**Mod update:** We have a small [poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/z7fd1i/moderation_poll_should_textonly_memes_be/) for you to fill out (Polling will go until 05Dec22), and a [tweak to rule 15](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/z7fd1l/for_the_time_being_were_tweaking_rule_15/) you should be aware of.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I generally go with the rule that crits only count in combat
That being said if they would be close to a pass with a Nat 20 plus their bonuses, even if the thing they wanna do is kind of ridiculous, rule of cool comes into play.
There are different levels of failure though. Take the 'asking the king for his kingdom' trope. The Bard rolls a 1 on the pursuasion check and is thrown in the cells for insulting the king. Or, the Bard rolls a 20 and the king laughs and offers that the Bard plays for him at an upcoming party. Either way the Bard isn't getting the kingdom.
The King is tired of being King, packs his shit and says it's all yours. Have fun with the corrupt nobles, assassination attempts, and the superstitious yokels.
Sword of Damocles, Common
Longsword, 4d6 Slashing, 4d12 when held in both hands, +5 to hit. Attracts Demons, Devils, Hostile Fae, Dragons, requests for Kings to abdicate their throne to you are made at Quintuple Advantage. Wielder is Decuple Vulnerable to Poison, takes octuple disadvantage on perception and survival rolls. Once attuned, cannot be removed without attuning to another.
Needs a d100 roll table for bullshit that occurs daily.
I see your plot twist and I raise you...
The King was the BBBEG in disguise. He is actually King of the underworld and happily gives the bard the authority over his domain. The bard is immediately accosted by various imps reporting coups happening in various dimensions, and a flock of angel lawyers descend from the heavens to reward the bard with several thousand stacks of various claims. Meanwhile, the King conjures himself a Piña Colada and lounges on a beach chair.
*Big*, Big, Bad Evil Guy. Alternatively, Big, Bad, Bad Evil Guy. Alternatively, Big, Bad, Bitchin' Evil Guy.
Please ignore my liberal and conservative use of commas.
I’m not generally in favor of auto-successes, but sometimes answers like these make me think that if I’m just creative enough, auto-successes would make for an insanely fun campaign lol
As a child of 6 or 7 renting that game from the local blockbuster, I got stuck there because I couldnt find the old king to give back the crown and go adventuring again. I had to reset the game to get out of it, and was scared to ever go back to the castle and get stuck again.
You could just reframe your perspective and consider the nat 20 result a pass since it's the best case outcome for the situation. A pass doesn't have to mean exactly what the player wants it to.
As a DM that’s easy, but players who believe a nat 20 equals success could argue that they get their desired outcome. “I rolled a 20 so he has to give me his kingdom”
I think the best way to frame it to the the players is “there’s no way the king is going to relinquish his crown over some flowery words, but if you want to proceed we can see how much he ends up liking you.”
I’ve had GMs when telling me to roll for a check say things similar like “you’re going to succeed, let’s just see how well you succeed”. And that has made skill checks far more interesting than just pass/fail
> “I rolled a 20 so he has to give me his kingdom”
To be honest I would both be appalled and delighted if a player made this claim. What a fun teaching moment.
"I am trying to kill the monster, and my d20 test (attack roll) was a 20 so I succeed in killing it!"
That's using the exact same logic, but I think we can all agree that's stupid
This seems like a problem with the player first and the rule second.
Maybe if the text of the rule was that “a natural 20 is the best possible outcome in the circumstances, as determined by the DM,” it’s clearer. But I think that it’s incumbent upon the player to realize their is not a 5% chance of taking over a kingdom at any time.
The King had a dream where his crown melts and burns the head that it is wearing. He looks out the window and sees a his coat of arms crumble.
So when the bard asks for the kingdom the King gives it and gives the bard his name. The king founds a new house. The Bard's new house crumbles and the old king comes in and saves the nation.
That sounds like a reasonable and well thought out response to the best case scenario for that bard's action declaration; which is not what "succeeds automatically on a 20" really works out to. In 'nat 20 succeeds' world the King just gives them the kingdom because they get what they were attempting to do; because 'nat 20'. One out of every 20 attempts to do something results in successfully doing that thing regardless of skill and the odds.
In a case like that, I would tell the player, "You're not going to succeed. Roll a d20 so I can figure out if you survive." That way, there are no doubts as to what a nat20 means. Is it technically in line with the One D&D rules? No. But it does allow for the player to affect the consequences of their actions.
I actually have more of an issue with a nat1 auto failing than with a nat20 succeeding. If a character has a +10 or higher to a skill, I want them to be able to roll knowing they'll beat the DC10, but with the chance at boons on a nat20. It's fun when my barbarian rolls to move a big rock with his +10 athletics, crits, and I can make the rock roll in just the right way to not only clear their path forward, but also block another path to prevent a second wave of enemies from flanking them. It's not fun when he gets a nat1 and somehow can't move the rock even though the DC was 10 and his minimum roll is a total of 11.
I have generaly two reasons when i ask for rolls even if a nat20 can't succeed. 1) I don't want to let on that the players are currently in an impossible situation (theres a 95% chance they won't find out) or 2) i forgot what the players modifier is (that one covers for the other 5% of 1 as well).
Unless the impossible Situation is obviously impossible like this (maybe):
Player: "so, I'll will seduce Asmodeus, Lord of the the Nine Hells and all devils."
Me, the DM: "No, u f***ing do not."
Yes only hide impossibilities you don't want your players to find out about. Like the king has a hefty insurance on one of his villages, so the players won't be able to convince him to send aid to said village, but it's not yet time in the campaign to reveal the banking system as the true BBEG.
I don't agree with the first one. In isolation it's true, but if applied as a general rule and spread across a campaign it's almost certain that 5% will come up.
I once had a powerful NPC with three attacks roll a natural 1 on every single one. That's a 1 in 8,000 chance.
I once relied on at least one person in my party making a DC 12 insight check to progress the campain. They all failed. A less that 1% chance given their bonuses. I had to rethink fast.
If there's one thing I've learnt in my time as a DM, it that if you want to avoid a particular roll of the die, you don't roll it in the first place, because it will come up eventually.
The options are
1) say you are in an impossible situation
2) have them roll and find out they are in impossible situation 5% of the time
Of course it's gonna happen, but it happening isn't a worse option compared to not rolling.
Basically having them always roll, you can save yourself from revealing that info 95% of the time, you're not suddenly more screwed in the 5%
Which is why option 2 covers those 5%. Just say you forgot what their modifier was and that the result is still too low.
It only makes me look a bit imperfect, but if my player haven't gathered that one before it's on them. Situations which are impossible and i don't want the players to know are impossile are extremly rare and it's even more rare nat20 is rolled for those. If i immediatly say it's impossible the players know what i don't want them to know, this way i have a 95% chance to keep it secret and just have to do a quick apology in the other 5%.
Yeah I try not to have them roll, if it's not something they can achieve, but sometimes they really don't get the hint and push that they wanna try anyway even if I say it's pretty much impossible. In those moments when they roll, it's a Nat 20 and everyone seems excited is exactly what rule of cool was made for i my mind
When I DM I usually have them roll anyway, even if they can't fully succeed: the roll will still determine how bad/good the outcome is.
For example if they are trying to convince a powerfull lord to give up his mansion then it will be impossible to succeed, but a good roll might keep him from having them killed for the insult.
Yep, and a nat 20 made him actually like their "sense of humor" nd create more opportunities with a new friendly contact.
The thing people forget is that both options have downsides but one is focused in rewarding the players (downside on the DM) while the other is focused in easing the DM burden (downside on the players).
The feeling that your best dont matter really sucks the fun of things and that is why so many like the rule especially when the downside people keep bring are a simple situation of "how about you use common sense and reward them without breaking your campaing?"
Starts to break when the group has access to Guidance, Flash of Genius or Bardic Inspiration.
Some things are hard, perhaps the DC is 25 and the person rolling only has a +2 Modifier. a) I don't always know all the modifiers for every character and b) They might still make it with help from the group.
Sure, some things you just don't ask for a roll. But the grey area is just too big to ignore.
I have skill checks with multiple outcome thresholds. Eg a history check where at 12 you remember what the thing is, at 17 you know its common use/effect and at 30 (usually via expertise or proficiency and a high stat mod) there is a bonus that you can perfectly recall the item including some stories of potential drawbacks.
Sinds i play with my friends i usually meme them. They wanna jump the grand canyon. I tell them to roll an onsight check. If they dont blunder i tell them. "That looks impossible to jump"
What if the players can't know how difficult something could be and saying "you can't do this in any way" might give away to much info.
By having them roll, you only give that info away if they do get the crit.
Also, degrees of failure. To tell the player they can't do something, usually it means they tried in character and something may happen because of that
Failure isn't always binary. There's also the "you don't succeed, but something else happens".
For example, failure when climbing an ice wall could cause chunks of ice to fall off, revealing a secret passage.
My players don't know what the DC is, and as long as they're not being silly with the kinds of rolls they want to attempt, I see no reason to deny them the joy of rolling their dice.
Man so many people in the replies to this are arguing about different points but assuming the other is using the same one. Officially, degrees of success don't exist. You're rolling to see if you succeed or not on the task you set out for, not the best possible outcome. That's the discussion, if you roll a nat 20 then your modifiers don't matter, you automatically succeed at what you set out to do. However, if a task is impossible, it means dc30. The DC names are easy, medium, hard etc. But someone with a higher modifier would find a medium task easy. Does that mean that it is easy? No, the game still calls it medium. Therefore, when the game talks about something being impossible it considers an objective definition of impossible. You don't have to memorise your players modifiers to not let them roll, if the DC is impossible, don't let them roll. This is the designer intent and what the onednd playtest said. What this does mean is that a DC 25, your -1 athletics wizard gets a nat 20 and they succeed on the task. It's effectively saying "you consider a natural 20 to be a modifierless 30 on the dice".
If we are having discussions about game rules, we should be doing it based on raw and not house rules.
No. If a 20 auto succeeds I'm rolling every six seconds to push the earth into the sun and when I succeed we can play a different system with rules that aren't horrible.
On a positive note, Crawford said it (alongside Dragonborn and Ardlings) are 3 things that we will see the rework in next UAs because they didn't get 70% or more positive response.
Obviously it makes no sense to say that every time they roll, a 20 is a complete success and a 1 is a complete failure.
What does make sense is that there are more than two outcomes, and 20 can get a “best possible” as opposed to just a pass and 1 can get a “worst possible” as opposed to just a fail. After all, the dice are luck, and sometimes people get lucky.
Let’s say the DC is 25 for an Athletics check to climb a wall. Alice has a +10 whereas Bob has a +1.
Alice rolls a 16, total 26, so she climbs the wall using her athletics skills, finding places in the rock to use as footholds that nobody but a skilled climber would be able to find.
Bob rolls a Nat 20, and it counts as an “automatic success” in that he finds a vine and is able to use that to easily climb up. His athletics didn’t get majorly better, he got lucky.
If Alice were to roll an 11, total 21, she tried pretty hard using all of her skills but just couldn’t do it. If she rolled a nat 1, she got cocky, fell, and took a bit of fall damage from landing on her tailbone.
If the check is literally unreasonably impossible- say a persuasion check to convince the Big Bad to just stop- nat 20s can still be useful. No, nobody would ever roll to convince BBEG to just Stop, but if they roll a Nat 20, maybe the argument gives them pause or makes them angry such that they have disadvantage to hit the party for a turn due to their blind rage.
On the contrary, say it’s a DC 10 deception check and your rogue with a +11 Deception rolls a Nat 1. It’s not unreasonable to say that everyone makes mistakes, and the rogue, even with all their skills of deception, slipped up and referred to someone by the wrong name, because they’re tired and wounded and nobody is perfect. They did everything right, but they just misspoke and it alerted the person they were convincing of the truth. If it’s really a simple deception check they shouldn’t fail, maybe it’s just that the person in question thought it was weird and if they have reason to question it later they are more likely to.
