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.
I guess, for me it harms players who like to optimize, it puts even more value on the d20 roll when the mechanics should be reducing it, creates illogical situations, and it means I feel less inclined to call for a roll when players go for something and the roll is not to see if they succeed or not but by how much for narrative purposes.
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.
The nat 1 rule makes it so that there is always a 5% chance to fail. My argument is not disingenous as I have seen this happen before, when olayers have a modifier higher than the DC itself but still have to roll because a nat 1 is always a failure regardless of your modifier. You could have a +30 and a DC10 would still have a 5% chance of failure accordinf to RAW if nat 1 auto fails are a thing.
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.
No, rolling an 8 and failing a DC of 15 when you have a +5 is completely different from failing in a 1 against a DC of 15 when you have a +14 are very different. The former is not negating your build because the number you rolled + your mod is lower than the DC; the latter has your build actually giving you the necessary modifier to succeed even on a nat 1, but because an auto fail ignores your modifier, this ignoring your build, you still fail.
The two things you described are not the same. Nat 1 auro fails do ignore your build because it gives a 5% chance that your build makes no impact on the outcome. Your build could have a +30 and the nat 1 autofail would ignore it and result in a failure.
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.
I guess, for me it harms players who like to optimize, it puts even more value on the d20 roll when the mechanics should be reducing it, creates illogical situations, and it means I feel less inclined to call for a roll when players go for something and the roll is not to see if they succeed or not but by how much for narrative purposes.
In my opinion this may be where the rule does the most damage (emphasis added by me).
It's not necessarily a poor concept to have at a table, but it can also make for some really frustrating gameplay that can completely ruin a campaign. I'm OK with having encounters that are impossible to succeed or failing on rolls. I think the frustrating thing for me is if I spent all this time investing into my skills or ability scores, If I rolled a 1 to attack, it might be interpreted as completely losing my weapon whereas, if I had +7 to attack, sure I might miss the attack, but my weapon isn't going to smash into pieces when I whiff. There's a reason why people homebrew the rules. Don't force this upon people and just have a conversation with your group instead.
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.
I guess, for me it harms players who like to optimize, it puts even more value on the d20 roll when the mechanics should be reducing it, creates illogical situations, and it means I feel less inclined to call for a roll when players go for something and the roll is not to see if they succeed or not but by how much for narrative purposes.
In my opinion this may be where the rule does the most damage (emphasis added by me).
A "roll for degree of success" isn't really a proper check though, so you can continue to run that however you like; in D&D a check is a roll against a fixed DC, and you can either succeed or fail, there is nothing in between (except what a DM chooses to describe narratively). So this change doesn't really affect this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
The closest thing I can think of involving degrees within a roll is maybe the climbing Athletics check that on a failure of a certain amount resulting in a fall as oppose to failure to progress.
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.
The nat 1 rule makes it so that there is always a 5% chance to fail. My argument is not disingenous as I have seen this happen before, when olayers have a modifier higher than the DC itself but still have to roll because a nat 1 is always a failure regardless of your modifier. You could have a +30 and a DC10 would still have a 5% chance of failure accordinf to RAW if nat 1 auto fails are a thing.
And a Nat 20 would be an auto success... Ever notice when this argument comes up it is the only Nat 1 side that everyone argues against?
I have a suggestion for a solution. How about Nat 20 and Nat 1 is nothing more than just another number on the die... Regardless of what kind of test it is.
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.
The nat 1 rule makes it so that there is always a 5% chance to fail. My argument is not disingenous as I have seen this happen before, when olayers have a modifier higher than the DC itself but still have to roll because a nat 1 is always a failure regardless of your modifier. You could have a +30 and a DC10 would still have a 5% chance of failure accordinf to RAW if nat 1 auto fails are a thing.
And a Nat 20 would be an auto success... Ever notice when this argument comes up it is the only Nat 1 side that everyone argues against?
I have a suggestion for a solution. How about Nat 20 and Nat 1 is nothing more than just another number on the die... Regardless of what kind of test it is.
Nat 20 auto success is meaningless if you can succeed on a lower number. The main thing this rule affects are the players that enjoy being able to optimize their characters so be able to succeed on a nat 1.
Even if your DM does degrees of success, a nat 20 will likely just be treated as the number + the mod.
Also, I even stated in my first post on the first page of the thread that the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success should not be the default RAW. I mainly focus on the Nat 1 because that has more of an effect on gameplay than the nat 20 autosuccess does.
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.
