What would you say, Haravikk, of the following exchange:
Rei: "....okay. ... that's a 1. So -"
DM: "Oof. As you're breathing in, you forget to stop. Your chest keeps expanding and expanding, until eventually your lungs rupture through your ribs, tearing themselves apart in the process. From a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma, you die in seconds. Your body's too damaged for basic resurrection magic. Do you have a backup character?"
I would say the problem is a DM determined to ruin the game and with infinite power to do so that has nothing to do with the rules for d20 checks.
Yes, the jump the grand canyon, spread jam on toast examples are absurd.
The examples are intentionally humorous, but they're perfectly valid (and unambiguously clear) examples of when not to roll checks, which has literally been my main point now for several pages but which keeps being ignored.
Problems aren't being invented though; this is from my actual experience from when my group actually did use Nat 1/20 Auto Fail/Success. I have a good couple years of experience with the rule in 5E. This doesn't affect just Ability Checks but Saving Throws as well. When my group actually realized the RAW rule, there was a noticeable change in enjoyment. The current version of the 5E rule for nat 1/20 should remain RAW in One D&D.
What you are describing is your group not having fun because some or all of you did not read or understand the rules; every time you insist that every check will be rolled even though the rules explicitly tell you not to, you are proposing that the same thing will happen.
Your problem in both cases is not the text of the rules, but the fact that people aren't reading them; simplifying d20 tests should actually help with this (less to read, no longer three slightly different types of d20 test), but it's not a problem that can be solved by anything other than the players and DMs actually reading and following the rules as they are presented.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
People have repeatedly pointed out that checks DO NOT NEED TO BE ROLLED AT ALL, it's literally in the rules.
If you have a DM that wants to humiliate you for failing then a change to the d20 tests isn't going to affect that because they can literally change the rules whenever they like and do anything and everything that they want to whenever they like. The written rules are irrelevant to bad DMing. The correct way to solve that problem is to speak to the DM, or find a new one, because while it might be "funny" to have players fail spectacularly now and then, and might be fine in a comedic campaign, most of the time in a classic campaign it's the wrong thing to do, especially if a character fails at something they're supposed to be good at.
And again as I have already pointed out, there's also a big assumption here that every failure needs to involve rubbing the player's face in dirt and laughing at how worthless they are, but that's not how failure is supposed to work in D&D either. Failing to climb something doesn't have to mean you fall, it can just mean you take longer to do it etc. DMing is a skill like anything else, and D&D is a collaborative experience; players should talk to their DM about things they don't like, and what they want out of the game and how things are narratively explained, otherwise the game doesn't work. There is a reason that the full rules of the game is in the Player's Handbook, and not limited to the Dungeon Master's Guide; the players are responsible for knowing how their characters are supposed to work.
You can't force a bad DM to do things "right" by changing the rules to force them, not when their role in the game is basically to be a god. And none of this changes the simple fact that 1's fail and 20's succeed is how most people have been playing checks already; because it's how it used to work, and many new players miss that there are three different types of roll. 5th edition is the aberration with its three different checks that confuse people, and Wizards of the Coast is recognising that fact and reversing the change.
In fact, if you want to reduce poor DMing (misunderstanding the rules, rather than maliciously twisting them) then you should be 100% behind efforts to simplify them, because having one d20 test is easier to learn, involves less reading, and makes it more likely that a DM might read the part about when to use them properly, rather than wasting time having to remember how each one functions differently and missing or forgetting that part as result.
But I'm unsubscribing now, as I'm at my limit for how many times I'm willing to repeat myself, as it's becoming clear that not reading what is written isn't limited to only "bad" DMs running D&D. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
While I think there should be no automatic failures on natural 1's, one particular commonly repeated (in this very thread) argument against this rule is a straw-man. Saying, "The person with absolute and infinite power over their game can use this rule in a bad way to hurt their players" may be true, but a terrible DM who is determined to ruin the game for their players can do that in any way or through any rule they want to abuse. Just because this rule can, like any other rule, be abused by atrocious DM's, doesn't mean the whole rule is trash.
If your DM makes you roll to see whether you don't randomly spontaniously combust due to "a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma" while walking down the street, then they could have you fail that check, natural 1 or otherwise (they set the DC), and if your DM is making you perform checks like that then you can't blame it on a rule they are intentionally using incorrectly.
That being said, as I stated above, I am against automatic failures on natural 1's, because I think some DM's might want to roll for the margin of success, and the new system discourages them from doing that unless they override the natural 1 failure rule. I also think that there are some DC's that some players with high-stats shouldn't have a chance to fail at, and you should be allowed to have them roll for how much they succeed by without the natural 1 rule getting in the way. Anyways, while I agree with most of the points against this new rule, a DM can abuse any rule and saying that they can abuse this one too so this particular rule and none of the others with the same exact problem must be scrapped due to that flaw not a very logical conclusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
What would you say, Haravikk, of the following exchange:
Rei: "....okay. ... that's a 1. So -"
DM: "Oof. As you're breathing in, you forget to stop. Your chest keeps expanding and expanding, until eventually your lungs rupture through your ribs, tearing themselves apart in the process. From a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma, you die in seconds. Your body's too damaged for basic resurrection magic. Do you have a backup character?"
I would say the problem is a DM determined to ruin the game and with infinite power to do so that has nothing to do with the rules for d20 checks.
Yes, the jump the grand canyon, spread jam on toast examples are absurd.
The examples are intentionally humorous, but they're perfectly valid (and unambiguously clear) examples of when not to roll checks, which has literally been my main point now for several pages but which keeps being ignored.
Problems aren't being invented though; this is from my actual experience from when my group actually did use Nat 1/20 Auto Fail/Success. I have a good couple years of experience with the rule in 5E. This doesn't affect just Ability Checks but Saving Throws as well. When my group actually realized the RAW rule, there was a noticeable change in enjoyment. The current version of the 5E rule for nat 1/20 should remain RAW in One D&D.
What you are describing is your group not having fun because some or all of you did not read or understand the rules; every time you insist that every check will be rolled even though the rules explicitly tell you not to, you are proposing that the same thing will happen.
Your problem in both cases is not the text of the rules, but the fact that people aren't reading them; simplifying d20 tests should actually help with this (less to read, no longer three slightly different types of d20 test), but it's not a problem that can be solved by anything other than the players and DMs actually reading and following the rules as they are presented.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
People have repeatedly pointed out that checks DO NOT NEED TO BE ROLLED AT ALL, it's literally in the rules.
If you have a DM that wants to humiliate you for failing then a change to the d20 tests isn't going to affect that because they can literally change the rules whenever they like and do anything and everything that they want to whenever they like. The written rules are irrelevant to bad DMing. The correct way to solve that problem is to speak to the DM, or find a new one, because while it might be "funny" to have players fail spectacularly now and then, and might be fine in a comedic campaign, most of the time in a classic campaign it's the wrong thing to do, especially if a character fails at something they're supposed to be good at.
