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!
A rule that requires a good DM is not a good rule, at least not as the default RAW rule. It can be fine as a house rule.
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!
A rule that requires a good DM is not a good rule, at least not as the default RAW rule. It can be fine as a house rule.
If the Nat 1 rules came with some benign but funny examples (or even a generic if easily adapted table) it might help. Since the 3e era D&Ds biggest failing has been a lack of proper support for new DMs.
A rule that requires a good DM is not a good rule, at least not as the default RAW rule. It can be fine as a house rule.
Well, the issue here is that it's very easy for a GM to be cruel/malicious instead and use it purely as punishment; which isn't going to change any time soon. I do agree that it would help a lot if the rulebook contained more benign/funny examples so people could get an idea of what to do when things go wrong.
One of my favorite was when a ninja in the party rolled a nat 1 while throwing their shuriken. I had it go through a nearby window, shattering and breaking it, like it was a baseball. The broken window came up several times throughout the quest and I will be surprised if it still isn't coming up on rare occasion around them; knowing their their ninja is currently banned by the neighborhood watch for 'vandalism' and is seen as being on-par with Dennis the Menace.
The issue with "lolfunny/hilarious" nat 1 rules is they completely undermine the tone and pacing of a more serious game or moment. Yes, sometimes it's a good tension release to ham up a nat 1 that fell in a comical spot, but narrating a "hilarious" pratfal for, say...the nat 1 someone just rolled on their last death save? "Sorry Alice, but it turns out that sword wound in your gut ruptured a spleen, and your final 'words' as you pass away are a gigantic fart! Tooooot!" Yeah. If that were a pickup game, I'd pick up my shit and walk the hell away.
Let GMs figure out what to do with d20 rolls on their own, for their own games. None of this needs to be a Hard And Fast Rule.
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.
A rule that requires a good DM is not a good rule, at least not as the default RAW rule. It can be fine as a house rule.
There's nothing per se wrong with requiring a good DM to resolve a particular situation, it's just that it shouldn't be thought of a rule at all, it's a lack of rule. The proper 'good DM' rule should be something like "At the DMs discretion, a natural 20 may have additional beneficial effects and a natural 1 may have additional detrimental effects".
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.
wait was it removed?
Yes. People assume it was because of poor testing, but it was confirmed before the document even dropped - this is me glaring at the yaybos around here - that Wizards had this document more-or-less ready to go before even bothering with feedback on Origins. Nothing in the Origins survey affected the Expert Classes document - they're naturally running out variations on rules to see which ones test best, and this time they flipped a number of switches back in directions that just-so-happened to correspond to what a lot of folks demanded. We'll see if this version actually tests properly.
Yes. People assume it was because of poor testing, but it was confirmed before the document even dropped - this is me glaring at the yaybos around here - that Wizards had this document more-or-less ready to go before even bothering with feedback on Origins.
It's before they've processed the feedback polls. This does not mean they were unaware of public opinion on the issue.
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.
wait was it removed?
Yes and no.
In the new Playtest, it is no longer present..in that sense, yes.
However, in the video, they made clear that they hadn't even reviewed the feedback (the survey wasn't even closed yet), and that the changes were just them spitballing, throwing things out there to see how we'd react. So in that sense, no it wasn't removed, because it was never going to be in the 2nd Playtest.
Personally, I hope they keep it out. It was just overreach and overmeddling in DM playstyle. There's a delicate balance and a fine line between supporting the game, giving options and directions, and reaching down and trying to force a particular way of playing. This was the wrong side of that.
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.
Agreed, it is always easier to house rule something in, than it is to house rule something out.
And maybe this is getting off track, but I am concerned with the amount of "popular house rules" and "fixes for meme specs" that seem to be dominating so much of the UA material to date that rarely come up in actual play. We all know in theory that when you break out the spreadsheets a BM warrior does blah blah blah. Does it every matter in a real game? Has anyone in the history of 5e said "Warriors are too strong at my table!"? I would be surprised. But so many of these changes (e.g. the sneak attack ones) seem targeted at these outliers or spreadsheet builds that don't translate to actual play.
There has been some good stuff, but it has been largely over shadowed by things that could have been solved with a simple "state of the game" poll beforehand.
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.
wait was it removed?
Yes and no.
In the new Playtest, it is no longer present..in that sense, yes.
However, in the video, they made clear that they hadn't even reviewed the feedback (the survey wasn't even closed yet), and that the changes were just them spitballing, throwing things out there to see how we'd react. So in that sense, no it wasn't removed, because it was never going to be in the 2nd Playtest.
Personally, I hope they keep it out. It was just overreach and overmeddling in DM playstyle. There's a delicate balance and a fine line between supporting the game, giving options and directions, and reaching down and trying to force a particular way of playing. This was the wrong side of that.
