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.
you don't have to fear nat 20s or nat 1s on skill checks if you only call a roll when 20 + mod would beat the DC without additional numbers and if failure is an (interesting) option. you're the dm: set the DC and stick to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Ok, so to the people saying it is totally impossible if your mod is too low, it is not "totally impossible" it is "beyond your current abilities". Totally impossible implies that no matter what your character does now or ever, they will not achieve this. So no, a too-small mod is not totally impossible but simply currently so. There is a difference. Totally impossible means that no amount of training/studying would make it possible.
The rock climbing example. You are climbing as a hobby and aiming for improving your ability. There is now a horde of orcs in the canyon. Your option is to die or climb. You are now adrenaline filled and determined to live. You're going to climb regardless of numbers given. You may make it, you probably won't, but the sliver of hope is enough to make you try.
The appendectomy example. The world has now ended. Society has collapsed. Your wife/husband/child is developing appendicitis. You know roughly that the appendix is located in the right side of the abdomen, how to sew, and very basic sterilization techniques. They will die if you do nothing. No one is coming. There is nobody to go to. You are alone and they will die. Do you watch their inevitable death or try? You'll probably fail. The odds are heavily stacked against you and you're pressed for time. But maybe, just maybe, they will survive if you try. It won't be a perfect surgery by any means, but would you really say, "I'm no surgeon so... sucks to suck I guess. Die with dignity wifey"?
And to the comment that it makes it hard for the DM, if you have a hard time separating, "yea, that'd be possible for someone with training" and, "no amount of training would make that possible", like I've said, don't use the rule. Personally, I find it easy to quickly judge whether or not something can be "fluked forward". If it is skill based and can be acquired through training, it can be fluked forward. If it requires a special ability, magic, or something to that effect, it can't.
And, again, I'm a big advocate for "play your way". I'm not "right" about using critical success/failure. I just prefer to. I'm also not saying you should be required to. I just think it adds more "unpredictability of life" to the game and makes for some awesome moments.
Ok, so to the people saying it is totally impossible if your mod is too low, it is not "totally impossible" it is "beyond your current abilities". Totally impossible implies that no matter what your character does now or ever, they will not achieve this. So no, a too-small mod is not totally impossible but simply currently so. There is a difference. Totally impossible means that no amount of training/studying would make it possible.
The rock climbing example. You are climbing as a hobby and aiming for improving your ability. There is now a horde of orcs in the canyon. Your option is to die or climb. You are now adrenaline filled and determined to live. You're going to climb regardless of numbers given. You may make it, you probably won't, but the sliver of hope is enough to make you try...
you've reached the top of the canyon. but, wait: there are more orcs up here! also the orcs below have adrenaline too and are right behind you! now you must fly away. you are going to fly regardless of the odds. you may not make it, you probably won't, the warning label on your trusty umbrella says you shouldn't even contemplate it, but the buzz of adrenaline is enough to make you try...
...are we okay with flying being totally beyond their abilities? i mean, they do have that umbrella. in the previous mention of rock climbing AffenWiesel said that a climb beyond their abilities is a climb beyond their abilities. then orcs came and suddenly impossible had to be reevaluated. but Affen didn't say impossible unless they tried real hard. rather than flying we could have instead attempted to speedily seduce a dragon or operate an arcane lock on baba yaga's house or convince a herd of goats to turn and fight. all impossible unless the one telling the story decides to reduce the DC for reasons... which is exactly what mentioning the adrenaline factor is doing in this narrative. however, if you're inventing new ways for them to defy their fate, then why even let the dice decide? if we're fishing for a critical, 95% of the time you've just given them hope only to dash it upon the rocks.
...The appendectomy example. The world has now ended. Society has collapsed. Your wife/husband/child is developing appendicitis. You know roughly that the appendix is located in the right side of the abdomen, how to sew, and very basic sterilization techniques. They will die if you do nothing. No one is coming. There is nobody to go to. You are alone and they will die. Do you watch their inevitable death or try? You'll probably fail. The odds are heavily stacked against you and you're pressed for time. But maybe, just maybe, they will survive if you try. It won't be a perfect surgery by any means, but would you really say, "I'm no surgeon so... sucks to suck I guess. Die with dignity wifey"?
And to the comment that it makes it hard for the DM, if you have a hard time separating, "yea, that'd be possible for someone with training" and, "no amount of training would make that possible", like I've said, don't use the rule. Personally, I find it easy to quickly judge whether or not something can be "fluked forward". If it is skill based and can be acquired through training, it can be fluked forward. If it requires a special ability, magic, or something to that effect, it can't.
And, again, I'm a big advocate for "play your way". I'm not "right" about using critical success/failure. I just prefer to. I'm also not saying you should be required to. I just think it adds more "unpredictability of life" to the game and makes for some awesome moments.
just to point out: the person in your example isn't completely without training. like a player describing their methods in order to influence the final DC, you mention sewing and sterilization. also, they've diagnosed the problem which is a huge step! this isn't an example of an impossible task relying on a miracle, this sounds like a series of high but achievable DC checks.
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%.
While true its usually not enough to fail 5% of the time. If you are so good at something a 1 result would be good enough but you could still possibly in reality bone it up enough to fail the question becomes is a 5% chance showing that better or worse for the game when on a practical scale the odds are more 1% or .1% I generally think no, it does not add to the game as 5% comes up to often. Would anyone mountain climb if 5% of the time you fell to your death,
Ok, so to the people saying it is totally impossible if your mod is too low, it is not "totally impossible" it is "beyond your current abilities". Totally impossible implies that no matter what your character does now or ever, they will not achieve this. So no, a too-small mod is not totally impossible but simply currently so. There is a difference. Totally impossible means that no amount of training/studying would make it possible.
