Natural 1's/20s being automatic success and failures makes my blood boil, my teeth grind, my colon clench, and my vision go red. I absolutely detest that rule and the bad stupid dumb "Can I roll a...?" questions it provokes from players, and I will never use it or allow it at my table. But hey - lucky for you, what happens at my table doesn't matter one spit to you and yours. if you like the rule, do it up. WHo cares what Internet randies think.
I prefer having the nat 1 & 20 rule apply to every check and not just combat.
Unclean! UNCLEAN!!!
Just kidding. I personally have used both in my games and personally, I can go either way, though I prefer not to use the auto-fail and auto-success. I think it really depends on the game being played and the people at the table and how the DM handles both.
I will say that if you're one of those DMs who likes to break the player's stuff when they roll a natural 1, you may want to reconsider doing that. Having to spend another 25gp on thieves' tools every time you nat 1 a lock check mostly just makes you not want to bother with opening things up anymore. Same with breaking weapon blades, snapping bowstrings, or any of the other "hilarious critical fumble" things DMs like to do that just makes their players all stop doing things because they can't afford to keep having their equipment randomly, catastophically fail on them without rhyme, reason, or recourse. I don't know as I've ever met one player that likes having their stuff constantly breaking on them. Sometimes, in narratively poignant moments, having a piece of gear fail? Sure. Having "gear failure" be a possible result in a Tension Pool/Complications table? Sure. Losing twenty items per session because something breaks "hilariously" every single god damned time a nat 1 dares show its face? Nah.
That's one of the other reasons I personally cannot stand Nat 1/20 auto-result tables. They feed into the idea of "Critical Fumbles", and Critical Fumbles need to die and stay dead.
To add to Yureu1453’s comment, if you do prefer the auto-fail system, consider also using a “fail forward” pairing. If they fail, soften the blow with some boon. They break a sword and fall through a hole after a terrible attempt to attack a door? Maybe they fall into a room holding some ancient, powerful, better in every way super sword.
It depends on the particular campaign but I quite like critical success/failure outside of combat. Dumb luck (good and bad) exists outside of combat and can make for some really hilarious moments.
Also, I don't think we can deny that a whole bunch of new players have found their way to playing d&d from watching actual play like Critical Role and Dimension 20 both of which use critical success/failure.
Also also, critical success/failure has always been an optional rule. Making it the default and making crits just apply to combat an optional rule won't really have any impact on more experienced players if they don't want it to.
Critical Role doesn't actually use Critical Success/Failure. The players act like they do, but Mercer has, several times, cut into the whole nat 20 table-dancing celebrations with a "for a total of...?" Mercer himself doesn't stick strictly to one system or the other but does what he thinks best in any given situation, which is what a GM should be doing.
I prefer having the nat 1 & 20 rule apply to every check and not just combat.
You're not alone. I honestly cannot figure out what the hate is for that rule.
The D20 Test is and was a binary 'pass/fail' that the DM asks the player to do when a result is in question. So the result was always going to be one of two things, Pass or Fail.
The result of the die doesn't matter. Like Schroedingers cat, both results have a possibility of existing until the dice says which one continues existing. The fact that the minimum value a pass or fail result can ever be is 5% doesn't actually seem like a problem considering the DM had to have both potentialities ready anyway.
If a player asks to search a desk for a plot key and there is no chance of failure then there is no roll to be made and the DM gives them the key. If the roll was to see if they find the hidden compartment in the desk in addition to the plot key then it doesnt matter what number they rolled. Only if they beat the DC to find it. If PASS, heres the compartment and the key, if FAIL then here's the key.
EDIT: And also, who breaks the lockpick on a nat 1? If anything you break the lock so they cant try again and removing that option. Otherwise you might have the Artificer just sitting back magically summoning thieves tool after thieves tool like you were playing skyrim.
I will never break the tools and weapons from nat 1s unless my players were trying to do something incredibly stupid. like trying to use their sword as a climbing tool.
I do too. That is if the chance to succeed is up to 20. Over that than no. Now I don't like critical and something breaks or you do something amazing. It can just be you fail or succeed. Also what success and failure mean. Success doesn't always mean what the player thinks.