The nat 1 rule makes it so that there is always a 5% chance to fail. My argument is not disingenous as I have seen this happen before, when olayers have a modifier higher than the DC itself but still have to roll because a nat 1 is always a failure regardless of your modifier. You could have a +30 and a DC10 would still have a 5% chance of failure accordinf to RAW if nat 1 auto fails are a thing.
And a Nat 20 would be an auto success... Ever notice when this argument comes up it is the only Nat 1 side that everyone argues against?
I have a suggestion for a solution. How about Nat 20 and Nat 1 is nothing more than just another number on the die... Regardless of what kind of test it is.
We've brought up the nat 20 one quite a bit but I think its not as common as its rare for the DM to put forth tests you have no chance of succeeding on. The normal example is something like bending bars, if the DC is 25 to bend bars and the 8 strength wizard just rolls a 20 they succeed, and its kind of weird to say no you can;t roll to them as the 20 strength fighter can roll and succeed. And this further has impacts on world building if anyone can just bend bars by trying enough how do jails keep people in.
But yes, I've said either in this thread or another similar one I am not a fan of the 1/20 auto fail/success rules even in combat, the result should be what you roll, nothing more, nothing less. And really how often are you facing a enemy with a AC so high you only hit on a 20, on a practical scale all this rule effects are basically oozes and zombies sometimes getting missed on a 1. I'm okay if that goes away.
I very much disagree with that notion. Criticals on both sides and success/fail not only add in a sense of chaos but, more importantly, make things feel GOOD! Players love to critical foes even if they would have been defeated or even killed with that attack anyways. They love it when the foes nat-1 against them as well even if said foe wouldn't have realistically hurt them even on a success. They can even love it when the foes nat 20 because it can add in tension and desperation (plus, when the boss nat 1's, it's always a huge deal). I'd even say that, when handled right, they like nat 1's because it can at least add to the chaos and potential comedy of a situation.
What they don't like is feeling like they're being punished or singled out by a GM and, even when it's their roll, having their master acrobat with a +10 to acrobatics fail a simple balancing act or something will not only feel rotten but, even though they made the roll, they'll likely dislike that they were even made to roll in the first place.
You can have a critical effect without making it a auto hit, the rule just says on a 20 if it would be a hit it does double damage. I'd prefer something like if you beat the AC by 5 or 10 it is a critical hit. They would have to do the math on what number fits their dumb small numbers system.
I very much disagree with that notion. Criticals on both sides and success/fail not only add in a sense of chaos but, more importantly, make things feel GOOD! Players love to critical foes even if they would have been defeated or even killed with that attack anyways. They love it when the foes nat-1 against them as well even if said foe wouldn't have realistically hurt them even on a success. They can even love it when the foes nat 20 because it can add in tension and desperation (plus, when the boss nat 1's, it's always a huge deal). I'd even say that, when handled right, they like nat 1's because it can at least add to the chaos and potential comedy of a situation.
What they don't like is feeling like they're being punished or singled out by a GM and, even when it's their roll, having their master acrobat with a +10 to acrobatics fail a simple balancing act or something will not only feel rotten but, even though they made the roll, they'll likely dislike that they were even made to roll in the first place.
As a player, I do not like nat 1 or 20's affecting Saves or Ability Checks. It is tolerable on attacks, but I greatly dislike them affecting ability checks and saving throws. Fact is, having the nat 1/20 auto fail/success apply to ability checks and saving throws will make people think they have to roll even if their modifier is high enough to succeed on a nat 1. The RAW sets the precedent and foundation for the game and any house rules that are applied to the game. At best, nat 1/20 auto fail/success can be an optional/variant rule.
As a player, I want the current 5E rule regarding nat 1/20 to be the default RAW for One D&D, where for ability checks and saving throws, they only count as the number rolled and nothing more; no Auto fail/success.
You'll see plenty of other players having the same thoughts as well.
I very much disagree with that notion. Criticals on both sides and success/fail not only add in a sense of chaos but, more importantly, make things feel GOOD! Players love to critical foes even if they would have been defeated or even killed with that attack anyways. They love it when the foes nat-1 against them as well even if said foe wouldn't have realistically hurt them even on a success. They can even love it when the foes nat 20 because it can add in tension and desperation (plus, when the boss nat 1's, it's always a huge deal). I'd even say that, when handled right, they like nat 1's because it can at least add to the chaos and potential comedy of a situation.
What they don't like is feeling like they're being punished or singled out by a GM and, even when it's their roll, having their master acrobat with a +10 to acrobatics fail a simple balancing act or something will not only feel rotten but, even though they made the roll, they'll likely dislike that they were even made to roll in the first place.