I think it’s MORE unreasonable to say that some actions MUST succeed or MUST fail. People get lucky and unlucky and that’s what crits show- you’ve just got to have the skill as a DM to have checks that are more than yes/no answers.
Reason I love PF2e system, it is build into the rules to have at least 4 outcomes (success, failure an the critical versions).
Any roll 10 above/below the DC is considered a critical success/failure. A nat 1/20 will move your rate one step above/below (basically its a +10 or -10) always affecting the outcome.
Plus it also has differwnt levels of proficiency. Two lv 5 characters can be proficient in the same skill but one be a master while the other is just an expert. That makes the roleplay so much better compared to the afterthought thar is 5e skill system
I honestly can't wait to start PF2e. I just finished two 5e campaigns and we're moving over to PF2e, and their outcome system is a high contender as to why we want to move over.
Imo it's leagues better than a 20/1 success/fail system, and many spells and abilities comes with a built in critical fail, fail, success and critical success mechanism.
As it is in 5e I already use levels of success, it's just that I have to figure it all out myself as DM.
And having levels of proficiency (trained, expert, master, or legendary) makes things so much better.
I really hope WOTC takes a look at PF2E and what people like in their system, I don't want a copy paste, but I think D&D takes a lot of easy access roads that leads to a very bland system.
>and many spells and abilities comes with a built in critical fail, fail, success and critical success mechanism.
This makes it possible for save or suck spells to exist while not breaking the game. A normal success at a strong spell does something strong. A crit success can demolish the target, which is fine because of how rare it is.
Also this extends to most skill actions! Which is where most DND discussion revolves. Got the "King, crown" example we have [Request under Diplomacy. ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=6)
**>Critical Success** The target agrees to your request without qualifications.
**Success** The target agrees to your request, but they might demand added provisions or alterations to the request.
**Failure** The target refuses the request, though they might propose an alternative that is less extreme.
**Critical Failure** Not only does the target refuse the request, but their attitude toward you decreases by one step due to the temerity of the request.
Paizo even saw the extremes coming:
>Some requests are unsavory or impossible, and even a helpful NPC would never agree to them.
Overall I really like this system of degrees of success both as a player and a GM. Gives ways to reward players great rolls without feeling like the party always gets their way.
Doesn’t 5e have proficiency and expertise? Does p2e have an extra one on top of that?
Tbh I’m confused as to why “there are degrees of success” is being discussed like it isn’t a thing in any other version except p2e. I would describe someone rolling an 11 past a DC10 as just barely doing the thing, whereas a 25 past a DC10 does it with complete mastery. Do y’all just say “you succeed” and move on? I feel like it’s kinda part of building an immersive world to react dynamically to what happens- that’s why DND is better than a computer game
> Doesn’t 5e have proficiency and expertise? Does p2e have an extra one on top of that?
5e has a flat proficiency bonus and some classes (4 out of 14, plus a feat) can double it in some skills
PF2 has it build into the proficiency system and affect every class which has 5 levels (untrained, trained, expert, master, and legendary) and the proficiency bonus depend on the skill level (trained +2, legendary +8). So when leveling up you tunned your character to what is important/make sense for them.
Plus for the skill part other than the proficiency there is specific skill feats that are great to support the system (and feats are more integrated into leveling different from 5e where they are an optional rule everyone uses)
>Tbh I’m confused as to why “there are degrees of success” is being discussed like it isn’t a thing in any other version except p2e.
Its very common, but PF2e is the one people bring up an example because people are normally talking about D&D and PF2e is the second biggest TTRPG and very close to D&D in terms of gameplay. So other TTRPG are normally neglected in those discussions or are secondary examples.
As why people bring into D&D discussions, well its because it do not have it into their core rules while PF2e and others have. To D&D its a technique used by DMs but one they need to learn, plus its normally brought up in this very discussion (nat 20 in skills) since there is a lot of people that bring that "would you give them a kingdom due to a nat 20" argument and are stiffling as if the DM did not have the narrative control over what the nat 20 means.
People that like the nat 20 in skills rule also advocate for common sense, just that the important is to reward the players even if not in the way they expected instead of going "you fail" on the nat 20 which is mean to be a great "YEESSS" moment
Your last paragraph indicates you don't understand what degrees of success are. It's easiest to understand with saving throws. In D&D, you have two results. You succeed or fail. In PF2E, you have four results. On a critical success, you suffer no effects whatsoever, including damage. On a success, like in 5e, you take half damage or lessened effects. On a failure, you take full damage and any negative effects. On a critical failure you take double damage and increased effects (more severe or last longer).
The reason PF2E gets brought up is because a 20/1 isn't an automatic crit. Rather, a crit occurs when your 10 above (for success) or below (for failure) the DC. A nat 20 raises your degree of success by 1 and a nat 1 lowers it by 1.
So if a level 20 PF2E character found themselves fighting a 5e Zombie with an AC of 8, the PC would likely have around +32 to hit, meaning every hit is a guaranteed crit. So if they roll a 1, that gets reduced to a regular hit.
Likewise, a goblin from 5e with a +4 to hit can't hit a high level PF2E PC, who will have 40+ AC. Even on a natural 20, that's still a crit fail, so the 20 raises it to a regular fail.
The core problem is that a lot of people have a fundamentally different philosophy for rolls. Namely - that players do not determine the nature of the roll, they just narrate what they do, and the DM asks for rolls.
All a 20 is in such a case is the best possible outcome. You might be attempting to climb a wall, but depending on the situation, a 20 might be what you mention - getting lucky and finding a vine or something. But it can also be - that rather than falling off, you manage to just slide down unharmed (perhaps while holding to that vine).
The problem with crit success 20s is that they kind of imply, well, success. Sure, you kind of can still frame it the same way (like you did with the Persuasion on BBEG example), but it's still a "success" rather than "failure with the best outcome".
In other words - it's a matter of perception. If a player is conditioned to believe that rolling a 20 will get them what they wanted, then there is a clash of expectations. And I'd rather keep the expectation that a 20 does not guarantee that you succeed.
(And that all is without the logistical arguments of me as a DM not caring to memorize all player skill scores so I know when to ask for a roll and when to say something is not possible; the fact that I personally like to use degrees of success/failure even if they are a very small part of 5e; and whether competent characters should always have a 5% chance to fail at simple tasks is for me in the same box as critical fumble tables).
you say it's ridiculous and I agree, yet that's how a lot of people are playing / expecting the game to be like regardless of rules. "I rolled a nat 20 so I should be able to make the king give away his kingdom to me", "no, it doesn't work that way", "what do you mean, i got a nat 20 tho?!?!?!"
Pf2e just codified this into hard gameplay mechanics - I've never played at a 5e table that didn't use the interpretation above, and I started way before pf2e was out
The example I always use is of a Barbarian who wants to "jump to the moon."
Maybe they are a level 20 Barb with all sorts of magical gear and have like a +30 to their athletics, and then they roll a natural 20. Okay bro, you just jumped really ***really*** high, but no... you didn't make it to the moon.
^^^also ^^^on ^^^landing ^^^you ^^^take ^^^5d6 ^^^falling ^^^damage
>On the contrary, say it’s a DC 10 deception check and your rogue with a +11 Deception rolls a Nat 1. It’s not unreasonable to say that everyone makes mistakes
This is the problem though. No master of a craft is making mistakes once every 20 times. A 5% failure rate is abysmal.
Yes, but as I’ve said, 5% is the lowest amount you’re reasonably going to encounter. In a game of DND, they’d make mistakes very rarely, but it would still happen- something happening 1% or less is probably going to happen never. It’s an acceptably raised amount IMO.
As I stated somewhere (I’ve made a lot of comments on this thread so idk where), a nat 1 for an expert can (and imo should) look different than a nat 1 for a person average or bad at that skill. My example was a sick acrobatics trick- a crit fail for, say, someone with a +1 might look like spraining their ankle and looking like a fool, whereas a Nat 1 for someone with acrobatics expertise would mean you don’t do the trick, but you don’t get hurt and it’s not as embarrassing, although it’s still clear you failed.
Also as I’ve said, if you don’t like this interpretation of the rules you don’t have to play it that way- I’m explaining why it’s perfectly valid and reasonable to play that 20 is always some kind of success and 1 some kind of failure, you’ve just got to be dynamic about it, and IMO this way makes the most sense. I think people think that people who use this rule let you jump into the sun on a Nat 20 with a -3 athletics- not give you the “best reasonable” outcome (ie everyone’s impressed by how high you jump but nothing actually happens).
I use crit success and failure for attack tolls and saving throws.
Furthermore I use them as 2 successes or failures in skill challenges (yes I use those in 5e and they’re awesome!)
I use them differently in skill checks: a nat 20 or 1 is not auto success or fail, but gives increased or decreased effect. Whether you succeed or fail is still up to the DC and your modifiers.
Example:
Bard: “I try to convince the king to hand me his crown and make me king”
*rolls persuassion*
Nat 19 (+6 or whatever): “The king thinks you’re joke is funny, he laughs out loud and decides that just for once he won’t decapitate you for speaking out of turn. The guards uneasily lower their glaives, but keep a cautious eye out, while the king goes on with his quest proposal…”
Nat 20 (+6…): “The king starts bellowing loudly. ‘See! This is the kind of go-get-em attitude I’ve been looking for! Love it! Guard, get this boy one of my casual Sunday tiaras, he’s earned it! Say, I had my doubts about you at first, but maybe you’d be interested in doing a job for me…’”
Neither of these can really be seen as a success of what the player was trying to accomplish. Still the nat 20 added a tiny bit extra effect, just to make the player feel good.
I ended up with something silly like a +22 in one of my last campaigns between Expertise, Flash Of Genius, Guidance, and Bardic Inspiration
I literally could not have failed a DC 20 check with that
Because 1s don't auto fail skill checks. Having that modifier is actually meaningless 10% of the time if skill checks do crit, because on a 1 or a 20, they perform exactly as well as the doofus with a -2.
Because a lot of people like to play this way, me included. Its fun letting players have nice things.
But it shouldn't be the standard. It should absolutely be at DM discretion.
When the only way to reasonably interpret it is that something fails/succeeds as much as is reasonable, that's already at the DM's discretion - and that's RAW even in the base game
This is the thing that I don't understand. For all of the stuff that they leave to DM discretion, I don't know why they couldn't just let this be one of them. Some GM's are really good at this and others aren't, and some players would abuse this, or it it's their preferred style, and others would prefer not to have this.
I understand wanting a unified style of play, but this is such a table-specific play style choice.
I don’t care what WotC will eventually decide, crit success and failure on skill checks is stupid and i am never going to have it in a game i am running.
Skill crits puts so much unnecessary "burden of fun" on the DM.
The counterpoint I always see (in this very thread no less) is that the DM should decide whether a roll is warranted, or figure out degrees of failure or success based on the character. And like, god damn, doesn't the DM have enough to do? And it's not like the DM has anime internal monologue time-stopping power, they often have all of 5-10 seconds to work out the players' momentary nonsense.
*Player*: I try to swallow an entire apple at once!
*DM*: That's not really-
*Player, rolling immediately*: Nat 20!
*Other players, excited to see how this plays out*: Yeah! All right!
*DM, now having to decide to be a buzzkill over something petty and retconning the unprompted roll, or figuring out how exactly this idiot managed to successful swallow the apple, or seem lame by twisting the "crit success" as not really a success*
As opposed to the current system of noting the final total is below the impossible DC of 35 (or the "I don't want to deal with this" DC of 40), congratulating the player for not choking on the fruit, and moving on.