The rock climbing example. You are climbing as a hobby and aiming for improving your ability. There is now a horde of orcs in the canyon. Your option is to die or climb. You are now adrenaline filled and determined to live. You're going to climb regardless of numbers given. You may make it, you probably won't, but the sliver of hope is enough to make you try.
The appendectomy example. The world has now ended. Society has collapsed. Your wife/husband/child is developing appendicitis. You know roughly that the appendix is located in the right side of the abdomen, how to sew, and very basic sterilization techniques. They will die if you do nothing. No one is coming. There is nobody to go to. You are alone and they will die. Do you watch their inevitable death or try? You'll probably fail. The odds are heavily stacked against you and you're pressed for time. But maybe, just maybe, they will survive if you try. It won't be a perfect surgery by any means, but would you really say, "I'm no surgeon so... sucks to suck I guess. Die with dignity wifey"?
And to the comment that it makes it hard for the DM, if you have a hard time separating, "yea, that'd be possible for someone with training" and, "no amount of training would make that possible", like I've said, don't use the rule. Personally, I find it easy to quickly judge whether or not something can be "fluked forward". If it is skill based and can be acquired through training, it can be fluked forward. If it requires a special ability, magic, or something to that effect, it can't.
And, again, I'm a big advocate for "play your way". I'm not "right" about using critical success/failure. I just prefer to. I'm also not saying you should be required to. I just think it adds more "unpredictability of life" to the game and makes for some awesome moments.
Of course it means "impossible with your current ability score". That was clearly implied. But that still means a nat 20 shouldn't change the fact that you cant succeed on the given task right now. Maybe increase some levels and then give it another try.
You are also mixing up different things here: Not having a chance at success doesn't imply that you don't try to do it. The character in game also doesn't even know that the DC is too high...
If the only way out of the canyon is a 45 degrees overhanging wall where the only handholds are shallow one and two finger pockets (this is how a 9a looks like) then I would probably try fighting the orcs. I mean climbing something like this is not about being scared of falling it's just that I won't even get a second foot in the wall. It is more likely that I defeat 500 orcs with my bare hands (this is not an exaggeration).
The surgery example: I would definitely try. But the outcome would still be their death. I don't even know how an appendix looks like, or how to remove it. Me saving the patiens live is not just unlikely it is pretty much impossible. If you allow a 5% chance to succeed in such a scenario, you might as well allow rolls for stuff that is not just beyond my capabilities but flat out impossible, like jumping up a skyscraper.
Regarding it being hard for the DM: You misunderstood my point! I didn't say that the DM has to distinguish between impossible tasks and tasks that are just very hard. I meant that the DM has to allow Adam Ondra a roll to climb out of that canyon, whereas he shouldn't allow me a 5% chance to make a climb that is simply impossible for me at the current status of my climbing skills.
While true its usually not enough to fail 5% of the time. If you are so good at something a 1 result would be good enough but you could still possibly in reality bone it up enough to fail the question becomes is a 5% chance showing that better or worse for the game when on a practical scale the odds are more 1% or .1% I generally think no, it does not add to the game as 5% comes up to often. Would anyone mountain climb if 5% of the time you fell to your death,
As I said, 5% may be a bit too high but using a d20, this is the finest discretization we get...
Also, it is only a rare few people who do rock climbing without ropes. So falling to your death is not the typical outcome of a failed roll. And while I would agree that 5% falling when doing an easy climb (easy for you at your current skill level) seems a bit much, I'd still say it's probably more than 1%. You can have a muscle cramp, or a foothold breaks, etc. Apart from falling, a failed roll could btw. also just mean that you are too exhausted and can't continue the climb. Or that you realize that the next handhold is too far away or you simply cant figure out how to do the next move. I failed on many climbing routes and boulder problems in my life and falling is not the most common type of failure.
While true its usually not enough to fail 5% of the time. If you are so good at something a 1 result would be good enough but you could still possibly in reality bone it up enough to fail the question becomes is a 5% chance showing that better or worse for the game when on a practical scale the odds are more 1% or .1% I generally think no, it does not add to the game as 5% comes up to often. Would anyone mountain climb if 5% of the time you fell to your death,
As I said, 5% may be a bit too high but using a d20, this is the finest discretization we get...
Also, it is only a rare few people who do rock climbing without ropes. So falling to your death is not the typical outcome of a failed roll. And while I would agree that 5% falling when doing an easy climb (easy for you at your current skill level) seems a bit much, I'd still say it's probably more than 1%. You can have a muscle cramp, or a foothold breaks, etc. Apart from falling, a failed roll could btw. also just mean that you are too exhausted and can't continue the climb. Or that you realize that the next handhold is too far away or you simply cant figure out how to do the next move. I failed on many climbing routes and boulder problems in my life and falling is not the most common type of failure.
Sure today, we have the safety procedures to protect you. But D&D does not have them in most circumstances. You aren't making a prepared climb up a mountain, you are quickly scaling the wall, hill etc. And D&D generally does not have grades of success or failure,(though I think they do build them in for climb in some scenarios I've read at least fail) failing a climb check means a fall, not a slip, not a don't make progress it means plummet down. I'd love some kind of success/fail levels where maybe a 1 that was a success was considered one stage lower on success a 20 one stage higher. So like maybe for every 5 you beat/miss a DC by it added something to it. And lets say you have a DC 25 climb, no skill, 10 str guy rolls a 20 and they get something like a partial success result, or if the DC is 10 and your min result is a 12 a 1 turns your success into a partial success/minor fail.
But alas that does not exist, and I'm left thinking a 5% chance makes the game worse for a catastrophic fail result to pop up.
Ok, so to the people saying it is totally impossible if your mod is too low, it is not "totally impossible" it is "beyond your current abilities". Totally impossible implies that no matter what your character does now or ever, they will not achieve this. So no, a too-small mod is not totally impossible but simply currently so. There is a difference. Totally impossible means that no amount of training/studying would make it possible.