As a player, I do not like nat 1 or 20's affecting Saves or Ability Checks. It is tolerable on attacks, but I greatly dislike them affecting ability checks and saving throws. Fact is, having the nat 1/20 auto fail/success apply to ability checks and saving throws will make people think they have to roll even if their modifier is high enough to succeed on a nat 1. The RAW sets the precedent and foundation for the game and any house rules that are applied to the game. At best, nat 1/20 auto fail/success can be an optional/variant rule.
As a player, I want the current 5E rule regarding nat 1/20 to be the default RAW for One D&D, where for ability checks and saving throws, they only count as the number rolled and nothing more; no Auto fail/success.
You'll see plenty of other players having the same thoughts as well.
I and plenty of others have been using Nat1/20 on saves since 2014 and it has had no detrimental effects to how the game plays. Nat1/20 on all tests is just a logical extension of the rules. (it also is a fairly common House Rule).
I very much disagree with that notion. Criticals on both sides and success/fail not only add in a sense of chaos but, more importantly, make things feel GOOD! Players love to critical foes even if they would have been defeated or even killed with that attack anyways. They love it when the foes nat-1 against them as well even if said foe wouldn't have realistically hurt them even on a success. They can even love it when the foes nat 20 because it can add in tension and desperation (plus, when the boss nat 1's, it's always a huge deal). I'd even say that, when handled right, they like nat 1's because it can at least add to the chaos and potential comedy of a situation.
What they don't like is feeling like they're being punished or singled out by a GM and, even when it's their roll, having their master acrobat with a +10 to acrobatics fail a simple balancing act or something will not only feel rotten but, even though they made the roll, they'll likely dislike that they were even made to roll in the first place.
As a player, I do not like nat 1 or 20's affecting Saves or Ability Checks. It is tolerable on attacks, but I greatly dislike them affecting ability checks and saving throws. Fact is, having the nat 1/20 auto fail/success apply to ability checks and saving throws will make people think they have to roll even if their modifier is high enough to succeed on a nat 1. The RAW sets the precedent and foundation for the game and any house rules that are applied to the game. At best, nat 1/20 auto fail/success can be an optional/variant rule.
As a player, I want the current 5E rule regarding nat 1/20 to be the default RAW for One D&D, where for ability checks and saving throws, they only count as the number rolled and nothing more; no Auto fail/success.
You'll see plenty of other players having the same thoughts as well.
I and plenty of others have been using Nat1/20 on saves since 2014 and it has had no detrimental effects to how the game plays. Nat1/20 on all tests is just a logical extension of the rules. (it also is a fairly common House Rule).
I have. My group used that rule extensively during the early years of 5E. It felt horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier was high enough to succeed if it was not for the auto fail. It is a 5% chance of your build not mattering.
Your group may not have noticed it because no one built a character where they could succeed on a roll with a nat 1. However, as someone who has, it feels just horrible to fail solely because of the autofail. The moment my grouo realized that the auto fail was not RAW, we immediately dropped the rule.
I'd imagine a lot of people using the rule, hence why it is so common, is because they think it is the default rule when it's not. It is by no means a logical extension; 5% is far too high of an auto failure rate.
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
You are missing one important aspect, though you come very close to it. As you say, a player can't declare in combat "I swing my sword to chop off the dragon's head, thus killing it....oh, I rolled a 20! I win!" And yet that is not seen as limiting player agency.
Thus, for the same reason, a player can't say "I want to persuade the BBEG to give up, critical success, yay, campaign over, no battle or climax". Just as a 20 in combat does not mean "combat over you have won", a 20 on an ability check doesn't mean that either. This is a huge disconnect that I have seen so many times on this forum, and I'm not sure where the idea started but it is very toxic to the game philosophy.
Again: I don't think anyone ever expects a single successful roll (20 or otherwise) to end a very difficult combat encounter, so why would they expect a single roll to end a very difficult exploration or social encounter?
I very much disagree with that notion. Criticals on both sides and success/fail not only add in a sense of chaos but, more importantly, make things feel GOOD! Players love to critical foes even if they would have been defeated or even killed with that attack anyways. They love it when the foes nat-1 against them as well even if said foe wouldn't have realistically hurt them even on a success. They can even love it when the foes nat 20 because it can add in tension and desperation (plus, when the boss nat 1's, it's always a huge deal). I'd even say that, when handled right, they like nat 1's because it can at least add to the chaos and potential comedy of a situation.
