What would you say, Haravikk, of the following exchange:
Rei: "All right, this is gonna be rough. Valiant takes a deep breath, and - "
DM: " Roll a Con check."
Rei: "Okay? Does Athletics apply to this check?"
DM: "Nah. Check's to see what happens with your deep breath."
Rei: "Oh, haw haw. All right, so Valiant -"
DM: " I wasn't kidding. Roll a Con check."
Rei: "....okay. ... that's a 1. So -"
DM: "Oof. As you're breathing in, you forget to stop. Your chest keeps expanding and expanding, until eventually your lungs rupture through your ribs, tearing themselves apart in the process. From a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma, you die in seconds. Your body's too damaged for basic resurrection magic. Do you have a backup character?"
How is a "new" DM supposed to know that making a player roll to order breakfast at the inn is stupid and bad if the rules tell them "if the player rolls a 1 their action fails no matter what"? How's a "new" DM supposed to differentiate between two conflicting rules - one that says "actions that can't fail (or succeed) don't merit a roll" and one that says "literally every single possible imaginable action has a 5% minimum chance of succeeding where all rational reality says it shouldn't or failing despite all sanity saying it can't"?
Because the current rules tell you to only roll checks when the outcome of an action is uncertain, and we have been given no reason to expect that this part is being removed from the OneD&D Ability Check section (as they've only been giving us the significant changes). So the rules essentially state:
DO NOT ROLL CHECKS THE OUTCOME IS UNCERTAIN.
IF AND ONLY IF AN ACTION IS UNCERTAIN roll a d20 test using a skill or whatever.
If you really care about making it clear to new players, then all that's required is a few clear examples:
"Big Jimmy the Jam Eating Giant decides to put some jam on a piece of bread. He has been doing this literally every hour of every day of his entire life so no check is required for him to succeed."
"Clutzy McFallsalot decides to jump a 500 foot gap across a canyon. No check is required because he's already died in the attempt."
"Jenneric Hugh-Mann wants to climb a ladder in combat, so must pass a DC 10 Athletics check" (DC 15 if he or the ladder is covered in butter).
It feels like problems are being invented to justify hatred of a change that is incredibly benign; especially if "all new DM's and players are braindead idiots" is the current leading argument against, especially considering in my experience this is how most new players and DM's ran skill checks anyway, not realising that natural 1's and 20's were for attacks only. 😂
Yes, the jump the grand canyon, spread jam on toast examples are absurd. But what if its a 30 foot gap and the total athletics modifier is +5 can they roll, can the wizard with +0, are you cherry picking you yes, you no, you yes. What if its a arcane test DC 25, do you tell the untrained fighter no you can't roll everyone else can. Social tests, the NPC rolls a 25 on there deception test, the rogue can potentially spot it, no one else can do you say Bob you can make a insight test, no one else can, so now the players know its a lie but have to pretend they don't.
This is the area that it doesn't just require not having a bad DM, it requires having a actively good DM.
How is a "new" DM supposed to know that making a player roll to order breakfast at the inn is stupid and bad if the rules tell them "if the player rolls a 1 their action fails no matter what"? How's a "new" DM supposed to differentiate between two conflicting rules - one that says "actions that can't fail (or succeed) don't merit a roll" and one that says "literally every single possible imaginable action has a 5% minimum chance of succeeding where all rational reality says it shouldn't or failing despite all sanity saying it can't"?
Because the current rules tell you to only roll checks when the outcome of an action is uncertain, and we have been given no reason to expect that this part is being removed from the OneD&D Ability Check section (as they've only been giving us the significant changes). So the rules essentially state:
DO NOT ROLL CHECKS THE OUTCOME IS UNCERTAIN.
IF AND ONLY IF AN ACTION IS UNCERTAIN roll a d20 test using a skill or whatever.
If you really care about making it clear to new players, then all that's required is a few clear examples:
"Big Jimmy the Jam Eating Giant decides to put some jam on a piece of bread. He has been doing this literally every hour of every day of his entire life so no check is required for him to succeed."
"Clutzy McFallsalot decides to jump a 500 foot gap across a canyon. No check is required because he's already died in the attempt."
"Jenneric Hugh-Mann wants to climb a ladder in combat, so must pass a DC 10 Athletics check" (DC 15 if he or the ladder is covered in butter).