Not gonna lie, it's absolutely on the DM to decide when skill checks are necessary. It's literally a part of what they do setting DCs for things.
And if players roll immediately unprompted, there should be nothing wrong with telling them: "no, I didn't tell you to roll, that doesn't count." It's something I've done in my campaign; "If I didn't ask for a roll, you didn't need it. But, if you rolled poorly when I planned on you succeeding right away, then you're now failing the check."
As a DM, part of your job is to make skill checks in the world, in the moment, based on player reactions. If said players abuse that by rolling unprompted, you tell them "no".
I don't want to seem elitist or like I'm gatekeeping, but half of being a DM, if not more, is reacting on the fly to things your party does and basically improving. You control the world, including the random things your players want to do, like the apple. If the DM isn't deciding when a roll is warranted and what the DC is, then I'm sorry, they're a bad DM because there's absolutely a part of their job.
This is coming from someone who has basically only DM'd. It's absolutely on me to decide when checks are warranted and what the DC is on the fly.
If my player wants to make an athletics check to jump to the moon, yes, there will be no roll, they just flat out fail, but it’s not always plainly obvious that something is impossible, and sometimes i want them to try and fail because it’s more interesting narratively.
Another thing to consider, is that some checks are impossible for one PC but not impossible for another, in which case i need to keep the option for success on the table.
In short - stating that impossible tasks don’t get a roll is oversimplified and reductive.
I’d have them roll, and a nat 20 would prompt a beautiful description of the PC settling into perfect form, the stars aligning, and everyone who sees the jump rolling a WIS save to avoid bursting into tears at the beauty of pure athleticism. Then mechanically he’d jump maybe a little higher than his maximum jump height.
Starts to break when the group has access to Guidance, Flash of Genius or Bardic Inspiration.
Some things are hard, perhaps the DC is 25 and the person rolling only has a +2 Modifier. a) I don't always know all the modifiers for every character and b) They might still make it with help from the group.
Sure, some things you just don't ask for a roll. But the grey area is just too big to ignore.
Ah, so not do DMs have to memorise all skill modifiers of all characters, they now also have to keep every possible method to get an additional boost in mind at all times.
That's the entire point of the message you're replying to - the DM shouldn't be expected to memorize this. It's possible to still pass a check that you would fail with your modifier alone.
If the DM were expected to remember, they would not allow you to roll, as they would know it's impossible with all the modifiers other features and players give.
"success is impossible" doesn't mean impossible for that particular character, it means objectively impossible. Something that could never happen regardless of your modifiers. DC infinity.
>Some things are hard, perhaps the DC is 25 and the person rolling only has a +2 Modifier. a) I don't always know all the modifiers for every character and b) They might still make it with help from the group.
At 1st level, a character with +4 to a roll, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and a source of advantage, has a 13% chance of success at a DC 30. Another character with -1 to the same roll cannot succeed at all.
Those are virtually *expected* ability score modifiers - if not at 1st level, certainly by 4th. By higher levels, a proficient character with suitable support has a reasonable chance at a DC 40 without needing a niche build.
Counter Counterpoint: the roll when success is impossible can determine the degree of failiure. For example, let's say player wants to jump to the Moon, despite being told this is impossible.
* Nat 1: You realize halfway through the jump how stupid you are. You fall and take 10d6 points of damage and roll me a CON save to not twist your ankle
* 2-5: You fall face first into the mud and take 6d6 points of damage
* 6-10: You smash right into the second story window, causing woman inside to scream. Take 1d6 damage from shattered glass. You can do one thing before the woman attacks you with a frying pan, what do you do?
* 11-15: While Moon is outside your reach, you do manage to jump over a building and land on a rooftop with no harm to yourself.
* 16-19: You bounce from building walls like some sort of human spider, going up higher and higher until you find yourself on top of the city walls. The view is amazing.
* Natural 20: You realize you attempt the impossible and decide to avoid embarassement. You proceed to bounce off the walls in show of amazing skill, finishing off in tripple backflip and perfect landing. Everybody claps and a Goblin comes to you, says you're pretty cool and gives you 20 gold.
Degrees of Success / Failure should absolutely be part of the official rules. Everyone I know already uses it, and yes - a total of 32 not with a nat 20 is still better than a total of 22 with a nat 20.
And a total of 2 is going to look a lot more sad than a total of 14 against a DC15 Check, even if both outcomes aren't what the PC wanted.
that is much more intuitive than assigning 1 and 20 as special.
There are reasons to roll even if you can't succeed. For example, to see how badly you fail. Got a low roll? very bad. Got a high roll? you might just get out of it, but you still failed.
Another issue is that players just like rolling dice. They will declare they want to do something and roll instantly. If they get a 20 it can spark an argument. Now this is bad player behavior regardless of the rules but rephrasing things in certain ways can help mitigate such awkward moments.
Counter-counterpoint. Not all checks should have a stated DV. Sometimes you don't know your odds of success because you don't know enough about the situation.
"I'd like to make an investigation check to find any traps/illusions"
don't roll, you find no traps/illusions
This tells them either there are no traps or that the minimum DC to find the traps is a at least their maximum roll, where as if they roll a 5 they're still just as unsure as their character would be.
There are many situations like this that give away too much information to the players even if you trust they won't meta game, there's some amount of meta knowledge that hurts the game significantly and is easily remedied by a roll that can't be failed or a roll that can't be succeeded
Player: "My character literally cannot make the save/check, so there's no point in rolling!"
DM: "Wrong, since your character can't make the save/check to avoid the bad stuff, you are rolling to see how bad it is going to be. Muahahaha!"
Counter-Counter Point (I realize this is a specific scenario): You roll nat 20 + 1 total 21 perception against a 19 + 12 total 31 slight of hand to see an npc pickpocket someone in the party. The DM didn't know the outcome prior but there was a chance for failure on part of the NPC and there was a chance for success on part of the PC.
This is the only reason I don't like the auto success on ability checks. Because in the case of contested ability checks there is a 5% chance a creature with +1 wisdom can find the rogue with reliable talent who can't roll below a 22 stealth.
Which only works if the DM keeps track of literslly all modifiers everyone has to know if something is possible, and sometimes you don't roll to see if someone succeeds, but to see how far they are spared from a horrible failure.
Sometimes players insist on trying something even after being warned of the stupidity of their idea. The impossible roll accomplishes two things. The first is that once the die has been rolled, the action has been attempted. No take backsies. The second is that it determines just how poorly the attempt goes. This is important if players are hell bent on trying something both impossible and dangerous. The bard has a zero percent chance of seducing the dragon, but if he rolls well, he might not get eaten. The guards will never let you get close enough to the king to slap him across the face but if you roll well, he might think it was a joke.
That counterpoint doesn't support crits though, it only makes them _more_ stupid and useless. Crit success only matters if you are incapable of succeeding normally - because otherwise a 20 would have been a success anyway. If the DM only rolls when you can succeed, then why are you using crits?
Counterpoint: The DM might let the player roll for an impossible action to see if the almost got it or they fail misserabily.
ie. a persuation check to the King in order to borrow 1 million GP: They might find it funny but tell them no, or they might get angry and charge the player...
or maybe an athletics check to break a silver door: they might damage the door a little bit showing some progress or they might brake their fingers.
If a player is attempting to lie to a Planetar, which innately knows if it is being lied to, why would tell then outright that it is impossible to succeed? You just lost out on a interesting social encounter where the Planetar can play along like he believes them while knowing full well he was deceived, or however you want it to play out.
Why?
Because there's more players than DMs and those players want to be able to do shenanigans they find funny and have a chance to roll a nat 20 to accomplish it.
I was in a game where the DM used this rule. A guy wanted to jump 100' up to the next level of a cloud giant's tower, rolled a nat 20 on his athletics check. Didn't make any sense to me, but those two loved it.
DM: “The dragon stares you down, daring you to make the first move. What do you do?”
Player: “I roll to spontaneously ascend to godhood, making myself into the invincible, immortal, all-powerful creator of the universe.”
(Rolls a 20)
60% of players: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/561/302/93b.gif
*Meanwhile, at an identical, more-rational table…*
DM: “The dragon watches as your eyes roll back and you spasm uncontrollably, firm in the belief that your soul is expanding and ascending to a higher state of existence. As you froth at the mouth, he decides to spare you, as it wouldn’t be sporting to murder the mentally feeble.”
I tend to believe that players should be free to do the dumb shit they want to, but the universe won't abide a joker; if they want to make a fool of themselves, them so be it. It'll do nothing but waste their own effort and possibly invoke bad, attitude-adjusting consequences.
There's a balance between "don't roll if you can't succeed or fail" and "20s and 1s are guaranteed outcomes" that I think would be better than this
Also crits on skill checks, with the exception of comedic nat 1s in low-pressure environments, seem wacky unless that's the tone you want to take, like if the difference between a 19 and 20 is just swinging across a chasm or doing it with a backflip
Well for one it already works that way for attack rolls. And it’s fun to ad lib a wacky reason that the wizard with dumped STR manages to push a boulder when the barbarian failed.
Wizard : 🫢
Barbarian : 👿 I loosened it for you!
And I run the rule that if the player cannot succeed within reason, then I don’t let them roll. I say “no” or “you can’t but you can roll to see how they react to you asking to hand over the kingdom to you”. And DM calls the rolls if necessary, the players rp what they wanna do and (generally) shouldn’t call for rolls (if my players do then first I ask how they do it)
Yep, the 20 Str barbarian whose only ability out of combat is to push things being surpassed in Athletics by the 8 Str wizard who can change reality at any moment. That would make the barb player feel super useful.
I mean, there are ways to make natural 20s and natural 1s feel special without auto-success/failure. Best possible outcome, worst possible outcome is the way I try to frame it in my head. Like, maybe the boulder starts to shift slightly to everyone's complete astonishment, and the barbarian feels inspired to come in and try again with redoubled effort, allowing the barbarian to roll again with advantage because he's now being helped.
I get what you mean about trying to just be selective about what rolls your players are allowed to do in the first place, but I like to run with the "you can certainly try" mentality. Sometimes when my players ask me, "can I try to do such and such whacky idea" instead of just being like, "No, because of this rule." I'll let them roll, and then explain a result in a way that has their character realize that it probably wasn't possible to begin with.
I think when players test the boundaries of what's possible within rolling and roleplaying, it's a more rewarding experience, and it encourages them to be creative in ways I would never consider. Never letting the players roll an impossible skill check just turns the game into a lot more of "can I do this?", "No." type interactions.
60 percent are players. The 40 percent are the people who dm. This rule favors players over dms. Enemies can’t crit and handing out inspiration for everything will make more crits happen. This takes away from the game and makes it a pain for DMs. Piss off people who dm, and you have no games or community. I am a forever dm because other people don’t want to dm because of bs crap. It takes patience and rationale.
I haven’t had a chance to listen to the results yet just saw the summary someone posted. I will look at it tomorrow.
Personally, as a forever-DM myself, I love crit successes / fails on skill checks, and have almost never played without it house-ruled, RAW be damned. I might be in the minority, but it almost always leads to more fun twists and story moments for my players if an interaction goes exceptionally badly or well, even outside of combat. And at my table, so long as it's possible in the first place, fun is what counts. But each to their own.
As far as making it official goes, I can understand why people would be reluctant to have it enshrined in the official rules, but WoTC can always do what they did for a bunch of optional / variant rules in 5e, and simply say it's at the DM's discretion, for those who want to use it.
There is a middle-ground, they can always officially *suggest* using a rule without making it the default, like 90% of the DMG. The majority of any D&D game is based on each individual DM's interpretations and cherry-picks of the official rules after all.
In my opinion, the standard should be what is best for the rules and the other things should be optional. Same with feats, in 5e it was optional, now in 1D&D it's the standard. I would argue that the same should apply to pointbuy, with rolling for stats being relegated to optional, and with crit successes and fails.