What they don't like is feeling like they're being punished or singled out by a GM and, even when it's their roll, having their master acrobat with a +10 to acrobatics fail a simple balancing act or something will not only feel rotten but, even though they made the roll, they'll likely dislike that they were even made to roll in the first place.
As a player, I do not like nat 1 or 20's affecting Saves or Ability Checks. It is tolerable on attacks, but I greatly dislike them affecting ability checks and saving throws. Fact is, having the nat 1/20 auto fail/success apply to ability checks and saving throws will make people think they have to roll even if their modifier is high enough to succeed on a nat 1. The RAW sets the precedent and foundation for the game and any house rules that are applied to the game. At best, nat 1/20 auto fail/success can be an optional/variant rule.
As a player, I want the current 5E rule regarding nat 1/20 to be the default RAW for One D&D, where for ability checks and saving throws, they only count as the number rolled and nothing more; no Auto fail/success.
You'll see plenty of other players having the same thoughts as well.
I and plenty of others have been using Nat1/20 on saves since 2014 and it has had no detrimental effects to how the game plays. Nat1/20 on all tests is just a logical extension of the rules. (it also is a fairly common House Rule).
I have. My group used that rule extensively during the early years of 5E. It felt horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier was high enough to succeed if it was not for the auto fail. It is a 5% chance of your build not mattering.
Your group may not have noticed it because no one built a character where they could succeed on a roll with a nat 1. However, as someone who has, it feels just horrible to fail solely because of the autofail. The moment my grouo realized that the auto fail was not RAW, we immediately dropped the rule.
I'd imagine a lot of people using the rule, hence why it is so common, is because they think it is the default rule when it's not. It is by no means a logical extension; 5% is far too high of an auto failure rate.
I'd also think I suspect the reverse isn't true for more tables. Like if a 1 isn't a auto fail or a 20 isn't an auto succeed I don't think it would be a problem for more people than the reverse. And for people it is an issue I suspect the severity of the issue would be much smaller. But I guess their polls will tell in that regard.
I have. My group used that rule extensively during the early years of 5E. It felt horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier was high enough to succeed if it was not for the auto fail. It is a 5% chance of your build not mattering.
Having a 95% chance of success is the opposite of "your build not mattering"; if your DM didn't want there to be a chance of failure, then they can simply not ask you for a check at all.
It's also kind of a weird assumption that it should be possible to build a character that can never fail at something; fighters can always miss with an attack, so why shouldn't a bard always be able to accidentally insult someone, or a healer be unable to foresee every potential complication in an emergency surgery? If an ancient red dragon can fail to intimidate someone, why shouldn't a humanoid adventurer?
Automatic successes are the more complex case, and one where DM's may wish to adjust the results for an unexpected success; while in a game of dragonchess you might plausibly play so erratically that you throw off your opponent and somehow blunder into a victory, if we go back to the emergency surgery example it's unlikely that a well meaning adventurer might luck onto saving someone, but you might rule that they've bought more time instead. It's reasonable for a DM to rule that characters with and without proficiency in a skill may achieve different outcomes for the same check with the same DC; this is why we have a DM, to make these kinds of determinations.
The DM also plays a crucial role in what a failure actually means; for example, if you build a character to be really good at climbing, and they're properly equipped etc., then failing an Athletics check to climb shouldn't result in a fall except in extreme circumstances, more likely you just don't climb as fast until you can recover. Not every failure (even a natural 1) needs to involve a character soiling themselves before landing flat on their ass, though there is an unfortunate tendency for some DM's to delight in humiliating players for rolling poorly, that's not really something that can be fixed by the rules.
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.
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
You are missing one important aspect, though you come very close to it. As you say, a player can't declare in combat "I swing my sword to chop off the dragon's head, thus killing it....oh, I rolled a 20! I win!" And yet that is not seen as limiting player agency.
Thus, for the same reason, a player can't say "I want to persuade the BBEG to give up, critical success, yay, campaign over, no battle or climax". Just as a 20 in combat does not mean "combat over you have won", a 20 on an ability check doesn't mean that either. This is a huge disconnect that I have seen so many times on this forum, and I'm not sure where the idea started but it is very toxic to the game philosophy.
Again: I don't think anyone ever expects a single successful roll (20 or otherwise) to end a very difficult combat encounter, so why would they expect a single roll to end a very difficult exploration or social encounter?