It feels like problems are being invented to justify hatred of a change that is incredibly benign; especially if "all new DM's and players are braindead idiots" is the current leading argument against, especially considering in my experience this is how most new players and DM's ran skill checks anyway, not realising that natural 1's and 20's were for attacks only. 😂
Problems aren't being invented though; this is from my actual experience from when my group actually did use Nat 1/20 Auto Fail/Success. I have a good couple years of experience with the rule in 5E. This doesn't affect just Ability Checks but Saving Throws as well. When my group actually realized the RAW rule, there was a noticeable change in enjoyment. The current version of the 5E rule for nat 1/20 should remain RAW in One D&D.
I wouldn't call the change incredibly benign either. You really only Nat 1 Auto Fails if you build characters that can succeed on a Nat 1, and you are building a character that can succeed on a nat 1 because you find succeeding on a nat 1 to be fun. If you don't find succeeding on a nat 1 to be fun, then you wouldn't build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 and thus the nat 1 autofail rule does not affect you in anyway because if 1+Mod would fail anyway, the autofail is meaningless. Meanwhile, the group of players that find succeeding on a nat 1 to be fun, would have their fun adversely affected by the change.
The rule negatively affects the subset of players that are against it while having no effect on the group of players that are for it.
What would you say, Haravikk, of the following exchange:
Rei: "All right, this is gonna be rough. Valiant takes a deep breath, and - "
DM: " Roll a Con check."
Rei: "Okay? Does Athletics apply to this check?"
DM: "Nah. Check's to see what happens with your deep breath."
Rei: "Oh, haw haw. All right, so Valiant -"
DM: " I wasn't kidding. Roll a Con check."
Rei: "....okay. ... that's a 1. So -"
DM: "Oof. As you're breathing in, you forget to stop. Your chest keeps expanding and expanding, until eventually your lungs rupture through your ribs, tearing themselves apart in the process. From a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma, you die in seconds. Your body's too damaged for basic resurrection magic. Do you have a backup character?"
Rei: "Not for this table I don't. Good bye."
Why are you even coming up with these examples? Like what are you trying to prove here.. There isn't a DM on the planet that will be doing this unless its like a Toon game or something. This rule is bad on a practical level without absurd, they will never happen examples.
It's wild how contentious this one rule in particular is, but understandable. It affects the entire narrative of your game. Everyone will have strong opinions and they are unlikely to convince each other theirs is the right one. Part of that is because of all the different reasons one person prefers their way of doing it.
In 5e specifically, a nat 1 always failing and a nat 20 always succeeding was always the 'wrong' way to play. I mean that only in the sense that it was not the rules as written. But so many people played it 'wrong' that WotC decided to test making it 'right.'
Some people played it 'wrong' because the were bad DMs. Some did it because they thought they read the rules correctly but they didn't. And some did it actively knowing that it was a change to RAW because they liked it. There are many reasons. Rules can't fix bad DMs, but they can help prevent them. Rules definitely need to be written clearly to avoid as many mistakes as possible. And rules can't change the fact that some people like other rules better. DnD can be adapted, and is at almost every table.
I like watching Dimension 20, but I never want to run a game like they do. They have amazing DMs, but they also build worlds with the intent of blowing them up after 5 episodes. It doesn't matter if a nat 20 changes the entire universe. In fact, it's more exciting for the players and the viewers. But it would be awful for a regular DM that's trying to build a world that will last for years.
Some people love the 'chaos' and unpredictability of a 5% chance of failure or spectacular success. Some people hate it. They aren't going to change each other's minds. I personally like having degrees of success, so I allow roles even when I know they can't 'succeed' in the strictest sense. Other people prefer a binary pass/fail.
Then there is the idea of reality, or verisimilitude. Based on the comments here alone, we can see that we can't even agree on what that means. So people will have a wide range of interpretations of what is most 'realistic.'
To me, the best case against the last playtest nat1/20 rule is the math and the awkward interactions. A barbarian with an 8 Int and no Arcana proficiency will always have a -1 to their roll. They will have it at level 1, and at level 20. A wizard with a 20 Int and proficiency will have a +10 at higher levels. At those levels, it is very likely they will face an Arcana challenge with a DC 30. It makes no sense to me that the barbarian and the wizard both have the same chance of succeeding: rolling a 20.
The awkwardness comes in those situations where there is one member of the party who could succeed while no one else could. This is especially true of social encounters and perception, where the implications of success are intentionally unknown to the players. Do you tell the rogue they can roll and everyone else that they can't, and give away that an NPC is lying, as MyDudeicus mentions?
