One DnD Critical Changes. Terrible? Maybe Not.
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Dungeons and Dragons 5e Players and Dungeon Masters are freaking out over the new Auto Fail and Auto Success rules for One DnD (#OneDnD). But maybe they shouldn't be. Let's talk about it.
Check out the Mist Walker here: bit.ly/MistWalker
----------------------------------------------------------------
KILLER TAKING20 STUFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taking20 Rewards: WelcomeAdventur...
Join us on Discord: bit.ly/Taking20...
Taking20 Merch: bit.ly/Taking20...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW AVAILABLE - The Mist Walker! - New 5e Class!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download the Mist Walker here: bit.ly/MistWalker
----------------------------------------------------------------
WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHANNEL?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the Rewards!
WelcomeAdventur...
LET'S CONNECT!
Twitter ------- / takingd20
Facebook ------- / takingd20
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOW AVAILABLE - MY 5E ADVENTURE!
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Much Bigger Problem - bit.ly/2ovBKtj (DriveThruRPG)
A Much Bigger Problem - bit.ly/2qiCYqp (Roll20 Add-on)
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOOKING FOR MORE PLAYLISTS?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tips & Tricks for Game Masters - bit.ly/GameMast...
KYPW D&D Monster Guides - bit.ly/KYPWDnDM...
Starfinder Week - bit.ly/Starfind...
Wrath and Glory Week: bit.ly/T20Wrath...
Call For Aid - bit.ly/CallForAid
For business inquiries please contact takingd20@gmail.com.
This is what I said to my group too. If you are asking for a roll, should be because you think it can both fail or succeed. We could also think about what it means to fail or succeed. Maybe when the rogue with +15 in lockpick rolls a natural 1 on a DC 15 lock, it doesn't mean he can't open the lock, maybe it just means he takes more time to do that. Same with the wizard with -1 athletics trying to force a door open, maybe his natural 20 only means he gave advantage to the next guy who tries to force open the door or lowered the DC for that.
Totally agree. There are plenty of success/fail options for "impossible to succeed/impossible to fail" skill checks. E.g., some of the rogue's picks break giving him disadvantage on lockpicking until he replaces his tools; he drops a pick making a loud noise causing a random encounter to appear in 1d4 rounds; For success: bonus XP, advantage for the rest of the day (being "in the zone"), inspiration, finding a hidden panel in the chest giving bonus treasure, etc.
I tend to play those off as good/bad luck. That tried and true lockpick finally got enough wear and tear to snap. The door's lock was made by a disgruntled, lazy worker and it just...failed when the wizard forced the door
Yep I do this with locked doors that need to be opened with thieves tools or forced opened with Athletics. Failure on the roll doesn’t mean failure to open the door; it just means it took way longer/louder than usual. From there I roll for a random encounter or one occurs if it makes sense in that scenario.
I think players should be able to try any of their abilities for any task, even if the dm knows it can't succeed. Seems restrictive to say "that wont work so no you can't try it. Restricting ability or changing ability based on context is unintuitive and can be very frustrating especially for new or creative players. If the player wants to try to topple a stone wall by talking to it, by all means go ahead! It's never going to work but that doesnt mean you cant try. I really don't like pre-controlling a player's actions based on their success chance. Feels like those mechanics in video games where you push the same button to do 10 different things based on context, the game is just assuming that what you want to do as a player is what they want you to do. It's creatively restrictive.
Your answer though is what currently happens. "it doesn't mean he can't open the lock, maybe it just means he takes more time to do that". That's rules in 5e. In 1Dnd... they "fail". Taking more time to open a lock... is a success, not a failure. A failure is not opening the lock.
"his natural 20 only means he gave advantage to the next guy" So his natural 20 doesn't succeed? Door didn't open. It only gives advantage? Isn't that what the help action is for?
The problem I have is the inherent slowdown. I mean do you now want to ask each PC beforehand what their bonus is before telling them to roll? Do you have to chart all a PC's bonuses in things? The simplicity of asking for a roll vs a DC is the player can just tell you what they got and it takes cognitive load off the DM.
That's just part of being a DM homie
I let my players roll for impossible or for auto-success situations. They like rolling dice. I just change the degree of failure or success. A nat20 on a lock that can be opened without any check, would allow them to maybe notice that the lock hasn't been used in a few days, so it should be empty inside. Or maybe they notice how they can easily fix the lock, so they get a new item and a way to lock the door afterwards. A nat1 would open the lock, but maybe they tripped and made a bunch of noise, alerting creatures nearby. Or maybe they broke the lock, so it's clear someone has broken in.
Cool! Works the same with the new rules.
Last time a nat1 came on lock picking, I said that the rogue broke his tools. They'd come across a second set of tools prior to this, but nobody had bothered to pick them up. No one had it written in their inventory. Had to wait until the next time they were in a town to buy new ones. I wasn't popular that day.
same
This is also something I do with my party. In the moments when they roll a nat20 on an impossible roll, I tell them about a strange rube-goldberg-machine-esc series of happenstance things that happen that allow their spell/attack/skill check/ to succeed. It typically gets a laugh (particularly when they roll a nat20 against a BBEG and I sigh audibly). Then we get to move on and my improv chops get tested.
I personally strongly agree with "degrees of success," and it's what I do in my games.
Most of the time in most cases, you are totally right. The problem starts in the rare cases where this rule, that increases the flow of information from the DM to the players, is forcing the former to reveal information that wouldn't and shouldn't be otherwise obvious.
The best exapmle I can think of for this point, is when the DM try to disguise powerful things: A player try to do something to the simmingly simple merchant or maid (or box or door etc.), but they will definately fail because it is a high level wizard or even a dragon (or a magical powerful item), in disguise. Telling them that in advance will ruin the whole plot, while concealing that and they roll a nat 20 will just ruin it in another way - the reputation of the important NPC in disguise.
Less prominant but still possible, a similar thing will happen when the DM use a decoy - for example a fake mcguffin (or a fake BBEG) behind an improvised weak trap for the PCs to focus on when the (real) BBEG flees with the real one. If they roll a nat 1 with the new rules, they will never know any of that, and will still think this is the real deal and lose track of the true plot point. (Not unfixable, but way more boring.)
The DM has a screen for a reason, and for the same reason they should be able to hide the difficulty of a check even when it is actually a worthless check.
(And also all the other problems' like with magic spells and with saving throws and with potential additions like bardic inspiration and so on. the rule of thumb about using dice only when there's an uncertainty is true, but it is problematic to expand it into a basic mechanic of the game like that.)
The other scenario I came up with is when the whole party needs to make a check that some might fail. If you're really rolling because the 8 dex warlock might miss their acrobatics roll, having the 20 dex rogue fail seems a bit much.
Yep. Both in group checks and in saving throws there's a tough choice: Either risk ruining the immersion and the players build on a (very high!) 5% chance of an impossible success/failure - or being forced to reveal (too much?) information about the difficulty level, by having only some of the party members roll, while others automatically fail/succeed. The latter may also create a weird atmosphere around the table, but maybe one can get used to it.
Nat 20 but still fail: amazing failure
Nat 1 but still success: hilarious success
Like a very high athletics roll to push a dragon in their humanoid form would be an epic scene where the character smashes into the npc with such force that they make a shockwave or something.
But the NPC still doesn't budge. Which is instant clue that it's some menacing power, which in turn, generates hype.
I completely agree that too many DMs call for unnecessary rolls. This is an important skill that isn’t talked about enough, I feel, especially when it comes to learning to DM for the first time. Great video!
-John
Well, think about investigation or perception checks, my players look for a secret door or a hidden traps, I know that they can’t find it, but they’re looking, it’s better in my opinion to let them roll and tell them that they find nothing than to just tell them without a roll, it adds to the mystery, in my opinion.
I do like this, but I also was deceived by the title into thinking you had a reason for no monster critical hits to be a thing
Yeah, me too. That's the change I disagree with. PCs should run the risk of taking a crit.
I have two major problems with the system. It puts more pressure on the gm to know everyone’s bonuses. If there is a door with a dc 25 lock and the warlock has a+4 to lock picking I ow need to either memorize my players sheets or ask for their bonus every check. Same for a simple check. There is a dc12 check and a player has say +9 to the check but has a +3 item/spell to help I need to memorize it since they can’t fail and shouldn’t roll.
I also like degree of success, though it’s not completely codified as a current rule. Pick a lock eventually, dc 15. Pick it in 5 minutes dc 18, pick it in seconds dc 22. Currently I can do this with 1 check. Now I would have to ask my players what they want to attempt since they might not be able to reach the highest dc. I do this a lot with knowledge checks. I might have 4-5 pieces of information with each one being given at a different dc. A check on a monster at a low dc might give its name and basic lore, where as a high dc, 25+ will give weaknesses, special powers, or a secret.
I’m all for saves having crit pass/fail on 20/1 and I think they should do no damage/double damage respectively. But I don’t think skill checks should be the same. I like degree of success too much. And sometimes it’s fun to narrate someone who can’t fail, rolling a natural one and still succeeding or the opposite showing how difficult task is by having somebody roll a natural 20 and still failing. It shows the group that a task is very hard.
I would say the opposite of what you are saying. A DC 25 check is just a made up number you came up with. It means that it's a good lock but not a perfect one and most people proficient in lockpicking would have a low chance of succeeding. Rolling a nat 20 with a +4 bonus means you are not inept at lockpicking and you did your absolut best. It should succeed. We are roleplaying and numbers are there to help, not to rule over us.
This might be a strawman, but just in case I will mention it now: You might say "Oh, then having a +5 or a +4 means the same then, why should I want to ever improve my scores?". And to that the answer would be simple too. For a DC 20 roll or anything that would'nt be autosuccess then it would matter. So bonuses still mean stuff. But a nat 20 also means something. Sorry if it wasn't a possible argument.