While his examples were hyperbolic, like for the stealth example there is a clear cut rule that you need heavy obscurment because in the land of D&D you can only hide when you are effectively already invisible and that hard rule would stop a 20 from succeeding, and sure a king handing over would require more as well and people naturally accept that. But the issue would remain on may other less over the top examples, kicking down a door when weak, effects in line with maybe the suggestion spell for persuasion attempts etc.
And heck I have no problem with people kicking off bank vault doors, or persuading a king to give up his throne with "mundane" skill if they are high enough level and built for it. You tank dragon attacks, slice through the scales of a 50 ton beast causing severe wounds, you are supernatural as a martial anyways, but I don't want it just because you rolled a 20.
There are a lot of reasons I don't like the 'auto fail 1/auto succeed 20' rule proposed. I don't like heroes looking like fools 5% of the time, every time, no matter how much they practice. I don't like telling players they can't at least try something. I DO like varied degrees of success. I do like experts feeling like actual experts. But all of those reasons are subjective and would take a long time to explain.
There is one clear mathematical reason to not like it. The game is just not designed for it.
At almost every level of the game, you can guess a character's combat bonus to within a few points. Whether it is a barbarian's great axe, a ranger's bow, or a wizard's firebolt, they will all have the same hit bonus: poficiency plus their primary stat. At level 1, most character's have a +5 to hit, at level 5 it's a +7, at level 10, it's a +9. Magic items and odd builds might change it up or down a bit, but overall it's very consistent and linear. It's designed that way. Likewise, higher CR monsters have ACs scaling alongside it. Because of this, a roll of 1 will almost always fail no matter what. A 20 will almost always succeed no matter what. And failure just means you didn't quite cut through the monster's hide enough to do significant damage this time. It's not the end of an encounter.
But skills are very different. A level 20 barbarian with no proficiency in Arcana and an Intelligence of 8 will have the same -1 to those checks as they did at level 1. Meanwhile their rogue friend with a 20 Dexterity and Expertise in Stealth, will have a +17 before any other modifiers such as Pass Without a Trace or magic items.
So here's the problem. As a DM, you have your level 5 characters fight a monster with AC 15. You know that every firebolt, arrow, and axe will hit it on a roll of about 8 or higher. This is easy to process and balance without any special rules. After they beat the monster though, they need to now break down a door to get the treasure. It's heavily reinforced and you decide it has a DC of 27. There is no functional difference between your wizard with a Strength of 10, and your barbarian with a Strength of 18 and Athletics proficiency. They both only succeed on a 20.
Some people have suggested not letting some players roll if they couldn't succeed without the 20. But that ruins a lot of encounters, especially social ones. Let's say the king's advisor is a villain. He is very good at deception and rolled a 25. Your players ask you if their characters think he is telling the truth. You as the DM now have nothing but bad options.
A - Look at their bonuses and tell the cleric with an Insight of +7 that he can roll, but no one else can because they can't beat the target number. Well, you just gave away that the NPC is lying, and that he's very good at it.
B - Tell everyone they can roll because they might get a 20. Now the cleric might fail while the fighter with -1 on the check could succeed. How did this villain not get detected sooner? Every interaction with the king, his lords, his priests, and even his stable boy should have had him caught years ago. Not to mention your plot ruined
C - Tell everyone that no one can roll. You just won't allow it. Now they're suspicious AND frustrated. And you took away the chance of your cleric actually using the skill they invested in.
The same situation will play out again and again. The players want to scan a room for hidden danger before entering? That camouflaged monster with a stealth roll of 25 is just as difficult to find for the Wisdom 6 bard as it is for the ranger with proficiency. It robs experts in a skill of the one thing they really wanted to be good at.
While his examples were hyperbolic, like for the stealth example there is a clear cut rule that you need heavy obscurment because in the land of D&D you can only hide when you are effectively already invisible and that hard rule would stop a 20 from succeeding, and sure a king handing over would require more as well and people naturally accept that. But the issue would remain on may other less over the top examples, kicking down a door when weak, effects in line with maybe the suggestion spell for persuasion attempts etc.
And heck I have no problem with people kicking off bank vault doors, or persuading a king to give up his throne with "mundane" skill if they are high enough level and built for it. You tank dragon attacks, slice through the scales of a 50 ton beast causing severe wounds, you are supernatural as a martial anyways, but I don't want it just because you rolled a 20.
Every situation is resolved the same way.
Is the action so easy that there is no way the character could fail? Cool, they succeed.
Is the action so difficult that there is no way the character could succeed? Tough luck, they failed.