I have made a Thieves tool 'break', but that just gave them a minus one on checks until they could repair/replace the single pick( there is like 6 on a half decent set) that broke in the lock. Needless to say they couldn't make anymore attempts on the jammed lock, and something began laughing at them from inside the box.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I'm not a fan of the previous UA rules, but that's because they don't jive with my style, which expands upon the rules. The flat success/failure system was never something I liked. But you do you. It wouldn't put me off playing with you whichever rules you used.
As for consequences...I normally give consequences for nat1s, just like I do nat20s, but neither usually permanent. You miss and hit a team mate or you drop your sword, or it gets stuck in a tree that you underestimated the distance to. Regardless, something that you can fix and move on from, but provides some narrative flair and interest to the game. I'd never break a sword unless it's really meaningful moment (eg fighting Sauron and your sword breaks, even then it'll be usable and the penalty will be dependent on how well you're doing). Breaking stuff or causing any permanent debuffs for the sake of it is not cool. There are certain things in RAW and published adventures that irks me for that reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, I'd imagine that they received so much feedback against the nat 1/20 auto fail/success that it was removed for a reason. It is fine as an optional/variant rule, but not as the default RAW.
I prefer having the nat 1 & 20 rule apply to every check and not just combat.
You're not alone. I honestly cannot figure out what the hate is for that rule.
The D20 Test is and was a binary 'pass/fail' that the DM asks the player to do when a result is in question. So the result was always going to be one of two things, Pass or Fail.
The hate for the rule is for when a person dedicates enough resources into being good enough at a skill that even on a 1 they'd still succeed on easy or even moderate checks they want that investment to matter.
The problem is its very unrealistic. And yes, its a fantasy game so "realism" isn't there, but it actually is. Social situations. The interesting thing is that no matter how fantastical things are social interactions, whether in games, books, movies, etc, are always realistic. The closest you get are cultural differences, i.e. Thor smashing a glass saying "I'll have another this drink is good" but there are still causal reasons for that action. Thus if a person could potentially persuade a king to give up his country then that would be part of the world itself. The closest example of "unrealistic social situations" I can think of is No Game No Life, where things are literally done via games, i.e. a person robs you by challenging you to a game, which you don't even have to agree to" But, in that story's world building that behavior is critical to the setting.
That is why having it apply to ability checks is a bit foolish. While swinging a stick at someone there is always a non-zero chance you could hit them. When asking someone to hand you the kingdom there is often a zero percent chance. That's like me going "Hello MR. President, please resign and set me as your replacement. It wouldn't happen. At least not with a single action.
That is why Nat 20 auto success on ability checks is foolish. I'm going to stealth in this brightly lit room with everyone looking at me 20 "Success" how, how would that actually play out, how could someone do that (its not a magic action, just an ability). The Critical Success should only exist if there is a reasonable way such a success could play out in the immediate situation.
From an actual gameplay view, people say "The DM could just not allow the roll" Yes, they could but then get accused of limiting play agency. Additionally, it will have players constantly roll attempting things with little to no penalty. When attack rolls, you're going to attack (for the most part) anyways. If you fail there will be a clear penalty. I.e. "I'm level 1, look an ancient dragon, I'm going to attack it" If you don't get that nat 20 then you are going to die. With ability checks that isn't necessarily the case. As a result even if the requirement is a nat 20 or you'll fail it, the penalties are minor. If the DM makes them high, then players will just avoid Ability Rolls as much as possible since they don't know what is likely and what isn't and if the stakes are the same as potentially attacking an ancient dragon and failing, they won't want to risk it. Also, with the Dragon example, even if you get a critical success you aren't out of the clear, since there is structured progress to slaying the dragon (even the Vorpal Sword wouldn't help you here). You can't say "I attack the dragon to cut off its head, critical success, I kill it in 1 blow" that's not how combat works. With social situations involving ability checks a person could outline a situation and get a crit and do basically that, end it all at once. "I want to persuade the BBEG to give up, critical success, yay, campaign over, no battle or climax"
Again, the argument is putting this all on the DM to avoid those situations but that makes the DM have to play everything in far more detail than they normally do, additionally, they have to predict what the players are trying to accomplish with such outlandish rolls. A DM could say on a critical success of persuading the BBEG to give up "You laughs at your statement enjoying your jest feeling you're no threat at all" thus giving advantage but then a player could counter "No, I wanted to convince him that he surrender, and I got a critical success, that isn't the result, stop trying to force the fight, I got a critical success"
TLDR: Ability Checks involve situations with far more nuance than normal Attack and Saves thus having a method to "always succeed no matter the difficulty" is disruptive to gameplay.