And for degrees of success or failure, nothing in that rule is stopping you. If something was not attainable for a certain character even on a nat 20, then don't give it to them. You are already giving them a success. So that check on a monster might give them some interesting information, but the most relevant stuff that you had reserved for a 25+ is only attainable for a good roll of someone that is an expert on that. As it should be, from a roleplay point of view. And it's not like you ask a player "Do you want to pick this lock in 5 minutes or in 10 seconds?" You just ask them for a roll and whatever they rolled you make it happen. The players would want to lockpick the lock and that's it. They wouldn't be planning on your degrees of success.
First, degrees of success work equally well. You just need to modify the DC. For example, if DC 15 is "normal", then increments of 3-5 would indicate extra degrees of success (or failure). Natural 20 (or Natural 1) could simply be better or worse results.
You can use degrees of success when you have dice rolls with "normal" chances of failure. Shouldn't this be the majority of the dice rolls in a game?
I think degree of success can still work just as easily. The new rule doesn't codify what success or failure means on any roll you can ask her player what his modifier is and your table isn't going to know how many pieces of information they might have got if his modifier was higher. On a nat 20 he has still succeeded to the best of his ability
You are aware that you can just ask the player what their modifier is, right? Think about what what is worse for your Warlock's player: You ask them for their modifier, they tell you +4 and you say "Looking at this lock, it is just beyond your comprehension and realize you could never pick it" or let them roll, they roll a 20 and get super excited only for you say "sorry, you can't open it." The latter is a _way_ worse experience for the player.
Because the die roll provides a measure of how well you did even if the task was doomed to failure before you began it.
Ex: 1) You trip and stumble at the lip of the chasm and fall to your death.
20) (+9) You leap prodigiously, arcing high into the air as you sail out over the chasm depths, but the fickle forces of gravity have betrayed you, bringing you down below the far ledge just a single foot shy of safety, and you howl in frustration as you plummet to your death (take 20d6 bludgeoning).
4:24 I disagree. I'd say about a quarter of the rolls I ask my players to make are specifically about determining degrees of failure or success. Ex. A character wants to try something that they can't succeed at, but that character can certainly still attempt it. I have them make an ability check. All that roll is for is to determine how badly they failed. A check of 20 or more, you fail and nothing else happens. 1 and you probably end up hurting yourself. Any totals in between have appropriate consequences
Now I can't do that because they would always have a chance of success, and the same goes for degrees of success- they were always going to succeed, but how much did they succeed?
Are there actual examples here? Because degrees of failure work much better when there's actually a difference between success and failure.
I'm going to ignore how you're using a d20 to determine "how much" they fail. Failing forward or succeeding are a cost is not supposed to be used that way. But okay let's pretend and follow along:
How is this different if you only allow rolls when there's actually risk or chance of success? Let's pretend they only succeed on a 11 or higher. If they roll a natural 1, can't you still introduce more consequences? If they get a natural 20, can't they still succeed "even better" somehow?
How does any of that change? The only situations we remove is where they have NO positive results or NO negative results. How often is that?
@@kevinz8554 Here's some examples:
Try to scale a smooth wall around a fortress that is 30 ft high around a castle.
15-20 = You run jump fail to get high enough and land smoothly and safely back at the bottom of the wall.
10-15 = You run jump slip and fall awkwardly with a loud "Whump" that alerts the guards on the wall to a disturbance.
5-10 = You run jump, slip and scrape your self as you fall, taking 1d6 damage and altering the guards on the wall to a disturbance.
1-5 = You run jump, crash into the wall fall down on your back, prone and lets out a loud shout of pain, taking 1d6 damage and instantly altering the guards that someone tried to climb the wall and now they are attacking you! Roll initiative!
Now, a Nat 20 = success = they manage to scale the wall. Therefore as a DM I cannot allow them to roll for their attempt and I simply have to pick by how much they fail which b/c I'm a nice person I'm probably not going to give them the previous Nat 1 result, instead giving them the outcome that would have been at ~10.
Try to seduce a married woman who would never cheat on her husband:
15-20 She laughs says your cute but tells you she's married.
10-15 She frowns, points at her wedding ring and goes to talk to someone else.
5-10 She looks angry and offended and storms off to her husband and tells him what you did
1-5 She slaps you or dumps her drink over your head and call her husband to "teach you a lesson".
I do think it does change the game somewhat. For example maybe a 20 doesn’t get you high enough but a 20 plus 4 from guidance does. With the new rule you have a 5% chance of success regardless of what you roll for guidance.
Agree. The proposed change basically nerfs proficiency, ability modifiers, etc. If a DC is 26, does that mean the character with no bonus automatically knows they cannot succeed? How do you account for differences in ability and experience? Wouldn't say this change us the end of the world, but I am not a fan. Further contributes to the homogenization of the DnD environment. Race doesn't matter because of course a hafling can just as good of a barbarian as a half orc, now skills and ability scores matter less as well.
@@brenthaden7608 "If a DC is 26, does that mean the character with no bonus automatically knows they cannot succeed? "
Yes. This is the rule in the 5e PHB. As a DM you tell them that what they are trying to do is beyond their ability.
@@andrewshandle Thx. But this puts even more duties on the DM. Now they have to keep track of all of the modifiers for not only NPCs and monsters, but also the PCs. Just let the DM set a difficulty and let the players figure it out, without everyone having at least a 5% chance of success.
@@brenthaden7608 Or just ask the player what their modifier is. It's not a crazy, taboo question.
Player: "I'd like to do an Arcana check on this rune"
DM: " I don't recall, what's your Arcana modifier again?
Player: "It's pretty low just +2"
DM: Sorry, this is like nothing you character has ever encountered before, they wouldn't even know where to begin to analyze it."
A player would _much_ prefer you to do this than you agree to let them roll, then they get the maximum amount possible and you say "yeah, sorry you have no idea."
@@andrewshandle So how would the new rule work with inspiration and guidance? If a nat 20 is rolled does the inspiration or guidance die even matter?
I like to sometimes give skill checks that are just outside of the realm of possibility. Say a dc25 for a character with +4. Then they can figure out how to get that extra, with spells or items or whatever. The nat 20 rule diminishes this a touch, but it's still only a 5% extra chance...
I actually mean no disrespect, but I must disagree with you. 5% compared to 0% is not a small change, it is an infinitely large change. 5/0=infinity.
This is more of a continuing trend out of DnD, where they use looser language to describe things, and it’s making the game sloppy and incoherent.
It says right in the rules that success only allows things in the realm of possibilities, but then it doesn’t really define that, and immediately people go to “so what I can fly on a jump check of 20?”
At this point, it is actually better to fully remove crit mechanics altogether. Saying you always fail a 1 is actually foolish. I can get a check result of at least 12 on a roll of 1, but I’m going to break a lock pick as a level 20 rogue, on a dc10 lock? 5% of the time? I’ve seen lock-picking lawyer. I will break zero picks over a typical career. It’s not hard to pick locks. It’s harder to break a lock pick then it is to pick a lock.
Saying a peasant hits a great wyrm red dragon with a heavy crossbow on a roll of 20 is also absurd. No bonuses or proficiency means they hit a 20 on a 20, so can they hit an AC 22? It’s possible for a dragon to be hit, but does that count for them? And if you need to be able to do it after modifiers, why does it bypass modifiers and penalties? Does it fall into possible or not RAW? No one can be certain without an errata. The implication is they can hit the dragon.
So 2000 peasants hitting an average of 100 bolts a round means that dragon dies 12 seconds after it attacks any well armed village with 2000 adults in it. 100d10 is like 550 damage per round on average, and it has 546 standard. So half the time it won’t survive one round. So why are people scared of dragons in any setting?
What is uncertain for one character is not for another. That is where this rule breaks down. Think of it this way: you often get a check for multiple characters on a fixed DC. If the Fighter tries to pick the lock first and then the Rogue with the +10 modifier does it, the common standard is to use the same target DC rather than saying: oh, you don't have to check.
Not really. If it was a simple lock that would have a DC 10 you can absolutely say "you don't have to roll, you can see it's a clearly easy lock". I don't know what you may consider standard, but if you were going to grant success to the Rogue anyways then you wouldn't have to make them roll.
Here's the thing, I don't know what my player's bonuses are so its just simplier and easier to call for the roll, instead of halting the game, figuring out their bonus and seeing if they can even succeed the roll.
You can always ask for copies of their sheets. But honestly, it shouldn't matter what their bonuses are if there's a challenge they clearly can't fail or succeed at. Maybe there's no way to jump the gap over a cliff, so you tell them not to roll for that, but maybe there's a tree on the other side they can attempt to throw a rope around instead. Maybe the king is too obsessed over a serious event to laugh at a joke, but maybe it's possible to convince him things aren't as bad as he thinks they are. Ask the player "What are you trying to accomplish?" and then come up with alternative ways to get around the automatic success or failure.
And saying you, you and you get to roll, could basically be the same as telling them the DC, which could also be an issue in some situations.
In my homebrew system I use degrees of success. It always feels natural to me that when someone rolls high they would be rewarded even more so. That makes sense for DnD as well. When the group is looking for sneaking enemys nearby the one who rolled an 18 could notice that the goblins are sneaking up on them, the one who rolled a 10 will have a heard a sound nearby the tree and the one who rolled a 3 will be left clueless. In real life there isn't just success and failure. There are many possible outcoomes.
I completely agree with this point. The arguments I've heard against that rule generally show either that the rule was not understood or a DM that is lazy and/or making mistakes. What I've heard has generally been:
1) Group checks can make for weird and illogical results.