The rock climbing example. You are climbing as a hobby and aiming for improving your ability. There is now a horde of orcs in the canyon. Your option is to die or climb. You are now adrenaline filled and determined to live. You're going to climb regardless of numbers given. You may make it, you probably won't, but the sliver of hope is enough to make you try...
you've reached the top of the canyon. but, wait: there are more orcs up here! also the orcs below have adrenaline too and are right behind you! now you must fly away. you are going to fly regardless of the odds. you may not make it, you probably won't, the warning label on your trusty umbrella says you shouldn't even contemplate it, but the buzz of adrenaline is enough to make you try...
...are we okay with flying being totally beyond their abilities? i mean, they do have that umbrella. in the previous mention of rock climbing AffenWiesel said that a climb beyond their abilities is a climb beyond their abilities. then orcs came and suddenly impossible had to be reevaluated. but Affen didn't say impossible unless they tried real hard. rather than flying we could have instead attempted to speedily seduce a dragon or operate an arcane lock on baba yaga's house or convince a herd of goats to turn and fight. all impossible unless the one telling the story decides to reduce the DC for reasons... which is exactly what mentioning the adrenaline factor is doing in this narrative. however, if you're inventing new ways for them to defy their fate, then why even let the dice decide? if we're fishing for a critical, 95% of the time you've just given them hope only to dash it upon the rocks.
...The appendectomy example. The world has now ended. Society has collapsed. Your wife/husband/child is developing appendicitis. You know roughly that the appendix is located in the right side of the abdomen, how to sew, and very basic sterilization techniques. They will die if you do nothing. No one is coming. There is nobody to go to. You are alone and they will die. Do you watch their inevitable death or try? You'll probably fail. The odds are heavily stacked against you and you're pressed for time. But maybe, just maybe, they will survive if you try. It won't be a perfect surgery by any means, but would you really say, "I'm no surgeon so... sucks to suck I guess. Die with dignity wifey"?
And to the comment that it makes it hard for the DM, if you have a hard time separating, "yea, that'd be possible for someone with training" and, "no amount of training would make that possible", like I've said, don't use the rule. Personally, I find it easy to quickly judge whether or not something can be "fluked forward". If it is skill based and can be acquired through training, it can be fluked forward. If it requires a special ability, magic, or something to that effect, it can't.
And, again, I'm a big advocate for "play your way". I'm not "right" about using critical success/failure. I just prefer to. I'm also not saying you should be required to. I just think it adds more "unpredictability of life" to the game and makes for some awesome moments.
just to point out: the person in your example isn't completely without training. like a player describing their methods in order to influence the final DC, you mention sewing and sterilization. also, they've diagnosed the problem which is a huge step! this isn't an example of an impossible task relying on a miracle, this sounds like a series of high but achievable DC checks.
Your example about flying is, once again, inflating things. Every character can climb. That is a fact. They may not climb well but every character is physically capable of climbing. Your flying jab just proves my point. If the character is entirely unable to fly, they can't attempt it. They are simply jumping and delusional then. However, sometimes we climb better and sometimes we don't. "Beginners luck" is a common phrase for a reason, but attempting to fly on a character that can't fly shouldn't even be a roll. At best, you should describe the character flapping their arms like a chicken and looking ridiculous.
And as to the surgery again, the player declaring they do all of these steps that their character would have no training in or expectation of knowledge of is just describing the "impossible" for their character but you count it. The player knowing that has no effect on the character's knowledge. You climbing in real life doesn't make your character climb better just because you can describe how you, the player, would use techniques to climb. You allow it because you like that style of play but that could be easily argued as metagaming because, "your 11 wis pc knows about sterilization and the general location of the appendix?" What if your player is a surgeon for real but plays an 8 wis barb but perfectly describes the exact technique for an appendectomy? Are you going to say they can't do it? But you just allowed the other player to do that exact thing; just because the surgeon described it better, it's suddenly not allowed? Or do they get the same adjustment as the limited description I gave? Then why did the description matter beyond the very basics? And both cases are still meta information used in game. So metagaming is now preferable to having a stroke of good luck?
We are both stretching reality for our players because allowing the slightly out of reach to be achievable is often fun. Critical success also allows players with less real knowledge or trouble explaining steps to have cool moments, not just the ones that can role-play better. I'm not saying you shouldn't consider what a player describes, I'm just pointing out that you're drawing arbitrary lines.
Also, if the climb is "entirely impossible" the roll shouldn't be done. I can guarantee you, "the cliff is clearly unclimbable" is better than, "sure roll... you got nat 20? Sucks to suck. You're still not good enough."
Also, if the climb is "entirely impossible" the roll shouldn't be done. I can guarantee you, "the cliff is clearly unclimbable" is better than, "sure roll... you got nat 20? Sucks to suck. You're still not good enough."
That’s the point though. Some things are impossible unless you have had special training to give you the required abilities. And no luck can change that. If I give an average ten year old a graduate level math exam, they won’t be able to pass it although they do know elementary math. That is literally the same thing as if a character without wings tries to fly. Neither flying nor passing a math exam are impossible but they are impossible for the individuals in those examples.
Also, if the climb is "entirely impossible" the roll shouldn't be done. I can guarantee you, "the cliff is clearly unclimbable" is better than, "sure roll... you got nat 20? Sucks to suck. You're still not good enough."
That’s the point though. Some things are impossible unless you have had special training to give you the required abilities. And no luck can change that. If I give an average ten year old a graduate level math exam, they won’t be able to pass it although they do know elementary math. That is literally the same thing as if a character without wings tries to fly. Neither flying nor passing a math exam are impossible but they are impossible for the individuals in those examples.
