We all know that crits and fumbles on saves and DCs are not official rules - only on attacks, but everyone I've seen to-date uses them on saves and DCs, too.
Given the so-popular-that-many-think-it's-official house rule, would it be okay to just say, "You can't do that," when a player asks to steal the crown off of a monarch who is speaking in front of an army of loyal soldiers rather than risking a 5% chance of them succeeding?
(Without that house rule, one could just make the DC impossible, but apparently with the house rule, 20 > impossible to most players. *shrug*)
What about players who insist that they should be allowed to roll (and assuming the saves/DC 20/1 house rule is in play)?
"The DM is always right" is more difficult to justify to players in an edition designed to be so welcoming to players.
So, what would you do?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The DM should only allow a roll if there is a possibility of either success or failure. If either success or failure are guaranteed, then the DM should not allow a die roll.
If the player insists that you use a houserule that you do not want to use, you have every right to inform them that what they want is not RAW, that you do not use that houserule, and that they are not allowed to roll. If they do not like it then simply suggest that they may prefer playing with a different group, or DMing themselves.
They are bad house rules for the very reason you state. Most of the people I play with do not use crits and fumbles on saves so I think younpremise is a little exaggerated.
THE one DM I know who did use them, I pointed out a 3rd level fireball can easily do 70 points of damage on a nat 1 dex save ( I know one DM who rolled max damage on a fireball but that is incredibly unlikely). If the dm throws a fireball at a group of level 5 as They enter an ambush he could suddenly find the healer dead from a nat 1 and maybe someone else with low hitpoints unconcious from a failed save and you are looking at a tpk
If a player insisted on rolling I would say you can roll, you won't achieve what you want but you can roll for consequences. If the rogue tries to steal the crown off the monarch and rolls a natural 20 then he gets the crown and gets 10 feet away before a soldiers blade is on his neck, however the king is impressed by the rogue' s skill "one of my most loyal servants has been captured by an enemy state, I fear he will be forced to reveal national secrets and then killed, if you can get him out of the prison he is in you will be greatly rewarded."
Basically, if you are have a high level you can get expertise, +12, and +5 for stat before magic, which is +17. So even with a DC of 30, all you need is 13/20. They could theoretically hit, if they rolled a 20, a DC of 37.
For something you think the best in the world might be able to do, but probably not, set a DC of 35.
We all know that crits and fumbles on saves and DCs are not official rules - only on attacks, but everyone I've seen to-date uses them on saves and DCs, too. Given the so-popular-that-many-think-it's-official house rule,
How many people have you asked? I'm not sure it's that common of a "house rule"
would it be okay to just say, "You can't do that," when a player asks to steal the crown off of a monarch who is speaking in front of an army of loyal soldiers rather than risking a 5% chance of them succeeding?
The player can say what they do; DM can't stop the player from trying something. But the DM only needs to ask for a roll if the action has a chance of success and a chance of failure, and the DM needs to know the result of the roll to describe the results of the action.
If the action is so easy that there's no chance of failure, the DM can just skip the roll and narrate what happens, since the character obviously succeeds. If the action is literally impossible, the reverse - DM just narrates what happens in response to the player's failure.
...interestingly, that DOES mean that anytime there's a roll to be made, a 20 will succeed and a 1 will fail - because if a 1 would succeed or a 20 would fail, there's no point to rolling, just skip to the result!
(Without that house rule, one could just make the DC impossible, but apparently with the house rule, 20 > impossible to most players. *shrug*)
What about players who insist that they should be allowed to roll (and assuming the saves/DC 20/1 house rule is in play)?
"The DM is always right" is more difficult to justify to players in an edition designed to be so welcoming to players.
The basic way D&D works remains the same. The players describe what their characters do. The DM describes the results, asking for a roll if one is needed, and not asking for one if it's not. That's the welcoming intent :)
...the key thing that's important is that the players have to be describing what the characters do, not what roll they want to make. "I'm gonna reach over and grab the king's crown!" instead of "I want to roll sleight of hand to steal the crown!" That lets the DM narrate what happens, as well as clarify things in-game ("um, you're 20 feet away from him and there's guards keeping everyone away, you can't reach from where you are") instead of having to "deny rolls"
D&D is a game about rolling to see if the possible becomes actual. “Impossible” is an overused word, when often something is only improbable. If telling your player “only on a 20” (5%) isn’t sufficiently improbable, have them roll twice to go more granular (two twenties is .25%, or 1 in 400, etc.)