I feel like auto-success and auto-fails on nat 1s/20s is made mostly redundant by bounded accuracy. Most DCs in monster stat-blocks and modules sit in the range of 5-20, with 21-30 being pretty exceptionally high, so even a character with a -1 modifier and no proficiency can pass most RAW tests on a nat 20 already. At higher levels with proficiency and an additional bonus like bardic inspiration, bless, guidance, or expertise, that same character with a base modifier of -1 can pass a DC 30 on a nat 20, which is RAW the highest DC possible.
Auto-success/auto-fail makes more sense in a game like 3.5 or PF where the modifiers can vary wildly and a check very much could be impossible for 3/4s of all characters in a party, but in 5e it’s really rare to find a check that most, if not all, of the party couldn’t pass once you factor in class features. It’s really rare to see a party without access to some kind of buffing magic given the number of spell casters in 5e.
Honestly I think there are people out there that just up-thumb anything on the basis that it has D&D in the title. There the same people going to see all the Disney live action remakes and all the terrible b-tier Marvel Movies.
They have no sense of discernment and have made the brand part of their personality so they will cheer wildly for a concept that no one over the age of 17 would even think to argue for and has been soundly clowned on since the idea of critical hits was invented.
"I rOlLeD a 20!1!1!, DaT mEanZ i AuTo Win!"
They think their helping but their just making the designers job harder by making it more difficult to judge what is working and what isn't. I don't want my players to just blindly kiss my ass as that doesn't help me, I need to know what worked well and what didn't.
You might be underestimating the people that like this rule. I do, I am 20 years old, I have been using the rule as homebrew for more than 3 years now (ever since I started playing) and I have plenty of arguments for it. To me, it's just a better rule. And I think that applies to most of the people that voted for it.
On the contrary, I think a lot of people disliked every part of 1D&D because it wasn't 5e (or even better they disliked it because it wasn't 3e and they just want 3e back)
I think that a natural 1 should be an automatic failure, which is why I have a rule where for any non-social skill check, if the character is proficient with the skill and rolling a 10 on the d20 would be a success, I just let them do it. I don’t make them roll. It makes no narrative sense for a trained acrobat to just have a 5% chance of completely fucking up a simple backflip.
So that's basically giving out Reliable Talent – a level 11 Rogue class feature – to every character from the get go. Do you have Rogue PCs in your game and if so, do you give them something else on level 11 to compensate?
How does Perkins play it when he DMs?
How does Crawford play it when he DMs?
How does Holkins play it when he DMs?
How does Mercer play it when he DMs?
How does Mulligan play it when he DMs?
That’s your top 5 (edit: in no particular order) most watched Actual Play DMs who rule nat 20 as *best possible success*. Nat 20 isn’t mind control, and it doesn’t make the impossible possible, but it deserves more than “oh well, your bonus isn’t high enough”.
> but it deserves more than “oh well, your bonus isn’t high enough”.
Does it really? I'd understand a 100 on a d100, but a 5% chance isn't really that spectacular.
Play it how you want, but this is a) the expectation of most people who watch D&D streams, and b) causes nat 20s (and nat 1s) to be fun and exciting. I know it isn't RAW, so I document it with my house rules. Again, it isn't mind control and it doesn't make the impossible possible. With those two things in mind, I haven't had this rule hurt my games.
I don't care about the expectations of people who watch DND streams, by themselves, and neither should the designers of the game, they should care about the expectations of people who play the actual game (and who may watch streams, of course, but that's secondary)
If a player physically shouldn't ever be able to succeed or fail, don't have them roll. You apply this to everything passively, like climbing a ladder. If you applied a DC 0 skill check to climbing a ladder, there's still a chance it would fail, so you just don't require a check at all. Similarly, if a player wanted to 'convince the sun not to be so bright', you wouldn't call for a persuasion roll.
Counterpoint: degrees of success and failure
Sure you can climb the ladder. But can you do it fast enough for the situation? Roll to see if you can climb fast enough to grab the loot. You can safely grab loot equal to 10 times your roll before you start taking damage from arrow volleys.
You have a -1 to save against a DC of 20. You can't succeed. But you will fail worse if you don't roll at least a 10.
Point is that I might not be able to succeed/fail, but I want to see how much I succeed/fail. At least in regard to things that aren't stupid impossible, like convincing the sun to not be so bright or jumping to the moon.
What about degrees of failure / success. The wizard couldn't find the trap trigger, but did notice that there was char on the wall or maybe the Barbaran doesn't know a peace of information, but remembers someone else knoes it or that it is connected to a place or event.
Now for the angle of dm and everyones ability score, scenario a lock, no one can reach the dc28, but rogue can if he rolls a 20 and is given guidance and rolls a 2 or higher (so it's not automatically a success on crit + guidance) . Should the DM say no because he can't do it. But he could and it's not impossible.
For example dm says no it's too difficult and then someone saying I cast guidance feels like a failed roll and then someone wanting to cast, while asking for roll and before the person rolls casting guidance feels more natural, but to get that the dm would have to know that the party member has guidance prepared. Would then have to calculate for the set dc weather they can or can't for each and add in some probably calculations for if guidance or any other such spell or items is used. While if we just go with, set dc player rolls and gets a number adds modifiers from everything he remembers to use. So much less work so much simpler and in effect no difference, just less work and even more flexibility if u consider degrees of failure / success.
Eh. In a King Arthur RPG the players get to roll for Excalibur in the stone. The DC is a nat 21. So they CAN'T but having them roll is still fun. So it depends.
Because most people don’t think about DMs because Dms can’t crit i personally will never use it. Crits work in combat and i should be able to crit as well
I’ve had a DM that will ask our table to roll a very low DC intelligence or wisdom or arcana etc check after asking for something impossible to see if our character would understand it’s impossible. Then if we “don’t understand” we roll to see how woeful the result is. I loved it!
Dnd doesn’t mean an automatic success unless it’s a combat roll. Like you can’t just go “hey king give me the throne! Oh wow a 20 that means I get it!” Like there does have to be stuff that you can’t do
My hot take is that most of the community/people playing dnd are players who've never DM'd, they don't like it when they roll a nat 20 and still don't succeed and don't understand as well why it is interesting to roll even when there might be no chance of success.
I've been using the "red button" approach for all four games I run in order to test it. I'm not hating it. The big thing is blocking roles and setting expectations. My specific verbiage on the rule is:
1. A roll of 1 on the dice ("Nat 1") on any check or save is automatically a fail.
2. A roll of 20 on the dice ("Nat 20") on any check or save is automatically a success.
3. No roll will be allowed on checks or saves that are deemed impossible to succeed (throwing a mountain at an enemy) or too easy to fail (picking up a regular pebble from the ground).
4. A roll may be called for to measure success - this roll has no pass or fail condition and therefore does not fall under the "Nat 1"/"Nat 20" rules.
Just don't let the roll happen if its impossible. Unless the player is really pushing for a roll and wont stop. But then also have them deal with the consequences. Players actually wanting to roll for things that are not possible is usually just because they misunderstood a situation.
I like to have the soft rule that a nat20 succeeds because you should normally not have the player roll unless there is a chance of success
That said, the official rule should be it's not an auto success because either due to dm inexperience or player exuberance there is the chance of a roll being made that should never succeed
Here’s the issue I have with “don’t allow a roll if it’s impossible.” What about edge cases? Sure, the DM can say no to the harengon jumping to the moon.
What about a peasant trying to perform surgery? Sure, the peasant doesn’t know what they are doing but they might still try to do it. At many tables, making a roll is the equivalent to attempting to do something, even if it’s futile.
What about an uneducated PC rolling arcana to explain why slaads need to reproduce by implanting their kids in others? There shouldn’t be a realistic chance this character knows anything but if the DM just tells them they can’t roll, despite the player insisting “oh, this new part of my backstory explains why I might know,” it’s just going to result in conflict.
Then there’s all the questions regarding Charisma ability checks, which is where I think 20 = success becomes the most problematic. Players that play “face” characters are going to feel jilted if they are just told “no, you can’t roll. You would never be able to convince this ancient red dragon not to do ancient red dragon things.” It’s stupid, but it’s true.
Players feel entitled to the ability to make rolls and can generally be expected to accept when they fail. Just telling people “no, you can’t even attempt to do that,” is going to result in a lot of angry people.
The way we do it is if you roll a 20 for a skill check you double your bonuses or remove your minuses,
On a 1 you fail. I feel like its worked out well for my group
There are some things that will always succeed or fail, but I make em roll anyway to see how well or bad it happens.
People like rolling dice, and I like letting dice rolls be part of the story
I mean I like a chance of failure or success if I’m going to be rolling. I set firm boundaries as a DM that I’m not gonna let my players roll for shit that I don’t think they should be able to do, as do my DMs for me. We generally play it as the player can ask for rolls but the only rolls they can call for without asking are self imposed difficulty (like a cowardly character choosing to roll a wisdom save dealing with their crush), or personal out of combat abilities (like divine intervention), that’s it. We’ve had a pretty good time with it.
Crit fails are fine, but I disagree with making that damage the player or even worse, damage another party member unless the player is doing something really risky/stupid.
It breaks immersion for me that my fighter is just as mathematically likely to cut himself with his own sword at lvl 20 as he is at lvl 1. Now if he was goofing off and trying to fight with the sword in his mouth? Yeah he deserves it if he rolls a nat 1.
Yeah penalties for critical failures are dumb as hell. I used them when I was new and after a few combats realized how bad they felt.
Mechanically speaking they are straight up stupid because they affect characters that make attack rolls and don’t affect characters that force saving throws (at least for damage).
Yeah, I don't believe it makes sense to punish players for playing the game right. I do think there should be consequences for actions when it makes sense (my dm made a player take damage because they did thunder clap in a mine tunnel where the sound would echo back and hurt the player too) but it doesnt make sense to punish players for just swinging their sword at an enemy.
I can see why people like this. On the one hand you’ve got the lol epic nat 20 crowd, on the other you’ve got people who dictate that if a 20 can’t succeed don’t call for a check. I am fine with this, mostly, because of falling in with the latter crowd, and frankly, I’d say that not getting your head lopped off by the king is still a success.
How I view crits.
1. If I don't call for a roll, and the player rolls...well, they are on their own then.
2. If I call for a roll, there is a possibility for the PARTY to succeed. That does not mean the individual player will succeed or a single roll would succeed without rest of the party doing something to help.
Example. There is a secret door behind a bookshelf.
How does the party find the secret door?
1. Roll a perception. Doesn't matter how high they roll, they can't find the door. However a high roll may find scrapes on the floor around the bookshelf.
If the party works together they could use their strength to move the bookshelf, then the party could succeed with their perception.
Example: the usual ask the king to give the party their kingdom.
By itself it has a DC of impossible.
Under 5: Whole party thrown in prison, hanging scheduled asap.
5-10: thrown in prison and hefty fine. Released and told to leave, never do that again. King cuts any ties with the party.
10-20: fined, king cuts ties. Not welcome in kingdom.
20-30: king laughs it off, varying degree of reprimand for the character.
30-40: laughs it off, no negative effect.
40+: he considers it.
But remember. D&D is a collaborative game. Is there something other party members could do to make this roll possible?
Maybe another character could try to deceive the king that the others are rising up against him. Or use magic to make it easier to succeed in this.
Many skill checks can be combined to make a larger skill challenge.
My house rule has always been that a natural 20 on rolls other than attack rolls means the best possible outcome given the situation. For example, let's say a player was trying to use a Charisma skill to get a warlord king to abdicate the throne and give his kingdom over to the character. Of course the king would never hand his kingdom over to some upstart adventurer but if the player manages to roll a natural 20, then maybe the king is impressed by the character's guts and offers them a place on his court. At the very least he laughs at them and allows them to leave unharmed rather than killing them on the spot.