And again as I have already pointed out, there's also a big assumption here that every failure needs to involve rubbing the player's face in dirt and laughing at how worthless they are, but that's not how failure is supposed to work in D&D either. Failing to climb something doesn't have to mean you fall, it can just mean you take longer to do it etc. DMing is a skill like anything else, and D&D is a collaborative experience; players should talk to their DM about things they don't like, and what they want out of the game and how things are narratively explained, otherwise the game doesn't work. There is a reason that the full rules of the game is in the Player's Handbook, and not limited to the Dungeon Master's Guide; the players are responsible for knowing how their characters are supposed to work.
You can't force a bad DM to do things "right" by changing the rules to force them, not when their role in the game is basically to be a god. And none of this changes the simple fact that 1's fail and 20's succeed is how most people have been playing checks already; because it's how it used to work, and many new players miss that there are three different types of roll. 5th edition is the aberration with its three different checks that confuse people, and Wizards of the Coast is recognising that fact and reversing the change.
In fact, if you want to reduce poor DMing (misunderstanding the rules, rather than maliciously twisting them) then you should be 100% behind efforts to simplify them, because having one d20 test is easier to learn, involves less reading, and makes it more likely that a DM might read the part about when to use them properly, rather than wasting time having to remember how each one functions differently and missing or forgetting that part as result.
But I'm unsubscribing now, as I'm at my limit for how many times I'm willing to repeat myself, as it's becoming clear that not reading what is written isn't limited to only "bad" DMs running D&D. 😝
If nat 1 auto fails were RAW, my group would have kept doing it and we would have kept feeling miserable when we failed solely due to the auto fail. The actual text of the rules improved our game.
Also, I would not say most people play with Nat 1/20 auto fail/success. I recently talked to some new co-workers and found out that they play 5E without nat 1/20 auto fail/success. There are a good deal of people playing it without nat 1/20 success. Written rules do matter.
Nat 1/20 auto fail/success should not be the RAW rule. Simplifying the rule does not require adding it back in. Reversing the 5E change is a bad idea.
While I think there should be no automatic failures on natural 1's, one particular commonly repeated (in this very thread) argument against this rule is a straw-man. Saying, "The person with absolute and infinite power over their game can use this rule in a bad way to hurt their players" may be true, but a terrible DM who is determined to ruin the game for their players can do that in any way or through any rule they want to abuse. Just because this rule can, like any other rule, be abused by atrocious DM's, doesn't mean the whole rule is trash.
If your DM makes you roll to see whether you don't randomly spontaniously combust due to "a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma" while walking down the street, then they could have you fail that check, natural 1 or otherwise (they set the DC), and if your DM is making you perform checks like that then you can't blame it on a rule they are intentionally using incorrectly.
That being said, as I stated above, I am against automatic failures on natural 1's, because I think some DM's might want to roll for the margin of success, and the new system discourages them from doing that unless they override the natural 1 failure rule. I also think that there are some DC's that some players with high-stats shouldn't have a chance to fail at, and you should be allowed to have them roll for how much they succeed by without the natural 1 rule getting in the way. Anyways, while I agree with most of the points against this new rule, a DM can abuse any rule and saying that they can abuse this one too so this particular rule and none of the others with the same exact problem must be scrapped due to that flaw not a very logical conclusion.
It is only a strawman argument if we were only considering DMs doing it out of maliciousness. However, DMs can make bad calls from inexperience and they are more impressionable by the RAW rule. It is far easier to add a house/optional/variant rule than to remove the RAW rule. I personally note the possibility of inexperience being affected by this rule.
It is not that hard to make a house rule that the nat1/nat20 rule is not applied in that game. Literally that is all that needs to be said Of course though all the rules that need to be the main rule have to keep the builders happy. Everyone else can adjust the rules as long as the build players who don't want to fail are happy.
It is only a strawman argument if we were only considering DMs doing it out of maliciousness. However, DMs can make bad calls from inexperience and they are more impressionable by the RAW rule. It is far easier to add a house/optional/variant rule than to remove the RAW rule. I personally note the possibility of inexperience being affected by this rule.
No, they are full on straw men which actually dilute the real issue that is there. Outside Yurie who apparently has met and gamed with the worst people in existence no DM good, bad or inexperienced is going to make you make a roll to spread jam on toast outside bizarre circumstances like your character got insanely drunk and they are just hamming it up, in which case just have fun as you decided to get insanely drunk and trust me you can get drunk enough to routinely fail a check to spread jam so its not that insane. But out of the blue, spread jam, or spontaneous combust, checks to see if you kill yourself by breathing, checks to jump 500 ft gaps under the current rules, no DM is bothering to make you roll or at least let you fail/succeed in those cases. Use legitimate examples to make the same point like I did above when I said this, "But what if its a 30 foot gap and the total athletics modifier is +5 can they roll, can the wizard with +0, are you cherry picking you yes, you no, you yes. What if its a arcane test DC 25, do you tell the untrained fighter no you can't roll everyone else can. Social tests, the NPC rolls a 25 on there deception test, the rogue can potentially spot it, no one else can do you say Bob you can make a insight test, no one else can, so now the players know its a lie but have to pretend they don't."
You don't have to be a straw manly bad DM to make these calls in a way that worsens the game, in fact you have to be a pretty dang good DM to navigate all of these. I legitimately do not understand while people who are against this rule are using these straw men its terrible for their argument, i get while the proponents of the rule do as straw manning the opposition benefits them. Don't straw man yourself.
It is not that hard to make a house rule that the nat1/nat20 rule is not applied in that game. Literally that is all that needs to be said Of course though all the rules that need to be the main rule have to keep the builders happy. Everyone else can adjust the rules as long as the build players who don't want to fail are happy.
People are less receptive to removing existing rules than to adding house rules. Furthermore, there are times when you cannot house rule, such as organized play. In addition, RAW sets the precedent and foundation, which can affect how people house rule things.
The rule that should the optional/variant/house rule is the nat 1/20 auto fail/success.
It is only a strawman argument if we were only considering DMs doing it out of maliciousness. However, DMs can make bad calls from inexperience and they are more impressionable by the RAW rule. It is far easier to add a house/optional/variant rule than to remove the RAW rule. I personally note the possibility of inexperience being affected by this rule.
No, they are full on straw men which actually dilute the real issue that is there. Outside Yurie who apparently has met and gamed with the worst people in existence no DM good, bad or inexperienced is going to make you make a roll to spread jam on toast outside bizarre circumstances like your character got insanely drunk and they are just hamming it up, in which case just have fun as you decided to get insanely drunk and trust me you can get drunk enough to routinely fail a check to spread jam so its not that insane. But out of the blue, spread jam, or spontaneous combust, checks to see if you kill yourself by breathing, checks to jump 500 ft gaps under the current rules, no DM is bothering to make you roll or at least let you fail/succeed in those cases. Use legitimate examples to make the same point like I did above when I said this, "But what if its a 30 foot gap and the total athletics modifier is +5 can they roll, can the wizard with +0, are you cherry picking you yes, you no, you yes. What if its a arcane test DC 25, do you tell the untrained fighter no you can't roll everyone else can. Social tests, the NPC rolls a 25 on there deception test, the rogue can potentially spot it, no one else can do you say Bob you can make a insight test, no one else can, so now the players know its a lie but have to pretend they don't."