Let players roll, it’s the fun part of the game, and after all what’s possible (even when improbable) in a fantasy world full of magic and heroics is much more expansive than what is possible in our own.Ive been at a table where a player landed an “only if you roll two 20s” improbable check before (to snipe a rope with a blind shot through a cave past many obstacles) and I think even the DM enjoyed it, despite not having THOUGHT there was any real chance it could ever happen.
We all know that crits and fumbles on saves and DCs are not official rules - only on attacks, but everyone I've seen to-date uses them on saves and DCs, too.
I don't. I follow RAW: nat 20s only matter on attack rolls. Period. My players have no problem with this. Of course they also have no choice. If they were to say they wouldn't play without the nat 20 rule on saving throws and skill checks I'd respond with "find a new DM." It's not happening in my game, ever. I'll explain why below.
Given the so-popular-that-many-think-it's-official house rule, would it be okay to just say, "You can't do that," when a player asks to steal the crown off of a monarch who is speaking in front of an army of loyal soldiers rather than risking a 5% chance of them succeeding?
And this -- this -- is why I have said all along that allowing nat 20 to be an auto-success is toxic, utterly toxic, to RP. It could well be the worst thing you can do for RP unless you have very responsible players.
Why I call it toxic: It encourages risk-taking behavior. The rule permits players to try things that should be literally impossible, and provides them with the argument "but I rolled a nat 20!" meaning that no matter how impossible it may seem, no matter how much what they are doing should not logically happen, the player will expect you to allow and narrate a success on a roll of 20. This allows players to try and "win the RP lotto" in a persuasion check, or "win the stealth lotto" in an unbelievably ridiculous hiding check.
And no, the auto-fail on nat 1 does not compensate. Because the players trying to do the crazy stuff that is incredibly unlikely (less than 5% but perhaps not literally impossible) to work already know that the DC is 20 or higher, so not just a nat 1 but probably anything below the high-teens is a failure. So the 1 was going to fail whether you used the nat 1 rule or added their persuasion/stealth/acrobatics/etc. to it anyway. There is no compensatory risk. You can just roll the dice and anything but a 20 is a fail, so 1 or 19, is the same, but that 5% of the time, you get the near-impossible to happen.
And when the thing that should happen <1% of the time is now happening 5% of the time, it breaks the world. It destroys any chance at verisimilitude.
This is not, btw, just speculation. I won't name any names here, because if I do, I'm sure I will be flamed into oblivion, but there is one D&D stream I have watched for a long while, that allows this nat 1/nat 20 rule on skills. Over and over again I have seen the players attempt utterly ridiculous, makes-no-sense-that-this-would-ever-succeed deception and persuasion checks... and if they roll a nat 20, the check succeeds, even against what has up to that point been RPed as a smart, savvy, competent NPC. That success of the ridiculous persuasion/deception check transforms the NPC into the equivalent of Elmer Fudd, being hoodwinked by Bugs Bunny in the Duck Season/Wabbit Season sketch. It robs the NPC of any impressiveness... Villains, Thieves' Guild leaders, Royalty -- all have been transformed into Elmer Fudd by a roll of the dice, a natural 20 to succeed on the most blatant and ridiculous lie the players could come up with. And why did they even attempt to come up with it? They know there is a 5% chance to succeed at their lunacy.
I don't know about you, but I am not down for a D&D session full of Duck Season sketches, or Wile-E-Coyote vs. Roadrunner acrobatics checks. I prefer verisimilitude in my world. So no, you can't persuade the king to hand you his kingdom on a nat 20 persuasion check. The DC is 50, and your nat 20 + 10 on your persuasion does not achieve a 50. The king just had you arrested for daring to suggest it. Which is what should logically happen no matter how silver tongued your character is.
By the way... I don't necessarily agree that your particular example is "impossible." If the PC is standing next to the Queen and wants to try and make a physical grab for the crown, I would allow it, and it might not be that hard to do. It's just that I would then call for initiative to be rolled, and on their initiative, all the rest of the army would shoot the character dead. Good luck getting away with it.
More impossible would be persuading her to hand you the crown. Or deceiving her into thinking it's your crown and not hers. That's the kind of Bugs Bunny, Loony Tunes garbage I am talking about, which is the ultimate result of allowing players to auto-succeed skill checks and saving throws on a nat 20.