I think these are reason enough to ditch the playtest rule. I think from a game design perspective, it is a bad proposal. It should be left as an optional rule at most. Or just let people keep playing it 'wrong' the way they have been for years. But I'm only one DM. Others might find the risk is worth the reward. There are just too many variables to make everyone completely satisfied.
Plus, when you really think about it. The only people that the nat 1 autofail really affects are the people who are building characters that can succeed on a nat 1. If a Nat 1 + your mod was going to fail anyway, the autofail didn't change anything. And I am pretty sure the people building characters that can succeed on a nat 1 enjoy succeeding on a nat 1.
So this rule negatively affects the people who are against it while doing nothing for the people who are for it.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
If you follow the 'creed' of "Failure Is More Interesting Than Success"? Stop what you're doing, right now. Fold up your DM screen. Apologize to your players, and then seek help. There's a better way. You don't have to suffer. Your players can help you. We can help you. All it takes is reaching out your hand.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
If you follow the 'creed' of "Failure Is More Interesting Than Success"? Stop what you're doing, right now. Fold up your DM screen. Apologize to your players, and then seek help. There's a better way. You don't have to suffer. Your players can help you. We can help you. All it takes is reaching out your hand.
Both 'chance of failure' and 'chance of success' are more interesting than either automatic success or automatic failure.
The reality is, there should always be some chance of success or failure... but that chance should not be a flat 5%. Unfortunately, a d20 doesn't give you an easy mechanism for achieving this. There are more complex methods, such as exploding dice (if you roll min or max on a die, roll an additional die; continue until you don't roll min or max) but they aren't easy to wedge into a system like 5e.
I think the rule is more to clarify the function of rolling in the first place. Rolling takes time, and so doing it without a reason is bad. The DMG already has very clear advice regarding calling for a roll:
"Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible - such as hitting the moon with an arrow - that it can't work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."
This is what I find so silly about the hyperbolic examples given. The rule for DMs (including new ones) is clear: only roll for an action if it has a chance to succeed and a chance to fail. A normal kid would certainly not have any way of explaining the General Theory of Relativity, and no check would be required. But even Einstein himself would require a check if he was attempting to apply the theory while fending off a raging bugbear. That's why people get things wrong on shows like Jeopardy all the time...not because they didn't know the answer, but because they froze under pressure. Picking a lock in a quiet room with no distractions vs picking the same lock while your friends are screaming (some possibly dying), spells are flying all over the place, and monsters are trying to eat your brain.
Ultimately I don't care. I don't see any difference between rules and optional rules and houserules. So if it makes the majority of people happier, keep auto failure and auto success as an optional rule. I just want people to see the reason behind it, and that it isn't being done to punish anyone, or to allow for crazy impossible actions, or to make it harder for new DMs.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
If you follow the 'creed' of "Failure Is More Interesting Than Success"? Stop what you're doing, right now. Fold up your DM screen. Apologize to your players, and then seek help. There's a better way. You don't have to suffer. Your players can help you. We can help you. All it takes is reaching out your hand.
Both 'chance of failure' and 'chance of success' are more interesting than either automatic success or automatic failure.
The reality is, there should always be some chance of success or failure... but that chance should not be a flat 5%. Unfortunately, a d20 doesn't give you an easy mechanism for achieving this. There are more complex methods, such as exploding dice (if you roll min or max on a die, roll an additional die; continue until you don't roll min or max) but they aren't easy to wedge into a system like 5e.
I don't know. I find the process of succeeding on a nat 1 to be incredibly interesting. It may be the min/maxer in me, but my entire group which consists of both players that enjoy min/max and players that could care less about optimization got a large kick and morale boost when I revealed (in our current campaign) that I had achieved a high enough int save to no sell a mindflayer's mind blast 100% of the time. The ability to succeed on a nat 1 actually worked to the benefit of the game.
I would not say having a chance for both is always more interesting. When you consider the satisfaction of being able to succeed on a nat 1 after putting in a significant amount of investment, there are times when guaranteed success is more interesting because it is the fruit of your labors.
As a DM, I most definitely don’t enjoy making my players fail their rolls, but I have always used auto-success on a natural 20 and auto-failure on a natural 1. I find it really odd that other DMs don’t use it.
I mean, it is impossible to roll lower than a 1 or higher than a 20, so why are players making rolls when they can still succeed on a natural 1 or can still fail on a natural 20? Rolls should only be called when there is a chance of success or a chance of failure.