Except your ten year old can correctly guess the answers. Statistically unlikely but not impossible. Impossible means that if an infinite amount of attempts were made, the outcome would never change. If a ten year old had infinite time to make infinite guesses, they would eventually guess correctly, meaning it isn't impossible, just statistically unlikely. This leans heavily on a scientific theory called "The Infinite Monkey Theorem".
Also, if the climb is "entirely impossible" the roll shouldn't be done. I can guarantee you, "the cliff is clearly unclimbable" is better than, "sure roll... you got nat 20? Sucks to suck. You're still not good enough."
That’s the point though. Some things are impossible unless you have had special training to give you the required abilities. And no luck can change that. If I give an average ten year old a graduate level math exam, they won’t be able to pass it although they do know elementary math. That is literally the same thing as if a character without wings tries to fly. Neither flying nor passing a math exam are impossible but they are impossible for the individuals in those examples.
Except your ten year old can correctly guess the answers. Statistically unlikely but not impossible. Impossible means that if an infinite amount of attempts were made, the outcome would never change. If a ten year old had infinite time to make infinite guesses, they would eventually guess correctly, meaning it isn't impossible, just statistically unlikely. This leans heavily on a scientific theory called "The Infinite Monkey Theorem".
Yes, but if a natural 20 on a die roll is a success, the one in a million (or more) chance is turned into a one in 20. I could see a natural 20 providing something like the character trying to perform a dangerous task that is essentially impossible for them somehow avoiding hurting or killing themselves in the attempt. Or with the medical example, they may do enough good to stabilize the patient and give them an extra period of time to get to a real doctor, but actual full-blown success is way too likely if it is provided a 5% chance on a nearly impossible task. A one in twenty chance cannot even come close to reflecting this difficulty.
I am ok with a 1% chance being approximated by 5%. But a ten year old randomly writing words they’ve never heard and symbols they’ve never seen before on an exam sheet that happen to be the correct answers is just so close to zero that you might as well allow a 5% chance that a character spontaneously gains the ability to fly. Who knows maybe a wizard on another plane just cast Fly and somehow the spell was redirected to the prime material targeting the player. It is unlikely but could happen.
So, mechanically, the thing about critical successes and failures is that they create arbitrary instances of favoritism or sabotage, respectively. Purely looking at the numbers, if you allow critical successes then someone with a -1 can succeed on a DC 20 with a nat 20 when someone with a +7 will fail on a 12, and likewise someone with a +9 can fail on a 1 for a DC 10 check while someone with +8 will succeed on a 2, despite both cases producing the same net roll. If you want to maintain the possibility of failure or success on a given roll for the entire party, simply assign the DC accordingly from the outset. Nat 1’s only serve to punitively cheat someone who specifically built their character to excel in whatever field they’re rolling in, while nat 20’s arbitrarily reward people attempting rolls that go against their character.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the player having a moment of great or terrible luck is a thing to be excited or stricken about and so I make it something worth celebrating by giving that player something impactful.
If i don't want a player to be capable of a feat, I simply narrate it as such or make it a multi-step process. A nat 20 being just a 20 makes the roll unexciting. Instead of hype and an awesome player moment you get "20 plus mod is blah blah. Is that enough?" And if that's a no, the player feels like they wasted time doing something pointless. There was no reality in which they would be allowed to do it so why even try? It discourages unconventional plans because you're telling them to "stay in their lane".
And if you really want to lower the 5% success rate, introduce multiple steps. Roll to convince the teacher you're even a student. Now roll to attempt the test. You just turned 5% into 0.25%. Add another step and it's now 0.000125% just because of three steps. Surgery? Roll to cut, find appendix, remove appendix, and suture. 0.00000625% of critical success. Simply telling players "even your best isn't good enough" doesn't feel good to me. But telling them it would be insanely difficult to pull off makes it a situation where they weigh the risk/reward.
Also, if the climb is "entirely impossible" the roll shouldn't be done. I can guarantee you, "the cliff is clearly unclimbable" is better than, "sure roll... you got nat 20? Sucks to suck. You're still not good enough."
That’s the point though. Some things are impossible unless you have had special training to give you the required abilities. And no luck can change that. If I give an average ten year old a graduate level math exam, they won’t be able to pass it although they do know elementary math. That is literally the same thing as if a character without wings tries to fly. Neither flying nor passing a math exam are impossible but they are impossible for the individuals in those examples.
Except your ten year old can correctly guess the answers. Statistically unlikely but not impossible. Impossible means that if an infinite amount of attempts were made, the outcome would never change. If a ten year old had infinite time to make infinite guesses, they would eventually guess correctly, meaning it isn't impossible, just statistically unlikely. This leans heavily on a scientific theory called "The Infinite Monkey Theorem".
Yes, but if a natural 20 on a die roll is a success, the one in a million (or more) chance is turned into a one in 20. I could see a natural 20 providing something like the character trying to perform a dangerous task that is essentially impossible for them somehow avoiding hurting or killing themselves in the attempt. Or with the medical example, they may do enough good to stabilize the patient and give them an extra period of time to get to a real doctor, but actual full-blown success is way too likely if it is provided a 5% chance on a nearly impossible task. A one in twenty chance cannot even come close to reflecting this difficulty.
And your medical example is valid here. You don't have to give them the entire thing but giving them that small win is a huge thing. "Congrats, you managed to stabilize them" is a thousand times better than, "nah, impossible. " Critical success doesn't mean flawless victory, it means beating the odds, even if beating the odds is just buying time to find a real doctor.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the player having a moment of great or terrible luck is a thing to be excited or stricken about and so I make it something worth celebrating by giving that player something impactful.
If i don't want a player to be capable of a feat, I simply narrate it as such or make it a multi-step process. A nat 20 being just a 20 makes the roll unexciting. Instead of hype and an awesome player moment you get "20 plus mod is blah blah. Is that enough?" And if that's a no, the player feels like they wasted time doing something pointless. There was no reality in which they would be allowed to do it so why even try? It discourages unconventional plans because you're telling them to "stay in their lane".