That being said, there is always the option to add it as a house rule. That's fine. The problem is a DM removing rules from the official game gets far more push back than NOT adding unofficial rules people may have used in the past.
Furthermore, I've not played much where ability checks can be done AGAINST a player, thus if a player convinces the king to hand over his kingdom, no one else could ever do the same to the player, now king. Things done TO the player are done through narrative, i.e. the DM actually convinces the players / characters to do something via NPC behavior, speech, etc. DM doesn't "roll" ability checks to see if he convinces X player to go south. Conversely combat is more balanced as the DM rolls for enemy attacks and other actions. Although monsters not being able to crit is something people have issue with.
Here's my thought process... if a character would still succeed on a check if their stats exceed the DC of the check even on a failure, then they shouldn't be asked to roll in the first place. Success is guaranteed. In that same vein, if there is no chance of success even on a 20, then again... the DM shouldn't be asking for a check.
So, with that in mind... I'm okay with the crit fail/success binary being applied to all checks. I think the only problem you run into is doing opposed rolls, like Stealth vs Perception, or an Athletics contest. Although I guess that's also partly why the UA rules are eliminating those opposed rolls by proposing a flat DC15 stealth check to hide regardless of who you're hiding from, and replacing grappling rules with just unarmed strikes and a flat grapple-escape DC based on your character's strength stat.
Personally, I don't know about the automatic success & failure on nat 20's or 1's. I mean, I get why WotC made that change, but it's incredibly and realistic, and frustrating how the cleric with obserevant and +300 perception doesn't notice the the beeping grenade in the middle of the room 5% of the time. But as Yurei1453 has said, just because we don't like this rule doesn't mean you can't use it. Simply find a group that plays this way and start rolling, if you enjoy a different style, rule, or way of playing the game, then there's nothing wrong with that.
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.
Here's my thought process... if a character would still succeed on a check if their stats exceed the DC of the check even on a failure, then they shouldn't be asked to roll in the first place. Success is guaranteed. In that same vein, if there is no chance of success even on a 20, then again... the DM shouldn't be asking for a check.
In principle I agree with this opinion, but in practice I feel like it often gets inconvenient, especially when group rolls are involved. For example when asking the entire party to roll a stealth check, I've never heard any DM say "Except for you player X, you can't get under the DC anyway". Especially since many DM's don't like to share the DC beforehand, and they might not remember everyone's modifiers in the first place. I get the feeling little inconveniences like those makes it so that many tables find it easier to have a player just roll, potentially a 1, only to hear the total would still have them beat the DC, rather than having to check before each roll if there's an actual chance of failure for the player about to make said roll.
I will mention there's also the idea of having several degrees of success/failure that many groups use, but since I'm 97% sure that's a houserule anyway, I don't see why such groups should be bothered by what the RAW says about nat 1/20's. If they're already houseruling the former, why not houserule the latter too?
That said, I agree that a roll should only be asked for when there's multiple potential outcomes. Whether it's just the RAW outcomes of Failure/Success, or varying degrees of failure or success depending on how far under/above the DC your roll lands. If there's only failure/success and your modifiers are too high/low to have a chance at one of the two, a roll would be obsolete. It's just that many tables don't check for those odds until after the roll is made, because it isn't really worth the effort.
Here's my thought process... if a character would still succeed on a check if their stats exceed the DC of the check even on a failure, then they shouldn't be asked to roll in the first place. Success is guaranteed. In that same vein, if there is no chance of success even on a 20, then again... the DM shouldn't be asking for a check.
