Think I am not much of those "auto" things, specially in a d20 system which means a 5% for each one. So if you are the most in the world specialized surgeon, you fail 1 of 20, which is not very close, or if a null person (Int -1, no proficiency) in science, you succeed in a 5% of your nuclear physics researches.
Then I am going to change the "auto" by "open-ended" rolls. This means:
- High open-ended: if roll a 20, you continue rolling until not getting a 20 and add the results.
- Low open-ended: if you roll a 1, you continue rolling until not getting a 20 and subtract the results.
This is combined with the check rules shown in DMG (failing by 1-2, more than 5, etc.).
Also gives me some idea for criticals, combining with injuries and the massive damage rules for deadly combat as applying as described in DMG seems hard. But that is for another post.
The first rolls a nat 1, then rolls a 15+0, resulting in minus 14.
The second rolls an 18+3 for a total of 21.
The third rolls a Nat 20 and then an 11+2 for a total of 33.
Here's the question:
1: In what scenario is a natural 1 going to not be an automatic failure?
2: In what scenario is a Natural 20 not going to be an automatic success?
Further to this, the rules for auto-success and auto-fail exist only for attack rolls, not ability checks. The premise being that a natural 20 is considered you doing the best hit you possibly could have, and a natural 1 being that you did the worst swing/shot you possibly could have. Without the natural 20 rule in combat, a fight could be unwinnable, or the 20 hitting would not matter.
Ability Checks work differently - if someone says "I lift the building" then you have 2 options - first, say "ok, you try, you fail" because it is impossible, or you let them roll and on a high enough roll, something happens. "Something" does not mean success - they are so strong they break a hole in the wall, for example.
In this UA material the 1 and 20 are also "auto" for ability checks.
D20 TEST
The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20
If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Using open-ended rolls does not makes much difference, but is something. And also the skill bonus matters, as should be. Having expertise and rolling a 1-4 could make not to fail the check (failing by 5 or more according to DMG) allowing a new check, rolling a 20 + 6 would not be a success for a DC30 if character does not have at least +4 bonus for that skill.
Easiest way to "fix" checks is to just be more careful about when you ask for them and what the outcomes are.
The purpose of an ability check is to determine success or failure when the outcome is uncertain; if you don't want a character to be able to fail or succeed at something then you don't ask them to make a check, but if you ask for a check then failure must be possible or it's just a waste of time.
So for example, if you're asking for a check that one character should be supremely good at, consider asking only the others to roll, or treat the expert's roll as having a different potential set of outcomes, e.g- if an amateur doesn't succeed, they fail, but an expert at something might just encounter a success with a complication.
While an amateur might succeed with only a 1 in 20 chance, what does that success represent? It represents them succeeding against the odds; if it was an Acrobatics check to jump onto a carriage then it represents them barely making it and grasping the edge of the roof with their fingertips, not backflipping in through the open window with a glass of wine in their hand as the Rogue with expertise and a roll of 30+ might.
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.
But that leaves too much for interpretation. Have to set the limits of what is amateur or pro. Also not a fan of "auto" things, but too of "because I say" things. Like to have some more solid base so the players can do things expecting some behavior not delegating so much on what I decide at that precise moment.
But that leaves too much for interpretation. Have to set the limits of what is amateur or pro. Also not a fan of "auto" things, but too of "because I say" things. Like to have some more solid base so the players can do things expecting some behavior not delegating so much on what I decide at that precise moment.
The bulk of the game is interpretation, only combat really has solid rules and even that still lets you take improvised actions, that's why we have a DM; they are the Matrix, and the players and NPCs are the people trapped in the simulation. 😝
There isn't really a need for limits on what is meant "amateur or pro" though, as these are just characters with or without proficiency (and expertise).
For example, when treating a wound, a character with expertise (double proficiency) in Medicine should be unlikely (or unable) to make things worse if they roll poorly, they just might not see as much improvement as they were hoping for.