Is there a chance the action could succeed as well as a chance it could fail? Roll the dice.
I agree with you that things shouldn't just happen because a 20 was rolled. Players and DMs alike tend to view a 20 as this "OH MY GOD!" once in a lifetime, one in a million chance thing, when we all logically know that it isn't. It is 1 in 20. The intent isn't (or shouldn't, because I don't actually know the intent of the writers) "Roll a 20 and do whatever you want!" The intent is, "If the DM asks you to roll, there better be at least one number on that die that results in a success."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess, for me it harms players who like to optimize, it puts even more value on the d20 roll when the mechanics should be reducing it, creates illogical situations, and it means I feel less inclined to call for a roll when players go for something and the roll is not to see if they succeed or not but by how much for narrative purposes.
The nat 1 rule makes it so that there is always a 5% chance to fail. My argument is not disingenous as I have seen this happen before, when olayers have a modifier higher than the DC itself but still have to roll because a nat 1 is always a failure regardless of your modifier. You could have a +30 and a DC10 would still have a 5% chance of failure accordinf to RAW if nat 1 auto fails are a thing.
No, rolling an 8 and failing a DC of 15 when you have a +5 is completely different from failing in a 1 against a DC of 15 when you have a +14 are very different. The former is not negating your build because the number you rolled + your mod is lower than the DC; the latter has your build actually giving you the necessary modifier to succeed even on a nat 1, but because an auto fail ignores your modifier, this ignoring your build, you still fail.
The two things you described are not the same. Nat 1 auro fails do ignore your build because it gives a 5% chance that your build makes no impact on the outcome. Your build could have a +30 and the nat 1 autofail would ignore it and result in a failure.
In my opinion this may be where the rule does the most damage (emphasis added by me).
It's not necessarily a poor concept to have at a table, but it can also make for some really frustrating gameplay that can completely ruin a campaign. I'm OK with having encounters that are impossible to succeed or failing on rolls. I think the frustrating thing for me is if I spent all this time investing into my skills or ability scores, If I rolled a 1 to attack, it might be interpreted as completely losing my weapon whereas, if I had +7 to attack, sure I might miss the attack, but my weapon isn't going to smash into pieces when I whiff. There's a reason why people homebrew the rules. Don't force this upon people and just have a conversation with your group instead.
A "roll for degree of success" isn't really a proper check though, so you can continue to run that however you like; in D&D a check is a roll against a fixed DC, and you can either succeed or fail, there is nothing in between (except what a DM chooses to describe narratively). So this change doesn't really affect this.
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.
The closest thing I can think of involving degrees within a roll is maybe the climbing Athletics check that on a failure of a certain amount resulting in a fall as oppose to failure to progress.
And a Nat 20 would be an auto success...
Ever notice when this argument comes up it is the only Nat 1 side that everyone argues against?
I have a suggestion for a solution. How about Nat 20 and Nat 1 is nothing more than just another number on the die... Regardless of what kind of test it is.
Nat 20 auto success is meaningless if you can succeed on a lower number. The main thing this rule affects are the players that enjoy being able to optimize their characters so be able to succeed on a nat 1.
Even if your DM does degrees of success, a nat 20 will likely just be treated as the number + the mod.
Also, I even stated in my first post on the first page of the thread that the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success should not be the default RAW. I mainly focus on the Nat 1 because that has more of an effect on gameplay than the nat 20 autosuccess does.
We've brought up the nat 20 one quite a bit but I think its not as common as its rare for the DM to put forth tests you have no chance of succeeding on. The normal example is something like bending bars, if the DC is 25 to bend bars and the 8 strength wizard just rolls a 20 they succeed, and its kind of weird to say no you can;t roll to them as the 20 strength fighter can roll and succeed. And this further has impacts on world building if anyone can just bend bars by trying enough how do jails keep people in.
But yes, I've said either in this thread or another similar one I am not a fan of the 1/20 auto fail/success rules even in combat, the result should be what you roll, nothing more, nothing less. And really how often are you facing a enemy with a AC so high you only hit on a 20, on a practical scale all this rule effects are basically oozes and zombies sometimes getting missed on a 1. I'm okay if that goes away.
I very much disagree with that notion. Criticals on both sides and success/fail not only add in a sense of chaos but, more importantly, make things feel GOOD! Players love to critical foes even if they would have been defeated or even killed with that attack anyways. They love it when the foes nat-1 against them as well even if said foe wouldn't have realistically hurt them even on a success. They can even love it when the foes nat 20 because it can add in tension and desperation (plus, when the boss nat 1's, it's always a huge deal). I'd even say that, when handled right, they like nat 1's because it can at least add to the chaos and potential comedy of a situation.