You don't have to be a straw manly bad DM to make these calls in a way that worsens the game, in fact you have to be a pretty dang good DM to navigate all of these. I legitimately do not understand while people who are against this rule are using these straw men its terrible for their argument, i get while the proponents of the rule do as straw manning the opposition benefits them. Don't straw man yourself.
I don't think the examples I used were ludicrous nor were my arguments strawman arguments as I made my arguments from my own experiences.
It is only a strawman argument if we were only considering DMs doing it out of maliciousness. However, DMs can make bad calls from inexperience and they are more impressionable by the RAW rule. It is far easier to add a house/optional/variant rule than to remove the RAW rule. I personally note the possibility of inexperience being affected by this rule.
No, they are full on straw men which actually dilute the real issue that is there. Outside Yurie who apparently has met and gamed with the worst people in existence no DM good, bad or inexperienced is going to make you make a roll to spread jam on toast outside bizarre circumstances like your character got insanely drunk and they are just hamming it up, in which case just have fun as you decided to get insanely drunk and trust me you can get drunk enough to routinely fail a check to spread jam so its not that insane. But out of the blue, spread jam, or spontaneous combust, checks to see if you kill yourself by breathing, checks to jump 500 ft gaps under the current rules, no DM is bothering to make you roll or at least let you fail/succeed in those cases. Use legitimate examples to make the same point like I did above when I said this, "But what if its a 30 foot gap and the total athletics modifier is +5 can they roll, can the wizard with +0, are you cherry picking you yes, you no, you yes. What if its a arcane test DC 25, do you tell the untrained fighter no you can't roll everyone else can. Social tests, the NPC rolls a 25 on there deception test, the rogue can potentially spot it, no one else can do you say Bob you can make a insight test, no one else can, so now the players know its a lie but have to pretend they don't."
You don't have to be a straw manly bad DM to make these calls in a way that worsens the game, in fact you have to be a pretty dang good DM to navigate all of these. I legitimately do not understand while people who are against this rule are using these straw men its terrible for their argument, i get while the proponents of the rule do as straw manning the opposition benefits them. Don't straw man yourself.
I don't think the examples I used were ludicrous nor were my arguments strawman arguments as I made my arguments from my own experiences.
You might not have made absurd ones, but they have been throughout this thread by Yurei and Haravaikk which is what boringbard was referencing. And his point is valid no rule is going to survive a insanely terrible DM, if they are going to make you make a see if you survive breathing normally save they just as easily will have a flight of ancient red dragons show up at level 1. The point that should be made isn't about insanely bad DMs but that you need a good DM to make it work.
It is not that hard to make a house rule that the nat1/nat20 rule is not applied in that game. Literally that is all that needs to be said Of course though all the rules that need to be the main rule have to keep the builders happy. Everyone else can adjust the rules as long as the build players who don't want to fail are happy.
People are less receptive to removing existing rules than to adding house rules. Furthermore, there are times when you cannot house rule, such as organized play. In addition, RAW sets the precedent and foundation, which can affect how people house rule things.
The rule that should the optional/variant/house rule is the nat 1/20 auto fail/success.
Let me guess, all the real rules should be the ones you like. Everyone else should have to adjust their gameplay.
Except people don't really have to adjust their gameplay if the Nat 1/20 rule doesn't make it through. The only people that it really does affect are the people who actually do build characters that can succeed on a nat 1. The rule only affects them because for everyone else, Nat 1's would be failures with or without the autofail rule because if 1 + Mod does not meet the DC, it is a failure. The Nat 1 Auto Fail does absolutely nothing if you don't have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1 to begin with. So, all the Nat 1 rule does is hinder the fun of the subset of players that enjoy succeeding on a nat 1.
So it is not about what I like, but about how it actually affects the various subsets of players, and the Nat 1 Auto Fail negatively affects the people against it while doing nothing for the people for it. Saying that I am saying this because it is the rule I like is just disingenuous.
If anything, the Nat 1 Auto Fail is making the people who dislike it adjust their gameplay according to those that want the Nat 1 Autofail.
It is only a strawman argument if we were only considering DMs doing it out of maliciousness. However, DMs can make bad calls from inexperience and they are more impressionable by the RAW rule. It is far easier to add a house/optional/variant rule than to remove the RAW rule. I personally note the possibility of inexperience being affected by this rule.
No, it is a complete straw-man argument either way. A new DM is not going to force you to roll when you take a deep breath to check if that roll causes you to hyperventilate and die. Even a new DM with no understanding of the game is going to know -- from their experiences in real life -- that some tasks are possible and some tasks are impossible. Arguing that the worst DM's in the game may not understand how one rule works and assuming they will use it in the worst possible way is a straw-man argument, because 99.9999% DM's are not going to be like that. As MyDudeicus states, it is better to focus on the aspect of these rules that it takes a good DM to understand (because their are plenty of those), not the one's that need the worse possible DM in existence to misunderstand.
When the initial argument is "I don't like guaranteed success/failure, I've had some rotten experiences with DMs mishandling and/or over-relying on checks and this rule reinforces that mode/idea of play", and the counter-argument is "you're a terrible person, your argument is terrible, your experience is invalid, no DM has ever mishandled a check in the entire history of D&D and if you don't absolutely, unabashedly, unconditionally adore automatic success/failure rules without reservation or restraint then you should just stop playing D&D right now and never game again"? It gets some people's Annoyance Meters beeping and their guard up.
I simply do not like automatic success/failure. I think it's a bad core rule and it makes for worse play, because it reinforces the idea that you play by making checks instead of by declaring actions. I'm allowed to think that, and I'm allowed to respond when people challenge my thoughts on it, whether in good faith or otherwise. if people want to adopt that mode of play at their personal table, i.e. the thread starter? Got no issue with them doing them. Jamming the rule into the core books and trying to force it down my throat with a backhoe, tell me I HAVE to play this way? That, I take issue with. And people can yell "straw man!" at me all they want, it won't stop me thinking the rule is bad as a core rule. As a table rule for people who vibe on lolrandom hyper chaos? Fine. For tables where people try to take their game seriously? Nah.
I simply do not like automatic success/failure. I think it's a bad core rule and it makes for worse play, because it reinforces the idea that you play by making checks instead of by declaring actions.
If it comes up, you've already decided to make a check. One D&D could use some better guidelines on when to make ability checks in the first place, but if anything, the nat 1/20 rule just lampshades rolls you shouldn't have been making in the first place.
It is only a strawman argument if we were only considering DMs doing it out of maliciousness. However, DMs can make bad calls from inexperience and they are more impressionable by the RAW rule. It is far easier to add a house/optional/variant rule than to remove the RAW rule. I personally note the possibility of inexperience being affected by this rule.
No, it is a complete straw-man argument either way. A new DM is not going to force you to roll when you take a deep breath to check if that roll causes you to hyperventilate and die. Even a new DM with no understanding of the game is going to know -- from their experiences in real life -- that some tasks are possible and some tasks are impossible. Arguing that the worst DM's in the game may not understand how one rule works and assuming they will use it in the worst possible way is a straw-man argument, because 99.9999% DM's are not going to be like that. As MyDudeicus states, it is better to focus on the aspect of these rules that it takes a good DM to understand (because their are plenty of those), not the one's that need the worse possible DM in existence to misunderstand.