If a player builds a character who can succeed even when they rolled a natural 1, then I would just state that the character succeeds without a need to call for a roll. After all, the rules clearly state that a DM determines when a roll is warranted in any situation.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
If you follow the 'creed' of "Failure Is More Interesting Than Success"? Stop what you're doing, right now. Fold up your DM screen. Apologize to your players, and then seek help. There's a better way. You don't have to suffer. Your players can help you. We can help you. All it takes is reaching out your hand.
As a DM, I most definitely don’t enjoy making my players fail their rolls, but I have always used auto-success on a natural 20 and auto-failure on a natural 1. I find it really odd that other DMs don’t use it.
I mean, it is impossible to roll lower than a 1 or higher than a 20, so why are players making rolls when they can still succeed on a natural 1 or can still fail on a natural 20? Rolls should only be called when there is a chance of success or a chance of failure.
If a player builds a character who can succeed even when they rolled a natural 1, then I would just state that the character succeeds without a need to call for a roll. After all, the rules clearly state that a DM determines when a roll is warranted in any situation.
If contested tests remain a thing then even a 1 with modifiers could beat out an opposing check so there is that, but then there are things like reliable talent and barbarians at hogh levels and strength checks thatcadjust out low rolls.
I see both sides of the fun unfun coin in this, yes sometimes you can have with a nat 20 auto success. But it is dm dependent and they should just be willing to make their house rules. Can a level 1 trying convince an adult dragon to stop its attack with a 20 be fun, yes but it is dependent on the dm. I had that scenario and I allowed the player to convince the dragon, but it came with a caveat I made. Not a rule written in the rulebook. I had the dragon make him agree to be his underling, and would call upon him for a favor he could not refuse. Is that fun and interesting, I think so. Does it suit every circumstance. No. Leave it to the judgment of the dm, not merely the whims of fate.
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 don't know. I find the process of succeeding on a nat 1 to be incredibly interesting. It may be the min/maxer in me, but my entire group which consists of both players that enjoy min/max and players that could care less about optimization got a large kick and morale boost when I revealed (in our current campaign) that I had achieved a high enough int save to no sell a mindflayer's mind blast 100% of the time.
That's interesting... once per campaign. Subsequently it's boring. Incidentally, you're talking about saves, not ability checks, and while I can see the argument for not using nat 1/20 for ability checks, using them for saves is just like using them for attack rolls; I'm absolutely in favor of applying that rule to saves.
I don't know. I find the process of succeeding on a nat 1 to be incredibly interesting. It may be the min/maxer in me, but my entire group which consists of both players that enjoy min/max and players that could care less about optimization got a large kick and morale boost when I revealed (in our current campaign) that I had achieved a high enough int save to no sell a mindflayer's mind blast 100% of the time.
That's interesting... once per campaign. Subsequently it's boring. Incidentally, you're talking about saves, not ability checks, and while I can see the argument for not using nat 1/20 for ability checks, using them for saves is just like using them for attack rolls; I'm absolutely in favor of applying that rule to saves.
Saves are not like attack rolls in the sense a nat 1 on an attack low is no way near as deadly as a nat 1 on a save. Also, in my group, it never got tired, ever. Me auto succeeding on those saves was something we were always thankful for. So while you may find it boring, others do not. Same with it applying on Saving Throws, you might find that fun, but I and a number of others absolute do not find it fun. And unless you are one of the people building a character to succeed on a nat 1, the auto fail rule actively hinders my subset's fun while doing nothing to for or against yours as you would fail on a nat 1 regardless of the auto fail.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
If you follow the 'creed' of "Failure Is More Interesting Than Success"? Stop what you're doing, right now. Fold up your DM screen. Apologize to your players, and then seek help. There's a better way. You don't have to suffer. Your players can help you. We can help you. All it takes is reaching out your hand.
As a DM, I most definitely don’t enjoy making my players fail their rolls, but I have always used auto-success on a natural 20 and auto-failure on a natural 1. I find it really odd that other DMs don’t use it.
I mean, it is impossible to roll lower than a 1 or higher than a 20, so why are players making rolls when they can still succeed on a natural 1 or can still fail on a natural 20? Rolls should only be called when there is a chance of success or a chance of failure.