This is my thinking as well; if a DM wants players to roll anyway for some reason (e.g- to mask what's happening), or wants a check to ignore criticals etc. then they remain free to change things on a case-by-case basis.
Also worth remembering that players don't decide what checks to roll or when 99% of the time (the exceptions are special actions in combat and such); players propose an action, and the DM decides what check(s), if any, must be rolled, and what their outcome is.
So natural 20's being a success is not license for players to suddenly perform impossible feats like kick over a stone fortress, or jump to the moon.
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.
TBH... After years of playing I've come to realize that I outright LOVE the nat 1 when it's handled by a good GM. Mainly because those tend to turn out to be the most hilarious, opportune, or whatever else, moments. Like, rolling a nat 1 on a concentration check can have my character lose concentration... because their mind suddenly got invaded by the ear worm music of the bard at the last tavern. Rolled a nat 1 on a diplomacy check? You accidentally implied the other guy was the son of a motherless ogre. Stealth check? You weren't paying attention and your foot got stuck in a bucket.
The problem is that, not only is this nowhere near as enjoyable in melee combat when your life is on the line, but a lot of GM's just have it be pure punishment. That's no fun. If I rolled a nat 1 on a stealth check, at least have it unfold in a comedy sketch or something funny instead of 'they look up and see you'. I have maintained for years and will always maintain that the critical fail is a wonderful tool in the hands of the right GM.
Edit: Some 'nat 1' ideas:
Stealth: The player party has been spotted sneaking by a nearby bard who rushes up and starts to play 'sneaking' music. The players bump into a decorative suit of armor which crashes over. The players are spotted by a servant, but the servant thinks they're also servants and starts trying to tell them to handle some of the chores. The goblin's pet dog/wolf smells the party's rations... especially the bacon... and rushes up begging for treats. The party decided to duck into the musical instrument storage room and walked right into an entire drum set.
Diplomacy: The player accidentally said the quiet part outloud. The player said something that, in their language/culture, is a GRAVE insult! The player just tried to lie to them with something that they KNOW isn't true! The player unleashes a MASSIVE belch/fart/whatever right in the middle of their speech.
Combat: The player swings and their weapon flies out of their hand into a nearby object/being. The player accidentally hit another PC instead (Try to handle it in a comedic fashion) The players pants fell down causing them to miss. The player unknowingly tried to fire an immovable rod from their bow and now it's stuck in the air beside them.
Just some ideas. Be creative, silly, and try to be enjoyable! Make the nat 1 fun!
I prefer having the nat 1 & 20 rule apply to every check and not just combat.
Then do that. No reason you can't.
Natural 1's/20s being automatic success and failures makes my blood boil, my teeth grind, my colon clench, and my vision go red. I absolutely detest that rule and the bad stupid dumb "Can I roll a...?" questions it provokes from players, and I will never use it or allow it at my table. But hey - lucky for you, what happens at my table doesn't matter one spit to you and yours. if you like the rule, do it up. WHo cares what Internet randies think.
Please do not contact or message me.
Unclean! UNCLEAN!!!
Just kidding. I personally have used both in my games and personally, I can go either way, though I prefer not to use the auto-fail and auto-success. I think it really depends on the game being played and the people at the table and how the DM handles both.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I will say that if you're one of those DMs who likes to break the player's stuff when they roll a natural 1, you may want to reconsider doing that. Having to spend another 25gp on thieves' tools every time you nat 1 a lock check mostly just makes you not want to bother with opening things up anymore. Same with breaking weapon blades, snapping bowstrings, or any of the other "hilarious critical fumble" things DMs like to do that just makes their players all stop doing things because they can't afford to keep having their equipment randomly, catastophically fail on them without rhyme, reason, or recourse. I don't know as I've ever met one player that likes having their stuff constantly breaking on them. Sometimes, in narratively poignant moments, having a piece of gear fail? Sure. Having "gear failure" be a possible result in a Tension Pool/Complications table? Sure. Losing twenty items per session because something breaks "hilariously" every single god damned time a nat 1 dares show its face? Nah.
That's one of the other reasons I personally cannot stand Nat 1/20 auto-result tables. They feed into the idea of "Critical Fumbles", and Critical Fumbles need to die and stay dead.