- Solution: Just ask selectively for rolls. If it's a very easy roll or a very hard one then it is evident to the players why someone is not asked to roll.
2) DMs can't possibly know all their PC's bonuses
- Solution: Just ask. Before asking for an extreme roll (too low or too high) ask if they have any significant bonus. They will tell you and it might even push them to think more creatively. Maybe they didn't have a numerical bonus but they can come up with a new reasoning of why they would have a chance.
3) A PC with a +4 and a PC with a +5 become the same. Numbers don't matter
- Misconception: That is not the case. This rule only changes the result of a DC 25 (for this case). DCs are a numeric representation of a roleplaying situation. They are just an abstract that we make on the spot, not some physics law. In the extremes both bonuses can succeed. Outside the extremes a +1 extra means +5%.
4) There is no degree of success or failure.
- Misconception: Success and failure is up to the DM to be defined. The players don't chose what each thing means. An impossible task can still have a decent/not so bad result that could be counted as success and vice versa. This rule only changes nat 1 and nat 20. The degree comes in the middle and should not matter for this.
5) Not asking for a roll restricts players actions.
- Misconception: The PCs can try and act as the player wishes. The DM's job is not to restrict that but to showcase how the world responds to that. If they try something impossible and you don't ask for a roll then the PC still tried and acted. You just describe their failure.
6) "I set up the DC before I know which player is going to roll".
- Misconception: I don't even know why you would do that. A roll is made against the action of a PC. Before the player describes an action there is no roll or DC.
7) "I like making them roll for funny/description outcomes"
- Solution: Then just keep doing that. Just preface them with some clarifications like "Ok, you climb it, but just roll me an Athletics check to see how it goes". If it was already trivial or it was impossible you can simply add that to manage expectations.
I'm sure I'm missing something, but I found these ones quite often.
My main issue is how this interacts with parts of the rules that explicitly call for a skill check. For example, if a character is standing in the middle of an open room and takes the hide action, RAW says they make a stealth check. Personally, I don't think it's reasonable for a character to conceal themselves in the middle of a room because they got lucky and rolled a 20.
Another issue I have is that players like rolling and I like having players roll because it builds tension. If the party are waiting with baited breath for the rogue to pick the door, sometimes I want there to be a sense of tension, even if I know the rouge can't fail the check and getting the players to roll helps with that.
I think a big reason for this issue is that some players and DM's, newer ones especially, are used to the players calling for the roll instead of the DM. If you combine that with these new crit rules, then the players can call to roll for a check, and have a chance to automatically succeed at whatever they desire.
Obviously, the player should be asking to do something, and the DM asking for the roll if necessary. These new crit rules might even reinforce that idea to newer players and DM's.
I don’t think this rule changes that though. If for example a player unintentionally bullies a new GM into a d20 test for impossibly jumping a 100 ft gap and then rolls a mod 26, the new GM is in the same discretionary position as if a nat 20 was rolled.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 I think it does change a little, since the DM could simply set the success to something unobtainable in that case. It goes against the spirit of the game to set a DC as impossibly high, but this is for the case they feel forced to allow for a roll they think should be impossible to succeed. In the newer rules, it becomes written that any check has a possibility to succeed.
To be clear though, I actually like the rule change. I'm only theorizing why other's might dislike it.
@@SilentFlatulence 100%. I get what you’re saying, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t know which rule variation would be better for new GMs.
I just have a hard time imagining that it’s any easier for inexperienced GMs to shoot down mod 25s or 31s instead of nat 20s.
I think that position will feel the same way to the vast majority, regardless of which rule set is in place.
The same thing I wrote as my Feedback to wotc:
The most DMs I know eventually stop treating DC as a binary fail/success, but as a gradient. Even if its a super easy lock to pick I might just ask for a roll to see how fast or even how stylish looks like. that leaves me at the table having my players rolling tests that wouldn't necessarily needed a roll. The Automatic Fail at 1 just hinders me doing that.
And when it comes to very, very hard tests that even a Nat20 wouldn't succeed for the player - these are neccesarily niche and don't come up too often. And a group usually recognizes an event like this and might throw Bardic inspiration, Guidance, the artificer thingy, etc. at the Problem where suddenly a test that was a fail at 20, can be succeeded by group effort.
So the current rules are perfectly fine as they are. And these two changes just throw wrenches into what I want to do as the Dm on my table.
I think this needs to be pointed out, in the "Ability Checks" section of the current PHB it says: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
Whether people like it or not, in 99.9% of the situations where a DM asks for an ability check roll against a set DC (so not a contested check) in the "current" 5e, a 1 should have failed and a 20 should have succeeded. Most of the complaints I've seen involve pretty crazy scenarios that likely never come up in real play, and that's a result of people deciding on their opinion first, then trying to find "proof" to reinforce it second.
This is how I've run it since skill checks became a thing.
I have a friend, who occasionally DMs, and he is the bad dm that makes EVERY task, mundane or impossible, into a roll only to tell you "you basically couldn't have failed anyway" or "it's just an impossible DC is all. Youd have better luck with wish"
Another note: I think a roll should not only be made depending on if something is possible or not. What a success and failure means is also perspective based. I think it can also be made to see what NPC’s will say or how they will react, and to see if you gain or avoid consequences. If you try to bribe a king to give you his kingdom and you get a 20 on persuasion, I think he should just laugh assuming it was a joke; but if you get a 1 on that situation the king gets extremely angry with you for even mentioning the idea and decides he’s going to reduce your pay. Alternatively, if the player does something crazy like try and jump to the moon let’s say, a 20 could be they jump a bit higher than normal, while a 1 could be they sprain their ankle.
I think this should be made clear in the area where they describe the d20 test. Otherwise maybe a sentence that says something along the lines of: “The DM should generally only allow for a roll to be made when there is a possibility of a success or failure.”
Still not a fan but I would like clarification on the interaction with this rule and skills like reliable talent that can supercede a roll before any final say.
Exactly this- I would consider a rogue with reliable talent to have rolled a nat 10, rather than a nat 1, in that particular circumstance- the entire point of reliable talent is to remove that very randomness from your rolls.
I mean, I think the wording of reliable talent makes it clear - if you roll 9 or lower (and 1 is clearly lower) you take the 10 instead. But also, in all rules conflicts, specific beats general - in this case the rogue's specific reliable talent rule overruling the general rule on skill checks
Sometimes PLAYERS ASK TO ROLL. And telling them, you cannot try, feels bad. Making players feel powerless feels bad. Sometimes only one party member can make a DC, or only one can't succeed, but the players may not know. I don't think letting someone try something they THINK they could succeed at to fail, is wrong. But then if they auto-succeed, that can be narrative-breaking or farcical.
Not true. Rolling for everything is way too gamey, and is too narrative-breaking, since it becomes a game. You aren't supposed to tell them they cannot try. A player can ask if they can do this, not roll for this. The DM is supposed to narrate they try and try, but they don't succeed. There is no narration-breaking if they auto succeed, if they auto-succeed, the DM narrates how they easily perform the task.
The narration-breaking comes from the DM, not asking or denying and not auto-succeeding and remember, games are better when players don't roll all the time. Rolling too much breaks the game, delays the story-telling and breaks the immersion. You want the Role Playing Game, not the Video Game.
@@SmolAnarchy D&D is about rolling dice for some things though. I don't think you make players roll for everything, but some things you do. I have and do DM other systems where there are more or less dice rolls. But if I have a D&D skill check, one or more players rolls dice. This is like the old "take 10/20" rule of 3.5, where sure, if you aren't rushed and/or have unlimited attempts, you can rule a character just does it without rolls. But if there is a roll, some characters in the party may have never been able to do it "taking 20" and thus should not be able to auto-succeed on a 5% roll. But if Lindal the rogue is still unconscious, or Ahkenot the bard is too drunk, or whoever COULD do it is unavailable/unwilling, I am not going to refuse another player trying, even if I, behind the screen, know they have no shot. Because, as folks have mentioned, now we develop metagaming. And let's say they do roll a 20, in the current system, maybe I fudge the DC for narrative reasons, maybe I don't. But if all the players see the 1 or 20 and fail/crit is the codified rule, my hand is force. We have DM fiat for a reason. If you think dice-rolling is video-gamey and not rolling is narrative, guess what, if players are told certain rolls AUTOMATICALLY do something, you are getting more video-gamey. Players don't need to know when the DM gave them a nudge, but crit skill checks give players a huge shove and random chance too much power.
I partly agree, but one thing I don’t like is contested checks (which you addressed) and degrees of success. Maybe the rogue is picking a lock and on a nat 1 the rogue picks the lock but it clatters a little bit, but on a 10 or higher it’s quiet (or similar). Another one is the classic bard tries to seduce literally anything (For this example I’ll go with a dragon) On a nat 1 I might have the bard get roasted alive with the breath weapon , on a nat 20 I might have the dragon be amused. These current rules say the bard would succeed if I let them roll, and even though it’s not the intent it will reinforce people saying “but it’s a nat 20”, especially if they rolled without DM permission. I notice that newer players will do this, and newer DMs might not know how to best handle it.
The final thing is you mentioned the DM should just let them succeed if they have high enough modifiers or say no if a 20 would fail, but the current rules say don’t roll if the DC is above 30 or below 5 which applies even if modifiers could get higher or lower, so if the DM determines that doing something is DC 35 and the rogue has +17, the rogue could succeed but the rules don’t allow it. This wasn’t the focus of your video but is part of the new d20 test rules so I thought I’d mention it
What about when multiple characters with different skill bonuses are attempting the same skill check, like a climb check?
As a DM I will absolutely admit that I don't know the bonuses for every player on every skill. I also don't really want to slow the game by asking every time.