But an amateur with no proficiency either can't attempt to treat the wound, or must do so knowing that there is a chance they'll make things worse, and if they succeed it's only going to be to do a passable job (no longer bleeding, but it might scar, could still get infected etc.), i.e- a character with no relevant skill should only be able to do a basic job at best.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Think I am not much of those "auto" things, specially in a d20 system which means a 5% for each one. So if you are the most in the world specialized surgeon, you fail 1 of 20, which is not very close, or if a null person (Int -1, no proficiency) in science, you succeed in a 5% of your nuclear physics researches.
Then I am going to change the "auto" by "open-ended" rolls. This means:
- High open-ended: if roll a 20, you continue rolling until not getting a 20 and add the results.
- Low open-ended: if you roll a 1, you continue rolling until not getting a 20 and subtract the results.
This is combined with the check rules shown in DMG (failing by 1-2, more than 5, etc.).
Also gives me some idea for criticals, combining with injuries and the massive damage rules for deadly combat as applying as described in DMG seems hard. But that is for another post.
Have you considered the maths for your proposal?
Scenario 1:
The DM calls for a check and three people roll.
The first rolls a nat 1, then rolls a 15+0, resulting in minus 14.
The second rolls an 18+3 for a total of 21.
The third rolls a Nat 20 and then an 11+2 for a total of 33.
Here's the question:
1: In what scenario is a natural 1 going to not be an automatic failure?
2: In what scenario is a Natural 20 not going to be an automatic success?
Further to this, the rules for auto-success and auto-fail exist only for attack rolls, not ability checks. The premise being that a natural 20 is considered you doing the best hit you possibly could have, and a natural 1 being that you did the worst swing/shot you possibly could have. Without the natural 20 rule in combat, a fight could be unwinnable, or the 20 hitting would not matter.
Ability Checks work differently - if someone says "I lift the building" then you have 2 options - first, say "ok, you try, you fail" because it is impossible, or you let them roll and on a high enough roll, something happens. "Something" does not mean success - they are so strong they break a hole in the wall, for example.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
In this UA material the 1 and 20 are also "auto" for ability checks.
Using open-ended rolls does not makes much difference, but is something. And also the skill bonus matters, as should be. Having expertise and rolling a 1-4 could make not to fail the check (failing by 5 or more according to DMG) allowing a new check, rolling a 20 + 6 would not be a success for a DC30 if character does not have at least +4 bonus for that skill.
Easiest way to "fix" checks is to just be more careful about when you ask for them and what the outcomes are.
The purpose of an ability check is to determine success or failure when the outcome is uncertain; if you don't want a character to be able to fail or succeed at something then you don't ask them to make a check, but if you ask for a check then failure must be possible or it's just a waste of time.
So for example, if you're asking for a check that one character should be supremely good at, consider asking only the others to roll, or treat the expert's roll as having a different potential set of outcomes, e.g- if an amateur doesn't succeed, they fail, but an expert at something might just encounter a success with a complication.
While an amateur might succeed with only a 1 in 20 chance, what does that success represent? It represents them succeeding against the odds; if it was an Acrobatics check to jump onto a carriage then it represents them barely making it and grasping the edge of the roof with their fingertips, not backflipping in through the open window with a glass of wine in their hand as the Rogue with expertise and a roll of 30+ might.
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.
But that leaves too much for interpretation. Have to set the limits of what is amateur or pro. Also not a fan of "auto" things, but too of "because I say" things. Like to have some more solid base so the players can do things expecting some behavior not delegating so much on what I decide at that precise moment.
The bulk of the game is interpretation, only combat really has solid rules and even that still lets you take improvised actions, that's why we have a DM; they are the Matrix, and the players and NPCs are the people trapped in the simulation. 😝
There isn't really a need for limits on what is meant "amateur or pro" though, as these are just characters with or without proficiency (and expertise).
For example, when treating a wound, a character with expertise (double proficiency) in Medicine should be unlikely (or unable) to make things worse if they roll poorly, they just might not see as much improvement as they were hoping for.
But an amateur with no proficiency either can't attempt to treat the wound, or must do so knowing that there is a chance they'll make things worse, and if they succeed it's only going to be to do a passable job (no longer bleeding, but it might scar, could still get infected etc.), i.e- a character with no relevant skill should only be able to do a basic job at best.
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.