Please do not contact or message me.
To add to Yureu1453’s comment, if you do prefer the auto-fail system, consider also using a “fail forward” pairing. If they fail, soften the blow with some boon. They break a sword and fall through a hole after a terrible attempt to attack a door? Maybe they fall into a room holding some ancient, powerful, better in every way super sword.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It depends on the particular campaign but I quite like critical success/failure outside of combat. Dumb luck (good and bad) exists outside of combat and can make for some really hilarious moments.
Also, I don't think we can deny that a whole bunch of new players have found their way to playing d&d from watching actual play like Critical Role and Dimension 20 both of which use critical success/failure.
Also also, critical success/failure has always been an optional rule. Making it the default and making crits just apply to combat an optional rule won't really have any impact on more experienced players if they don't want it to.
Critical Role doesn't actually use Critical Success/Failure. The players act like they do, but Mercer has, several times, cut into the whole nat 20 table-dancing celebrations with a "for a total of...?" Mercer himself doesn't stick strictly to one system or the other but does what he thinks best in any given situation, which is what a GM should be doing.
Please do not contact or message me.
You're not alone. I honestly cannot figure out what the hate is for that rule.
The D20 Test is and was a binary 'pass/fail' that the DM asks the player to do when a result is in question. So the result was always going to be one of two things, Pass or Fail.
The result of the die doesn't matter. Like Schroedingers cat, both results have a possibility of existing until the dice says which one continues existing. The fact that the minimum value a pass or fail result can ever be is 5% doesn't actually seem like a problem considering the DM had to have both potentialities ready anyway.
If a player asks to search a desk for a plot key and there is no chance of failure then there is no roll to be made and the DM gives them the key. If the roll was to see if they find the hidden compartment in the desk in addition to the plot key then it doesnt matter what number they rolled. Only if they beat the DC to find it. If PASS, heres the compartment and the key, if FAIL then here's the key.
EDIT: And also, who breaks the lockpick on a nat 1? If anything you break the lock so they cant try again and removing that option. Otherwise you might have the Artificer just sitting back magically summoning thieves tool after thieves tool like you were playing skyrim.
I will never break the tools and weapons from nat 1s unless my players were trying to do something incredibly stupid. like trying to use their sword as a climbing tool.
I do too. That is if the chance to succeed is up to 20. Over that than no.
Now I don't like critical and something breaks or you do something amazing. It can just be you fail or succeed.
Also what success and failure mean. Success doesn't always mean what the player thinks.
I have made a Thieves tool 'break', but that just gave them a minus one on checks until they could repair/replace the single pick( there is like 6 on a half decent set) that broke in the lock. Needless to say they couldn't make anymore attempts on the jammed lock, and something began laughing at them from inside the box.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I'm not a fan of the previous UA rules, but that's because they don't jive with my style, which expands upon the rules. The flat success/failure system was never something I liked. But you do you. It wouldn't put me off playing with you whichever rules you used.
As for consequences...I normally give consequences for nat1s, just like I do nat20s, but neither usually permanent. You miss and hit a team mate or you drop your sword, or it gets stuck in a tree that you underestimated the distance to. Regardless, something that you can fix and move on from, but provides some narrative flair and interest to the game. I'd never break a sword unless it's really meaningful moment (eg fighting Sauron and your sword breaks, even then it'll be usable and the penalty will be dependent on how well you're doing). Breaking stuff or causing any permanent debuffs for the sake of it is not cool. There are certain things in RAW and published adventures that irks me for that reason.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, I'd imagine that they received so much feedback against the nat 1/20 auto fail/success that it was removed for a reason. It is fine as an optional/variant rule, but not as the default RAW.
The hate for the rule is for when a person dedicates enough resources into being good enough at a skill that even on a 1 they'd still succeed on easy or even moderate checks they want that investment to matter.