What they don't like is feeling like they're being punished or singled out by a GM and, even when it's their roll, having their master acrobat with a +10 to acrobatics fail a simple balancing act or something will not only feel rotten but, even though they made the roll, they'll likely dislike that they were even made to roll in the first place.
You can have a critical effect without making it a auto hit, the rule just says on a 20 if it would be a hit it does double damage. I'd prefer something like if you beat the AC by 5 or 10 it is a critical hit. They would have to do the math on what number fits their dumb small numbers system.
As a player, I do not like nat 1 or 20's affecting Saves or Ability Checks. It is tolerable on attacks, but I greatly dislike them affecting ability checks and saving throws. Fact is, having the nat 1/20 auto fail/success apply to ability checks and saving throws will make people think they have to roll even if their modifier is high enough to succeed on a nat 1. The RAW sets the precedent and foundation for the game and any house rules that are applied to the game. At best, nat 1/20 auto fail/success can be an optional/variant rule.
As a player, I want the current 5E rule regarding nat 1/20 to be the default RAW for One D&D, where for ability checks and saving throws, they only count as the number rolled and nothing more; no Auto fail/success.
You'll see plenty of other players having the same thoughts as well.
I and plenty of others have been using Nat1/20 on saves since 2014 and it has had no detrimental effects to how the game plays.
Nat1/20 on all tests is just a logical extension of the rules. (it also is a fairly common House Rule).
I have. My group used that rule extensively during the early years of 5E. It felt horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier was high enough to succeed if it was not for the auto fail. It is a 5% chance of your build not mattering.
Your group may not have noticed it because no one built a character where they could succeed on a roll with a nat 1. However, as someone who has, it feels just horrible to fail solely because of the autofail. The moment my grouo realized that the auto fail was not RAW, we immediately dropped the rule.
I'd imagine a lot of people using the rule, hence why it is so common, is because they think it is the default rule when it's not. It is by no means a logical extension; 5% is far too high of an auto failure rate.
You are missing one important aspect, though you come very close to it. As you say, a player can't declare in combat "I swing my sword to chop off the dragon's head, thus killing it....oh, I rolled a 20! I win!" And yet that is not seen as limiting player agency.
Thus, for the same reason, a player can't say "I want to persuade the BBEG to give up, critical success, yay, campaign over, no battle or climax". Just as a 20 in combat does not mean "combat over you have won", a 20 on an ability check doesn't mean that either. This is a huge disconnect that I have seen so many times on this forum, and I'm not sure where the idea started but it is very toxic to the game philosophy.
Again: I don't think anyone ever expects a single successful roll (20 or otherwise) to end a very difficult combat encounter, so why would they expect a single roll to end a very difficult exploration or social encounter?
I'd also think I suspect the reverse isn't true for more tables. Like if a 1 isn't a auto fail or a 20 isn't an auto succeed I don't think it would be a problem for more people than the reverse. And for people it is an issue I suspect the severity of the issue would be much smaller. But I guess their polls will tell in that regard.
Having a 95% chance of success is the opposite of "your build not mattering"; if your DM didn't want there to be a chance of failure, then they can simply not ask you for a check at all.
It's also kind of a weird assumption that it should be possible to build a character that can never fail at something; fighters can always miss with an attack, so why shouldn't a bard always be able to accidentally insult someone, or a healer be unable to foresee every potential complication in an emergency surgery? If an ancient red dragon can fail to intimidate someone, why shouldn't a humanoid adventurer?
Automatic successes are the more complex case, and one where DM's may wish to adjust the results for an unexpected success; while in a game of dragonchess you might plausibly play so erratically that you throw off your opponent and somehow blunder into a victory, if we go back to the emergency surgery example it's unlikely that a well meaning adventurer might luck onto saving someone, but you might rule that they've bought more time instead. It's reasonable for a DM to rule that characters with and without proficiency in a skill may achieve different outcomes for the same check with the same DC; this is why we have a DM, to make these kinds of determinations.
The DM also plays a crucial role in what a failure actually means; for example, if you build a character to be really good at climbing, and they're properly equipped etc., then failing an Athletics check to climb shouldn't result in a fall except in extreme circumstances, more likely you just don't climb as fast until you can recover. Not every failure (even a natural 1) needs to involve a character soiling themselves before landing flat on their ass, though there is an unfortunate tendency for some DM's to delight in humiliating players for rolling poorly, that's not really something that can be fixed by the rules.