If a player builds a character who can succeed even when they rolled a natural 1, then I would just state that the character succeeds without a need to call for a roll. After all, the rules clearly state that a DM determines when a roll is warranted in any situation.
That's the thing, in my group, I don't roll when I can't fail. The DM just acknowledges that I succeed because if I did roll, I would just succeed on a nat 1. Heck, if my Nat 1+Mod is within 5 of the DC, I can just say Flash of Genius and then don't roll because Flash of Genius would push me to the needed number. However, the nat 1 autofail is going to make inexperienced DMs call players for rolls even if their modifier is high enough to reach the DC on a nat 1 because Nat 1's are autofails.
The reason why my group stopped using the Nat 1 Autofail and Nat 20 Autosuccess is because we found it essentially ignored player builds when one of those rolls popped up; and it just felt awful failing to a Nat 1 autofail when your modifier would otherwise let you succeed on a nat 1. We did not find nat 1 autofails fun and if your modifier is high enough to succeed on a lower number, Nat 20 autosuccesses are meaningless.
For most rolls, nat 1/20 auto fail/success do not matter because generally 1 + Mod and 20 + Mod will result in a failure or success respectively. However, when you actually build to succeed on a nat 1, then it just feels punishing because that Nat 1 essentially negates your builds and all the investments you made to get that high of a bonus.
I see both sides of the fun unfun coin in this, yes sometimes you can have with a nat 20 auto success. But it is dm dependent and they should just be willing to make their house rules. Can a level 1 trying convince an adult dragon to stop its attack with a 20 be fun, yes but it is dependent on the dm. I had that scenario and I allowed the player to convince the dragon, but it came with a caveat I made. Not a rule written in the rulebook. I had the dragon make him agree to be his underling, and would call upon him for a favor he could not refuse. Is that fun and interesting, I think so. Does it suit every circumstance. No. Leave it to the judgment of the dm, not merely the whims of fate.
This is not a rule that should be DM dependent. A rule that requires a good DM is not a good rule, and it is far easier to add a rule than to remove it. At most, nat 1 autofails should be an optional/variant rule.
Saves are not like attack rolls in the sense a nat 1 on an attack low is no way near as deadly as a nat 1 on a save.
In AD&D that was true. Even in 3.5e that was true. It's simply not true in 5e.
There may not be save or die effects in 5e, but being held, dominated, possessed etc is almost always far more impactful than missing one attack. Heck even dropping concentration is usually more impactful than missing one attack. Though once your attack bonus is +7 the only time a 1 being a auto miss matters is vs oozes/zombies. it really almost never comes up in play as a 2 -8 will be missing as well. The same isn't true for saves assuming you build for it as there are a lot of low DC saves out there and multiple ways to really boost them though it may require a team.
But again I don't think you should auto miss on a one either it almost never comes into effect but if they want a consistent rule just remove the auto success/fail on all tests.
Saves are not like attack rolls in the sense a nat 1 on an attack low is no way near as deadly as a nat 1 on a save.
In AD&D that was true. Even in 3.5e that was true. It's simply not true in 5e.
When there exist spells and effects like Hold Person/Deafness, stun, Disintigrate and so on, it is still very much true. Most recharge effects involve a save of some sort, like a dragon's breath weapon, Mind Flayer's mind blast, and so on. Saves are generally far deadlier. 5E did not make missing an attack equate to failing a save.
Save and Die still exists as well, such as a ghost's horrifying visage, if you aren't playing a long lived race.
Even failing a concentration check on a key spell is far more devastating than failing a save.
There may not be save or die effects in 5e, but being held, dominated, possessed etc is almost always far more impactful than missing one attack.
That really doesn't matter. Fundamentally, it's just a monster attack with a special hit mechanism, so it should have the same minimum hit chance as any other monster attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What would you say, Haravikk, of the following exchange:
Rei: "All right, this is gonna be rough. Valiant takes a deep breath, and - "
DM: " Roll a Con check."
Rei: "Okay? Does Athletics apply to this check?"
DM: "Nah. Check's to see what happens with your deep breath."
Rei: "Oh, haw haw. All right, so Valiant -"
DM: " I wasn't kidding. Roll a Con check."
Rei: "....okay. ... that's a 1. So -"
DM: "Oof. As you're breathing in, you forget to stop. Your chest keeps expanding and expanding, until eventually your lungs rupture through your ribs, tearing themselves apart in the process. From a combination of asphyxiation and massive trauma, you die in seconds. Your body's too damaged for basic resurrection magic. Do you have a backup character?"