The problem is its very unrealistic. And yes, its a fantasy game so "realism" isn't there, but it actually is. Social situations. The interesting thing is that no matter how fantastical things are social interactions, whether in games, books, movies, etc, are always realistic. The closest you get are cultural differences, i.e. Thor smashing a glass saying "I'll have another this drink is good" but there are still causal reasons for that action. Thus if a person could potentially persuade a king to give up his country then that would be part of the world itself. The closest example of "unrealistic social situations" I can think of is No Game No Life, where things are literally done via games, i.e. a person robs you by challenging you to a game, which you don't even have to agree to" But, in that story's world building that behavior is critical to the setting.
That is why having it apply to ability checks is a bit foolish. While swinging a stick at someone there is always a non-zero chance you could hit them. When asking someone to hand you the kingdom there is often a zero percent chance. That's like me going "Hello MR. President, please resign and set me as your replacement. It wouldn't happen. At least not with a single action.
That is why Nat 20 auto success on ability checks is foolish. I'm going to stealth in this brightly lit room with everyone looking at me 20 "Success" how, how would that actually play out, how could someone do that (its not a magic action, just an ability). The Critical Success should only exist if there is a reasonable way such a success could play out in the immediate situation.
From an actual gameplay view, people say "The DM could just not allow the roll" Yes, they could but then get accused of limiting play agency. Additionally, it will have players constantly roll attempting things with little to no penalty. When attack rolls, you're going to attack (for the most part) anyways. If you fail there will be a clear penalty. I.e. "I'm level 1, look an ancient dragon, I'm going to attack it" If you don't get that nat 20 then you are going to die. With ability checks that isn't necessarily the case. As a result even if the requirement is a nat 20 or you'll fail it, the penalties are minor. If the DM makes them high, then players will just avoid Ability Rolls as much as possible since they don't know what is likely and what isn't and if the stakes are the same as potentially attacking an ancient dragon and failing, they won't want to risk it. Also, with the Dragon example, even if you get a critical success you aren't out of the clear, since there is structured progress to slaying the dragon (even the Vorpal Sword wouldn't help you here). You can't say "I attack the dragon to cut off its head, critical success, I kill it in 1 blow" that's not how combat works. With social situations involving ability checks a person could outline a situation and get a crit and do basically that, end it all at once. "I want to persuade the BBEG to give up, critical success, yay, campaign over, no battle or climax"
Again, the argument is putting this all on the DM to avoid those situations but that makes the DM have to play everything in far more detail than they normally do, additionally, they have to predict what the players are trying to accomplish with such outlandish rolls. A DM could say on a critical success of persuading the BBEG to give up "You laughs at your statement enjoying your jest feeling you're no threat at all" thus giving advantage but then a player could counter "No, I wanted to convince him that he surrender, and I got a critical success, that isn't the result, stop trying to force the fight, I got a critical success"
TLDR: Ability Checks involve situations with far more nuance than normal Attack and Saves thus having a method to "always succeed no matter the difficulty" is disruptive to gameplay.
That being said, there is always the option to add it as a house rule. That's fine. The problem is a DM removing rules from the official game gets far more push back than NOT adding unofficial rules people may have used in the past.
Furthermore, I've not played much where ability checks can be done AGAINST a player, thus if a player convinces the king to hand over his kingdom, no one else could ever do the same to the player, now king. Things done TO the player are done through narrative, i.e. the DM actually convinces the players / characters to do something via NPC behavior, speech, etc. DM doesn't "roll" ability checks to see if he convinces X player to go south. Conversely combat is more balanced as the DM rolls for enemy attacks and other actions. Although monsters not being able to crit is something people have issue with.
Long text over....for now
Here's my thought process... if a character would still succeed on a check if their stats exceed the DC of the check even on a failure, then they shouldn't be asked to roll in the first place. Success is guaranteed. In that same vein, if there is no chance of success even on a 20, then again... the DM shouldn't be asking for a check.
So, with that in mind... I'm okay with the crit fail/success binary being applied to all checks. I think the only problem you run into is doing opposed rolls, like Stealth vs Perception, or an Athletics contest. Although I guess that's also partly why the UA rules are eliminating those opposed rolls by proposing a flat DC15 stealth check to hide regardless of who you're hiding from, and replacing grappling rules with just unarmed strikes and a flat grapple-escape DC based on your character's strength stat.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Personally, I don't know about the automatic success & failure on nat 20's or 1's. I mean, I get why WotC made that change, but it's incredibly and realistic, and frustrating how the cleric with obserevant and +300 perception doesn't notice the the beeping grenade in the middle of the room 5% of the time. But as Yurei1453 has said, just because we don't like this rule doesn't mean you can't use it. Simply find a group that plays this way and start rolling, if you enjoy a different style, rule, or way of playing the game, then there's nothing wrong with that.