I only give an automatic "no" if it's obviously impossible. I will often just say "roll it" and then see what happens. If the player rolls a 20 but the DC was still to high I tell them that after trying a few times the still can't do it, but there are no bad consequences or maybe I give them so other benefit.
Example: "Even with a 20 you couldn't climb the slick sheer rock face, however you get just enough of a partial grip to look out and see goblins in the distance."
I make up that last benefit on the spot as a reward.
I like it, I'll still keep doing it.
It can also be used to create mystery. I have a wizard who took a feet to get expertise in arcana snd if he fails on a nat 20 for arcana then I'm gunna be interested af
@@L4g__ Agreed! It sends a message that really hits home. You tried your best and it still wasn't enough! That is powerful!
@@MrGuyFaux so true
Agree with you here. Hopefully though this is reenforced and reenforced again in the new DMG. Lots of DMs calling for rolls all the time when it's not needed.
Exactly. People just need to understand when a roll is needed and when its not.
This has nothing to do with the rule , it's just a stupid and bad rule that won't get to the final product for sure because it fucking sucks so much.
In theory in a world with magic EVERYTHING is "possible", but not necessarily by using straight skill checks. Tiamat has a 26 passive Perception -- you MIGHT be able to sneak past it if you use guidance and pass without trace, but a paladin in chainmail should not be able to just sneak up behind her 5% of the time (I know what you're saying, it's actually .25% with heavy armor, but the One rules give out inspiration freer and looser than Jehovah's Witnesses give out pamphlets). It's not "impossible" IF the PCs get creative, but as the DM it's not MY job to be creative FOR them -- it's my job to decide HOW HARD something is, and it's the PCs' job to figure out how to do something that well. THAT'S the problem -- the "any 20 is magic" idea ruins the strategy and resource management aspect of the game and just make it into a video game with cheat codes always on.
You just ask them if they want to do something to improve their chances (the creative path). If they say "No, we just go straight" then you just don't ask for a roll. It's the same as the video says. You don't ask for rolls you don't want to have a chance of succeeding.
It's not magic though. 26 is, per the books, still within the realm of possibility. If Tiamat's Passive was over 30, THEN it would be impossible. That's specifically laid out even in the existing difficulty levels for DCs.
It is distinctly possible that the knight manages to get a grip on all their jingling and jangling bits and move carefully enough to get by. That chance is 0.25% that's gonna happen. People win lotteries in real life with odds lower than that. But for that one dude who sneaks past Tiamat, 400 (on average) have failed before him. A 1 in 400 chance is still a chance.
Plus, you're assuming that any player would go "Hmmm, a 1 in 400 chance of sneaking past Tiamat seems fine. I'll try that without expending any resources. What's the worst that could happen?"
Congrats, DM, you get to decide the worst that could happen now, because it probably will. But if it doesn't....how excited is that player gonna be that they rolled double Nat 20s?
When I DM, I already treat 20s as successes and 1s as failures if I or my players ask for skill checks. If a player is trying to do something outlandish like persuading the King to abdicate the throne and the player rolls a 20, it doesn't mean the king does exactly what the player wants, it means the king responds favorably in that they don't punish the player or they're amused. It just means the outcome isn't negative. Similarly, if a player with a high sleight of hand skill wants to roll to pick a lock and they roll a 1, the attempt fails because of something beyond their control, like the pick broke, they sneezed, a guard suddenly showed up, or a trap mechanism is triggered. Rolls are fate, and they add variance to the game. Embrace the chaos!
Also, for 1s, I have the players roll again for a degree of failure and possible consequences. Usually it's 50/50, 1-10 is a negative consequence, and 11-20 they just don't succeed for some narrative reason or another.
I totally agree with your point here. It IS about perspective. If rolling a natural 1 didn't fail, why are you rolling??
Not every situation deserves a roll. The DM is an arbiter and they need to put their foot down. No you can't roll to fly. That's against the rules.
The only thing I want to add is degrees of failure. So even if someone fails, they can "fail forward". E.g. they fail to jump across the pit. Instead of falling to their deaths, they slam into the other side, and something falls out of their pack or etc.
But that doesn't conflict with the new natural 1/natural 20 rules. I just wish they added that as well (maybe in the updated DMG?)
The problem with this system and degrees of failure, is that something can be impossible but still have degrees of failure. E.g. a player wants to try to scale a 30 ft wall sheer wall just by running and jumping. This is impossible, but there are still different degrees of failure : maybe they run, jump don't get high enough and land safely on their feet or maybe they run, jump, hit the wall, bounce off and land sprawled on their back taking 1d6 falling damage. Or the classic example of the bard tries to ask the king to give the party his kingdom, an impossible task. But there are still degrees of failure: perhaps the king acknowledges the argument and starts talking about his plans for retirement or lamenting that he has no successor, or maybe the king laughs it off as a joke, or maybe the king thinks its an act of treason and has the party thrown in jail.
Likewise, there may be cases where failure is impossible but there are still degrees of success. E.g. the ranger with expertise is survival goes out to forage for food in a lush forest - with expertise they should always succeed but they might find 5 berries and a handful of nuts, or they might find and kill a boar.
"If rolling a natural 1 didn't fail, why are you rolling?"
Because your DM isn't the one playing your character, so he doesn't know WHAT MODIFIERS EVERY PC IS ADDING TO THE CHECK UNTIL AFTER THEY MAKE IT. It MIGHT be enough, it MIGHT NOT be, but you have to figure out which resources you're using and PLAY THE $*@!ING GAME to make the check.
@@arcxjo Yes and why would a possible and probable succes but not a sure one result in an automatic fail at the same time?
The high mod player getting nat1 on something moderately hard but doable , still getting a 10 is automatically failing ? I am gonna explain that with "Sorry you had an aneurysm attempting that , it happens in this world , you and every entity are used to it already , but don't worry it only last 6 seconds with no lasting effects".
Very logical.
@@arcxjo What are you even talking about. Let's say they don't know. Wouldn't they just ask?
And for ridiculous things (like I want to jump to the moon), there's NO check you can make. Ever. It's simply impossible.
For certain things (like opening a door), there should also be no check. Cause it's pointless to roll.
So you need to pretend there's a check that the DM set and the player can actually auto succeed on, but no one talks at the table about their modifiers? That makes no sense.
I can already think of exceptions, like rolling for perception, assuming the monster has a high passive stealth or just stealth roll, do you only let the ranger and druid roll perception? or do the others also get to roll the impossible check, and thus get an unnatural change to succeed,
Same with group checks where one individual should really not be able to fail, like the rogue and group stealth.
Some rolls just kind of happen, I wanted to bring up grapples as skill checks, but touché, those are unarmed strikes now.
What about scenarios that sucess or fail aren't possible, but degrees of sucess or fail are important?
For example, if you end up saying an offensive joke to a king, and it isn't possible salve the joke as a sucess, you could roll to determine how much of a fail it actually is, so that the consequences of your bad manners are dealt appropriately depending on how well you are able to present it.
That's how I played 1's and 20's anyway... didn't even realize that wasn't already a rule. You did an amazing job explaining when to roll!
100% agree with you Cody. I absolutely don't have my players roll athletics in the morning to see if they manage to get up. It's an absurd example but gets the point across. You explain it very well. I would love to get your thoughts on one specific roll though: Insight. I personally don't like my players to request a roll. I like them to tell me what they want to achieve and then, I call for a roll ... or not. I see too many players just rolling insight by themselves and getting disappointed if they don't get anything out of it. It feels like in everyone's perspective, Insight is a lie detector. Specifically that, combined with this new rule, is something I'd love to read or hear your thoughts about.
I think any new edition (or half edition) needs to be a lot more clear what Insight does. The text makes it seem incredible powerful stating very specifically that a player can "determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move". Basically turning every character in the game into FBI profilers we see in movies and TVs shows which is frankly, ridiculous. There is literally no downside for a player to ask for an Insight check during every interaction they have with even the most mundane NPC in the off chance that the NPC has an ulterior motive when dealing with the PC, even if it's not a negative thing.
A successful Animal Handling means I can calm down a spooked horse, a successful Insight Check means I can basically predict the future.
I completely agree with your point about when a roll is called for. I think the rub in this play test is that it lacks the framing you set up of using judgement for when a roll is called for. If this information is included, it's a decent change, if it continues to no be present, it's a problem that will trip up new DMs.
I fundamentally agree with you, Cody. Couple of conceptual examples of edge cases where I like to keep some of the mystery:
- A high DC (25) where SOME of the characters MIGHT be able to succeed, but others have no chance. This case requires a layer of metagaming to know the modifiers before calling for the roll. It’s just one more thing for the DM to keep track of.
- I had a RIGGED carnival strength game. The Barbarian rolled a Nat20 and FAILED, and it was a clue that the event was shady. It also encouraged them to work together for inspiration and guidance and stuff.
- Player invested in a build for a +9 Con Save caster. Should there be a 5% chance that they drop concentration EVERY time they take ANY damage? Seems punishing.
Agree 1000%, you only make rolls when: 1. The DM calls for it. 2. There is chance of success or failure.
Absolutely! If there is no chance to succeed or no chance to fail, there is no reason to roll. The DM is perfectly within bounds to make those calls: "Yes, you tie your shoes just fine. No, there is absolutely no way you can possibly seduce the aboleth."
This video aged like milk.
While I agree that a nat 1s and 20s should usually fail/pass, and that the DM should probably not ask for rolls the players should automatically fail/pass on, it also means the DM has to do a bunch more bookkeeping for individual players. Sure, a nat-1 may mean that MOST of the party fails, but your rogue or bard with expertise might be just fine. So are you supposed to ask everyone *but* them to roll an acrobatics check? Maybe. But it also means you'll be having to look at each player's sheet for every high/low DC check. In my opinion, It's just simpler to have your DC set and let the players add their mods.