Apparently with the house rule, 20 > impossible to most players. *shrug*
Yes this is what I am talking about. The players on the stream I won't name are clearly under that impression: there is nothing so impossible that a nat 20 can't succeed at it. And the DM allows it. So clearly they want this at their table (and their audience seems to love it). But it turns the whole thing into a Tom and Jerry or Bugs Bunny cartoon instead of a serious game session with drama and consequences. And logic? Verisimilitude? What are those? Nah, let's paint a tunnel on the side of a cliff and have a train come out to run over the coyote instead, we rolled a nat 20 on our painting check!
What about players who insist that they should be allowed to roll (and assuming the saves/DC 20/1 house rule is in play)?
Players are not allowed to call for skill checks or saving throws. The DM calls for rolls. Players who insist they be allowed to roll would be asked to leave my game (assuming after telling them repeatedly that they don't get to do that, they keep insisting).
"The DM is always right" is more difficult to justify to players in an edition designed to be so welcoming to players.
The DM is not always right. But once the DM makes a ruling, that ruling is final. Players who refuse to accept this need to play in another group.
So, what would you do?
Simple: Don't allow the nat 20 rule. It's not RAW, so you literally have the DMG and PHB to back you up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Nat 20 RAW, only on attack rolls, period. Now if someone rolls a nat 20 on a skill check and succeeds I do add flavor that they did something fairly amazing and also if they fail while doing the nat 20 I describe the amazing feat of awesomeness that only that character that was awesome or even noticed. It becomes a bit more difficult higher in levels, especially tier 4, where a 20 to get a skill check can actually still be a nat 1 so the DC's have to be set much higher so the things they are using skill on have to be that much more complex so they feel their high skill bonuses were worth the work. I have a level 20 Wizard that his passive investigation is well over 30 so my DM at the time would list an elaborate trap that my wizard just easily noticed like Sherlock Holmes (which is what I was going for with that character).
I give no special treatment to 1s or 20s, except insofar as the following: if a 1 would still be a success, why am I calling for a roll? Likewise, if a 20 would still be a failure, why am I calling for a roll? As many have said, these situations are simply not appropriate for rolls. Just narrate the success or failure and move on.
I do make an exception in situations when I want to convey the power of an enemy or difficulty of a task in a sneaky way. Having a player roll a natural 20 and still fail is more impactful than simply telling them they can't succeed. But that's a bit of a dirty trick, and I only pull it out very rarely and in very significant situations.
Hot take.... If it is possible for any person to succeed on the task, then go ahead and make the check. If any person under the same conditions (no invis, no flight, etc), then it is technically POSSIBLE, for you to do it as well. If you deem it impossible, then no check is needed. There is no 'difficulty class' because it is impossible. They try, they fail. That is it. If you LET them make a check (therefore setting a DC, and stating that if you can get a high enough number you can succeed.), then it IS possible for them to succeed. . However, if you are not proficient in a skill that would need a higher bonus than your stat, you have disadvantage, eg: the DC is 37. you have a + 3 bonus in dex, but are not prof in stealth. If you try to make this check you will have disadvantage, because even if you roll a 20, then your modifiers will not bring you to 37. If you ARE proficient, then you may make the check normally, even if the total does not equal 37.
This is how I would do it, but if you have any feedback feel free to tell me :)
If you LET them make a check (therefore setting a DC, and stating that if you can get a high enough number you can succeed.), then it IS possible for them to succeed
Well.... I am not sure I agree with this.
Sometimes I call for a check when something is either flat-out-impossible, or can't fail, because the characters would not know this is the case, and I am keeping my cards close to the vest (I don't want the players to know, before making the check, that ti is impossible or automatically successful).
For example:
Last night, going through a necropolis, several times the rogue checked for traps on doors that had no traps. Actually, most of the time the doors had no traps. There was no chance of failure -- there was no trap. However, if I only called for rolls on doors that had actual traps, the players would figure this out, and know every time they didn't have to roll, that there is no danger. On the other hand, if the rogue rolls and gets a number that might have succeeded or failed depending on DC (say, an 11), then there is suspense... was there really no trap, or did you just miss it?
Also last night, the rogue listened at a door leading to an empty, long unused store room. I didn't just say "you don't hear anything," even though there was no chance he would. I told him to "make a perception check." Again, it's kind of spoilers if you don't ask for the roll in cases like this.