Except I seen plenty of just inexperienced DMs misunderstand (when they thought Nat 1's were autofail) and asked for rolls for Saving Throws or Ability Checks when the character in question had a higher bonus than the DC with their explanation being, Nat 1's are autofail. There was no maliciousness, they simply thought it was like that. They weren't the worst DM's ever or anything like that. And when I pointed out that Nat 1's in 5E do not apply to Saving Throws and Ability Checks, they immediately stopped. I don't think if I have actual experience in that situation, it can be called a strawman argument.
I firmly believe that it is best to simply make nat 1/20 auto fail/successes an optional/variant rule and keep the current 5E rules as the default RAW; just clarify them in One D&D. Like actually state that Nat 1/20 do not affect Saving Throws and Ability Checks outside of being the number rolled, because the way 5E does it is simply state what it does for Attacks and Death Saves while not mentioning Saving Throws or Ability Checks.
The issue of “core rule” vs “optional rule” makes me think that WotC should heavily poll people who exclusively or primarily play in organized play games like Adventurer’s League. This is the only time it matters what the “actual” rules are.
For anyone who just plays with friends, it shouldn’t matter at all. I know I don’t care. I like auto-fail and auto-success, as I think it reinforces the point of calling for a roll in the first place. But I don’t think those who dislike it are at all bad people, or just misunderstanding the issue, or playing the game wrong. D&D has always been, and will always be, a game made best by changing what you need to change to make it a perfect game for you and your group.
I’m sure everyone has examples of rules that they and their group disliked and so (hopefully) changed or ignored. Because it’s not like Jeremy Crawford is going to break down your door and accuse you of playing wrong. Whether this rule is presented as a “core rule” or an “optional rule” shouldn’t matter at all. Wherever the rule is presented (or even if it isn’t mentioned at all and you just houserule it), your game is no less official. You are still playing D&D, and doing it right, because you are doing it your way.
As always, find a group that likes to play the way you play.
The issue of “core rule” vs “optional rule” makes me think that WotC should heavily poll people who exclusively or primarily play in organized play games like Adventurer’s League. This is the only time it matters what the “actual” rules are.
For anyone who just plays with friends, it shouldn’t matter at all. I know I don’t care. I like auto-fail and auto-success, as I think it reinforces the point of calling for a roll in the first place. But I don’t think those who dislike it are at all bad people, or just misunderstanding the issue, or playing the game wrong. D&D has always been, and will always be, a game made best by changing what you need to change to make it a perfect game for you and your group.
I’m sure everyone has examples of rules that they and their group disliked and so (hopefully) changed or ignored. Because it’s not like Jeremy Crawford is going to break down your door and accuse you of playing wrong. Whether this rule is presented as a “core rule” or an “optional rule” shouldn’t matter at all. Wherever the rule is presented (or even if it isn’t mentioned at all and you just houserule it), your game is no less official. You are still playing D&D, and doing it right, because you are doing it your way.
As always, find a group that likes to play the way you play.
except in organized play (speaking AL here) all optional rules are mandatory. so that tact is a no go for an argument.
The issue of “core rule” vs “optional rule” makes me think that WotC should heavily poll people who exclusively or primarily play in organized play games like Adventurer’s League. This is the only time it matters what the “actual” rules are.
For anyone who just plays with friends, it shouldn’t matter at all. I know I don’t care. I like auto-fail and auto-success, as I think it reinforces the point of calling for a roll in the first place. But I don’t think those who dislike it are at all bad people, or just misunderstanding the issue, or playing the game wrong. D&D has always been, and will always be, a game made best by changing what you need to change to make it a perfect game for you and your group.
I’m sure everyone has examples of rules that they and their group disliked and so (hopefully) changed or ignored. Because it’s not like Jeremy Crawford is going to break down your door and accuse you of playing wrong. Whether this rule is presented as a “core rule” or an “optional rule” shouldn’t matter at all. Wherever the rule is presented (or even if it isn’t mentioned at all and you just houserule it), your game is no less official. You are still playing D&D, and doing it right, because you are doing it your way.
As always, find a group that likes to play the way you play.
Default rules do matter a bit as they can sent precedents and foundations. I generally find it easier to find a group that uses the core rules than any that use some of the optional or variant rules. I have seen people try to use the argument that something is not a default rule as a reason to not include, namely with multiclassing.
The issue of “core rule” vs “optional rule” makes me think that WotC should heavily poll people who exclusively or primarily play in organized play games like Adventurer’s League. This is the only time it matters what the “actual” rules are.
For anyone who just plays with friends, it shouldn’t matter at all. I know I don’t care. I like auto-fail and auto-success, as I think it reinforces the point of calling for a roll in the first place. But I don’t think those who dislike it are at all bad people, or just misunderstanding the issue, or playing the game wrong. D&D has always been, and will always be, a game made best by changing what you need to change to make it a perfect game for you and your group.
I’m sure everyone has examples of rules that they and their group disliked and so (hopefully) changed or ignored. Because it’s not like Jeremy Crawford is going to break down your door and accuse you of playing wrong. Whether this rule is presented as a “core rule” or an “optional rule” shouldn’t matter at all. Wherever the rule is presented (or even if it isn’t mentioned at all and you just houserule it), your game is no less official. You are still playing D&D, and doing it right, because you are doing it your way.
As always, find a group that likes to play the way you play.
except in organized play (speaking AL here) all optional rules are mandatory. so that tact is a no go for an argument.
That's false. All optional rules are not mandatory in AL. Flanking is not used in AL for example, neither is variant encumbrance.
Really then why was I told by WotC officials when signing up my FLGS for running AL, that ALL Optional rules had to be used? Why is it that every player that sits down at the AL table EXPECTS every single optional rule to be in effect?
When the initial argument is "I don't like guaranteed success/failure, I've had some rotten experiences with DMs mishandling and/or over-relying on checks and this rule reinforces that mde/idea of play", and the counter-argument is "you're a terrible person, your argument is terrible, your experience is invalid, no DM has ever mishandled a check in the entire history of D&D and if you don't absolutely, unabashedly, unconditionally adore automatic success/failure rules without reservation or restraint then you should just stop playing D&D right now and never game again"? It gets some people's Annoyance Meters beeping and their guard up.
I simply do not like automatic success/failure. I think it's a bad core rule and it makes for worse play, because it reinforces the idea that you play by making checks instead of by declaring actions. I'm allowed to think that, and I'm allowed to respond when people challenge my thoughts on it, whether in good faith or otherwise. if people want to adopt that mode of play at their personal table, i.e. the thread starter? Got no issue with them doing them. Jamming the rule into the core books and trying to force it down my throat with a backhoe, tell me I HAVE to play this way? That, I take issue with. And people can yell "straw man!" at me all they want, it won't stop me thinking the rule is bad as a core rule. As a table rule for people who vibe on lolrandom hyper chaos? Fine. For tables where people try to take their game seriously? Nah.
