect the extraordinary outcome.