The codification of it feels like they may be looking to lean heavily back into the Standardized Organized Play of the old 3.x days (please gods no... never did D&D feel as board gamey as it did then)
The issue with "lolfunny/hilarious" nat 1 rules is they completely undermine the tone and pacing of a more serious game or moment. Yes, sometimes it's a good tension release to ham up a nat 1 that fell in a comical spot, but narrating a "hilarious" pratfal for, say...the nat 1 someone just rolled on their last death save? "Sorry Alice, but it turns out that sword wound in your gut ruptured a spleen, and your final 'words' as you pass away are a gigantic fart! Tooooot!" Yeah. If that were a pickup game, I'd pick up my shit and walk the hell away.
Let GMs figure out what to do with d20 rolls on their own, for their own games. None of this needs to be a Hard And Fast Rule.
I can safely say I'd never do that. Character death is always a big deal. Let them die with dignity and their last words.
If the Nat 1 rules came with some benign but funny examples (or even a generic if easily adapted table) it might help. Since the 3e era D&Ds biggest failing has been a lack of proper support for new DMs.
The issue is that even if they did that, it wouldn't solve the underlying issues with the rule that make it a rather unpopular among certain circles: it negates any investment you made to your character's build. From my experience, it just feels horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier is high enough to let you succeed if there wasn't an auto fail rule.
This rule should not be the default RAW. Optional/Variant rule sure, but not the default RAW.
I'm curious. What ever happened to the 'take 10' rule? Also, I would not be against some amendment to the rules making it so that you automatically succeed if your bonus is high enough (even if that wouldn't realistically happen until your level is in the double digits most of the time).
I'm curious. What ever happened to the 'take 10' rule? Also, I would not be against some amendment to the rules making it so that you automatically succeed if your bonus is high enough (even if that wouldn't realistically happen until your level is in the double digits most of the time).
Then why have the nat 1 rule at all? A nat 1 is the absolute lowest you can get on a roll and if you can succeed on a nat 1 then you can't fail. Normally, you would fail on a nat 1 even without the auto fail rule, because generally your mod is not high enough. What the nat 1 rule effectively does is stop you from getting a high enough mod to succeed on a nat 1 by ignoring your build on a nat 1. It is kind of all or nothing with the nat 1 rule.
The way the nat 1 rule is written is a DM isn't allowed to use a roll to see if an action succeeded or failed if roll is being made at too high a value for failure to be an option. The nat 1 and nat 20 rules are basically there to prevent DMs from using rolling as a way of hiding making up the campaign as it goes along.
If the Nat 1 rules came with some benign but funny examples (or even a generic if easily adapted table) it might help. Since the 3e era D&Ds biggest failing has been a lack of proper support for new DMs.
The issue is that even if they did that, it wouldn't solve the underlying issues with the rule that make it a rather unpopular among certain circles: it negates any investment you made to your character's build. From my experience, it just feels horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier is high enough to let you succeed if there wasn't an auto fail rule.
This rule should not be the default RAW. Optional/Variant rule sure, but not the default RAW.
If there is no chance of success/failure then the DM does not ask for a roll. Pretty sure the rule makes that very clear. So any argument that assumes otherwise is being disingenuous.
If the Nat 1 rules came with some benign but funny examples (or even a generic if easily adapted table) it might help. Since the 3e era D&Ds biggest failing has been a lack of proper support for new DMs.
The issue is that even if they did that, it wouldn't solve the underlying issues with the rule that make it a rather unpopular among certain circles: it negates any investment you made to your character's build. From my experience, it just feels horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier is high enough to let you succeed if there wasn't an auto fail rule.
This rule should not be the default RAW. Optional/Variant rule sure, but not the default RAW.
It doesn't negate your build. It provides a floor of at least 5% chance of failure (assuming you're not rolling with advantage, at which point it becones 0.25%). Even then, there are ways around it, including your build. Saying that your build can't prevent a 5% chance of failure is negating it is like saying that because I rolled an 8 with a +5 and missed an AC15 creature that it's somehow negated my build. It hasn't, I just failed the roll. Shrug.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A rule that requires a good DM is not a good rule, at least not as the default RAW rule. It can be fine as a house rule.
If the Nat 1 rules came with some benign but funny examples (or even a generic if easily adapted table) it might help.
Since the 3e era D&Ds biggest failing has been a lack of proper support for new DMs.
I actually don't even like it in combat, though outside of oozes and zombies its never come up so its not a huge deal.
Well, the issue here is that it's very easy for a GM to be cruel/malicious instead and use it purely as punishment; which isn't going to change any time soon. I do agree that it would help a lot if the rulebook contained more benign/funny examples so people could get an idea of what to do when things go wrong.
One of my favorite was when a ninja in the party rolled a nat 1 while throwing their shuriken. I had it go through a nearby window, shattering and breaking it, like it was a baseball. The broken window came up several times throughout the quest and I will be surprised if it still isn't coming up on rare occasion around them; knowing their their ninja is currently banned by the neighborhood watch for 'vandalism' and is seen as being on-par with Dennis the Menace.