I feel like it also stifles creativity if the DM is worried about an auto-success and continually has to tell the players "no, you can't attempt that." In situations like that, I prefer to let them roll, and give them a half-success on high rolls. It may not be what they want, but it gives them more information than they otherwise would have gotten had you simply told them "no."
Even just looking at the sheet doesn't tell you if they're using any spells or magic items that could affect things. Bless, guidance, pass without trace, boots of elvenkind, a ring of protection, bane on the NPCs, ... there are PLENTY of things that could change a player's normal +4 to a roll to something completely different, and the "just don't make them roll for it" crowd seem to think it's the DM's job to play their characters for them.
What's the downside of asking the players their modifiers? Not sure I get why that seem to be taboo for some DMs. Just ask. Also, what's worse, saying they can't make a roll v. letting them make a roll, the get they maximum value possible but they still failed? For the player, the latter is definitely worse.
Half a success is still a reasonable success, rules wise. You define what success means, not the players. Also, you can ask rather than remember everyone's bonuses. "Ok, anyone has a relevant bonus to that? Ok, then you and you can roll me an x check". It also shows the players that building their characters around something means more than just the number. Sure, in the end it's about whether they could get to a high enough number, but from the get go you can show them that their investment actually unlocks stuff.
Cody has this 100 percent correct
its how many OSR games and retro clones an d older editions did it before wizards of the coast owned the game!!!
Why is it that 5e players ( who came in to the hobby with 5e ) that only play 5e always get this wrong and seem to always take a short cut in thinking?
play other games to widen your experience and understanding.
The way it's worded it does include contested checks. That's my issue. If someone with a negative charisma gets a nat 20 and my cleric gets a 19 on the die insight check, I'd still lose. I find that pretty silly.
The problem is, attack rolls and saving throws are often binary (did you meet or beat their AC? Did you make your DEX save vs Fireball?), whereas ability checks are not, and if I know the outcome of a Nat 20 isn't possible but many other "successes" ARE possible, i either have to have a weird conversation with the brand new player about what "success" means or simply say "No" to the entire stack.
This is why at session zero I go over houses and ground rules, one of which is I'll ignore any roll a player makes unless I call for it.
Sometimes you just have to take a step back and analyze things from a different perspective. This is one of the many reasons why I love your content Cody, keep up the good work, and thank you!
You mentioned "on a pass or fail test", but the rules dont clearly spell that out. I often use skills for things that arent strictly pass/fail.
I also dont have all of my players skills memorized. That's dozens of skills for dozens of characters.
To me, this rule feels like its setting up arguments at the table.
My only concern is would it interfere with class abilities? For example, Inquisitive Rogues have an ability where to detect lies, any insight check roll of 7 or lower is considered an 8. If they roll a 1, does this cancel out the ability? I personally don't think it should because its a core mechanic of the character. I'm in agreement with something you said about whether or not someone is trained or proficient with the skill. It kinda makes sense that if you're trained, then even your lowest roll is still a pretty good DC at higher levels. But yeah, you made a lot of good points there.
Thank you for saying this. Players shouldn't call for rolls; they should ask or claim to do something. The barbarian shouldn't call for an 'athletics check' to break open the barn door, they ask 'can I try to knock down the door' and the DM either says "roll an athletics check" or "you knock down the door because you're very strong."
I mostly agree about ability checks. Although I think it might be setting up new DM to fail.
How about saves though? Should a Creature with a +14 their wisdom save be able to fail a DC8 Wis save against a spell? I’m not so sure about that. I like that a 20 success a save no matter what, but I’m not still skeptical about the auto fail for saves.
Yeah I think that makes enough sense, it already worked like that for attacks. If there are circumstances that you don't want this to happen to a creature, there is always legendary resistances.
The saves mechanics mean exactly the same as attack mechanics. Why would a +9 attack roll have any chance of missing a AC 8 zombie. Just because. Now saves behave the same. Specially for combat, the concept applies just the same.
Also, I would say the old rules could be setting a new DM for failure. Like Cody says, if you ask for a roll that should be impossible and the player makes it and rolls a 20, it's better for a new DM to have a hard time explaining the success for the impossible roll rather than disappoint the player. The DM will learn because they will not want to make the same mistake again and the player will enjoy their success. Otherwise the DM might not realise they should stop and the player will be left with a sour taste.
Very awesome concept. You should do a video on un-achiveable excuses. Like rogue can't pick lock "as you insert your lock picks to pick the lock you find the pins to not exist. The lock is magical in nature" or something. Also the spells not critical on 20 and monsters not critical is to balance combat numbers to a dm predictable level. The critical spell attack can crit but no extra damage is for the dm to translate. "You knock away his shield! -2ac!" Or so on.
I think it's a good change. Even a very skilled person can make a mistake sometimes. It's a roleplay opportunity.
problem is, that in a typical d&d setting, that doesn't hold up in later levels. When you are able to teleport around and you can't figure out what cantrip the enemy just used, then it makes the player feel like the world is inconsistent, and makes the player feel like their progress is less meaningful. At a certain point in the game simple things should be auto succeeded in my opinion.
YESSSSS thank you!
and a newb can sometimes get lucky!
Look at the story of david and Goliath, David rolled a nat 20 on that attack and got lucky!
@@psychogerbil64 I think it makes the world feel more realistic, consummate professionals make mistakes everyday!
It is absolutely a role playing opportunity.
Some of the most fun moments in my campaign are when the barbarian nat 1s the strength check and the wizard comes along and succeeds. He has to say, "Its not heavy it's just awkward" or something. We're not power gamers, it's just fun.
@@kevinjames011 Absolutely!
Some people have power fantasies and they don't have to use these rules as written. The rules are all optional anyways at the DMs discretion.
But to say it's wrong or doesn't make sense is just dead wrong.
Agree Cody, furthermore… In the 5E DMG (the book we have right now, that no one ever actually reads) has a suggested rule that if the player’s ability score is higher than the check needed, the player automatically succeeds.
Conversely, if your DM is allowing a player to make a skill check for the King to hand over his crown to the adventurer, that also should not even be a roll, because the king would never do that. Or a jump check to fly to the moon, or any other straw man argument. Simply put, it’s not a rule issue, it’s a DMing issue.
Automatic success on a 20 and fail on a 1 for any d20 check has been our house rule since we were playing 2nd edition. We even made it so on a critical save fail the worst possible outcome happens. Got a lot of great moments out of that.
I should be able to set a very hard task, say DC25, knowing only players who have invested enough points into the skill, or using a modifier boost will be able succeed. This rewards character investment and using abilities.
The problem here is really some things should only be possible in some circumstances, and not possible in others. There are many skill boosting spells and abilities. Guidance, Flash of Genius, Barbic inspiration. A character might not be able to pass a DC25 check without these boosts. A DM has no way of knowing which and how many boosts a player might use before attempting something difficult. So a DC25-30 MIGHT be possible, but only if players use these boosts, which in is kinda the point of boosting your checks.
If a player has a -2, but wants to attempt a DC25 check anyways, a DM under these rules will just say it's impossible and not allow for the roll. Because without significant modifiers, it is impossible. But in reality, the DM doesn't know the modifiers the player will have, I generally don't memorize player sheets, and even if I did, I have no way of knowing what boosters they will add.
Yes checks like trying to fly is inherently impossible for any non-winged humanoid, at least without the aid of magic, and so no checks should be allowed. But picking a very complicated lock is only possible for people who have trained and skill to do that. And with enough aid, magic items, etc, people who are just average at lock picking can pick it.
That's why you talk. It's not like we are in school and the professor writes down a test, goes out to the printer and by the time the tests starts it's all set in stone. You ask beforehand if they want to add anything or if they have anything to improve their chances. It's not like you are just a computer. When you say a DM has no way of knowing that is completely false. You can just ask. Most of the examples or situations people have used against this rule can simply be solved by asking "Do you have any bonus to that?". You can embellish that question if you want, but it is still the same.
"I want to try to lockpick this door"
"It's a hard one, do you have any proficiency or bonus to that?"
- "Yes, I have proficiency in thieve's tools and +4 Dex. Also, the bard gave me inspiration" "Allright, roll me a Dexterity (Thieve's Tools) check"
- "Yes, I have proficiency in thieve's tools and a +1 on Dex" "Well you try to lockpick but as you insert....." and it fails. Or something else.
@@Crisguss22 Ok, and what about things that can decide bonuses AFTER a roll? Flash of Genius, Boon of Fate, etc. There is so much that can be done after, even by other players after the roll is made.
The entire point I'm making is that 5e is a system that doesn't really support this.
The problem that must be acknowledged is that we *do* have players rolling for things they should have no possibility of success on or things there's no reason they should fail. Whether it's because the player rolls without being asked or the DM just wants to be secretive about which rolls are unwinnable, I'm almost positive there's more tables that have "impossible" or "should be impossible" rolls than tables that don't.
Ignoring that and saying "Well that's not a thing so this isn't a change" isn't a reasonable assumption. Especially since sometimes, making the unsucceedable roll and failing is part of the information-gathering process. For example, if your master thief fails to pick a lock even on a 20, that tells you something about the lock- that this lock is of legendary skill and may literally be unpickable in some way.
So yes, I think if this rule is going to be implemented, there should also be- as one of your commenters said- an adjoining rule explicitly clarifying that unwinnable or unlosable checks shouldn't be rolled for any reason, because that's not how most people actually play.
It’s really not that hard for a DM to not ask for an impossible roll. And if you’re a player, you should be upset with your DM if they make you roll for something impossible. Because if you get a Nat 20 on a roll, and they tell you you failed, you just wasted your time and a Nat 20.