Rei: "Not for this table I don't. Good bye."
Please do not contact or message me.
Yes, the jump the grand canyon, spread jam on toast examples are absurd. But what if its a 30 foot gap and the total athletics modifier is +5 can they roll, can the wizard with +0, are you cherry picking you yes, you no, you yes. What if its a arcane test DC 25, do you tell the untrained fighter no you can't roll everyone else can. Social tests, the NPC rolls a 25 on there deception test, the rogue can potentially spot it, no one else can do you say Bob you can make a insight test, no one else can, so now the players know its a lie but have to pretend they don't.
This is the area that it doesn't just require not having a bad DM, it requires having a actively good DM.
Problems aren't being invented though; this is from my actual experience from when my group actually did use Nat 1/20 Auto Fail/Success. I have a good couple years of experience with the rule in 5E. This doesn't affect just Ability Checks but Saving Throws as well. When my group actually realized the RAW rule, there was a noticeable change in enjoyment. The current version of the 5E rule for nat 1/20 should remain RAW in One D&D.
I wouldn't call the change incredibly benign either. You really only Nat 1 Auto Fails if you build characters that can succeed on a Nat 1, and you are building a character that can succeed on a nat 1 because you find succeeding on a nat 1 to be fun. If you don't find succeeding on a nat 1 to be fun, then you wouldn't build a character that can succeed on a nat 1 and thus the nat 1 autofail rule does not affect you in anyway because if 1+Mod would fail anyway, the autofail is meaningless. Meanwhile, the group of players that find succeeding on a nat 1 to be fun, would have their fun adversely affected by the change.
The rule negatively affects the subset of players that are against it while having no effect on the group of players that are for it.
Why are you even coming up with these examples? Like what are you trying to prove here.. There isn't a DM on the planet that will be doing this unless its like a Toon game or something. This rule is bad on a practical level without absurd, they will never happen examples.
It's wild how contentious this one rule in particular is, but understandable. It affects the entire narrative of your game. Everyone will have strong opinions and they are unlikely to convince each other theirs is the right one. Part of that is because of all the different reasons one person prefers their way of doing it.
In 5e specifically, a nat 1 always failing and a nat 20 always succeeding was always the 'wrong' way to play. I mean that only in the sense that it was not the rules as written. But so many people played it 'wrong' that WotC decided to test making it 'right.'
Some people played it 'wrong' because the were bad DMs. Some did it because they thought they read the rules correctly but they didn't. And some did it actively knowing that it was a change to RAW because they liked it. There are many reasons. Rules can't fix bad DMs, but they can help prevent them. Rules definitely need to be written clearly to avoid as many mistakes as possible. And rules can't change the fact that some people like other rules better. DnD can be adapted, and is at almost every table.
I like watching Dimension 20, but I never want to run a game like they do. They have amazing DMs, but they also build worlds with the intent of blowing them up after 5 episodes. It doesn't matter if a nat 20 changes the entire universe. In fact, it's more exciting for the players and the viewers. But it would be awful for a regular DM that's trying to build a world that will last for years.
Some people love the 'chaos' and unpredictability of a 5% chance of failure or spectacular success. Some people hate it. They aren't going to change each other's minds. I personally like having degrees of success, so I allow roles even when I know they can't 'succeed' in the strictest sense. Other people prefer a binary pass/fail.
Then there is the idea of reality, or verisimilitude. Based on the comments here alone, we can see that we can't even agree on what that means. So people will have a wide range of interpretations of what is most 'realistic.'
To me, the best case against the last playtest nat1/20 rule is the math and the awkward interactions. A barbarian with an 8 Int and no Arcana proficiency will always have a -1 to their roll. They will have it at level 1, and at level 20. A wizard with a 20 Int and proficiency will have a +10 at higher levels. At those levels, it is very likely they will face an Arcana challenge with a DC 30. It makes no sense to me that the barbarian and the wizard both have the same chance of succeeding: rolling a 20.
The awkwardness comes in those situations where there is one member of the party who could succeed while no one else could. This is especially true of social encounters and perception, where the implications of success are intentionally unknown to the players. Do you tell the rogue they can roll and everyone else that they can't, and give away that an NPC is lying, as MyDudeicus mentions?
I think these are reason enough to ditch the playtest rule. I think from a game design perspective, it is a bad proposal. It should be left as an optional rule at most. Or just let people keep playing it 'wrong' the way they have been for years. But I'm only one DM. Others might find the risk is worth the reward. There are just too many variables to make everyone completely satisfied.