And if you really want to lower the 5% success rate, introduce multiple steps. Roll to convince the teacher you're even a student. Now roll to attempt the test. You just turned 5% into 0.25%. Add another step and it's now 0.000125% just because of three steps. Surgery? Roll to cut, find appendix, remove appendix, and suture. 0.00000625% of critical success. Simply telling players "even your best isn't good enough" doesn't feel good to me. But telling them it would be insanely difficult to pull off makes it a situation where they weigh the risk/reward.
I will certainly agree, if you set up a nearly impossible task in such a way that they have to essentially roll multiple natural 20s in a row, this is a good way to run the situation (and even allow such natural 20s to individually provide some minor but concrete progress towards the goal). Up until now, I don't believe that you had made this clear in how you would run the situation, so it certainly makes better sense to me knowing this. Of course, as a player, I would certainly try to find pretty much any other route to success if I knew I was going to need to roll at least three or for natural 20s in a row to actually succeed.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the player having a moment of great or terrible luck is a thing to be excited or stricken about and so I make it something worth celebrating by giving that player something impactful.
If i don't want a player to be capable of a feat, I simply narrate it as such or make it a multi-step process. A nat 20 being just a 20 makes the roll unexciting. Instead of hype and an awesome player moment you get "20 plus mod is blah blah. Is that enough?" And if that's a no, the player feels like they wasted time doing something pointless. There was no reality in which they would be allowed to do it so why even try? It discourages unconventional plans because you're telling them to "stay in their lane".
And if you really want to lower the 5% success rate, introduce multiple steps. Roll to convince the teacher you're even a student. Now roll to attempt the test. You just turned 5% into 0.25%. Add another step and it's now 0.000125% just because of three steps. Surgery? Roll to cut, find appendix, remove appendix, and suture. 0.00000625% of critical success. Simply telling players "even your best isn't good enough" doesn't feel good to me. But telling them it would be insanely difficult to pull off makes it a situation where they weigh the risk/reward.
I actually like this idea. Instead of coming up with specific rules on how many nat 20s are requred for each situation, I would probably generalize it to the following:
* Instead of auto success, a nat 20 gives you a second attempt to the roll where the DC is lowered by 5.
* Instead of auto failure, a nat 1 requires you to make a second roll where the DC is increased by 5.
Both potentially applied recursively, in case the second roll being another nat 20 or 1.
This way both the chance of failing on trivial tasks and succeeding nigh impossible ones is still there but it actually happening scales with your modifier.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the player having a moment of great or terrible luck is a thing to be excited or stricken about and so I make it something worth celebrating by giving that player something impactful.
If i don't want a player to be capable of a feat, I simply narrate it as such or make it a multi-step process. A nat 20 being just a 20 makes the roll unexciting. Instead of hype and an awesome player moment you get "20 plus mod is blah blah. Is that enough?" And if that's a no, the player feels like they wasted time doing something pointless. There was no reality in which they would be allowed to do it so why even try? It discourages unconventional plans because you're telling them to "stay in their lane".
And if you really want to lower the 5% success rate, introduce multiple steps. Roll to convince the teacher you're even a student. Now roll to attempt the test. You just turned 5% into 0.25%. Add another step and it's now 0.000125% just because of three steps. Surgery? Roll to cut, find appendix, remove appendix, and suture. 0.00000625% of critical success. Simply telling players "even your best isn't good enough" doesn't feel good to me. But telling them it would be insanely difficult to pull off makes it a situation where they weigh the risk/reward.
I'd say the thing is that you're assuming a nat 20 must have a hard bonus, instead of a soft one. Keep in mind that skill checks are not required to be a binary pass/fail check. If you want to make a nat 20 success feel special, add some extra flair to the narration or work in a bonus in whatever they were trying to achieve.
And regarding adding extra steps, the thing is that if you're only adding them because someone who should have failed didn't because they rolled a 20, then we're returning to the point where the goalposts are being arbitrarily moved and arguably running counter to your idea that a nat 20 should feel special, because now it looks like you're just trying to go back on giving the player the option to succeed. Just telling them outright "your best wasn't good enough" honestly seems more honest than "I'm gonna ask you to try for a second nat 20 in a row now, almost certainly resulting in you ultimately failing despite making it seem like you were going to succeed".
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the player having a moment of great or terrible luck is a thing to be excited or stricken about and so I make it something worth celebrating by giving that player something impactful.
If i don't want a player to be capable of a feat, I simply narrate it as such or make it a multi-step process. A nat 20 being just a 20 makes the roll unexciting. Instead of hype and an awesome player moment you get "20 plus mod is blah blah. Is that enough?" And if that's a no, the player feels like they wasted time doing something pointless. There was no reality in which they would be allowed to do it so why even try? It discourages unconventional plans because you're telling them to "stay in their lane".
And if you really want to lower the 5% success rate, introduce multiple steps. Roll to convince the teacher you're even a student. Now roll to attempt the test. You just turned 5% into 0.25%. Add another step and it's now 0.000125% just because of three steps. Surgery? Roll to cut, find appendix, remove appendix, and suture. 0.00000625% of critical success. Simply telling players "even your best isn't good enough" doesn't feel good to me. But telling them it would be insanely difficult to pull off makes it a situation where they weigh the risk/reward.
I'd say the thing is that you're assuming a nat 20 must have a hard bonus, instead of a soft one. Keep in mind that skill checks are not required to be a binary pass/fail check. If you want to make a nat 20 success feel special, add some extra flair to the narration or work in a bonus in whatever they were trying to achieve.