What even is the point of impossible rolls? It benefits no one, and is a detriment to the players. It’s never fun to be told you can do attempt something, roll the highest number possible, and then be told it was all for naught.
Also, on the topic of players rolling without the DM calling for a roll. DM can just ignore said rolls
Why would you need a roll to tell them that information? Wouldn't you skip the dice roll and just tell them?
Why would you keep any of this secret? Some things ARE impossible.
When I heard what this "issue" was I was literally laughing. I've always played this way with my groups whether as a dm or pc. If the dm calls for a roll, they are (or should be) prepared for both success or failure. Besides, while I understand spec'ing your char to have high checks in certain areas, the Nat 1 fail kinda needs to be there as everyone can have a bad day. Same with Nat 20 success, sometimes the barbarian happens to have the knowledge over the wizard. If the dm thinks it's impossible to fail or succeed, don't ask for a roll (but always offer an explanation if asked).
I understand the idea that a 1 or 20 will realistically succeed or fail in most cases there are still those situations where it should succeed or fail. For example I've used DCs set incredibly high because there are other factors that can assist. And then LOWER the DC. The point of the stupidly high DC is that it's there to choreograph there's something more to the situation.
I prefer doing it this way because it feels more interactive for the player(in my experience) for them to try it themselves and if they get the highest roll they KNOW they need find out what's more to this situation. I fondnit more enjoyable for them than just saying they fail.
Another use (for me) for setting unobtainable DCs thresholds for DC is to determine the gradient of failure.
I don't know that I fully agree. I see your point where if the task is too hard, they shouldn't roll in the first place and likewise if it's too easy. However this rule implies success where success isn't possible. This isn't like rolling a crit to hit where you get special bonuses, this is just a you fail or succeed rule. The way you present your argument, it doesn't quite make sense to me. If the DM decides that you can only succeed on a 20, then why the need for the rule? The '"crit" is redundant because regardless of the rule entirely, a 20 was always going to be the bar.
Where it says, "...regardless of any modifiers..." heavily implies that an impossible action is possible to an extent. No I don't think Gorgug the barbarian should be able to leap 50 miles on a nat 20, but if the skill check requires a combined result of 22, and the Barbarian only has a 10 in athletics, then getting a nat 20 shouldn't allow him to succeed (at least fully succeed if the GM uses some kind of gradient in pass/fail), because he will always be 2 points short. The difference here is that the skill check can be passed if anyone has a 12 in athletics, so the wizard who has 1 point should never be able to succeed. It is impossible, for them. But this rule implies now that, yes there is always a possibility for a character to succeed a skill even if it is impossible for them.
The rule already includes text that other restrictions such as range of line of sight are not bypassed on success, only modifiers. So no, your comment is a misreading.
Didnt realize this JUST came out. Thanks for the video! Clarifies that controversy for me, as I haven't been paying much attention to all this.
Sometimes the DM doesn't know your skill modifier. He might think that your character could fail a DC10 check but in reality your character has a +9 modifier so he can't. The player shouldn't know the DC so he can't ask to succeed without rolling. For the solution in video to work the DM has to check the character sheet before asking for every roll.
they way I do it is either "only those who are proficient in X or Y can try" or "if you have proficiency, you don't need to roll"
'Sometimes the DM doesn't know your skill modifier. "
DMs can just ask the players their modifier.
I think it’s better to word it so that you can’t roll to begin with if 20 would fail or 0 would succeed therefore making 20 always succeed or 1 always fail which will key both players and DMs know that such rolls aren’t meant to be there because ultimately DM’s will do the ‘roll to climb’ without thinking or because it’s what you’re meant to say it’d be basically the same but is less of a worry
I think they may in the final book.
The main problem here is situations such as Bardic Inspiration- it is possible that a 20 would fail, but a 20 + bardic inspiration would succeed- in that situation, do you give the roll, or not?
With that wording, specifying not to roll when it is impossible, that would actually solve this issue- simply allow the roll, since there is *A* way that it is possible to succeed. But, saying that a nat 20 succeeeds is NOT right here, as you must both get a nat 20 and high enough on your bardic inspiration, which you must choose to spend in order to succeed (or lower than a nat 20 and higher on the bardic inspiration, depending on the exact DC).
This supposes that the DM has full knowledge of all the modifiers for all their players for each check called. We already have a lot to juggle, and sometimes failing or succeeding by degrees is what the roll determines as well. Players love rolling dice, so as long as they have context clues as to how impossible something is, it shouldn't be a problem when they still fail on a 20, but don't get destroyed by the failure, just a comedic setback
I think you failed to address two point : 1) The DM doesn't always know everything by heart, including the player modifier. On top of that, inspiration, bless or an other dice modifier could be the determinant factor in case of a Nat 1. 2) This change in perspective is really bad, because it setup checks as binary. Most of my checks have two or more option depending on the roll.
i agree with what some other comments said, your thought process requires the dm to know which skills are the weakness and strength of EVERY pc to know when to tell them to roll,
also, newer dms may find it harder to say “no, you can’t roll for that”
Here are my issues, there might be a chance to fail, let's say it's below a 10. You call for a roll because maybe you're not sure who is going to do something or maybe everyone does it. You have someone get a 10 because they aren't very good at it and pass, but now someone got a 13 even though they rolled a 1 they still failed? It's a chance to make all their bonuses not matter. It's why I prefer the pf2e system with its 4 levels of success.
Another potential scenario is a player wants to do something, let's say an athletics check to barge open a locked door or something. Maybe you have something else in mind that happens with a big enough roll, like something on the other side of the door falls over causing a.cbain of events. The player will now expect a certain result because hey they succeeded.
The case you just suggested is really not a real case unless you are somewhat lazy or the table is a chaotic one. You ask for a roll when a player suggests a course of action. The roll does not exist until someone describes an action that would warrant it. You then adapt to that. If someone rolls a 13 with a nat 1 then they had a +12. That is clearly in the realm of "No, you don't have to roll, you succeed atuomatically". A DC 10 means it's fairly doable for an average Joe. A +12 PC is an expert.
On the other case, it's about managing expectations, but sure, it's a weird scenario. Because you are triggering stuff unrelated to the success/fail of the check. There isn't a clear answer to doing stuff not meant by the rules. That's dnd 5e, you adapt and improvise.
the best example for why checks should not auto fail or succeed is group rolls. should a 14 count as a fail on a DC 12 stealth check as the rogue rolls a 1 one the group stealth check?
Group checks are there to see how many in the group fail and how many succeed. If half or more succeed, everyone succeeds and vice versa.
Here is the thing. I often ask for a roll to determine the level of success. So I may know a nat 1 will still succeed with the +9 modifier, now I know that it barely succeeded, and maybe it takes longer, Since time is kept well in the games I run, there is a big difference between taking 10 minutes to pick a lock, and 6 seconds.
I think the simple solution of players rolling nat 20 on an impossible check is treat it like a knowledge check. "Your knowledge of your athletic ability let's you know there's no way you can jump across this chasm"
No the simple solution is not to allow impossible checks. The 5e rules already say to only roll when there is a chance for success and failure -- PHB Chapter 7: "An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." He's right, this literally doesn't change anything.
@@JeremyStreich so that doesnt change anything. And THE ONLY thing it does is confusing new DMs who doesnt really know that you shouldnt call for a check when the task is impossible.
Nice change, very smart
@@JeremyStreich So, you memorize all 30 scores for every one of your players? (18 skills, 6 saves, 6 basic stats- not counting remembering proficiencies in things like tools)
That's what you need to do to ensure you NEVER call for a roll that's impossible to fail/succeed, and that seems absolutely absurd to expect of DMs.
I personally just don’t let them roll for it
This new rule seems to be giving more stress on the DM. Now when I want a roll need to see what everyone's skill is then see if they can or cannot make it. no let them roll and say the DC. they can see if they can make it or not up front. Also that climbing roll nat 20 with a DC too high would give the player the sight to see it is too hard not half way through.
But it is a rule and all rules are optional so I will skip this one others can happily use it if they feel like it.
I think you’re a bit too hung up on the math. To decide whether or not to call for a roll as a GM, you need a good grasp of the thematic elements of the characters at the table, not the mechanical ones.
I.E. you need to know that your ranger grew up in the mountains, before you set a DC for him to climb a mountain.
In other words, you need an idea of who the muscle is, who the book guy is, who the liar is, etc.
And you need that information to GM well regardless of the rules anyway.
You don't need to remember everything. If you don't want to have some cheat sheet of your players you can just ask if anyone is proficient in something. Their general ability scores are easy to remember (as in, if they have a +4 or a +1 or a negative modifier), so it comes down to proficiency. If you have a hard roll you just say "Wait, you have proficiency in Athletics, right?" and that's it. You don't need to remember if someone has a +9 or a +10 and therefore can try to go for a 30 DC check. They are the same thing. You are asking for an almost impossible task, so rolling a 20 represents that level of impossibility.
And making them fail even in a nat 20 is a waste of time. If they didn't have a chance just describe stuff.
I don't disagree with what you are saying but I believe that this rule will create more attrition at the table than guide new DMs to not ask for unecessary rolls.
More specifically, your video represents well what should happen when a DM ask for a roll, but the problem start when a player start to ask for a roll, and not ask to do an action and the DM determines the roll, wich is how the majority of my players interact with any system that I played.
When players bully their GM into unnecessary d20 tests, unintentionally or otherwise, they can put the GM in the same bad position whether this rule exists or not.
New GMs will feel just as much pressure from either a nat 20 or a mod 27 on a roll that they shouldn’t have called for.