Yurei, I do not think that your experience is invalid. I do not think any of your arguments are terrible. In fact, I find the vast majority of what you say both interesting and informative. I also think this rule is bad as a core rule, and I don't like it much whatsoever. That being said, singling out a rare, extraordinary way a DM could maliciously use a rule to do things such as make them spontaniously combust, and then blaming the rule for the DM intentionally misusing it, or at minimum, that DM's sheer ineptitude, is not fair to the rule in question. No semi-decent DM is going to make their players make "breathing checks" to see whether or not their characters lung randomly ruptures, and if you have a DM like that, then any system they use is not going to go well. So yes, pointing to one ridiculous way a DM could use a rule to kill their players, when they can do that with any rule, is a straw-man argument. That being said, I literally agree that nat 1 auto-fails are not a good thing.
Except I seen plenty of just inexperienced DMs misunderstand (when they thought Nat 1's were autofail) and asked for rolls for Saving Throws or Ability Checks when the character in question had a higher bonus than the DC with their explanation being, Nat 1's are autofail. There was no maliciousness, they simply thought it was like that. They weren't the worst DM's ever or anything like that. And when I pointed out that Nat 1's in 5E do not apply to Saving Throws and Ability Checks, they immediately stopped. I don't think if I have actual experience in that situation, it can be called a strawman argument.
I firmly believe that it is best to simply make nat 1/20 auto fail/successes an optional/variant rule and keep the current 5E rules as the default RAW; just clarify them in One D&D. Like actually state that Nat 1/20 do not affect Saving Throws and Ability Checks outside of being the number rolled, because the way 5E does it is simply state what it does for Attacks and Death Saves while not mentioning Saving Throws or Ability Checks.
Welp, I should have listened to Haravikk when he talked about people not reading what is written. Anyways, if you look back in this thread at the context of this line of discussion, then you'll notice that we were only talking about DM's deciding when to -- and when not to -- roll. And the auto-fail/auto-success rules impact on it. I actually agree with you on most of what you were saying there, but it does not relate whatsoever to anything I was saying. It was not about misunderstanding the auto-fail rule, it was about what situations require rolls and what situations don't.
Previous posters had repeatedly made points saying that DM's could use this rule to kill players by giving them ridiculous checks for no reason on things that their obviously shouldn't be checks for, and my above argument is that no DM, new or otherwise, would give people checks to see if, say, their lungs ruptured randomly and they died (as given in the linked example). As long as the DM has any idea of how reality works, they would not start assigning roles for things as ridiculous as that, and killing players off for taking a deep breath. In short, that argument is built off the idea that DM's might do that, ignoring the fact that no, only perhaps 1 in a million DM's might be close to that bad. Also, if the DM's are that bad, then they have infinite power and can ruin the game with their ineptitude anyways, this rule, just like any rule, can be misused in ridiculous ways by one person out there in the world who is either actively being malicious, or just one of the worst, rarest DM's, who can't grasp any rule and messes rule like that up along with numerous others.
Welp, I should have listened to Haravikk when he talked about people not reading what is written. Anyways, if you look back in this thread at the context of this line of discussion, then you'll notice that we were only talking about DM's deciding when to -- and when not to -- roll. And the auto-fail/auto-success rules impact on it. I actually agree with you on most of what you were saying there, but it does not relate whatsoever to anything I was saying. It was not about misunderstanding the auto-fail rule, it was about what situations require rolls and what situations don't.
Previous posters had repeatedly made points saying that DM's could use this rule to kill players by giving them ridiculous checks for no reason on things that their obviously shouldn't be checks for, and my above argument is that no DM, new or otherwise, would give people checks to see if, say, their lungs ruptured randomly and they died (as given in the linked example). As long as the DM has any idea of how reality works, they would not start assigning roles for things as ridiculous as that, and killing players off for taking a deep breath. In short, that argument is built off the idea that DM's might do that, ignoring the fact that no, only perhaps 1 in a million DM's might be close to that bad. Also, if the DM's are that bad, then they have infinite power and can ruin the game with their ineptitude anyways, this rule, just like any rule, can be misused in ridiculous ways by one person out there in the world who is either actively being malicious, or just one of the worst, rarest DM's, who can't grasp any rule and messes rule like that up along with numerous others.
The misunderstanding of the rules is related though, at least in the context of the current 5E rule and how that can be used to see how One D&D can be affected if the rule was made official; essentially, we can use the current misunderstanding with 5E as a preview for One D&D if the rule was to be made RAW. I have seen inexperienced DMs simply ask for rolls because they thought that Nat 1's were auto fails and they only stopped because I told them that by 5E RAW that was not the case. If the same happened in One D&D and Nat 1 Auto fails were RAW, then a lot of inexperienced DMs will suddenly have a "reason" to continue calling for rolls when they shouldn't.
Yeah, some of the examples are ridiculous, but it is a rule that can cause inexperienced DMs to actually make mistakes such as calling for rolls when they shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily call them a strawman's argument just because some of the analogies were outlandish; like I don't think the examples I provided were outlandish; and the argument itself is something I have seen (just without the extreme examples).
Really then why was I told by WotC officials when signing up my FLGS for running AL, that ALL Optional rules had to be used? Why is it that every player that sits down at the AL table EXPECTS every single optional rule to be in effect?
Are you sure you didn't mishear the official? Or perhaps they were just claiming to be an official. If we take a look at the official AL Documents:
DDAL_PlayersGuidev12_1.pdf (wizards.com) On page 1, in the box "What Rulebooks Should I Use?" It says "Additional, the following variant or optional rules are available:" Followed by a list of what is allowed for character creation.
ddal_fr_dmsguidev11_0.pdf (wizards.com) On page 3, Running the Game, under The Rules of the Game: "Further, the options and variant rules listed below from the Dungeon Master's Guide and Chapter 2 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything are available for your use; others aren't permitted without campaign documentation."
Following this statement is a list of variant and optional rules, and not all of the possible optional/variant rules are used. Flanking is not on the list for example.
DDAL_Forgotten_Realms_FAQ_v11.1.pdf (wizards.com) On the beginning of page 4, under Variant and Optional Rule Availability: "Without specific campaign documentation, any other variant or optional rules aren't available for use."
The actual official document for AL specifically lists the allowed optional/variant rules and specifically says that others are not allowed. I don't know why you were told that all optional rules were used, but it is clearly stated in the documents that only a specific set of optional/variant rules may be used.
The misunderstanding of the rules is related though, at least in the context of the current 5E rule and how that can be used to see how One D&D can be affected if the rule was made official; essentially, we can use the current misunderstanding with 5E as a preview for One D&D if the rule was to be made RAW. I have seen inexperienced DMs simply ask for rolls because they thought that Nat 1's were auto fails and they only stopped because I told them that by 5E RAW that was not the case. If the same happened in One D&D and Nat 1 Auto fails were RAW, then a lot of inexperienced DMs will suddenly have a "reason" to continue calling for rolls when they shouldn't.
Yeah, some of the examples are ridiculous, but it is a rule that can cause inexperienced DMs to actually make mistakes such as calling for rolls when they shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily call them a strawman's argument just because some of the analogies were outlandish; like I don't think the examples I provided were outlandish; and the argument itself is something I have seen (just without the extreme examples).
Fair enough, DM's doing this out of maliciousness is certainly a straw-man, but the base argument you talked about above is not. Anyways, if a new DM takes the auto-fail roll and decides it means you have to roll for practically everything... well, I wonder how well that DM would do grappling with the other, more complicated aspects of the game. Also, according to that DM's logic, their players would have to literally roll for everything, and I think it'd be obvious pretty quickly that that is not how D&D should be played.