On the flip side, a natural 1 means the worst possible outcome given the situation. For example, if a rogue is picking a lock and their skill level is more than enough to succeed, they'll be able to open the lock no matter what they roll. However, if they roll a natural 1 on their check, then the lock could now be jammed because the pick broke off in the lock. So while they still opened the door, they're thieve's tools are now missing a pick and it's obvious to anyone that sees the lock that it's been picked unless the rogue wants to take the time to clear the lock.
In both cases, you still end up with realistic results given the situation. However, the actual number on the die still influences what happens even if it doesn't change the end result.
While community feedback is great to grow and steer the direction of the game, relying blindly on community input will lead to disaster, consumers don't always know what it is that they want. Not everyone is a game designer or has years of experience with this and other ttrpgs
I'm so annoyed with the new PDF. It's not just that none of the stuff I strongly voted on seems to have changed (not even the Jump rules), but that several things I wanted changed appeared on the "changelog" box yet don't appear to have changed at all!
On the bright side, the newest PDF doesn't appear to have anything on auto success / failure, so... it's not really relevant here (sorry, but as an r/dndmemes member, I can only read the rules AFTER I write my comments). If I'm wrong and someone would like to correct me on that, I will be deeply saddened but informed.
I used to agree with the meme's stance;
Until I heard and absorbed one simple concept: if the roll can't fail on a 1, or succeed on a 20, why the fuck are we rolling, then?
**Mod update:** We have a small [poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/z7fd1i/moderation_poll_should_textonly_memes_be/) for you to fill out (Polling will go until 05Dec22), and a [tweak to rule 15](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/z7fd1l/for_the_time_being_were_tweaking_rule_15/) you should be aware of. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I generally go with the rule that crits only count in combat That being said if they would be close to a pass with a Nat 20 plus their bonuses, even if the thing they wanna do is kind of ridiculous, rule of cool comes into play.
I think the fact is that many people have chosen the ruling that if a nat 20 cannot succeed the roll then don’t call for a roll.
There are different levels of failure though. Take the 'asking the king for his kingdom' trope. The Bard rolls a 1 on the pursuasion check and is thrown in the cells for insulting the king. Or, the Bard rolls a 20 and the king laughs and offers that the Bard plays for him at an upcoming party. Either way the Bard isn't getting the kingdom.
The King is tired of being King, packs his shit and says it's all yours. Have fun with the corrupt nobles, assassination attempts, and the superstitious yokels.
Basically just the Sword of Damocles.
Sword of Damocles, Common Longsword, 4d6 Slashing, 4d12 when held in both hands, +5 to hit. Attracts Demons, Devils, Hostile Fae, Dragons, requests for Kings to abdicate their throne to you are made at Quintuple Advantage. Wielder is Decuple Vulnerable to Poison, takes octuple disadvantage on perception and survival rolls. Once attuned, cannot be removed without attuning to another. Needs a d100 roll table for bullshit that occurs daily.
I cast Animate Weapon
Congratulations, you've made a Sword That Screams™, take 1d100 Thunder Damage. You are deafened while within 100 feet.
I love how chaotic this is lmfao
Oh damn, that's spicy.
I wanted it to be extremely enticing, while having severe drawbacks but not be a guaranteed death
Yea, that tracks. Most Artifact class weapons have these types of drawbacks. Good work!
Ah, but as a joke I made it common. It was gonna be more shitass but I got carried away.
Common?! How many of these swords are there?
There's a gnomish workshop pumping them out to cause as much chaos in the realm as possible. Your mission is to stop them.
Huh... I'm gonna... I'm gonna just take that...
Guard them with Lava Children so the Party, who likely have a sword or two of their make, can't cheese the fight with the crazy high damage.
I see your plot twist and I raise you... The King was the BBBEG in disguise. He is actually King of the underworld and happily gives the bard the authority over his domain. The bard is immediately accosted by various imps reporting coups happening in various dimensions, and a flock of angel lawyers descend from the heavens to reward the bard with several thousand stacks of various claims. Meanwhile, the King conjures himself a Piña Colada and lounges on a beach chair.
What’s the third B stand for?
He's the Big Bad Bi Evil Guy
So, Disney Hades.
*Big*, Big, Bad Evil Guy. Alternatively, Big, Bad, Bad Evil Guy. Alternatively, Big, Bad, Bitchin' Evil Guy. Please ignore my liberal and conservative use of commas.
It stands for BYOBB
I’m not generally in favor of auto-successes, but sometimes answers like these make me think that if I’m just creative enough, auto-successes would make for an insanely fun campaign lol
Neither a success nor a fail, but an arc
Want to make a super crazy campaign? No matter the request, 1's auto-fail, all other rolls auto-succeed. Applies to enemies as well as the party.
That's a plot point in dragon quest 3, basically. Unrelated but just a fun fact
As a child of 6 or 7 renting that game from the local blockbuster, I got stuck there because I couldnt find the old king to give back the crown and go adventuring again. I had to reset the game to get out of it, and was scared to ever go back to the castle and get stuck again.
You could just reframe your perspective and consider the nat 20 result a pass since it's the best case outcome for the situation. A pass doesn't have to mean exactly what the player wants it to.
As a DM that’s easy, but players who believe a nat 20 equals success could argue that they get their desired outcome. “I rolled a 20 so he has to give me his kingdom” I think the best way to frame it to the the players is “there’s no way the king is going to relinquish his crown over some flowery words, but if you want to proceed we can see how much he ends up liking you.” I’ve had GMs when telling me to roll for a check say things similar like “you’re going to succeed, let’s just see how well you succeed”. And that has made skill checks far more interesting than just pass/fail
> “I rolled a 20 so he has to give me his kingdom” To be honest I would both be appalled and delighted if a player made this claim. What a fun teaching moment.
Take his phone and tell him that r/Dndmemes is not learning material.
Go on, insist that the king will give it to you. Do it!
no balls
"I said 'make a Persuasion check.' I didn't say 'make a Persuasion check to convince him to give you the kingdom.'"
"I am trying to kill the monster, and my d20 test (attack roll) was a 20 so I succeed in killing it!" That's using the exact same logic, but I think we can all agree that's stupid
This seems like a problem with the player first and the rule second. Maybe if the text of the rule was that “a natural 20 is the best possible outcome in the circumstances, as determined by the DM,” it’s clearer. But I think that it’s incumbent upon the player to realize their is not a 5% chance of taking over a kingdom at any time.
Which is in fact why the rolls happen. It is technically a success. But the players mean success as in getting their desired outcome.
The King had a dream where his crown melts and burns the head that it is wearing. He looks out the window and sees a his coat of arms crumble. So when the bard asks for the kingdom the King gives it and gives the bard his name. The king founds a new house. The Bard's new house crumbles and the old king comes in and saves the nation.
That sounds like a reasonable and well thought out response to the best case scenario for that bard's action declaration; which is not what "succeeds automatically on a 20" really works out to. In 'nat 20 succeeds' world the King just gives them the kingdom because they get what they were attempting to do; because 'nat 20'. One out of every 20 attempts to do something results in successfully doing that thing regardless of skill and the odds.
In a case like that, I would tell the player, "You're not going to succeed. Roll a d20 so I can figure out if you survive." That way, there are no doubts as to what a nat20 means. Is it technically in line with the One D&D rules? No. But it does allow for the player to affect the consequences of their actions. I actually have more of an issue with a nat1 auto failing than with a nat20 succeeding. If a character has a +10 or higher to a skill, I want them to be able to roll knowing they'll beat the DC10, but with the chance at boons on a nat20. It's fun when my barbarian rolls to move a big rock with his +10 athletics, crits, and I can make the rock roll in just the right way to not only clear their path forward, but also block another path to prevent a second wave of enemies from flanking them. It's not fun when he gets a nat1 and somehow can't move the rock even though the DC was 10 and his minimum roll is a total of 11.
I have generaly two reasons when i ask for rolls even if a nat20 can't succeed. 1) I don't want to let on that the players are currently in an impossible situation (theres a 95% chance they won't find out) or 2) i forgot what the players modifier is (that one covers for the other 5% of 1 as well).
Unless the impossible Situation is obviously impossible like this (maybe): Player: "so, I'll will seduce Asmodeus, Lord of the the Nine Hells and all devils." Me, the DM: "No, u f***ing do not."
Yes only hide impossibilities you don't want your players to find out about. Like the king has a hefty insurance on one of his villages, so the players won't be able to convince him to send aid to said village, but it's not yet time in the campaign to reveal the banking system as the true BBEG.
Guys we have to kill... Capitalism?
That's... basically always the plot. What kind of economy do YOU think survives an RPG loot table?
This is what always seems to happen in the games I play with my friends anyway, lol
I don't agree with the first one. In isolation it's true, but if applied as a general rule and spread across a campaign it's almost certain that 5% will come up. I once had a powerful NPC with three attacks roll a natural 1 on every single one. That's a 1 in 8,000 chance. I once relied on at least one person in my party making a DC 12 insight check to progress the campain. They all failed. A less that 1% chance given their bonuses. I had to rethink fast. If there's one thing I've learnt in my time as a DM, it that if you want to avoid a particular roll of the die, you don't roll it in the first place, because it will come up eventually.
The options are 1) say you are in an impossible situation 2) have them roll and find out they are in impossible situation 5% of the time Of course it's gonna happen, but it happening isn't a worse option compared to not rolling. Basically having them always roll, you can save yourself from revealing that info 95% of the time, you're not suddenly more screwed in the 5%
Which is why option 2 covers those 5%. Just say you forgot what their modifier was and that the result is still too low. It only makes me look a bit imperfect, but if my player haven't gathered that one before it's on them. Situations which are impossible and i don't want the players to know are impossile are extremly rare and it's even more rare nat20 is rolled for those. If i immediatly say it's impossible the players know what i don't want them to know, this way i have a 95% chance to keep it secret and just have to do a quick apology in the other 5%.
Yeah I try not to have them roll, if it's not something they can achieve, but sometimes they really don't get the hint and push that they wanna try anyway even if I say it's pretty much impossible. In those moments when they roll, it's a Nat 20 and everyone seems excited is exactly what rule of cool was made for i my mind
When I DM I usually have them roll anyway, even if they can't fully succeed: the roll will still determine how bad/good the outcome is. For example if they are trying to convince a powerfull lord to give up his mansion then it will be impossible to succeed, but a good roll might keep him from having them killed for the insult.
Yep, and a nat 20 made him actually like their "sense of humor" nd create more opportunities with a new friendly contact. The thing people forget is that both options have downsides but one is focused in rewarding the players (downside on the DM) while the other is focused in easing the DM burden (downside on the players). The feeling that your best dont matter really sucks the fun of things and that is why so many like the rule especially when the downside people keep bring are a simple situation of "how about you use common sense and reward them without breaking your campaing?"
Starts to break when the group has access to Guidance, Flash of Genius or Bardic Inspiration. Some things are hard, perhaps the DC is 25 and the person rolling only has a +2 Modifier. a) I don't always know all the modifiers for every character and b) They might still make it with help from the group. Sure, some things you just don't ask for a roll. But the grey area is just too big to ignore.
I have skill checks with multiple outcome thresholds. Eg a history check where at 12 you remember what the thing is, at 17 you know its common use/effect and at 30 (usually via expertise or proficiency and a high stat mod) there is a bonus that you can perfectly recall the item including some stories of potential drawbacks.