You make a good point. I’ve recently been trying to use more passive skills in my games which do as you say, bypass the roll altogether. Need to lift a manhole cover? The person who has a strength mod of 4 plus a 10 (14) should just do it. No roll.
all the scenarios people bring up are particular to their table and their group. DMs can say YES or NO to this sorta stuff but everyone rather point fingers and make strawmans. DMs have a spine, and players BE REASONABLE.
No this is false , the moment the rule is printed(if , let's hope it wont) both DM and players are gonna cite it when needed and it's almost never gonna be logical , just a bad rule that was removed for a good reason , it's gonna create many stupid situations and force DM to just say :"NO" every single time a nat 20 could break the game .
Terrible.
I don't think the comments selected really capture the core issues:
1) not all ability checks are binary pass/fail.
I personally find that most aren't. The DMG providers recommendations and supporting rules for variable checks, e.g., Bard does the proverbial "asks king for kingdom", DM asks for a check knowing the king will never give their kingdom, DC 1-15 and king orders guards to put Bard in stocks, DC 16-25 king recognizes the absurdity but rolls their eyes and Bard loses favor with them, DC 26- 30 and the king gets a few chuckles.
2) these rules slow the game down even more.
A good DM was already cognizant of whether a roll should be called for (i.e., are there meaningful consequences to failure?, is success/failure truly possible? etc.). As a DM, I find that these rules do more harm than good because they:
a) may setup bad expectations for the players
(like if they got a nat 20 in the scenario with the king above. Success/Failure isn't binary, these rules tend to imply otherwise without nuance) and;
b) make the DM, have to do even more work
If the DM wants to avoid imposing an unwarranted 5% chance of success or failure, they have to verify all of the players' modifiers for every skill to determine what their minimums and maximums are before asking for checks (and this vid didn't even get into saving throws or actual criticals), because while they might have been able to roll a nat 1 and succeed before, now every time a rogue picks a basic lock and the DM didn't take the time to verify their modifier against the DC first, there is a 5% chance of an awkward conversation of how they failed, should they have failed?, oh whoops I guess I shouldn't have call for the check so lemme just have a copy of your character sheet so next time we don't goof, etc. Slow slow slow
3) Group checks
The DM would need everyone's character sheet to determine who should even participate in the group check which slows things down, or they alternatively could just outright share what the DC is (which could slow the game down if the DM is improvising this, which let's be honest, they are going to a lot lol) but even then that's an unnecessarily metagame-y taken just to avoid the likely bad expectations set by these rules.
I actually agree with Nat 1 being an automatic fail on a check (or test as they call it now) and automatic success on a 20. Though WotC should add something in the description of the D20 test along the lines of "a d20 test is done only in situations where there is a chance that actions of a creature may fail or succeed. You do not roll a d20 test where it is obvious that one can succeed such as opening an unlocked, well-maintained wooden door or something obviously impossible like scaling a smooth, 90 degree wall." Something like that.
I have to disagree here. If a barbarian with a +9 to athletics tries going up a rocky wall that has a DC of 10, a 1 makes him embarrassingly bang his knee as he struggles up along with the rest of the party but a nat 20 makes him run straight up the rock wall. It informs the flavor text.
I also immensely dislike the idea of only allowing certain players to do a check. If a wiz with a -2 athletics rolls a nat 20 (total 18) on a DC 25 strength check to move something, he doesn't move it. I would give a hint on that it seems like someone stronger might be able to move it. But the barbarian is capable of moving it with an extremely high roll. I wouldn't want to tell the wizard, "no. You can't roll for this. Only the barbarian can roll for it." This also works for a DC 25 or 30 lock, the rogue/bard could get that, but not likely most other players. There are rolls that are impossible for some characters and possible for others. Someone in the party should be able to get something out of it if you allow rolls, but not everyone should be able to succeed. That's why you need a party and not just one player.
So you are telling me that the wizard with a +3/+4/+5 Int needs to roll on the athletics check to realize they can't do it and it's better for the buff guy of the party to try it?
Besides this one specific case it can still work just as well. A roll is not a one to one relationship to an action. The wizard can try to move that heavy stuff and you as a DM just don't ask for a roll. The wizard attempts to do it and after some time pushing and pushing you tell them the same conclusion. Asking for them to roll, then add their modifier and tell you the result is just a waste of time. If it's already evident then you just move on exactly the same.
Not asking for a roll doesn't mean the PC doesn't try.
I feel like there's one issue with this I don't hear many people talk about is several of my tables (both as a DM and a player) there is a serious problem with players rolling checks without asking/being asked. as soon as they come to a problem that seems to call for a skill, the dice start flying. (And yes, we've tried to get them to stop, but at a certain point to keep things friendly you just have to...roll with it). My real concern with these rule changes is that they explicitly encourage this kind of behavior, particularly once you factor in the inspiration on Nat 20 rule.
Simple solution. If the DM doesn’t ask for a roll, the roll doesn’t count.
@@InDisskyS131 that doesn't solve the issue of the new game rules encouraging players to try and get away with their bad habits and encouraging the formation of them in the first place. If there's always a chance at success, players are potentially rewarded for badgering their DM to let them roll. And sure, you can kick them out if it gets bad enough, but why have rules that create that conflict in the first place? Much easier just to set an invisibly impossible DC, let them roll, tell them they fail, and move on. It also allows players to get information about whether something is possible or not by asking for a roll. So it encourages DM harassment, codifies metagaming, not to mention the luck snowball from the inspiration change. Why are we even defending this?
There are plenty of spells, abilities and other mechanics that require a D20 Test without DM's call.
For example, I have a character with +12 on constitution saving throw, which in 5e means he suceeds on mundane (
I, for one, like this absolute rule of Automatic Failure and Success. Some systems out there use a similar method, including GURPS, my all-time favorite TTRPG system. To sum up for those who aren't familiar with, GURPS uses 3d6 for every roll. ANY roll of 17 and 18 is an automatic failure, and any roll of 3 and 4 is a critical success. These are the baselines, but the system naturally asks for the DM's discretion. GURPS is grounded on a 'simulation of reality', so the same rules apply. You can't just jump off a bridge and try to fly, hoping to roll a 3 to succeed. it simply doesn't work like that.
The same discretion must be applied in D&D, obviously - even though D&D is not, necessarily, grounded on reality. Even the master of religious lore can have a memory lapse and roll a 1, while the barbarian can roll a 20 and remember something they could have heard from a tribal shaman or something. The justification of how can someone without training perform better than someone with training don't really matter. This is running in circles. Someone with a +10 to Athletics can still fail, albeit more rarely, than someone with a +2. But it can still happen.
I believe this rule will only enhance and speed up gameplay. More people will have the opportunity to shine in situations that their characters are "not built to", like the low-Charisma Wizard suddenly having to roll Persuassion, or the low-Intelligence Fighter having to roll History, et cetera. We can all have lucky strikes, can't we? I think it will de-automatize D&D a good chunk.
I could see this being printed still as an optional rule similar to how feats are an optional rule. Nothing hurts to have extra options for a DM to have in their game.
I've been doing crit fails (nat 1) and crit success (nat 20) ever since I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons. I like this rule and have always used it for my homebrew rules.
To go off of what one of the comments in the video said, this is a rough idea of what I would propose for these mechanics.
Rolling A 20
If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll, but only if the roll was made for one of the following Tests:
-an attack roll
-a saving throw
-an ability check that allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the roll
-a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check made to escape a grapple
Rolling a 20 doesn't bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties.
*They could even add in a note at the end reminding players that the GM can say no roll is necessary because it has no chance of succeeding.
Rolling A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll, but only if the roll was made for one of the following Tests:
-an attack roll
-a saving throw
-an ability check that does not allow you to add your proficiency bonus to the roll
I think you are missing something. In general, the players love roll the dice, especially when the have a high score. If the Bard have a +10 to Persuasion, he doesn't want me to say "you convince the the merchant for a discount", he want to roll, he wants to see the 27 result in his check, or de 11 if he take a 1 and succeed anyway because it was an easy check for him.
With attack rolls and saving throws, it feels good to always have some chance of success or failure.
If there isn’t a chance of failure on a skill check, I won’t call for a roll, so I’m fine with 1 being a failure. That’s how it already works at my table: if you cast Pass Without Trace, you auto-succeed on a DC 10 Stealth check.
However, a 20 shouldn’t always be a success on an ability check, because the DCs go up to 30. I might not allow a character with a -1 modifier to roll a check against a DC 25 because I don’t want the 5% of success that comes with a nat20 rule. However, that character might still be able to succeed with bardic inspiration and guidance, for example, and so I don’t want to deny that roll. Nor do I want to have to keep track of all the possibilities or metagame with the player about options; I just want to assess the situation, assign a DC if both success and failure are acceptable options, and describe the challenge to the player. That's straightforward, avoids confusion and mistakes by the DM, and therefore is good game design, in my opinion. (And how I will run my table no matter what WOTC puts in their rules, of course.)
I think there are so many situations where " don't have them roll" doesn't apply as cleanly as suggested. 1) Any checks that have degrees of success or failure. What does it mean that someone who normally could beat a DC check gets a nat 20? This is especially true when there's a big difference between the DC the best character could get and the lowest plausibly successful one (e.g. one character has a +1, one character has a +7, but the first character roles a 20 and the other one rolls an 18 -- does it make sense that character A knows just as much as the one who hit a DC 25 skills check despite that being an impossible roll for them? If not, what does that mean about what an auto-success is?). 2) Times when players could add dice or modifiers to a skill check. Like the soul knife's psi-powered knack feature or bardic inspiration. If I decided to use certain resources, I could succeed on the check -- but not if I don't use them. What does it mean to roll a 20 and then not need to use those resources because of an auto-success when I wouldn't have been able to roll in the first place without the possibility of using those resources?