So could a new DM misunderstand this? Certainly, but several of the above examples I was responding to go far beyond simple misunderstanding. Also, new DM's can misunderstand anything, this doesn't seem like a large exception to that rule, either way, so that doesn't seem like a good reason to scrap it.
Anyways, I'm against auto-fails on nat 1's and I gave several reasons for that HERE. That being said, I don't really think this is a particularly complicated rule, even if I am against it, and I don't see how even an inexperienced DM could misunderstand a rule such as auto-fails on nat 1's to mean constant rolls. They certainly couldn't misunderstand it so badly to start making people do checks for breathing.
PS- I'm going camping for a day (maybe two) so I won't be able to reply there. So if I don't respond to your next comment, that's why.
Welp, I should have listened to Haravikk when he talked about people not reading what is written. Anyways, if you look back in this thread at the context of this line of discussion, then you'll notice that we were only talking about DM's deciding when to -- and when not to -- roll. And the auto-fail/auto-success rules impact on it. I actually agree with you on most of what you were saying there, but it does not relate whatsoever to anything I was saying. It was not about misunderstanding the auto-fail rule, it was about what situations require rolls and what situations don't.
Previous posters had repeatedly made points saying that DM's could use this rule to kill players by giving them ridiculous checks for no reason on things that their obviously shouldn't be checks for, and my above argument is that no DM, new or otherwise, would give people checks to see if, say, their lungs ruptured randomly and they died (as given in the linked example). As long as the DM has any idea of how reality works, they would not start assigning roles for things as ridiculous as that, and killing players off for taking a deep breath. In short, that argument is built off the idea that DM's might do that, ignoring the fact that no, only perhaps 1 in a million DM's might be close to that bad. Also, if the DM's are that bad, then they have infinite power and can ruin the game with their ineptitude anyways, this rule, just like any rule, can be misused in ridiculous ways by one person out there in the world who is either actively being malicious, or just one of the worst, rarest DM's, who can't grasp any rule and messes rule like that up along with numerous others.
The misunderstanding of the rules is related though, at least in the context of the current 5E rule and how that can be used to see how One D&D can be affected if the rule was made official; essentially, we can use the current misunderstanding with 5E as a preview for One D&D if the rule was to be made RAW. I have seen inexperienced DMs simply ask for rolls because they thought that Nat 1's were auto fails and they only stopped because I told them that by 5E RAW that was not the case. If the same happened in One D&D and Nat 1 Auto fails were RAW, then a lot of inexperienced DMs will suddenly have a "reason" to continue calling for rolls when they shouldn't.
Yeah, some of the examples are ridiculous, but it is a rule that can cause inexperienced DMs to actually make mistakes such as calling for rolls when they shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily call them a strawman's argument just because some of the analogies were outlandish; like I don't think the examples I provided were outlandish; and the argument itself is something I have seen (just without the extreme examples).
Really then why was I told by WotC officials when signing up my FLGS for running AL, that ALL Optional rules had to be used? Why is it that every player that sits down at the AL table EXPECTS every single optional rule to be in effect?
Are you sure you didn't mishear the official? Or perhaps they were just claiming to be an official. If we take a look at the official AL Documents:
DDAL_PlayersGuidev12_1.pdf (wizards.com) On page 1, in the box "What Rulebooks Should I Use?" It says "Additional, the following variant or optional rules are available:" Followed by a list of what is allowed for character creation.
ddal_fr_dmsguidev11_0.pdf (wizards.com) On page 3, Running the Game, under The Rules of the Game: "Further, the options and variant rules listed below from the Dungeon Master's Guide and Chapter 2 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything are available for your use; others aren't permitted without campaign documentation."
Following this statement is a list of variant and optional rules, and not all of the possible optional/variant rules are used. Flanking is not on the list for example.
DDAL_Forgotten_Realms_FAQ_v11.1.pdf (wizards.com) On the beginning of page 4, under Variant and Optional Rule Availability: "Without specific campaign documentation, any other variant or optional rules aren't available for use."
The actual official document for AL specifically lists the allowed optional/variant rules and specifically says that others are not allowed. I don't know why you were told that all optional rules were used, but it is clearly stated in the documents that only a specific set of optional/variant rules may be used.
Well it was 8 years ago when we first went to get it established... And NO I did not mis-hear... I asked them to repeat that statement 3 times to make sure I heard it correctly. The all optional rules was the killer on that deal for us. No AL in the shop. Store backed/sponsored campaigns galore just no official WotC ones.
I would say the problem is a DM determined to ruin the game and with infinite power to do so that has nothing to do with the rules for d20 checks.
The examples are intentionally humorous, but they're perfectly valid (and unambiguously clear) examples of when not to roll checks, which has literally been my main point now for several pages but which keeps being ignored.
What you are describing is your group not having fun because some or all of you did not read or understand the rules; every time you insist that every check will be rolled even though the rules explicitly tell you not to, you are proposing that the same thing will happen.
Your problem in both cases is not the text of the rules, but the fact that people aren't reading them; simplifying d20 tests should actually help with this (less to read, no longer three slightly different types of d20 test), but it's not a problem that can be solved by anything other than the players and DMs actually reading and following the rules as they are presented.
People have repeatedly pointed out that checks DO NOT NEED TO BE ROLLED AT ALL, it's literally in the rules.
If you have a DM that wants to humiliate you for failing then a change to the d20 tests isn't going to affect that because they can literally change the rules whenever they like and do anything and everything that they want to whenever they like. The written rules are irrelevant to bad DMing. The correct way to solve that problem is to speak to the DM, or find a new one, because while it might be "funny" to have players fail spectacularly now and then, and might be fine in a comedic campaign, most of the time in a classic campaign it's the wrong thing to do, especially if a character fails at something they're supposed to be good at.
And again as I have already pointed out, there's also a big assumption here that every failure needs to involve rubbing the player's face in dirt and laughing at how worthless they are, but that's not how failure is supposed to work in D&D either. Failing to climb something doesn't have to mean you fall, it can just mean you take longer to do it etc. DMing is a skill like anything else, and D&D is a collaborative experience; players should talk to their DM about things they don't like, and what they want out of the game and how things are narratively explained, otherwise the game doesn't work. There is a reason that the full rules of the game is in the Player's Handbook, and not limited to the Dungeon Master's Guide; the players are responsible for knowing how their characters are supposed to work.
You can't force a bad DM to do things "right" by changing the rules to force them, not when their role in the game is basically to be a god. And none of this changes the simple fact that 1's fail and 20's succeed is how most people have been playing checks already; because it's how it used to work, and many new players miss that there are three different types of roll. 5th edition is the aberration with its three different checks that confuse people, and Wizards of the Coast is recognising that fact and reversing the change.
In fact, if you want to reduce poor DMing (misunderstanding the rules, rather than maliciously twisting them) then you should be 100% behind efforts to simplify them, because having one d20 test is easier to learn, involves less reading, and makes it more likely that a DM might read the part about when to use them properly, rather than wasting time having to remember how each one functions differently and missing or forgetting that part as result.