Even an absurd persuasion check, I might let them make. The DC is just so high you cannot succeed.
The problem is with the Nat 20 Rule. Now if they roll a nat 20 on trap detect, and I say you didn't find one, they know their CAN'T be one, not that there probably isn't but still might be a hard-to-detect one. You listen at the door and hear nothing on a nat 20, you KNOW there is nothing on the other side of the door, instead of suspecting there isn't. It destroys suspense, and as I said, it butchers RP, because you end up with players trying to do insane things that should never work, and just hopping to win the "RP lotto" with a 20.
Clearly, something that the players and I both know is impossible, like trying to hit the moon with a bow and arrow, I would not ask for a roll. But lots of times there are things that I know are impossible but the players can't know until they try, and I call for rolls most of the time then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A DC check that is impossible for a character to make can also help decide on how poorly they fail at the task and what those consequences may be even though they can't succeed.
I'd say that some things are just... outright impossible. Like,if there's a big stone door in the way, you can't just have your wizard say, "I eat the door!" then roll a nat 20 and somehow pull it off.
But other things that aren't impossible, but extremely difficult, should be possible, but I think it makes sense that a player would have to make multiple rolls to get to it. Snatching a crown off the King's head is a good example... a player can't just say, "I roll to yank the King's crown off". They have to 1: Get close enough to the King to pull that off. 2: Do it in a way that doesn't immediately trigger combat with the King's Guards. 3: Successfully grab the crown. 4: Get away with the crown without being attacked by an army of dudes. So they'd have to make multiple high DC checks, and would probably do a lot of those checks at disadvantage because they're surrounded by an alert army, and failure at almost any step risks triggering combat.
I'm of the mindset that a nat20 in a skill check should always succeed, but under the caveat that, if it wouldn't, then the DM shouldn't let them roll for it in the first place.
ioun stones, and a ton of other magic items. tome of dexterity (I cant remember the actual name) could technically increase your dex to 30...if you had like 30,000 years
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The DM should only allow a roll if there is a possibility of either success or failure. If either success or failure are guaranteed, then the DM should not allow a die roll.
If the player insists that you use a houserule that you do not want to use, you have every right to inform them that what they want is not RAW, that you do not use that houserule, and that they are not allowed to roll. If they do not like it then simply suggest that they may prefer playing with a different group, or DMing themselves.
The DM should also allow a roll to see how badly you fail. If the bard wants to seduce the queen in front of the king, the DM can ask the bard to roll a D20, even though there's no chance of success. Then a 20 = the king laughs it off. 15-19 = the king angrily tells you to leave. 10-14 = the king throws you in jail for a week. 5-9 = the king throws you in jail for a year. 2-4 = the king throws you in jail and orders you to be executed publicly in a week. 1 = the king orders his guards to kill you on the spot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We all know that crits and fumbles on saves and DCs are not official rules - only on attacks, but everyone I've seen to-date uses them on saves and DCs, too.
Given the so-popular-that-many-think-it's-official house rule, would it be okay to just say, "You can't do that," when a player asks to steal the crown off of a monarch who is speaking in front of an army of loyal soldiers rather than risking a 5% chance of them succeeding?
(Without that house rule, one could just make the DC impossible, but apparently with the house rule, 20 > impossible to most players. *shrug*)
What about players who insist that they should be allowed to roll (and assuming the saves/DC 20/1 house rule is in play)?
"The DM is always right" is more difficult to justify to players in an edition designed to be so welcoming to players.
So, what would you do?
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The DM should only allow a roll if there is a possibility of either success or failure. If either success or failure are guaranteed, then the DM should not allow a die roll.
If the player insists that you use a houserule that you do not want to use, you have every right to inform them that what they want is not RAW, that you do not use that houserule, and that they are not allowed to roll. If they do not like it then simply suggest that they may prefer playing with a different group, or DMing themselves.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They are bad house rules for the very reason you state. Most of the people I play with do not use crits and fumbles on saves so I think younpremise is a little exaggerated.