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.In principle I agree with this opinion, but in practice I feel like it often gets inconvenient, especially when group rolls are involved. For example when asking the entire party to roll a stealth check, I've never heard any DM say "Except for you player X, you can't get under the DC anyway". Especially since many DM's don't like to share the DC beforehand, and they might not remember everyone's modifiers in the first place.
I get the feeling little inconveniences like those makes it so that many tables find it easier to have a player just roll, potentially a 1, only to hear the total would still have them beat the DC, rather than having to check before each roll if there's an actual chance of failure for the player about to make said roll.
I will mention there's also the idea of having several degrees of success/failure that many groups use, but since I'm 97% sure that's a houserule anyway, I don't see why such groups should be bothered by what the RAW says about nat 1/20's. If they're already houseruling the former, why not houserule the latter too?
That said, I agree that a roll should only be asked for when there's multiple potential outcomes. Whether it's just the RAW outcomes of Failure/Success, or varying degrees of failure or success depending on how far under/above the DC your roll lands. If there's only failure/success and your modifiers are too high/low to have a chance at one of the two, a roll would be obsolete. It's just that many tables don't check for those odds until after the roll is made, because it isn't really worth the effort.
This is my thinking as well; if a DM wants players to roll anyway for some reason (e.g- to mask what's happening), or wants a check to ignore criticals etc. then they remain free to change things on a case-by-case basis.
Also worth remembering that players don't decide what checks to roll or when 99% of the time (the exceptions are special actions in combat and such); players propose an action, and the DM decides what check(s), if any, must be rolled, and what their outcome is.
So natural 20's being a success is not license for players to suddenly perform impossible feats like kick over a stone fortress, or jump to the moon.
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.
TBH... After years of playing I've come to realize that I outright LOVE the nat 1 when it's handled by a good GM. Mainly because those tend to turn out to be the most hilarious, opportune, or whatever else, moments. Like, rolling a nat 1 on a concentration check can have my character lose concentration... because their mind suddenly got invaded by the ear worm music of the bard at the last tavern. Rolled a nat 1 on a diplomacy check? You accidentally implied the other guy was the son of a motherless ogre. Stealth check? You weren't paying attention and your foot got stuck in a bucket.
The problem is that, not only is this nowhere near as enjoyable in melee combat when your life is on the line, but a lot of GM's just have it be pure punishment. That's no fun. If I rolled a nat 1 on a stealth check, at least have it unfold in a comedy sketch or something funny instead of 'they look up and see you'. I have maintained for years and will always maintain that the critical fail is a wonderful tool in the hands of the right GM.
Edit: Some 'nat 1' ideas:
Stealth: The player party has been spotted sneaking by a nearby bard who rushes up and starts to play 'sneaking' music.
The players bump into a decorative suit of armor which crashes over.
The players are spotted by a servant, but the servant thinks they're also servants and starts trying to tell them to handle some of the chores.
The goblin's pet dog/wolf smells the party's rations... especially the bacon... and rushes up begging for treats.
The party decided to duck into the musical instrument storage room and walked right into an entire drum set.
Diplomacy: The player accidentally said the quiet part outloud.
The player said something that, in their language/culture, is a GRAVE insult!
The player just tried to lie to them with something that they KNOW isn't true!
The player unleashes a MASSIVE belch/fart/whatever right in the middle of their speech.
Combat: The player swings and their weapon flies out of their hand into a nearby object/being.
The player accidentally hit another PC instead (Try to handle it in a comedic fashion)
The players pants fell down causing them to miss.
The player unknowingly tried to fire an immovable rod from their bow and now it's stuck in the air beside them.
Just some ideas. Be creative, silly, and try to be enjoyable! Make the nat 1 fun!