But I'm unsubscribing now, as I'm at my limit for how many times I'm willing to repeat myself, as it's becoming clear that not reading what is written isn't limited to only "bad" DMs running D&D. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
While I think there should be no automatic failures on natural 1's, one particular commonly repeated (in this very thread) argument against this rule is a straw-man. Saying, "The person with absolute and infinite power over their game can use this rule in a bad way to hurt their players" may be true, but a terrible DM who is determined to ruin the game for their players can do that in any way or through any rule they want to abuse. Just because this rule can, like any other rule, be abused by atrocious DM's, doesn't mean the whole rule is trash.
If your DM makes you roll to see whether you don't randomly spontaniously combust due to "a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma" while walking down the street, then they could have you fail that check, natural 1 or otherwise (they set the DC), and if your DM is making you perform checks like that then you can't blame it on a rule they are intentionally using incorrectly.
That being said, as I stated above, I am against automatic failures on natural 1's, because I think some DM's might want to roll for the margin of success, and the new system discourages them from doing that unless they override the natural 1 failure rule. I also think that there are some DC's that some players with high-stats shouldn't have a chance to fail at, and you should be allowed to have them roll for how much they succeed by without the natural 1 rule getting in the way. Anyways, while I agree with most of the points against this new rule, a DM can abuse any rule and saying that they can abuse this one too so this particular rule and none of the others with the same exact problem must be scrapped due to that flaw not a very logical conclusion.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.If nat 1 auto fails were RAW, my group would have kept doing it and we would have kept feeling miserable when we failed solely due to the auto fail. The actual text of the rules improved our game.
Also, I would not say most people play with Nat 1/20 auto fail/success. I recently talked to some new co-workers and found out that they play 5E without nat 1/20 auto fail/success. There are a good deal of people playing it without nat 1/20 success. Written rules do matter.
Nat 1/20 auto fail/success should not be the RAW rule. Simplifying the rule does not require adding it back in. Reversing the 5E change is a bad idea.
It is only a strawman argument if we were only considering DMs doing it out of maliciousness. However, DMs can make bad calls from inexperience and they are more impressionable by the RAW rule. It is far easier to add a house/optional/variant rule than to remove the RAW rule. I personally note the possibility of inexperience being affected by this rule.
It is not that hard to make a house rule that the nat1/nat20 rule is not applied in that game. Literally that is all that needs to be said
Of course though all the rules that need to be the main rule have to keep the builders happy. Everyone else can adjust the rules as long as the build players who don't want to fail are happy.
No, they are full on straw men which actually dilute the real issue that is there. Outside Yurie who apparently has met and gamed with the worst people in existence no DM good, bad or inexperienced is going to make you make a roll to spread jam on toast outside bizarre circumstances like your character got insanely drunk and they are just hamming it up, in which case just have fun as you decided to get insanely drunk and trust me you can get drunk enough to routinely fail a check to spread jam so its not that insane. But out of the blue, spread jam, or spontaneous combust, checks to see if you kill yourself by breathing, checks to jump 500 ft gaps under the current rules, no DM is bothering to make you roll or at least let you fail/succeed in those cases. Use legitimate examples to make the same point like I did above when I said this, "But what if its a 30 foot gap and the total athletics modifier is +5 can they roll, can the wizard with +0, are you cherry picking you yes, you no, you yes. What if its a arcane test DC 25, do you tell the untrained fighter no you can't roll everyone else can. Social tests, the NPC rolls a 25 on there deception test, the rogue can potentially spot it, no one else can do you say Bob you can make a insight test, no one else can, so now the players know its a lie but have to pretend they don't."
You don't have to be a straw manly bad DM to make these calls in a way that worsens the game, in fact you have to be a pretty dang good DM to navigate all of these. I legitimately do not understand while people who are against this rule are using these straw men its terrible for their argument, i get while the proponents of the rule do as straw manning the opposition benefits them. Don't straw man yourself.
People are less receptive to removing existing rules than to adding house rules. Furthermore, there are times when you cannot house rule, such as organized play. In addition, RAW sets the precedent and foundation, which can affect how people house rule things.
The rule that should the optional/variant/house rule is the nat 1/20 auto fail/success.
I don't think the examples I used were ludicrous nor were my arguments strawman arguments as I made my arguments from my own experiences.
You might not have made absurd ones, but they have been throughout this thread by Yurei and Haravaikk which is what boringbard was referencing. And his point is valid no rule is going to survive a insanely terrible DM, if they are going to make you make a see if you survive breathing normally save they just as easily will have a flight of ancient red dragons show up at level 1. The point that should be made isn't about insanely bad DMs but that you need a good DM to make it work.
Except people don't really have to adjust their gameplay if the Nat 1/20 rule doesn't make it through. The only people that it really does affect are the people who actually do build characters that can succeed on a nat 1. The rule only affects them because for everyone else, Nat 1's would be failures with or without the autofail rule because if 1 + Mod does not meet the DC, it is a failure. The Nat 1 Auto Fail does absolutely nothing if you don't have the modifier to succeed on a Nat 1 to begin with. So, all the Nat 1 rule does is hinder the fun of the subset of players that enjoy succeeding on a nat 1.
So it is not about what I like, but about how it actually affects the various subsets of players, and the Nat 1 Auto Fail negatively affects the people against it while doing nothing for the people for it. Saying that I am saying this because it is the rule I like is just disingenuous.
If anything, the Nat 1 Auto Fail is making the people who dislike it adjust their gameplay according to those that want the Nat 1 Autofail.
No, it is a complete straw-man argument either way. A new DM is not going to force you to roll when you take a deep breath to check if that roll causes you to hyperventilate and die. Even a new DM with no understanding of the game is going to know -- from their experiences in real life -- that some tasks are possible and some tasks are impossible. Arguing that the worst DM's in the game may not understand how one rule works and assuming they will use it in the worst possible way is a straw-man argument, because 99.9999% DM's are not going to be like that. As MyDudeicus states, it is better to focus on the aspect of these rules that it takes a good DM to understand (because their are plenty of those), not the one's that need the worse possible DM in existence to misunderstand.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.When the initial argument is "I don't like guaranteed success/failure, I've had some rotten experiences with DMs mishandling and/or over-relying on checks and this rule reinforces that mode/idea of play", and the counter-argument is "you're a terrible person, your argument is terrible, your experience is invalid, no DM has ever mishandled a check in the entire history of D&D and if you don't absolutely, unabashedly, unconditionally adore automatic success/failure rules without reservation or restraint then you should just stop playing D&D right now and never game again"? It gets some people's Annoyance Meters beeping and their guard up.
I simply do not like automatic success/failure. I think it's a bad core rule and it makes for worse play, because it reinforces the idea that you play by making checks instead of by declaring actions. I'm allowed to think that, and I'm allowed to respond when people challenge my thoughts on it, whether in good faith or otherwise. if people want to adopt that mode of play at their personal table, i.e. the thread starter? Got no issue with them doing them. Jamming the rule into the core books and trying to force it down my throat with a backhoe, tell me I HAVE to play this way? That, I take issue with. And people can yell "straw man!" at me all they want, it won't stop me thinking the rule is bad as a core rule. As a table rule for people who vibe on lolrandom hyper chaos? Fine. For tables where people try to take their game seriously? Nah.