THE one DM I know who did use them, I pointed out a 3rd level fireball can easily do 70 points of damage on a nat 1 dex save ( I know one DM who rolled max damage on a fireball but that is incredibly unlikely). If the dm throws a fireball at a group of level 5 as They enter an ambush he could suddenly find the healer dead from a nat 1 and maybe someone else with low hitpoints unconcious from a failed save and you are looking at a tpk
If a player insisted on rolling I would say you can roll, you won't achieve what you want but you can roll for consequences. If the rogue tries to steal the crown off the monarch and rolls a natural 20 then he gets the crown and gets 10 feet away before a soldiers blade is on his neck, however the king is impressed by the rogue' s skill "one of my most loyal servants has been captured by an enemy state, I fear he will be forced to reveal national secrets and then killed, if you can get him out of the prison he is in you will be greatly rewarded."
a DC of 30 is described as Impossible.
Basically, if you are have a high level you can get expertise, +12, and +5 for stat before magic, which is +17. So even with a DC of 30, all you need is 13/20. They could theoretically hit, if they rolled a 20, a DC of 37.
For something you think the best in the world might be able to do, but probably not, set a DC of 35.
How many people have you asked? I'm not sure it's that common of a "house rule"
The player can say what they do; DM can't stop the player from trying something. But the DM only needs to ask for a roll if the action has a chance of success and a chance of failure, and the DM needs to know the result of the roll to describe the results of the action.
If the action is so easy that there's no chance of failure, the DM can just skip the roll and narrate what happens, since the character obviously succeeds. If the action is literally impossible, the reverse - DM just narrates what happens in response to the player's failure.
...interestingly, that DOES mean that anytime there's a roll to be made, a 20 will succeed and a 1 will fail - because if a 1 would succeed or a 20 would fail, there's no point to rolling, just skip to the result!
The basic way D&D works remains the same. The players describe what their characters do. The DM describes the results, asking for a roll if one is needed, and not asking for one if it's not. That's the welcoming intent :)
...the key thing that's important is that the players have to be describing what the characters do, not what roll they want to make. "I'm gonna reach over and grab the king's crown!" instead of "I want to roll sleight of hand to steal the crown!" That lets the DM narrate what happens, as well as clarify things in-game ("um, you're 20 feet away from him and there's guards keeping everyone away, you can't reach from where you are") instead of having to "deny rolls"
D&D is a game about rolling to see if the possible becomes actual. “Impossible” is an overused word, when often something is only improbable. If telling your player “only on a 20” (5%) isn’t sufficiently improbable, have them roll twice to go more granular (two twenties is .25%, or 1 in 400, etc.)
Let players roll, it’s the fun part of the game, and after all what’s possible (even when improbable) in a fantasy world full of magic and heroics is much more expansive than what is possible in our own.Ive been at a table where a player landed an “only if you roll two 20s” improbable check before (to snipe a rope with a blind shot through a cave past many obstacles) and I think even the DM enjoyed it, despite not having THOUGHT there was any real chance it could ever happen.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't. I follow RAW: nat 20s only matter on attack rolls. Period. My players have no problem with this. Of course they also have no choice. If they were to say they wouldn't play without the nat 20 rule on saving throws and skill checks I'd respond with "find a new DM." It's not happening in my game, ever. I'll explain why below.
And this -- this -- is why I have said all along that allowing nat 20 to be an auto-success is toxic, utterly toxic, to RP. It could well be the worst thing you can do for RP unless you have very responsible players.
Why I call it toxic: It encourages risk-taking behavior. The rule permits players to try things that should be literally impossible, and provides them with the argument "but I rolled a nat 20!" meaning that no matter how impossible it may seem, no matter how much what they are doing should not logically happen, the player will expect you to allow and narrate a success on a roll of 20. This allows players to try and "win the RP lotto" in a persuasion check, or "win the stealth lotto" in an unbelievably ridiculous hiding check.
And no, the auto-fail on nat 1 does not compensate. Because the players trying to do the crazy stuff that is incredibly unlikely (less than 5% but perhaps not literally impossible) to work already know that the DC is 20 or higher, so not just a nat 1 but probably anything below the high-teens is a failure. So the 1 was going to fail whether you used the nat 1 rule or added their persuasion/stealth/acrobatics/etc. to it anyway. There is no compensatory risk. You can just roll the dice and anything but a 20 is a fail, so 1 or 19, is the same, but that 5% of the time, you get the near-impossible to happen.
And when the thing that should happen <1% of the time is now happening 5% of the time, it breaks the world. It destroys any chance at verisimilitude.