Plus, when you really think about it. The only people that the nat 1 autofail really affects are the people who are building characters that can succeed on a nat 1. If a Nat 1 + your mod was going to fail anyway, the autofail didn't change anything. And I am pretty sure the people building characters that can succeed on a nat 1 enjoy succeeding on a nat 1.
So this rule negatively affects the people who are against it while doing nothing for the people who are for it.
The pushback you're getting, Mana, isn't from players who enjoy succeeding on rolls. It's from DMs who enjoy players failing rolls. They want that universal failure chance, and they're (grudgingly) willing to tolerate a universal success chance if it means they get to fish for "hilarious" nat 1 results. Because the most toxic, awful, actively poisonous, game-ruining, campaign-shattering, friendship-destroying Bad DM Advice in the history of tabletopping has turned brains across the hobby into almost entirely unsalvageable mush.
If you follow the 'creed' of "Failure Is More Interesting Than Success"? Stop what you're doing, right now. Fold up your DM screen. Apologize to your players, and then seek help. There's a better way. You don't have to suffer. Your players can help you. We can help you. All it takes is reaching out your hand.
Please do not contact or message me.
Both 'chance of failure' and 'chance of success' are more interesting than either automatic success or automatic failure.
The reality is, there should always be some chance of success or failure... but that chance should not be a flat 5%. Unfortunately, a d20 doesn't give you an easy mechanism for achieving this. There are more complex methods, such as exploding dice (if you roll min or max on a die, roll an additional die; continue until you don't roll min or max) but they aren't easy to wedge into a system like 5e.
I think the rule is more to clarify the function of rolling in the first place. Rolling takes time, and so doing it without a reason is bad. The DMG already has very clear advice regarding calling for a roll:
"Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible - such as hitting the moon with an arrow - that it can't work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."
This is what I find so silly about the hyperbolic examples given. The rule for DMs (including new ones) is clear: only roll for an action if it has a chance to succeed and a chance to fail. A normal kid would certainly not have any way of explaining the General Theory of Relativity, and no check would be required. But even Einstein himself would require a check if he was attempting to apply the theory while fending off a raging bugbear. That's why people get things wrong on shows like Jeopardy all the time...not because they didn't know the answer, but because they froze under pressure. Picking a lock in a quiet room with no distractions vs picking the same lock while your friends are screaming (some possibly dying), spells are flying all over the place, and monsters are trying to eat your brain.
Ultimately I don't care. I don't see any difference between rules and optional rules and houserules. So if it makes the majority of people happier, keep auto failure and auto success as an optional rule. I just want people to see the reason behind it, and that it isn't being done to punish anyone, or to allow for crazy impossible actions, or to make it harder for new DMs.
I don't know. I find the process of succeeding on a nat 1 to be incredibly interesting. It may be the min/maxer in me, but my entire group which consists of both players that enjoy min/max and players that could care less about optimization got a large kick and morale boost when I revealed (in our current campaign) that I had achieved a high enough int save to no sell a mindflayer's mind blast 100% of the time. The ability to succeed on a nat 1 actually worked to the benefit of the game.
I would not say having a chance for both is always more interesting. When you consider the satisfaction of being able to succeed on a nat 1 after putting in a significant amount of investment, there are times when guaranteed success is more interesting because it is the fruit of your labors.
As a DM, I most definitely don’t enjoy making my players fail their rolls, but I have always used auto-success on a natural 20 and auto-failure on a natural 1. I find it really odd that other DMs don’t use it.
I mean, it is impossible to roll lower than a 1 or higher than a 20, so why are players making rolls when they can still succeed on a natural 1 or can still fail on a natural 20? Rolls should only be called when there is a chance of success or a chance of failure.
If a player builds a character who can succeed even when they rolled a natural 1, then I would just state that the character succeeds without a need to call for a roll. After all, the rules clearly state that a DM determines when a roll is warranted in any situation.
As a DM, I most definitely don’t enjoy making my players fail their rolls, but I have always used auto-success on a natural 20 and auto-failure on a natural 1. I find it really odd that other DMs don’t use it.
I mean, it is impossible to roll lower than a 1 or higher than a 20, so why are players making rolls when they can still succeed on a natural 1 or can still fail on a natural 20? Rolls should only be called when there is a chance of success or a chance of failure.