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 his examples were hyperbolic, like for the stealth example there is a clear cut rule that you need heavy obscurment because in the land of D&D you can only hide when you are effectively already invisible and that hard rule would stop a 20 from succeeding, and sure a king handing over would require more as well and people naturally accept that. But the issue would remain on may other less over the top examples, kicking down a door when weak, effects in line with maybe the suggestion spell for persuasion attempts etc.
And heck I have no problem with people kicking off bank vault doors, or persuading a king to give up his throne with "mundane" skill if they are high enough level and built for it. You tank dragon attacks, slice through the scales of a 50 ton beast causing severe wounds, you are supernatural as a martial anyways, but I don't want it just because you rolled a 20.
There are a lot of reasons I don't like the 'auto fail 1/auto succeed 20' rule proposed. I don't like heroes looking like fools 5% of the time, every time, no matter how much they practice. I don't like telling players they can't at least try something. I DO like varied degrees of success. I do like experts feeling like actual experts. But all of those reasons are subjective and would take a long time to explain.
There is one clear mathematical reason to not like it. The game is just not designed for it.
At almost every level of the game, you can guess a character's combat bonus to within a few points. Whether it is a barbarian's great axe, a ranger's bow, or a wizard's firebolt, they will all have the same hit bonus: poficiency plus their primary stat. At level 1, most character's have a +5 to hit, at level 5 it's a +7, at level 10, it's a +9. Magic items and odd builds might change it up or down a bit, but overall it's very consistent and linear. It's designed that way. Likewise, higher CR monsters have ACs scaling alongside it. Because of this, a roll of 1 will almost always fail no matter what. A 20 will almost always succeed no matter what. And failure just means you didn't quite cut through the monster's hide enough to do significant damage this time. It's not the end of an encounter.
But skills are very different. A level 20 barbarian with no proficiency in Arcana and an Intelligence of 8 will have the same -1 to those checks as they did at level 1. Meanwhile their rogue friend with a 20 Dexterity and Expertise in Stealth, will have a +17 before any other modifiers such as Pass Without a Trace or magic items.
So here's the problem. As a DM, you have your level 5 characters fight a monster with AC 15. You know that every firebolt, arrow, and axe will hit it on a roll of about 8 or higher. This is easy to process and balance without any special rules. After they beat the monster though, they need to now break down a door to get the treasure. It's heavily reinforced and you decide it has a DC of 27. There is no functional difference between your wizard with a Strength of 10, and your barbarian with a Strength of 18 and Athletics proficiency. They both only succeed on a 20.
Some people have suggested not letting some players roll if they couldn't succeed without the 20. But that ruins a lot of encounters, especially social ones. Let's say the king's advisor is a villain. He is very good at deception and rolled a 25. Your players ask you if their characters think he is telling the truth. You as the DM now have nothing but bad options.
A - Look at their bonuses and tell the cleric with an Insight of +7 that he can roll, but no one else can because they can't beat the target number. Well, you just gave away that the NPC is lying, and that he's very good at it.
B - Tell everyone they can roll because they might get a 20. Now the cleric might fail while the fighter with -1 on the check could succeed. How did this villain not get detected sooner? Every interaction with the king, his lords, his priests, and even his stable boy should have had him caught years ago. Not to mention your plot ruined
C - Tell everyone that no one can roll. You just won't allow it. Now they're suspicious AND frustrated. And you took away the chance of your cleric actually using the skill they invested in.
The same situation will play out again and again. The players want to scan a room for hidden danger before entering? That camouflaged monster with a stealth roll of 25 is just as difficult to find for the Wisdom 6 bard as it is for the ranger with proficiency. It robs experts in a skill of the one thing they really wanted to be good at.
Every situation is resolved the same way.
Is the action so easy that there is no way the character could fail? Cool, they succeed.
Is the action so difficult that there is no way the character could succeed? Tough luck, they failed.
Is there a chance the action could succeed as well as a chance it could fail? Roll the dice.
I agree with you that things shouldn't just happen because a 20 was rolled. Players and DMs alike tend to view a 20 as this "OH MY GOD!" once in a lifetime, one in a million chance thing, when we all logically know that it isn't. It is 1 in 20. The intent isn't (or shouldn't, because I don't actually know the intent of the writers) "Roll a 20 and do whatever you want!" The intent is, "If the DM asks you to roll, there better be at least one number on that die that results in a success."