The issue with "lolfunny/hilarious" nat 1 rules is they completely undermine the tone and pacing of a more serious game or moment. Yes, sometimes it's a good tension release to ham up a nat 1 that fell in a comical spot, but narrating a "hilarious" pratfal for, say...the nat 1 someone just rolled on their last death save? "Sorry Alice, but it turns out that sword wound in your gut ruptured a spleen, and your final 'words' as you pass away are a gigantic fart! Tooooot!" Yeah. If that were a pickup game, I'd pick up my shit and walk the hell away.
Let GMs figure out what to do with d20 rolls on their own, for their own games. None of this needs to be a Hard And Fast Rule.
Please do not contact or message me.
wait was it removed?
There's nothing per se wrong with requiring a good DM to resolve a particular situation, it's just that it shouldn't be thought of a rule at all, it's a lack of rule. The proper 'good DM' rule should be something like "At the DMs discretion, a natural 20 may have additional beneficial effects and a natural 1 may have additional detrimental effects".
Yes. People assume it was because of poor testing, but it was confirmed before the document even dropped - this is me glaring at the yaybos around here - that Wizards had this document more-or-less ready to go before even bothering with feedback on Origins. Nothing in the Origins survey affected the Expert Classes document - they're naturally running out variations on rules to see which ones test best, and this time they flipped a number of switches back in directions that just-so-happened to correspond to what a lot of folks demanded. We'll see if this version actually tests properly.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's before they've processed the feedback polls. This does not mean they were unaware of public opinion on the issue.
Yes and no.
In the new Playtest, it is no longer present..in that sense, yes.
However, in the video, they made clear that they hadn't even reviewed the feedback (the survey wasn't even closed yet), and that the changes were just them spitballing, throwing things out there to see how we'd react. So in that sense, no it wasn't removed, because it was never going to be in the 2nd Playtest.
Personally, I hope they keep it out. It was just overreach and overmeddling in DM playstyle. There's a delicate balance and a fine line between supporting the game, giving options and directions, and reaching down and trying to force a particular way of playing. This was the wrong side of that.
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.
Agreed, it is always easier to house rule something in, than it is to house rule something out.
And maybe this is getting off track, but I am concerned with the amount of "popular house rules" and "fixes for meme specs" that seem to be dominating so much of the UA material to date that rarely come up in actual play. We all know in theory that when you break out the spreadsheets a BM warrior does blah blah blah. Does it every matter in a real game? Has anyone in the history of 5e said "Warriors are too strong at my table!"? I would be surprised. But so many of these changes (e.g. the sneak attack ones) seem targeted at these outliers or spreadsheet builds that don't translate to actual play.
There has been some good stuff, but it has been largely over shadowed by things that could have been solved with a simple "state of the game" poll beforehand.
The codification of it feels like they may be looking to lean heavily back into the Standardized Organized Play of the old 3.x days (please gods no... never did D&D feel as board gamey as it did then)
I can safely say I'd never do that. Character death is always a big deal. Let them die with dignity and their last words.
The issue is that even if they did that, it wouldn't solve the underlying issues with the rule that make it a rather unpopular among certain circles: it negates any investment you made to your character's build. From my experience, it just feels horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier is high enough to let you succeed if there wasn't an auto fail rule.
This rule should not be the default RAW. Optional/Variant rule sure, but not the default RAW.
I'm curious. What ever happened to the 'take 10' rule? Also, I would not be against some amendment to the rules making it so that you automatically succeed if your bonus is high enough (even if that wouldn't realistically happen until your level is in the double digits most of the time).
Doesn't exist as such in 5e, though passive skill serves a similar purpose.
Then why have the nat 1 rule at all? A nat 1 is the absolute lowest you can get on a roll and if you can succeed on a nat 1 then you can't fail. Normally, you would fail on a nat 1 even without the auto fail rule, because generally your mod is not high enough. What the nat 1 rule effectively does is stop you from getting a high enough mod to succeed on a nat 1 by ignoring your build on a nat 1. It is kind of all or nothing with the nat 1 rule.
The way the nat 1 rule is written is a DM isn't allowed to use a roll to see if an action succeeded or failed if roll is being made at too high a value for failure to be an option. The nat 1 and nat 20 rules are basically there to prevent DMs from using rolling as a way of hiding making up the campaign as it goes along.
If there is no chance of success/failure then the DM does not ask for a roll.
Pretty sure the rule makes that very clear.
So any argument that assumes otherwise is being disingenuous.
It doesn't negate your build. It provides a floor of at least 5% chance of failure (assuming you're not rolling with advantage, at which point it becones 0.25%). Even then, there are ways around it, including your build. Saying that your build can't prevent a 5% chance of failure is negating it is like saying that because I rolled an 8 with a +5 and missed an AC15 creature that it's somehow negated my build. It hasn't, I just failed the roll. Shrug.
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.