This is not, btw, just speculation. I won't name any names here, because if I do, I'm sure I will be flamed into oblivion, but there is one D&D stream I have watched for a long while, that allows this nat 1/nat 20 rule on skills. Over and over again I have seen the players attempt utterly ridiculous, makes-no-sense-that-this-would-ever-succeed deception and persuasion checks... and if they roll a nat 20, the check succeeds, even against what has up to that point been RPed as a smart, savvy, competent NPC. That success of the ridiculous persuasion/deception check transforms the NPC into the equivalent of Elmer Fudd, being hoodwinked by Bugs Bunny in the Duck Season/Wabbit Season sketch. It robs the NPC of any impressiveness... Villains, Thieves' Guild leaders, Royalty -- all have been transformed into Elmer Fudd by a roll of the dice, a natural 20 to succeed on the most blatant and ridiculous lie the players could come up with. And why did they even attempt to come up with it? They know there is a 5% chance to succeed at their lunacy.
I don't know about you, but I am not down for a D&D session full of Duck Season sketches, or Wile-E-Coyote vs. Roadrunner acrobatics checks. I prefer verisimilitude in my world. So no, you can't persuade the king to hand you his kingdom on a nat 20 persuasion check. The DC is 50, and your nat 20 + 10 on your persuasion does not achieve a 50. The king just had you arrested for daring to suggest it. Which is what should logically happen no matter how silver tongued your character is.
By the way... I don't necessarily agree that your particular example is "impossible." If the PC is standing next to the Queen and wants to try and make a physical grab for the crown, I would allow it, and it might not be that hard to do. It's just that I would then call for initiative to be rolled, and on their initiative, all the rest of the army would shoot the character dead. Good luck getting away with it.
More impossible would be persuading her to hand you the crown. Or deceiving her into thinking it's your crown and not hers. That's the kind of Bugs Bunny, Loony Tunes garbage I am talking about, which is the ultimate result of allowing players to auto-succeed skill checks and saving throws on a nat 20.
Yes this is what I am talking about. The players on the stream I won't name are clearly under that impression: there is nothing so impossible that a nat 20 can't succeed at it. And the DM allows it. So clearly they want this at their table (and their audience seems to love it). But it turns the whole thing into a Tom and Jerry or Bugs Bunny cartoon instead of a serious game session with drama and consequences. And logic? Verisimilitude? What are those? Nah, let's paint a tunnel on the side of a cliff and have a train come out to run over the coyote instead, we rolled a nat 20 on our painting check!
Players are not allowed to call for skill checks or saving throws. The DM calls for rolls. Players who insist they be allowed to roll would be asked to leave my game (assuming after telling them repeatedly that they don't get to do that, they keep insisting).
The DM is not always right. But once the DM makes a ruling, that ruling is final. Players who refuse to accept this need to play in another group.
Simple: Don't allow the nat 20 rule. It's not RAW, so you literally have the DMG and PHB to back you up.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Nat 20 RAW, only on attack rolls, period. Now if someone rolls a nat 20 on a skill check and succeeds I do add flavor that they did something fairly amazing and also if they fail while doing the nat 20 I describe the amazing feat of awesomeness that only that character that was awesome or even noticed. It becomes a bit more difficult higher in levels, especially tier 4, where a 20 to get a skill check can actually still be a nat 1 so the DC's have to be set much higher so the things they are using skill on have to be that much more complex so they feel their high skill bonuses were worth the work. I have a level 20 Wizard that his passive investigation is well over 30 so my DM at the time would list an elaborate trap that my wizard just easily noticed like Sherlock Holmes (which is what I was going for with that character).
I give no special treatment to 1s or 20s, except insofar as the following: if a 1 would still be a success, why am I calling for a roll? Likewise, if a 20 would still be a failure, why am I calling for a roll? As many have said, these situations are simply not appropriate for rolls. Just narrate the success or failure and move on.
I do make an exception in situations when I want to convey the power of an enemy or difficulty of a task in a sneaky way. Having a player roll a natural 20 and still fail is more impactful than simply telling them they can't succeed. But that's a bit of a dirty trick, and I only pull it out very rarely and in very significant situations.