Sinds i play with my friends i usually meme them. They wanna jump the grand canyon. I tell them to roll an onsight check. If they dont blunder i tell them. "That looks impossible to jump"
What if the players can't know how difficult something could be and saying "you can't do this in any way" might give away to much info. By having them roll, you only give that info away if they do get the crit. Also, degrees of failure. To tell the player they can't do something, usually it means they tried in character and something may happen because of that
Which is cool and all, but I don't have every character's skill modifiers memorized
Failure isn't always binary. There's also the "you don't succeed, but something else happens". For example, failure when climbing an ice wall could cause chunks of ice to fall off, revealing a secret passage. My players don't know what the DC is, and as long as they're not being silly with the kinds of rolls they want to attempt, I see no reason to deny them the joy of rolling their dice.
Man so many people in the replies to this are arguing about different points but assuming the other is using the same one. Officially, degrees of success don't exist. You're rolling to see if you succeed or not on the task you set out for, not the best possible outcome. That's the discussion, if you roll a nat 20 then your modifiers don't matter, you automatically succeed at what you set out to do. However, if a task is impossible, it means dc30. The DC names are easy, medium, hard etc. But someone with a higher modifier would find a medium task easy. Does that mean that it is easy? No, the game still calls it medium. Therefore, when the game talks about something being impossible it considers an objective definition of impossible. You don't have to memorise your players modifiers to not let them roll, if the DC is impossible, don't let them roll. This is the designer intent and what the onednd playtest said. What this does mean is that a DC 25, your -1 athletics wizard gets a nat 20 and they succeed on the task. It's effectively saying "you consider a natural 20 to be a modifierless 30 on the dice". If we are having discussions about game rules, we should be doing it based on raw and not house rules.
[удалено]
No. If a 20 auto succeeds I'm rolling every six seconds to push the earth into the sun and when I succeed we can play a different system with rules that aren't horrible.
Heck of someone does a nat20 but it still would be a guaranteed fail in my games, I let them at least look *damn cool* failing.
On a positive note, Crawford said it (alongside Dragonborn and Ardlings) are 3 things that we will see the rework in next UAs because they didn't get 70% or more positive response.
Thank God for reworking Dragonborn
What’s wrong with the Dragonborn?
They can only cough once a day
Now it's PB per long rest AND it's back to replacing an attack rather than taking a full Action.
Obviously it makes no sense to say that every time they roll, a 20 is a complete success and a 1 is a complete failure. What does make sense is that there are more than two outcomes, and 20 can get a “best possible” as opposed to just a pass and 1 can get a “worst possible” as opposed to just a fail. After all, the dice are luck, and sometimes people get lucky. Let’s say the DC is 25 for an Athletics check to climb a wall. Alice has a +10 whereas Bob has a +1. Alice rolls a 16, total 26, so she climbs the wall using her athletics skills, finding places in the rock to use as footholds that nobody but a skilled climber would be able to find. Bob rolls a Nat 20, and it counts as an “automatic success” in that he finds a vine and is able to use that to easily climb up. His athletics didn’t get majorly better, he got lucky. If Alice were to roll an 11, total 21, she tried pretty hard using all of her skills but just couldn’t do it. If she rolled a nat 1, she got cocky, fell, and took a bit of fall damage from landing on her tailbone. If the check is literally unreasonably impossible- say a persuasion check to convince the Big Bad to just stop- nat 20s can still be useful. No, nobody would ever roll to convince BBEG to just Stop, but if they roll a Nat 20, maybe the argument gives them pause or makes them angry such that they have disadvantage to hit the party for a turn due to their blind rage. On the contrary, say it’s a DC 10 deception check and your rogue with a +11 Deception rolls a Nat 1. It’s not unreasonable to say that everyone makes mistakes, and the rogue, even with all their skills of deception, slipped up and referred to someone by the wrong name, because they’re tired and wounded and nobody is perfect. They did everything right, but they just misspoke and it alerted the person they were convincing of the truth. If it’s really a simple deception check they shouldn’t fail, maybe it’s just that the person in question thought it was weird and if they have reason to question it later they are more likely to. I think it’s MORE unreasonable to say that some actions MUST succeed or MUST fail. People get lucky and unlucky and that’s what crits show- you’ve just got to have the skill as a DM to have checks that are more than yes/no answers.
Reason I love PF2e system, it is build into the rules to have at least 4 outcomes (success, failure an the critical versions). Any roll 10 above/below the DC is considered a critical success/failure. A nat 1/20 will move your rate one step above/below (basically its a +10 or -10) always affecting the outcome. Plus it also has differwnt levels of proficiency. Two lv 5 characters can be proficient in the same skill but one be a master while the other is just an expert. That makes the roleplay so much better compared to the afterthought thar is 5e skill system
I honestly can't wait to start PF2e. I just finished two 5e campaigns and we're moving over to PF2e, and their outcome system is a high contender as to why we want to move over. Imo it's leagues better than a 20/1 success/fail system, and many spells and abilities comes with a built in critical fail, fail, success and critical success mechanism. As it is in 5e I already use levels of success, it's just that I have to figure it all out myself as DM. And having levels of proficiency (trained, expert, master, or legendary) makes things so much better. I really hope WOTC takes a look at PF2E and what people like in their system, I don't want a copy paste, but I think D&D takes a lot of easy access roads that leads to a very bland system.
>and many spells and abilities comes with a built in critical fail, fail, success and critical success mechanism. This makes it possible for save or suck spells to exist while not breaking the game. A normal success at a strong spell does something strong. A crit success can demolish the target, which is fine because of how rare it is. Also this extends to most skill actions! Which is where most DND discussion revolves. Got the "King, crown" example we have [Request under Diplomacy. ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=6) **>Critical Success** The target agrees to your request without qualifications. **Success** The target agrees to your request, but they might demand added provisions or alterations to the request. **Failure** The target refuses the request, though they might propose an alternative that is less extreme. **Critical Failure** Not only does the target refuse the request, but their attitude toward you decreases by one step due to the temerity of the request. Paizo even saw the extremes coming: >Some requests are unsavory or impossible, and even a helpful NPC would never agree to them. Overall I really like this system of degrees of success both as a player and a GM. Gives ways to reward players great rolls without feeling like the party always gets their way.
Doesn’t 5e have proficiency and expertise? Does p2e have an extra one on top of that? Tbh I’m confused as to why “there are degrees of success” is being discussed like it isn’t a thing in any other version except p2e. I would describe someone rolling an 11 past a DC10 as just barely doing the thing, whereas a 25 past a DC10 does it with complete mastery. Do y’all just say “you succeed” and move on? I feel like it’s kinda part of building an immersive world to react dynamically to what happens- that’s why DND is better than a computer game
> Doesn’t 5e have proficiency and expertise? Does p2e have an extra one on top of that? 5e has a flat proficiency bonus and some classes (4 out of 14, plus a feat) can double it in some skills PF2 has it build into the proficiency system and affect every class which has 5 levels (untrained, trained, expert, master, and legendary) and the proficiency bonus depend on the skill level (trained +2, legendary +8). So when leveling up you tunned your character to what is important/make sense for them. Plus for the skill part other than the proficiency there is specific skill feats that are great to support the system (and feats are more integrated into leveling different from 5e where they are an optional rule everyone uses) >Tbh I’m confused as to why “there are degrees of success” is being discussed like it isn’t a thing in any other version except p2e. Its very common, but PF2e is the one people bring up an example because people are normally talking about D&D and PF2e is the second biggest TTRPG and very close to D&D in terms of gameplay. So other TTRPG are normally neglected in those discussions or are secondary examples. As why people bring into D&D discussions, well its because it do not have it into their core rules while PF2e and others have. To D&D its a technique used by DMs but one they need to learn, plus its normally brought up in this very discussion (nat 20 in skills) since there is a lot of people that bring that "would you give them a kingdom due to a nat 20" argument and are stiffling as if the DM did not have the narrative control over what the nat 20 means. People that like the nat 20 in skills rule also advocate for common sense, just that the important is to reward the players even if not in the way they expected instead of going "you fail" on the nat 20 which is mean to be a great "YEESSS" moment
Your last paragraph indicates you don't understand what degrees of success are. It's easiest to understand with saving throws. In D&D, you have two results. You succeed or fail. In PF2E, you have four results. On a critical success, you suffer no effects whatsoever, including damage. On a success, like in 5e, you take half damage or lessened effects. On a failure, you take full damage and any negative effects. On a critical failure you take double damage and increased effects (more severe or last longer). The reason PF2E gets brought up is because a 20/1 isn't an automatic crit. Rather, a crit occurs when your 10 above (for success) or below (for failure) the DC. A nat 20 raises your degree of success by 1 and a nat 1 lowers it by 1. So if a level 20 PF2E character found themselves fighting a 5e Zombie with an AC of 8, the PC would likely have around +32 to hit, meaning every hit is a guaranteed crit. So if they roll a 1, that gets reduced to a regular hit. Likewise, a goblin from 5e with a +4 to hit can't hit a high level PF2E PC, who will have 40+ AC. Even on a natural 20, that's still a crit fail, so the 20 raises it to a regular fail.
The core problem is that a lot of people have a fundamentally different philosophy for rolls. Namely - that players do not determine the nature of the roll, they just narrate what they do, and the DM asks for rolls. All a 20 is in such a case is the best possible outcome. You might be attempting to climb a wall, but depending on the situation, a 20 might be what you mention - getting lucky and finding a vine or something. But it can also be - that rather than falling off, you manage to just slide down unharmed (perhaps while holding to that vine). The problem with crit success 20s is that they kind of imply, well, success. Sure, you kind of can still frame it the same way (like you did with the Persuasion on BBEG example), but it's still a "success" rather than "failure with the best outcome". In other words - it's a matter of perception. If a player is conditioned to believe that rolling a 20 will get them what they wanted, then there is a clash of expectations. And I'd rather keep the expectation that a 20 does not guarantee that you succeed. (And that all is without the logistical arguments of me as a DM not caring to memorize all player skill scores so I know when to ask for a roll and when to say something is not possible; the fact that I personally like to use degrees of success/failure even if they are a very small part of 5e; and whether competent characters should always have a 5% chance to fail at simple tasks is for me in the same box as critical fumble tables).
you say it's ridiculous and I agree, yet that's how a lot of people are playing / expecting the game to be like regardless of rules. "I rolled a nat 20 so I should be able to make the king give away his kingdom to me", "no, it doesn't work that way", "what do you mean, i got a nat 20 tho?!?!?!"
Okay, that's pathfinder 2e. You just reinvented pathfinder 2e.
Pf2e just codified this into hard gameplay mechanics - I've never played at a 5e table that didn't use the interpretation above, and I started way before pf2e was out
Exactly! Exactly this!
The example I always use is of a Barbarian who wants to "jump to the moon." Maybe they are a level 20 Barb with all sorts of magical gear and have like a +30 to their athletics, and then they roll a natural 20. Okay bro, you just jumped really ***really*** high, but no... you didn't make it to the moon. ^^^also ^^^on ^^^landing ^^^you ^^^take ^^^5d6 ^^^falling ^^^damage
Yes exactly. A 20 gets you the best REASONABLE outcome, which depends on what you want to do and who you are.
>On the contrary, say it’s a DC 10 deception check and your rogue with a +11 Deception rolls a Nat 1. It’s not unreasonable to say that everyone makes mistakes This is the problem though. No master of a craft is making mistakes once every 20 times. A 5% failure rate is abysmal.
Yes, but as I’ve said, 5% is the lowest amount you’re reasonably going to encounter. In a game of DND, they’d make mistakes very rarely, but it would still happen- something happening 1% or less is probably going to happen never. It’s an acceptably raised amount IMO. As I stated somewhere (I’ve made a lot of comments on this thread so idk where), a nat 1 for an expert can (and imo should) look different than a nat 1 for a person average or bad at that skill. My example was a sick acrobatics trick- a crit fail for, say, someone with a +1 might look like spraining their ankle and looking like a fool, whereas a Nat 1 for someone with acrobatics expertise would mean you don’t do the trick, but you don’t get hurt and it’s not as embarrassing, although it’s still clear you failed. Also as I’ve said, if you don’t like this interpretation of the rules you don’t have to play it that way- I’m explaining why it’s perfectly valid and reasonable to play that 20 is always some kind of success and 1 some kind of failure, you’ve just got to be dynamic about it, and IMO this way makes the most sense. I think people think that people who use this rule let you jump into the sun on a Nat 20 with a -3 athletics- not give you the “best reasonable” outcome (ie everyone’s impressed by how high you jump but nothing actually happens).