And regarding adding extra steps, the thing is that if you're only adding them because someone who should have failed didn't because they rolled a 20, then we're returning to the point where the goalposts are being arbitrarily moved and arguably running counter to your idea that a nat 20 should feel special, because now it looks like you're just trying to go back on giving the player the option to succeed. Just telling them outright "your best wasn't good enough" honestly seems more honest than "I'm gonna ask you to try for a second nat 20 in a row now, almost certainly resulting in you ultimately failing despite making it seem like you were going to succeed".
I actually, specifically said it doesn't have to be a hard bonus. It just has to be a succes regardless of modifiers. In fact, i believe the exact quote was "You don't have to give them the entire thing but giving them that small win is a huge thing." The nat 20 just means you can't utterly fail.
I'm also not saying move the goalposts retroactively because they should have failed, I'm saying decide ahead of time that this is a difficult, multi-step process. Regardless of who attempts it, they need to pass x amount of checks for the best result and the results are progressively worse the less checks they pass.
So the surgery thing. Pass all 4 steps i named above, surgery is a success and character is recovering well. Pass 3/4 surgery completed but character "isn't out of the woods". Pass 2/4 character stabilized for 3 days giving players more time to find a solution. Pass 1/4 you manage to not make them worse. Fail all four, patient dies.
Let the players know that this thing they want to do is a "process" and the risks. "As you look at [the character] as they scream in agony, you quickly realize that any attempt to do the surgery yourselves would be exceedingly difficult with several different opportunities to fail and cost [the character] their life." It's now an intense situation with high difficulty that:
1. Decreases the risk of nat 1 failure because they have a 0.00000625% chance of nat 1 failing
2. Decreases the chance of nat 20 "giving them everything"
3. Makes nat 20's a chance for a little bonus (maybe even count a nat 20 for two steps if you're feeling generous. It's your game, go wild.)
4. Creates drama and tension because they know this surgery could go either way right up until the end.
5. Allows you to keep critical success in the game for other exciting moments in the future.
You can also turn this into a group activity. Each character gets to complete a single step. Who attempts which steps? Now they have almost 0 risk of nat 1/20 carries/fails and have to plan out the surgery as a team. And if, say, the barb gets stuck with suturing, their nat 20 is a big win for the whole team without "breaking your scene".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
you don't have to fear nat 20s or nat 1s on skill checks if you only call a roll when 20 + mod would beat the DC without additional numbers and if failure is an (interesting) option. you're the dm: set the DC and stick to it.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Ok, so to the people saying it is totally impossible if your mod is too low, it is not "totally impossible" it is "beyond your current abilities". Totally impossible implies that no matter what your character does now or ever, they will not achieve this. So no, a too-small mod is not totally impossible but simply currently so. There is a difference. Totally impossible means that no amount of training/studying would make it possible.
The rock climbing example. You are climbing as a hobby and aiming for improving your ability. There is now a horde of orcs in the canyon. Your option is to die or climb. You are now adrenaline filled and determined to live. You're going to climb regardless of numbers given. You may make it, you probably won't, but the sliver of hope is enough to make you try.
The appendectomy example. The world has now ended. Society has collapsed. Your wife/husband/child is developing appendicitis. You know roughly that the appendix is located in the right side of the abdomen, how to sew, and very basic sterilization techniques. They will die if you do nothing. No one is coming. There is nobody to go to. You are alone and they will die. Do you watch their inevitable death or try? You'll probably fail. The odds are heavily stacked against you and you're pressed for time. But maybe, just maybe, they will survive if you try. It won't be a perfect surgery by any means, but would you really say, "I'm no surgeon so... sucks to suck I guess. Die with dignity wifey"?
And to the comment that it makes it hard for the DM, if you have a hard time separating, "yea, that'd be possible for someone with training" and, "no amount of training would make that possible", like I've said, don't use the rule. Personally, I find it easy to quickly judge whether or not something can be "fluked forward". If it is skill based and can be acquired through training, it can be fluked forward. If it requires a special ability, magic, or something to that effect, it can't.
And, again, I'm a big advocate for "play your way". I'm not "right" about using critical success/failure. I just prefer to. I'm also not saying you should be required to. I just think it adds more "unpredictability of life" to the game and makes for some awesome moments.
you've reached the top of the canyon. but, wait: there are more orcs up here! also the orcs below have adrenaline too and are right behind you! now you must fly away. you are going to fly regardless of the odds. you may not make it, you probably won't, the warning label on your trusty umbrella says you shouldn't even contemplate it, but the buzz of adrenaline is enough to make you try...
...are we okay with flying being totally beyond their abilities? i mean, they do have that umbrella. in the previous mention of rock climbing AffenWiesel said that a climb beyond their abilities is a climb beyond their abilities. then orcs came and suddenly impossible had to be reevaluated. but Affen didn't say impossible unless they tried real hard. rather than flying we could have instead attempted to speedily seduce a dragon or operate an arcane lock on baba yaga's house or convince a herd of goats to turn and fight. all impossible unless the one telling the story decides to reduce the DC for reasons... which is exactly what mentioning the adrenaline factor is doing in this narrative. however, if you're inventing new ways for them to defy their fate, then why even let the dice decide? if we're fishing for a critical, 95% of the time you've just given them hope only to dash it upon the rocks.
just to point out: the person in your example isn't completely without training. like a player describing their methods in order to influence the final DC, you mention sewing and sterilization. also, they've diagnosed the problem which is a huge step! this isn't an example of an impossible task relying on a miracle, this sounds like a series of high but achievable DC checks.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
While true its usually not enough to fail 5% of the time. If you are so good at something a 1 result would be good enough but you could still possibly in reality bone it up enough to fail the question becomes is a 5% chance showing that better or worse for the game when on a practical scale the odds are more 1% or .1% I generally think no, it does not add to the game as 5% comes up to often. Would anyone mountain climb if 5% of the time you fell to your death,
Of course it means "impossible with your current ability score". That was clearly implied. But that still means a nat 20 shouldn't change the fact that you cant succeed on the given task right now. Maybe increase some levels and then give it another try.