Hot take.... If it is possible for any person to succeed on the task, then go ahead and make the check. If any person under the same conditions (no invis, no flight, etc), then it is technically POSSIBLE, for you to do it as well. If you deem it impossible, then no check is needed. There is no 'difficulty class' because it is impossible. They try, they fail. That is it. If you LET them make a check (therefore setting a DC, and stating that if you can get a high enough number you can succeed.), then it IS possible for them to succeed. . However, if you are not proficient in a skill that would need a higher bonus than your stat, you have disadvantage, eg: the DC is 37. you have a + 3 bonus in dex, but are not prof in stealth. If you try to make this check you will have disadvantage, because even if you roll a 20, then your modifiers will not bring you to 37. If you ARE proficient, then you may make the check normally, even if the total does not equal 37.
This is how I would do it, but if you have any feedback feel free to tell me :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Well.... I am not sure I agree with this.
Sometimes I call for a check when something is either flat-out-impossible, or can't fail, because the characters would not know this is the case, and I am keeping my cards close to the vest (I don't want the players to know, before making the check, that ti is impossible or automatically successful).
For example:
Last night, going through a necropolis, several times the rogue checked for traps on doors that had no traps. Actually, most of the time the doors had no traps. There was no chance of failure -- there was no trap. However, if I only called for rolls on doors that had actual traps, the players would figure this out, and know every time they didn't have to roll, that there is no danger. On the other hand, if the rogue rolls and gets a number that might have succeeded or failed depending on DC (say, an 11), then there is suspense... was there really no trap, or did you just miss it?
Also last night, the rogue listened at a door leading to an empty, long unused store room. I didn't just say "you don't hear anything," even though there was no chance he would. I told him to "make a perception check." Again, it's kind of spoilers if you don't ask for the roll in cases like this.
Even an absurd persuasion check, I might let them make. The DC is just so high you cannot succeed.
The problem is with the Nat 20 Rule. Now if they roll a nat 20 on trap detect, and I say you didn't find one, they know their CAN'T be one, not that there probably isn't but still might be a hard-to-detect one. You listen at the door and hear nothing on a nat 20, you KNOW there is nothing on the other side of the door, instead of suspecting there isn't. It destroys suspense, and as I said, it butchers RP, because you end up with players trying to do insane things that should never work, and just hopping to win the "RP lotto" with a 20.
Clearly, something that the players and I both know is impossible, like trying to hit the moon with a bow and arrow, I would not ask for a roll. But lots of times there are things that I know are impossible but the players can't know until they try, and I call for rolls most of the time then.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A DC check that is impossible for a character to make can also help decide on how poorly they fail at the task and what those consequences may be even though they can't succeed.
I'd say that some things are just... outright impossible. Like,if there's a big stone door in the way, you can't just have your wizard say, "I eat the door!" then roll a nat 20 and somehow pull it off.
But other things that aren't impossible, but extremely difficult, should be possible, but I think it makes sense that a player would have to make multiple rolls to get to it. Snatching a crown off the King's head is a good example... a player can't just say, "I roll to yank the King's crown off". They have to 1: Get close enough to the King to pull that off. 2: Do it in a way that doesn't immediately trigger combat with the King's Guards. 3: Successfully grab the crown. 4: Get away with the crown without being attacked by an army of dudes. So they'd have to make multiple high DC checks, and would probably do a lot of those checks at disadvantage because they're surrounded by an alert army, and failure at almost any step risks triggering combat.
I'm of the mindset that a nat20 in a skill check should always succeed, but under the caveat that, if it wouldn't, then the DM shouldn't let them roll for it in the first place.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Going into the same direction, what is the highest possible skill check result?
d20+ Expertise+Guidance+Bardic Inspiration+Saving Face (Hobgoblin)+Flash of Genius (Artificer)<=20+12+4+12+5+5<=58
Do you know any other ways to increase it?
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]There are items (such as Gloves of Thievery) that add to skills.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
ioun stones, and a ton of other magic items. tome of dexterity (I cant remember the actual name) could technically increase your dex to 30...if you had like 30,000 years
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Manual of Quickness of Action. And when starting from DEX 20 you only need measly 400 years to get to DEX 30. ;)
The DM should also allow a roll to see how badly you fail. If the bard wants to seduce the queen in front of the king, the DM can ask the bard to roll a D20, even though there's no chance of success. Then a 20 = the king laughs it off. 15-19 = the king angrily tells you to leave. 10-14 = the king throws you in jail for a week. 5-9 = the king throws you in jail for a year. 2-4 = the king throws you in jail and orders you to be executed publicly in a week. 1 = the king orders his guards to kill you on the spot.