The only problem I have is that I also every now and then have players roll for things that are not binary for example I'll let a rouge pick a lock and on a 10 he gets it to open but it takes him a while but on a 15 he succeeds within a turn (lockpicking lawyer style with a rake)
I think it's quite limited to see a test as always being binary just fail or success.
There is so much inbetween so I might let a player attempt something impossible (whilst having warned them it is impossible) to see if they fail completely or if they manage to save face a bit by a partial succes or doing something cool whilst not achieving the success they were aiming for.
If the intent is to have DM's call for less unnecessary rolls. It needs to be codified due to a long stigma that players need to roll for everything. There is passive perception/investigation and feats such as observant. However, that milage will vary per DM. There are published module/adventures that highlight passive bonuses, but milage will vary per module/adventure.
I usually choose the DC before I make players roll. I do not ask there modifiers so I can not be certain that they can or cannot do this. Some of them might and some might not. I just find the crits in skills weird and will never use it. I found the original version more for my liking. If I know that the test is impossible I will tell that same with really simple tests but in mid cases I do not want to make assumptions of how they build the character.
Problem scenarios with the critical success/fail approach to skill checks:
1. Multiple characters doing the same task. For example, climbing a wall, particularly one which isn't that hard, say DC 5. A rogue who wants to specialize in that area failing 5% of the time while the unathletic wizard succeeds just feels bad. Do you give the rogue an automic pass and make the wizard roll? That feels odd too.
2. Pre-written content for any group. I may want to add a scenario where being bad at certain skills limits your options. I can set a high DC like 21, which someone trained has a reasonable chance of doing, but someone untrained and without that ability score bonus will never succeed.
The issue is that a certain task may be impossible or automatic for one character, but not another.
A well thought out opinion piece.
Now, the one thing that I have heard people respond with it - they will call for a roll, and try and determine how well, or how badly they fail. A gradient, instead of just the straight pass/fail of the D20 roll.
Thank you! I have been trying to explain this to people since the announcement. Also, people seriously misunderstand the nat 1 crit fail mechanic. Crit fail doesn't mean you didn't do the job well enough it means "shit happens" no matter how good you are something can happen to screw that up that is outside of your control. For example, why picking the super easy lock, you may good enough to pick the lock but if you were to have to sneeze that could break the pick.
Outside events might cause a failure and it gives opportunity for roleplay. Yes yes yes.
If it's truly a "super easy lock" don't roll. And definitely don't have the master thief Lupin III sneeze and break their pick while breaking into a child's school locker.
I definitely agree with your general opinion on this, though I have one issue with the rule. It's not so big as to rule out the whole crit mechanic, but it is important enough to make me hope they'll consider it:
DCs can go pretty high, with 30 being the highest suggested one for "nearly impossible", while PCs abilities can vary widely. As a DM, when should I ask for a roll if something isn't FULLY impossible, but almost impossible? I do not know every single ability of my players, nor do I know if they increase the value with things like guidance etc. Should I always call for a roll when a DC is set? What about the other way around? Some challenges might seem trivial, like a DC 5 acrobatics check to jump over a small fence, so I'd be inclined to not have the characters roll, but then the puny wizard with -2 comes around and still manages to do it without any issues.
How do you handle it?
How about group checks? Everyone jumping across a chasm, the +8 barbarian can fail, and the decrepit -3 wizard succeeded. Kinda odd...
But in real life, sometimes it happens. The athlete who has trained his whole life to increase his balance and flexibility slips on the ice where a geek like me just happens to make it across that same parking lot without issue. But if the Barb really couldn't fail, then it is "everyone roll an acrobatics (dex) check for leap except the rogue" or "Everyone roll a athletics (str) check except the Barbarian." And that is perfectly fine.
This is how I've always played. But I add in a second D20 roll for the severity.
Like if you roll a 1 then roll a 20 you're character just epically failed. But if they rolled a 1 it's just an auto fail, a 2 they left themselves open or damaged something they are trying. And so forth.
With critical successes being similar.
And there's limits to critical rolls, like they don't allow you to do something you can't do or don't know.
Some times as the DM I will be there one to roll for severity so I can keep it secret and lie about it if needed.
Cody, the criticism on nat 20 rolls isn't only about checks the DM is calling for, but also about checks the players are volunteering for. The players don't know what they are proposing is impossible (yet).
Example: players could be following someone they see at night and not be aware they are a ghost. they lose sight of them. The ranger volunteers they want to use survival to check for tracks to follow where they went. Nat 20 and the DM tells them that even with their masterful tracking stills they didn't find any tracks. It was an impossible check, BUT in this circumstance of failing the check, the DM can use that failure to give info relating to the challenge (the creature they are following didn't interact with the ground to leave tracks... spooky).
The new rules are codified in such a way as though rolls called by the DM are the only rolls that happen. "The DM doesn't call for rolls if the result doesn't matter" doesn't include "the players exercise their agency in trying to come up with solutions of their own instead of being told what actions to take".
Same for rolls that the PC shouldn't fail thanks to either their build, or the method of how they are going about the challenge. The roll can be used for narrative flavour, bringing in additional details and possible complications of succeeding a task by poorly. Such as lucking out with the roll versus the king example from the video. While the modifiers won them the contested check, The nat 1 causes murmurings in the court and impacts the PC's reputations in socially interacting with other nobles that were present.
There is a level of narrative freedom the DM can use with impossible to succeed/fail checks where the die result can influence the game beyond just that immediate snapshot of the check being rolls.
Players such as bards or spells such as guidance might make a check possible, that wouldn't be otherwise, but as DM you don't know when you call the roll whether they come into play. Saying "you can only roll if you have guidance" immediately give away the DC. Plus, lets say the DC is 30 and you get 1D8 from a bard and 1D4 from guidance with + 0, a 20 and 2 ones will do it. Which isn't very satisfying.
I do tend to not call for rolls that will either autosucced or fail, however my problem with the rule is gangrolling. When 2 out of 5 players has a chance to know, it easier to just call for a roll from everyone, rather than just those two players (in some circumstances). Plus you'd be giving away the DC and you'd have to know the bonuses of each player. And again a bard makes it very complicated to actually know who has a chance.
There is a also a lack of clarity how contested skill checks will work like initiative, but, and some of those can be forced by the player. But I'm not complaining about those (yet)
I'm glad someone said it!
Too many DMs don't seem to understand WHEN to call for a roll and too many players think they can roll whenever they want to attempt something.
Imagine rolling to eat a sandwich and getting a 1, why would you even do that in the 1st place? lol
When to roll is important and this ruling emphasizes this.
ALSO, if you are super creative and open to nearly impossible things happening by chance you can absolutely allow players to roll for certain things and challenge yourself to come up with creative reasons on WHY they pass or fail.
Wanna jump a giant chasm? (This seems to be the staple "impossible situationTM" for some reason lol)
Then when they get a nat 20, make something NARRITIVELY interesting happen!
Your character gets a running start, gets to the edge, jumps as hard as they can and suddenly you feel as if you're being lifted.
Insert a
A. Friendly Gryphon has come to help you, thinking you were falling to your death.
Congrats, you made a new friend!
B. Your god felt your strong desires to bridge this gap and lended you a hand.
This might reinforce and reinvigorate your faith!
C A Patron/Devil saw an opportunity to coax you into servitude by saving your life and now you owe them your life.
Congrats, you now either have the option to make a faustian pact, take a level of Warlock or you just owe another creature a big favor, wonder when they'll call that favor in hmmmm.
D. Literally anything!
Get creative guys!
But also, if you don't want to HAVE to get creative, then just don't ask for the roll.
It's like asking a question that you don't want the answer to, why even ask it to begin with? lol
The only reason I think of why the "auto-fail/auto-win" system could suck is when the DM doesn't know the modifiers.
So for example:
A player states "I want to pick a lock" and you determine it's a simple lock (DC10).
You call for the roll, and then the wizard and druid cast some spells to add additional bonusses. The rogue now rolls a one and say: "I rolled a 1, plus 15 equals 16".
At this point the DM should recognize that asking for a roll was stupid and it should succeed either way, maybe with a downside (you managed to open the door, by breaking the lock).
That is the modifiers got changed after calling for a roll.
Furthermore, this "succeed at a cost" or "fail with a boon" can be useful and should be up to the DM (especially succeed at a cost).
But all in all, this should only get in the way when the DM makes a mistake.
Fully agree: you only roll if the result of an action is uncertain [almost a quote from PH or DMG I believe] and, IF you roll, it is fair enough to give a chance for success\failure independent from the bonus. A barbarian might not be given the chance to roll a religion skill check at all, whereby a cleric should always have at least a remote chance (crit, 5%) to succeed.
As a player I had a Bard with +20 to Stealth... nat 1&20 are meaningless at that point (even at lvl 10th was pointless to roll stealth).
I added doom points as in 2d20 Conan RPG as a GM: a nat 1, gives gm a doom point to complicate and a nat 20 adds a faith point to change something they want. Those points are available for the rest of the night until used.
I think the issue lies with varying success checks and also player/PC knowledge of potential success.
ie Knowledge check DC 20 you learn A, DC 25 you learn A&B. PC with +4 would never learn B in old system.
New way he wouldn't roll due to impossibility, but othe PC with higher skill might not try due to first player not even getting to roll. Hence knowledge of potential success.
Ironically, this applies perfectly to the notion of Taking 20 on something. If it’s a task that couldn’t be accomplished with all the time the character should need to attempt to the best of their ability, it isn’t really a d20 test
Here here
We have always played with crit failure and success example
Thief or ranger generally don't roll to walk tight rope but if they are drunk or harrased then roll even the best can muck it up or fall face first walking out a bar drunk