You are also mixing up different things here: Not having a chance at success doesn't imply that you don't try to do it. The character in game also doesn't even know that the DC is too high...
If the only way out of the canyon is a 45 degrees overhanging wall where the only handholds are shallow one and two finger pockets (this is how a 9a looks like) then I would probably try fighting the orcs. I mean climbing something like this is not about being scared of falling it's just that I won't even get a second foot in the wall. It is more likely that I defeat 500 orcs with my bare hands (this is not an exaggeration).
The surgery example: I would definitely try. But the outcome would still be their death. I don't even know how an appendix looks like, or how to remove it. Me saving the patiens live is not just unlikely it is pretty much impossible. If you allow a 5% chance to succeed in such a scenario, you might as well allow rolls for stuff that is not just beyond my capabilities but flat out impossible, like jumping up a skyscraper.
Regarding it being hard for the DM: You misunderstood my point! I didn't say that the DM has to distinguish between impossible tasks and tasks that are just very hard. I meant that the DM has to allow Adam Ondra a roll to climb out of that canyon, whereas he shouldn't allow me a 5% chance to make a climb that is simply impossible for me at the current status of my climbing skills.
As I said, 5% may be a bit too high but using a d20, this is the finest discretization we get...
Also, it is only a rare few people who do rock climbing without ropes. So falling to your death is not the typical outcome of a failed roll. And while I would agree that 5% falling when doing an easy climb (easy for you at your current skill level) seems a bit much, I'd still say it's probably more than 1%. You can have a muscle cramp, or a foothold breaks, etc. Apart from falling, a failed roll could btw. also just mean that you are too exhausted and can't continue the climb. Or that you realize that the next handhold is too far away or you simply cant figure out how to do the next move. I failed on many climbing routes and boulder problems in my life and falling is not the most common type of failure.
Sure today, we have the safety procedures to protect you. But D&D does not have them in most circumstances. You aren't making a prepared climb up a mountain, you are quickly scaling the wall, hill etc. And D&D generally does not have grades of success or failure,(though I think they do build them in for climb in some scenarios I've read at least fail) failing a climb check means a fall, not a slip, not a don't make progress it means plummet down. I'd love some kind of success/fail levels where maybe a 1 that was a success was considered one stage lower on success a 20 one stage higher. So like maybe for every 5 you beat/miss a DC by it added something to it. And lets say you have a DC 25 climb, no skill, 10 str guy rolls a 20 and they get something like a partial success result, or if the DC is 10 and your min result is a 12 a 1 turns your success into a partial success/minor fail.
But alas that does not exist, and I'm left thinking a 5% chance makes the game worse for a catastrophic fail result to pop up.
Your example about flying is, once again, inflating things. Every character can climb. That is a fact. They may not climb well but every character is physically capable of climbing. Your flying jab just proves my point. If the character is entirely unable to fly, they can't attempt it. They are simply jumping and delusional then. However, sometimes we climb better and sometimes we don't. "Beginners luck" is a common phrase for a reason, but attempting to fly on a character that can't fly shouldn't even be a roll. At best, you should describe the character flapping their arms like a chicken and looking ridiculous.
And as to the surgery again, the player declaring they do all of these steps that their character would have no training in or expectation of knowledge of is just describing the "impossible" for their character but you count it. The player knowing that has no effect on the character's knowledge. You climbing in real life doesn't make your character climb better just because you can describe how you, the player, would use techniques to climb. You allow it because you like that style of play but that could be easily argued as metagaming because, "your 11 wis pc knows about sterilization and the general location of the appendix?" What if your player is a surgeon for real but plays an 8 wis barb but perfectly describes the exact technique for an appendectomy? Are you going to say they can't do it? But you just allowed the other player to do that exact thing; just because the surgeon described it better, it's suddenly not allowed? Or do they get the same adjustment as the limited description I gave? Then why did the description matter beyond the very basics? And both cases are still meta information used in game. So metagaming is now preferable to having a stroke of good luck?
We are both stretching reality for our players because allowing the slightly out of reach to be achievable is often fun. Critical success also allows players with less real knowledge or trouble explaining steps to have cool moments, not just the ones that can role-play better. I'm not saying you shouldn't consider what a player describes, I'm just pointing out that you're drawing arbitrary lines.
Also, if the climb is "entirely impossible" the roll shouldn't be done. I can guarantee you, "the cliff is clearly unclimbable" is better than, "sure roll... you got nat 20? Sucks to suck. You're still not good enough."
That’s the point though. Some things are impossible unless you have had special training to give you the required abilities. And no luck can change that. If I give an average ten year old a graduate level math exam, they won’t be able to pass it although they do know elementary math. That is literally the same thing as if a character without wings tries to fly. Neither flying nor passing a math exam are impossible but they are impossible for the individuals in those examples.
Except your ten year old can correctly guess the answers. Statistically unlikely but not impossible. Impossible means that if an infinite amount of attempts were made, the outcome would never change. If a ten year old had infinite time to make infinite guesses, they would eventually guess correctly, meaning it isn't impossible, just statistically unlikely. This leans heavily on a scientific theory called "The Infinite Monkey Theorem".
Yes, but if a natural 20 on a die roll is a success, the one in a million (or more) chance is turned into a one in 20. I could see a natural 20 providing something like the character trying to perform a dangerous task that is essentially impossible for them somehow avoiding hurting or killing themselves in the attempt. Or with the medical example, they may do enough good to stabilize the patient and give them an extra period of time to get to a real doctor, but actual full-blown success is way too likely if it is provided a 5% chance on a nearly impossible task. A one in twenty chance cannot even come close to reflecting this difficulty.
What crayons said.