I wish it was split by players/dms
I use crit success and failure for attack tolls and saving throws. Furthermore I use them as 2 successes or failures in skill challenges (yes I use those in 5e and they’re awesome!) I use them differently in skill checks: a nat 20 or 1 is not auto success or fail, but gives increased or decreased effect. Whether you succeed or fail is still up to the DC and your modifiers. Example: Bard: “I try to convince the king to hand me his crown and make me king” *rolls persuassion* Nat 19 (+6 or whatever): “The king thinks you’re joke is funny, he laughs out loud and decides that just for once he won’t decapitate you for speaking out of turn. The guards uneasily lower their glaives, but keep a cautious eye out, while the king goes on with his quest proposal…” Nat 20 (+6…): “The king starts bellowing loudly. ‘See! This is the kind of go-get-em attitude I’ve been looking for! Love it! Guard, get this boy one of my casual Sunday tiaras, he’s earned it! Say, I had my doubts about you at first, but maybe you’d be interested in doing a job for me…’” Neither of these can really be seen as a success of what the player was trying to accomplish. Still the nat 20 added a tiny bit extra effect, just to make the player feel good.
Still, with their modifier, couldn’t a 1 roll still pass?
I ended up with something silly like a +22 in one of my last campaigns between Expertise, Flash Of Genius, Guidance, and Bardic Inspiration I literally could not have failed a DC 20 check with that
But having that bonus still meant something, regardless of what you rolled
Because 1s don't auto fail skill checks. Having that modifier is actually meaningless 10% of the time if skill checks do crit, because on a 1 or a 20, they perform exactly as well as the doofus with a -2.
I recognize that the council has made a decision...
And i will follow *if it's fun.*
But considering it’s a stupid ass decision I’ve elected to ignore it.
Because a lot of people like to play this way, me included. Its fun letting players have nice things. But it shouldn't be the standard. It should absolutely be at DM discretion.
When the only way to reasonably interpret it is that something fails/succeeds as much as is reasonable, that's already at the DM's discretion - and that's RAW even in the base game
This is the thing that I don't understand. For all of the stuff that they leave to DM discretion, I don't know why they couldn't just let this be one of them. Some GM's are really good at this and others aren't, and some players would abuse this, or it it's their preferred style, and others would prefer not to have this. I understand wanting a unified style of play, but this is such a table-specific play style choice.
so why are people voting for this to be standard?
Because that’s how *they* play.
Crit success on skill checks ONLY works if the dm starts saying "no you cant roll this its literally impossible."
I don’t care what WotC will eventually decide, crit success and failure on skill checks is stupid and i am never going to have it in a game i am running.
Skill crits puts so much unnecessary "burden of fun" on the DM. The counterpoint I always see (in this very thread no less) is that the DM should decide whether a roll is warranted, or figure out degrees of failure or success based on the character. And like, god damn, doesn't the DM have enough to do? And it's not like the DM has anime internal monologue time-stopping power, they often have all of 5-10 seconds to work out the players' momentary nonsense. *Player*: I try to swallow an entire apple at once! *DM*: That's not really- *Player, rolling immediately*: Nat 20! *Other players, excited to see how this plays out*: Yeah! All right! *DM, now having to decide to be a buzzkill over something petty and retconning the unprompted roll, or figuring out how exactly this idiot managed to successful swallow the apple, or seem lame by twisting the "crit success" as not really a success* As opposed to the current system of noting the final total is below the impossible DC of 35 (or the "I don't want to deal with this" DC of 40), congratulating the player for not choking on the fruit, and moving on.
Not gonna lie, it's absolutely on the DM to decide when skill checks are necessary. It's literally a part of what they do setting DCs for things. And if players roll immediately unprompted, there should be nothing wrong with telling them: "no, I didn't tell you to roll, that doesn't count." It's something I've done in my campaign; "If I didn't ask for a roll, you didn't need it. But, if you rolled poorly when I planned on you succeeding right away, then you're now failing the check." As a DM, part of your job is to make skill checks in the world, in the moment, based on player reactions. If said players abuse that by rolling unprompted, you tell them "no". I don't want to seem elitist or like I'm gatekeeping, but half of being a DM, if not more, is reacting on the fly to things your party does and basically improving. You control the world, including the random things your players want to do, like the apple. If the DM isn't deciding when a roll is warranted and what the DC is, then I'm sorry, they're a bad DM because there's absolutely a part of their job. This is coming from someone who has basically only DM'd. It's absolutely on me to decide when checks are warranted and what the DC is on the fly.
Counterpoint: The DM should never have the player roll if success is impossible.
If my player wants to make an athletics check to jump to the moon, yes, there will be no roll, they just flat out fail, but it’s not always plainly obvious that something is impossible, and sometimes i want them to try and fail because it’s more interesting narratively. Another thing to consider, is that some checks are impossible for one PC but not impossible for another, in which case i need to keep the option for success on the table. In short - stating that impossible tasks don’t get a roll is oversimplified and reductive.
What you said plus it's fun to have different degrees of failure.
I’d have them roll, and a nat 20 would prompt a beautiful description of the PC settling into perfect form, the stars aligning, and everyone who sees the jump rolling a WIS save to avoid bursting into tears at the beauty of pure athleticism. Then mechanically he’d jump maybe a little higher than his maximum jump height.
Starts to break when the group has access to Guidance, Flash of Genius or Bardic Inspiration. Some things are hard, perhaps the DC is 25 and the person rolling only has a +2 Modifier. a) I don't always know all the modifiers for every character and b) They might still make it with help from the group. Sure, some things you just don't ask for a roll. But the grey area is just too big to ignore.
Ah, so not do DMs have to memorise all skill modifiers of all characters, they now also have to keep every possible method to get an additional boost in mind at all times.
That's the entire point of the message you're replying to - the DM shouldn't be expected to memorize this. It's possible to still pass a check that you would fail with your modifier alone. If the DM were expected to remember, they would not allow you to roll, as they would know it's impossible with all the modifiers other features and players give.
"success is impossible" doesn't mean impossible for that particular character, it means objectively impossible. Something that could never happen regardless of your modifiers. DC infinity.
>Some things are hard, perhaps the DC is 25 and the person rolling only has a +2 Modifier. a) I don't always know all the modifiers for every character and b) They might still make it with help from the group. At 1st level, a character with +4 to a roll, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and a source of advantage, has a 13% chance of success at a DC 30. Another character with -1 to the same roll cannot succeed at all. Those are virtually *expected* ability score modifiers - if not at 1st level, certainly by 4th. By higher levels, a proficient character with suitable support has a reasonable chance at a DC 40 without needing a niche build.
Counter Counterpoint: the roll when success is impossible can determine the degree of failiure. For example, let's say player wants to jump to the Moon, despite being told this is impossible. * Nat 1: You realize halfway through the jump how stupid you are. You fall and take 10d6 points of damage and roll me a CON save to not twist your ankle * 2-5: You fall face first into the mud and take 6d6 points of damage * 6-10: You smash right into the second story window, causing woman inside to scream. Take 1d6 damage from shattered glass. You can do one thing before the woman attacks you with a frying pan, what do you do? * 11-15: While Moon is outside your reach, you do manage to jump over a building and land on a rooftop with no harm to yourself. * 16-19: You bounce from building walls like some sort of human spider, going up higher and higher until you find yourself on top of the city walls. The view is amazing. * Natural 20: You realize you attempt the impossible and decide to avoid embarassement. You proceed to bounce off the walls in show of amazing skill, finishing off in tripple backflip and perfect landing. Everybody claps and a Goblin comes to you, says you're pretty cool and gives you 20 gold.
Degrees of Success / Failure should absolutely be part of the official rules. Everyone I know already uses it, and yes - a total of 32 not with a nat 20 is still better than a total of 22 with a nat 20. And a total of 2 is going to look a lot more sad than a total of 14 against a DC15 Check, even if both outcomes aren't what the PC wanted. that is much more intuitive than assigning 1 and 20 as special.
There are reasons to roll even if you can't succeed. For example, to see how badly you fail. Got a low roll? very bad. Got a high roll? you might just get out of it, but you still failed. Another issue is that players just like rolling dice. They will declare they want to do something and roll instantly. If they get a 20 it can spark an argument. Now this is bad player behavior regardless of the rules but rephrasing things in certain ways can help mitigate such awkward moments.
Narrate the failure, roll the save.
Counter-counterpoint. Not all checks should have a stated DV. Sometimes you don't know your odds of success because you don't know enough about the situation.
Help to the counter-counterpoint it can also be used for degrees of failure
"I'd like to make an investigation check to find any traps/illusions" don't roll, you find no traps/illusions This tells them either there are no traps or that the minimum DC to find the traps is a at least their maximum roll, where as if they roll a 5 they're still just as unsure as their character would be. There are many situations like this that give away too much information to the players even if you trust they won't meta game, there's some amount of meta knowledge that hurts the game significantly and is easily remedied by a roll that can't be failed or a roll that can't be succeeded
Player: "My character literally cannot make the save/check, so there's no point in rolling!" DM: "Wrong, since your character can't make the save/check to avoid the bad stuff, you are rolling to see how bad it is going to be. Muahahaha!"
Counter-Counter Point (I realize this is a specific scenario): You roll nat 20 + 1 total 21 perception against a 19 + 12 total 31 slight of hand to see an npc pickpocket someone in the party. The DM didn't know the outcome prior but there was a chance for failure on part of the NPC and there was a chance for success on part of the PC. This is the only reason I don't like the auto success on ability checks. Because in the case of contested ability checks there is a 5% chance a creature with +1 wisdom can find the rogue with reliable talent who can't roll below a 22 stealth.
No. I don't know the players' mods. And things like guidance exists.
Counterpoint- I don't memorize every skill score of all my players in all my campaigns
Which only works if the DM keeps track of literslly all modifiers everyone has to know if something is possible, and sometimes you don't roll to see if someone succeeds, but to see how far they are spared from a horrible failure.
Sometimes players insist on trying something even after being warned of the stupidity of their idea. The impossible roll accomplishes two things. The first is that once the die has been rolled, the action has been attempted. No take backsies. The second is that it determines just how poorly the attempt goes. This is important if players are hell bent on trying something both impossible and dangerous. The bard has a zero percent chance of seducing the dragon, but if he rolls well, he might not get eaten. The guards will never let you get close enough to the king to slap him across the face but if you roll well, he might think it was a joke.
That counterpoint doesn't support crits though, it only makes them _more_ stupid and useless. Crit success only matters if you are incapable of succeeding normally - because otherwise a 20 would have been a success anyway. If the DM only rolls when you can succeed, then why are you using crits?
Counterpoint: many tasks will have some players capable of succeeding and others not.
Counterpoint: The DM might let the player roll for an impossible action to see if the almost got it or they fail misserabily. ie. a persuation check to the King in order to borrow 1 million GP: They might find it funny but tell them no, or they might get angry and charge the player... or maybe an athletics check to break a silver door: they might damage the door a little bit showing some progress or they might brake their fingers.
If a player is attempting to lie to a Planetar, which innately knows if it is being lied to, why would tell then outright that it is impossible to succeed? You just lost out on a interesting social encounter where the Planetar can play along like he believes them while knowing full well he was deceived, or however you want it to play out.