If a player builds a character who can succeed even when they rolled a natural 1, then I would just state that the character succeeds without a need to call for a roll. After all, the rules clearly state that a DM determines when a roll is warranted in any situation.
If contested tests remain a thing then even a 1 with modifiers could beat out an opposing check so there is that, but then there are things like reliable talent and barbarians at hogh levels and strength checks thatcadjust out low rolls.
I see both sides of the fun unfun coin in this, yes sometimes you can have with a nat 20 auto success. But it is dm dependent and they should just be willing to make their house rules. Can a level 1 trying convince an adult dragon to stop its attack with a 20 be fun, yes but it is dependent on the dm. I had that scenario and I allowed the player to convince the dragon, but it came with a caveat I made. Not a rule written in the rulebook. I had the dragon make him agree to be his underling, and would call upon him for a favor he could not refuse. Is that fun and interesting, I think so. Does it suit every circumstance. No. Leave it to the judgment of the dm, not merely the whims of fate.
"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."
That's interesting... once per campaign. Subsequently it's boring. Incidentally, you're talking about saves, not ability checks, and while I can see the argument for not using nat 1/20 for ability checks, using them for saves is just like using them for attack rolls; I'm absolutely in favor of applying that rule to saves.
Saves are not like attack rolls in the sense a nat 1 on an attack low is no way near as deadly as a nat 1 on a save. Also, in my group, it never got tired, ever. Me auto succeeding on those saves was something we were always thankful for. So while you may find it boring, others do not. Same with it applying on Saving Throws, you might find that fun, but I and a number of others absolute do not find it fun. And unless you are one of the people building a character to succeed on a nat 1, the auto fail rule actively hinders my subset's fun while doing nothing to for or against yours as you would fail on a nat 1 regardless of the auto fail.
That's the thing, in my group, I don't roll when I can't fail. The DM just acknowledges that I succeed because if I did roll, I would just succeed on a nat 1. Heck, if my Nat 1+Mod is within 5 of the DC, I can just say Flash of Genius and then don't roll because Flash of Genius would push me to the needed number. However, the nat 1 autofail is going to make inexperienced DMs call players for rolls even if their modifier is high enough to reach the DC on a nat 1 because Nat 1's are autofails.
The reason why my group stopped using the Nat 1 Autofail and Nat 20 Autosuccess is because we found it essentially ignored player builds when one of those rolls popped up; and it just felt awful failing to a Nat 1 autofail when your modifier would otherwise let you succeed on a nat 1. We did not find nat 1 autofails fun and if your modifier is high enough to succeed on a lower number, Nat 20 autosuccesses are meaningless.
For most rolls, nat 1/20 auto fail/success do not matter because generally 1 + Mod and 20 + Mod will result in a failure or success respectively. However, when you actually build to succeed on a nat 1, then it just feels punishing because that Nat 1 essentially negates your builds and all the investments you made to get that high of a bonus.
This is not a rule that should be DM dependent. A rule that requires a good DM is not a good rule, and it is far easier to add a rule than to remove it. At most, nat 1 autofails should be an optional/variant rule.
In AD&D that was true. Even in 3.5e that was true. It's simply not true in 5e.
There may not be save or die effects in 5e, but being held, dominated, possessed etc is almost always far more impactful than missing one attack. Heck even dropping concentration is usually more impactful than missing one attack. Though once your attack bonus is +7 the only time a 1 being a auto miss matters is vs oozes/zombies. it really almost never comes up in play as a 2 -8 will be missing as well. The same isn't true for saves assuming you build for it as there are a lot of low DC saves out there and multiple ways to really boost them though it may require a team.
But again I don't think you should auto miss on a one either it almost never comes into effect but if they want a consistent rule just remove the auto success/fail on all tests.
When there exist spells and effects like Hold Person/Deafness, stun, Disintigrate and so on, it is still very much true. Most recharge effects involve a save of some sort, like a dragon's breath weapon, Mind Flayer's mind blast, and so on. Saves are generally far deadlier. 5E did not make missing an attack equate to failing a save.
Save and Die still exists as well, such as a ghost's horrifying visage, if you aren't playing a long lived race.
Even failing a concentration check on a key spell is far more devastating than failing a save.
So yes, my statement is still true in 5E.
That really doesn't matter. Fundamentally, it's just a monster attack with a special hit mechanism, so it should have the same minimum hit chance as any other monster attack.