I am ok with a 1% chance being approximated by 5%. But a ten year old randomly writing words they’ve never heard and symbols they’ve never seen before on an exam sheet that happen to be the correct answers is just so close to zero that you might as well allow a 5% chance that a character spontaneously gains the ability to fly. Who knows maybe a wizard on another plane just cast Fly and somehow the spell was redirected to the prime material targeting the player. It is unlikely but could happen.
So, mechanically, the thing about critical successes and failures is that they create arbitrary instances of favoritism or sabotage, respectively. Purely looking at the numbers, if you allow critical successes then someone with a -1 can succeed on a DC 20 with a nat 20 when someone with a +7 will fail on a 12, and likewise someone with a +9 can fail on a 1 for a DC 10 check while someone with +8 will succeed on a 2, despite both cases producing the same net roll. If you want to maintain the possibility of failure or success on a given roll for the entire party, simply assign the DC accordingly from the outset. Nat 1’s only serve to punitively cheat someone who specifically built their character to excel in whatever field they’re rolling in, while nat 20’s arbitrarily reward people attempting rolls that go against their character.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the player having a moment of great or terrible luck is a thing to be excited or stricken about and so I make it something worth celebrating by giving that player something impactful.
If i don't want a player to be capable of a feat, I simply narrate it as such or make it a multi-step process. A nat 20 being just a 20 makes the roll unexciting. Instead of hype and an awesome player moment you get "20 plus mod is blah blah. Is that enough?" And if that's a no, the player feels like they wasted time doing something pointless. There was no reality in which they would be allowed to do it so why even try? It discourages unconventional plans because you're telling them to "stay in their lane".
And if you really want to lower the 5% success rate, introduce multiple steps. Roll to convince the teacher you're even a student. Now roll to attempt the test. You just turned 5% into 0.25%. Add another step and it's now 0.000125% just because of three steps. Surgery? Roll to cut, find appendix, remove appendix, and suture. 0.00000625% of critical success. Simply telling players "even your best isn't good enough" doesn't feel good to me. But telling them it would be insanely difficult to pull off makes it a situation where they weigh the risk/reward.
And your medical example is valid here. You don't have to give them the entire thing but giving them that small win is a huge thing. "Congrats, you managed to stabilize them" is a thousand times better than, "nah, impossible. " Critical success doesn't mean flawless victory, it means beating the odds, even if beating the odds is just buying time to find a real doctor.
I will certainly agree, if you set up a nearly impossible task in such a way that they have to essentially roll multiple natural 20s in a row, this is a good way to run the situation (and even allow such natural 20s to individually provide some minor but concrete progress towards the goal). Up until now, I don't believe that you had made this clear in how you would run the situation, so it certainly makes better sense to me knowing this. Of course, as a player, I would certainly try to find pretty much any other route to success if I knew I was going to need to roll at least three or for natural 20s in a row to actually succeed.
I actually like this idea. Instead of coming up with specific rules on how many nat 20s are requred for each situation, I would probably generalize it to the following:
* Instead of auto success, a nat 20 gives you a second attempt to the roll where the DC is lowered by 5.
* Instead of auto failure, a nat 1 requires you to make a second roll where the DC is increased by 5.
Both potentially applied recursively, in case the second roll being another nat 20 or 1.
This way both the chance of failing on trivial tasks and succeeding nigh impossible ones is still there but it actually happening scales with your modifier.
I'd say the thing is that you're assuming a nat 20 must have a hard bonus, instead of a soft one. Keep in mind that skill checks are not required to be a binary pass/fail check. If you want to make a nat 20 success feel special, add some extra flair to the narration or work in a bonus in whatever they were trying to achieve.
And regarding adding extra steps, the thing is that if you're only adding them because someone who should have failed didn't because they rolled a 20, then we're returning to the point where the goalposts are being arbitrarily moved and arguably running counter to your idea that a nat 20 should feel special, because now it looks like you're just trying to go back on giving the player the option to succeed. Just telling them outright "your best wasn't good enough" honestly seems more honest than "I'm gonna ask you to try for a second nat 20 in a row now, almost certainly resulting in you ultimately failing despite making it seem like you were going to succeed".
I actually, specifically said it doesn't have to be a hard bonus. It just has to be a succes regardless of modifiers. In fact, i believe the exact quote was "You don't have to give them the entire thing but giving them that small win is a huge thing." The nat 20 just means you can't utterly fail.
I'm also not saying move the goalposts retroactively because they should have failed, I'm saying decide ahead of time that this is a difficult, multi-step process. Regardless of who attempts it, they need to pass x amount of checks for the best result and the results are progressively worse the less checks they pass.
So the surgery thing. Pass all 4 steps i named above, surgery is a success and character is recovering well. Pass 3/4 surgery completed but character "isn't out of the woods". Pass 2/4 character stabilized for 3 days giving players more time to find a solution. Pass 1/4 you manage to not make them worse. Fail all four, patient dies.
Let the players know that this thing they want to do is a "process" and the risks. "As you look at [the character] as they scream in agony, you quickly realize that any attempt to do the surgery yourselves would be exceedingly difficult with several different opportunities to fail and cost [the character] their life." It's now an intense situation with high difficulty that:
1. Decreases the risk of nat 1 failure because they have a 0.00000625% chance of nat 1 failing
2. Decreases the chance of nat 20 "giving them everything"
3. Makes nat 20's a chance for a little bonus (maybe even count a nat 20 for two steps if you're feeling generous. It's your game, go wild.)
4. Creates drama and tension because they know this surgery could go either way right up until the end.
5. Allows you to keep critical success in the game for other exciting moments in the future.
You can also turn this into a group activity. Each character gets to complete a single step. Who attempts which steps? Now they have almost 0 risk of nat 1/20 carries/fails and have to plan out the surgery as a team. And if, say, the barb gets stuck with suturing, their nat 20 is a big win for the whole team without "breaking your scene".