Please do not contact or message me.
If it comes up, you've already decided to make a check. One D&D could use some better guidelines on when to make ability checks in the first place, but if anything, the nat 1/20 rule just lampshades rolls you shouldn't have been making in the first place.
Except I seen plenty of just inexperienced DMs misunderstand (when they thought Nat 1's were autofail) and asked for rolls for Saving Throws or Ability Checks when the character in question had a higher bonus than the DC with their explanation being, Nat 1's are autofail. There was no maliciousness, they simply thought it was like that. They weren't the worst DM's ever or anything like that. And when I pointed out that Nat 1's in 5E do not apply to Saving Throws and Ability Checks, they immediately stopped. I don't think if I have actual experience in that situation, it can be called a strawman argument.
I firmly believe that it is best to simply make nat 1/20 auto fail/successes an optional/variant rule and keep the current 5E rules as the default RAW; just clarify them in One D&D. Like actually state that Nat 1/20 do not affect Saving Throws and Ability Checks outside of being the number rolled, because the way 5E does it is simply state what it does for Attacks and Death Saves while not mentioning Saving Throws or Ability Checks.
The issue of “core rule” vs “optional rule” makes me think that WotC should heavily poll people who exclusively or primarily play in organized play games like Adventurer’s League. This is the only time it matters what the “actual” rules are.
For anyone who just plays with friends, it shouldn’t matter at all. I know I don’t care. I like auto-fail and auto-success, as I think it reinforces the point of calling for a roll in the first place. But I don’t think those who dislike it are at all bad people, or just misunderstanding the issue, or playing the game wrong. D&D has always been, and will always be, a game made best by changing what you need to change to make it a perfect game for you and your group.
I’m sure everyone has examples of rules that they and their group disliked and so (hopefully) changed or ignored. Because it’s not like Jeremy Crawford is going to break down your door and accuse you of playing wrong. Whether this rule is presented as a “core rule” or an “optional rule” shouldn’t matter at all. Wherever the rule is presented (or even if it isn’t mentioned at all and you just houserule it), your game is no less official. You are still playing D&D, and doing it right, because you are doing it your way.
As always, find a group that likes to play the way you play.
except in organized play (speaking AL here) all optional rules are mandatory. so that tact is a no go for an argument.
That's false. All optional rules are not mandatory in AL. Flanking is not used in AL for example, neither is variant encumbrance.
Default rules do matter a bit as they can sent precedents and foundations. I generally find it easier to find a group that uses the core rules than any that use some of the optional or variant rules. I have seen people try to use the argument that something is not a default rule as a reason to not include, namely with multiclassing.
Really then why was I told by WotC officials when signing up my FLGS for running AL, that ALL Optional rules had to be used? Why is it that every player that sits down at the AL table EXPECTS every single optional rule to be in effect?
Yurei, I do not think that your experience is invalid. I do not think any of your arguments are terrible. In fact, I find the vast majority of what you say both interesting and informative. I also think this rule is bad as a core rule, and I don't like it much whatsoever. That being said, singling out a rare, extraordinary way a DM could maliciously use a rule to do things such as make them spontaniously combust, and then blaming the rule for the DM intentionally misusing it, or at minimum, that DM's sheer ineptitude, is not fair to the rule in question. No semi-decent DM is going to make their players make "breathing checks" to see whether or not their characters lung randomly ruptures, and if you have a DM like that, then any system they use is not going to go well. So yes, pointing to one ridiculous way a DM could use a rule to kill their players, when they can do that with any rule, is a straw-man argument. That being said, I literally agree that nat 1 auto-fails are not a good thing.
Welp, I should have listened to Haravikk when he talked about people not reading what is written. Anyways, if you look back in this thread at the context of this line of discussion, then you'll notice that we were only talking about DM's deciding when to -- and when not to -- roll. And the auto-fail/auto-success rules impact on it. I actually agree with you on most of what you were saying there, but it does not relate whatsoever to anything I was saying. It was not about misunderstanding the auto-fail rule, it was about what situations require rolls and what situations don't.
Previous posters had repeatedly made points saying that DM's could use this rule to kill players by giving them ridiculous checks for no reason on things that their obviously shouldn't be checks for, and my above argument is that no DM, new or otherwise, would give people checks to see if, say, their lungs ruptured randomly and they died (as given in the linked example). As long as the DM has any idea of how reality works, they would not start assigning roles for things as ridiculous as that, and killing players off for taking a deep breath. In short, that argument is built off the idea that DM's might do that, ignoring the fact that no, only perhaps 1 in a million DM's might be close to that bad. Also, if the DM's are that bad, then they have infinite power and can ruin the game with their ineptitude anyways, this rule, just like any rule, can be misused in ridiculous ways by one person out there in the world who is either actively being malicious, or just one of the worst, rarest DM's, who can't grasp any rule and messes rule like that up along with numerous others.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The misunderstanding of the rules is related though, at least in the context of the current 5E rule and how that can be used to see how One D&D can be affected if the rule was made official; essentially, we can use the current misunderstanding with 5E as a preview for One D&D if the rule was to be made RAW. I have seen inexperienced DMs simply ask for rolls because they thought that Nat 1's were auto fails and they only stopped because I told them that by 5E RAW that was not the case. If the same happened in One D&D and Nat 1 Auto fails were RAW, then a lot of inexperienced DMs will suddenly have a "reason" to continue calling for rolls when they shouldn't.
Yeah, some of the examples are ridiculous, but it is a rule that can cause inexperienced DMs to actually make mistakes such as calling for rolls when they shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily call them a strawman's argument just because some of the analogies were outlandish; like I don't think the examples I provided were outlandish; and the argument itself is something I have seen (just without the extreme examples).
Are you sure you didn't mishear the official? Or perhaps they were just claiming to be an official. If we take a look at the official AL Documents:
DDAL_PlayersGuidev12_1.pdf (wizards.com)
On page 1, in the box "What Rulebooks Should I Use?" It says "Additional, the following variant or optional rules are available:" Followed by a list of what is allowed for character creation.
ddal_fr_dmsguidev11_0.pdf (wizards.com)
On page 3, Running the Game, under The Rules of the Game: "Further, the options and variant rules listed below from the Dungeon Master's Guide and Chapter 2 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything are available for your use; others aren't permitted without campaign documentation."
Following this statement is a list of variant and optional rules, and not all of the possible optional/variant rules are used. Flanking is not on the list for example.
DDAL_Forgotten_Realms_FAQ_v11.1.pdf (wizards.com)
On the beginning of page 4, under Variant and Optional Rule Availability:
"Without specific campaign documentation, any other variant or optional rules aren't available for use."
The actual official document for AL specifically lists the allowed optional/variant rules and specifically says that others are not allowed. I don't know why you were told that all optional rules were used, but it is clearly stated in the documents that only a specific set of optional/variant rules may be used.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Well it was 8 years ago when we first went to get it established...
And NO I did not mis-hear... I asked them to repeat that statement 3 times to make sure I heard it correctly.
The all optional rules was the killer on that deal for us. No AL in the shop.
Store backed/sponsored campaigns galore just no official WotC ones.