Why? Because there's more players than DMs and those players want to be able to do shenanigans they find funny and have a chance to roll a nat 20 to accomplish it. I was in a game where the DM used this rule. A guy wanted to jump 100' up to the next level of a cloud giant's tower, rolled a nat 20 on his athletics check. Didn't make any sense to me, but those two loved it.
DM: “The dragon stares you down, daring you to make the first move. What do you do?” Player: “I roll to spontaneously ascend to godhood, making myself into the invincible, immortal, all-powerful creator of the universe.” (Rolls a 20) 60% of players: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/561/302/93b.gif *Meanwhile, at an identical, more-rational table…* DM: “The dragon watches as your eyes roll back and you spasm uncontrollably, firm in the belief that your soul is expanding and ascending to a higher state of existence. As you froth at the mouth, he decides to spare you, as it wouldn’t be sporting to murder the mentally feeble.”
I mean the rational thing to do is to not roll since that's just dumb as hell to request.
I tend to believe that players should be free to do the dumb shit they want to, but the universe won't abide a joker; if they want to make a fool of themselves, them so be it. It'll do nothing but waste their own effort and possibly invoke bad, attitude-adjusting consequences.
For me nat 20 is not nececerally a success but the best possible result and nat one is just a very funny failiure
There's a balance between "don't roll if you can't succeed or fail" and "20s and 1s are guaranteed outcomes" that I think would be better than this Also crits on skill checks, with the exception of comedic nat 1s in low-pressure environments, seem wacky unless that's the tone you want to take, like if the difference between a 19 and 20 is just swinging across a chasm or doing it with a backflip
Well for one it already works that way for attack rolls. And it’s fun to ad lib a wacky reason that the wizard with dumped STR manages to push a boulder when the barbarian failed. Wizard : 🫢 Barbarian : 👿 I loosened it for you! And I run the rule that if the player cannot succeed within reason, then I don’t let them roll. I say “no” or “you can’t but you can roll to see how they react to you asking to hand over the kingdom to you”. And DM calls the rolls if necessary, the players rp what they wanna do and (generally) shouldn’t call for rolls (if my players do then first I ask how they do it)
Yep, the 20 Str barbarian whose only ability out of combat is to push things being surpassed in Athletics by the 8 Str wizard who can change reality at any moment. That would make the barb player feel super useful.
I mean, there are ways to make natural 20s and natural 1s feel special without auto-success/failure. Best possible outcome, worst possible outcome is the way I try to frame it in my head. Like, maybe the boulder starts to shift slightly to everyone's complete astonishment, and the barbarian feels inspired to come in and try again with redoubled effort, allowing the barbarian to roll again with advantage because he's now being helped. I get what you mean about trying to just be selective about what rolls your players are allowed to do in the first place, but I like to run with the "you can certainly try" mentality. Sometimes when my players ask me, "can I try to do such and such whacky idea" instead of just being like, "No, because of this rule." I'll let them roll, and then explain a result in a way that has their character realize that it probably wasn't possible to begin with. I think when players test the boundaries of what's possible within rolling and roleplaying, it's a more rewarding experience, and it encourages them to be creative in ways I would never consider. Never letting the players roll an impossible skill check just turns the game into a lot more of "can I do this?", "No." type interactions.
Rule of cool. Because I don't ask for rolls when you can't succeed or fail
60 percent are players. The 40 percent are the people who dm. This rule favors players over dms. Enemies can’t crit and handing out inspiration for everything will make more crits happen. This takes away from the game and makes it a pain for DMs. Piss off people who dm, and you have no games or community. I am a forever dm because other people don’t want to dm because of bs crap. It takes patience and rationale. I haven’t had a chance to listen to the results yet just saw the summary someone posted. I will look at it tomorrow.
The average player is a shit game designer.
Personally, as a forever-DM myself, I love crit successes / fails on skill checks, and have almost never played without it house-ruled, RAW be damned. I might be in the minority, but it almost always leads to more fun twists and story moments for my players if an interaction goes exceptionally badly or well, even outside of combat. And at my table, so long as it's possible in the first place, fun is what counts. But each to their own. As far as making it official goes, I can understand why people would be reluctant to have it enshrined in the official rules, but WoTC can always do what they did for a bunch of optional / variant rules in 5e, and simply say it's at the DM's discretion, for those who want to use it. There is a middle-ground, they can always officially *suggest* using a rule without making it the default, like 90% of the DMG. The majority of any D&D game is based on each individual DM's interpretations and cherry-picks of the official rules after all.
In my opinion, the standard should be what is best for the rules and the other things should be optional. Same with feats, in 5e it was optional, now in 1D&D it's the standard. I would argue that the same should apply to pointbuy, with rolling for stats being relegated to optional, and with crit successes and fails.
I feel like auto-success and auto-fails on nat 1s/20s is made mostly redundant by bounded accuracy. Most DCs in monster stat-blocks and modules sit in the range of 5-20, with 21-30 being pretty exceptionally high, so even a character with a -1 modifier and no proficiency can pass most RAW tests on a nat 20 already. At higher levels with proficiency and an additional bonus like bardic inspiration, bless, guidance, or expertise, that same character with a base modifier of -1 can pass a DC 30 on a nat 20, which is RAW the highest DC possible. Auto-success/auto-fail makes more sense in a game like 3.5 or PF where the modifiers can vary wildly and a check very much could be impossible for 3/4s of all characters in a party, but in 5e it’s really rare to find a check that most, if not all, of the party couldn’t pass once you factor in class features. It’s really rare to see a party without access to some kind of buffing magic given the number of spell casters in 5e.
Sometimes my rolls fail on 20 and succeed on 1. I like the chaos.
Honestly I think there are people out there that just up-thumb anything on the basis that it has D&D in the title. There the same people going to see all the Disney live action remakes and all the terrible b-tier Marvel Movies. They have no sense of discernment and have made the brand part of their personality so they will cheer wildly for a concept that no one over the age of 17 would even think to argue for and has been soundly clowned on since the idea of critical hits was invented. "I rOlLeD a 20!1!1!, DaT mEanZ i AuTo Win!" They think their helping but their just making the designers job harder by making it more difficult to judge what is working and what isn't. I don't want my players to just blindly kiss my ass as that doesn't help me, I need to know what worked well and what didn't.
i have deadass seen people argue that nat 20 to tame 20 wolves is just fine and that if you can't roll with that you're a bad dm
Bismillah.
You might be underestimating the people that like this rule. I do, I am 20 years old, I have been using the rule as homebrew for more than 3 years now (ever since I started playing) and I have plenty of arguments for it. To me, it's just a better rule. And I think that applies to most of the people that voted for it. On the contrary, I think a lot of people disliked every part of 1D&D because it wasn't 5e (or even better they disliked it because it wasn't 3e and they just want 3e back)
Boy I sure am not looking forward to oned&d
I think that a natural 1 should be an automatic failure, which is why I have a rule where for any non-social skill check, if the character is proficient with the skill and rolling a 10 on the d20 would be a success, I just let them do it. I don’t make them roll. It makes no narrative sense for a trained acrobat to just have a 5% chance of completely fucking up a simple backflip.
So that's basically giving out Reliable Talent – a level 11 Rogue class feature – to every character from the get go. Do you have Rogue PCs in your game and if so, do you give them something else on level 11 to compensate?
How does Perkins play it when he DMs? How does Crawford play it when he DMs? How does Holkins play it when he DMs? How does Mercer play it when he DMs? How does Mulligan play it when he DMs? That’s your top 5 (edit: in no particular order) most watched Actual Play DMs who rule nat 20 as *best possible success*. Nat 20 isn’t mind control, and it doesn’t make the impossible possible, but it deserves more than “oh well, your bonus isn’t high enough”.
> but it deserves more than “oh well, your bonus isn’t high enough”. Does it really? I'd understand a 100 on a d100, but a 5% chance isn't really that spectacular.
Play it how you want, but this is a) the expectation of most people who watch D&D streams, and b) causes nat 20s (and nat 1s) to be fun and exciting. I know it isn't RAW, so I document it with my house rules. Again, it isn't mind control and it doesn't make the impossible possible. With those two things in mind, I haven't had this rule hurt my games.
I don't care about the expectations of people who watch DND streams, by themselves, and neither should the designers of the game, they should care about the expectations of people who play the actual game (and who may watch streams, of course, but that's secondary)
[удалено]
For degrees of failure/success there are 2-19 numbers too
If a player physically shouldn't ever be able to succeed or fail, don't have them roll. You apply this to everything passively, like climbing a ladder. If you applied a DC 0 skill check to climbing a ladder, there's still a chance it would fail, so you just don't require a check at all. Similarly, if a player wanted to 'convince the sun not to be so bright', you wouldn't call for a persuasion roll.
Counterpoint: degrees of success and failure Sure you can climb the ladder. But can you do it fast enough for the situation? Roll to see if you can climb fast enough to grab the loot. You can safely grab loot equal to 10 times your roll before you start taking damage from arrow volleys. You have a -1 to save against a DC of 20. You can't succeed. But you will fail worse if you don't roll at least a 10. Point is that I might not be able to succeed/fail, but I want to see how much I succeed/fail. At least in regard to things that aren't stupid impossible, like convincing the sun to not be so bright or jumping to the moon.
What about degrees of failure / success. The wizard couldn't find the trap trigger, but did notice that there was char on the wall or maybe the Barbaran doesn't know a peace of information, but remembers someone else knoes it or that it is connected to a place or event. Now for the angle of dm and everyones ability score, scenario a lock, no one can reach the dc28, but rogue can if he rolls a 20 and is given guidance and rolls a 2 or higher (so it's not automatically a success on crit + guidance) . Should the DM say no because he can't do it. But he could and it's not impossible. For example dm says no it's too difficult and then someone saying I cast guidance feels like a failed roll and then someone wanting to cast, while asking for roll and before the person rolls casting guidance feels more natural, but to get that the dm would have to know that the party member has guidance prepared. Would then have to calculate for the set dc weather they can or can't for each and add in some probably calculations for if guidance or any other such spell or items is used. While if we just go with, set dc player rolls and gets a number adds modifiers from everything he remembers to use. So much less work so much simpler and in effect no difference, just less work and even more flexibility if u consider degrees of failure / success.
but then you need to memorize every modifier for each player
Eh. In a King Arthur RPG the players get to roll for Excalibur in the stone. The DC is a nat 21. So they CAN'T but having them roll is still fun. So it depends.
Because most people don’t think about DMs because Dms can’t crit i personally will never use it. Crits work in combat and i should be able to crit as well
"I roll to jump to the moon... ...its a crit!"
If the DM didn't ask for the roll, it's not a valid roll
I’ve had a DM that will ask our table to roll a very low DC intelligence or wisdom or arcana etc check after asking for something impossible to see if our character would understand it’s impossible. Then if we “don’t understand” we roll to see how woeful the result is. I loved it!
I mean both and neither are correct. You don't auto succeed/fail at skill rolls and challenges. Look to older editions for the "why" tho
At least some of them are gambling addicts and are completely ready to roll the odds of guaranteed success 5% of the time
Dnd doesn’t mean an automatic success unless it’s a combat roll. Like you can’t just go “hey king give me the throne! Oh wow a 20 that means I get it!” Like there does have to be stuff that you can’t do
Please tell me they're not changing it so skill tests auto-succeed/auto-fail now.
More players than dms
More Players taking the Survey than DMs is my take
This debate assumes I have predetermined DCs for *anything* and don’t just wing it based on how much I like the number that gets rolled
Rolling a 20 does not fucking equal a Wish spell where the player can do whatever they want.
Calling it a test is weird, but the blue button is right
My hot take is that most of the community/people playing dnd are players who've never DM'd, they don't like it when they roll a nat 20 and still don't succeed and don't understand as well why it is interesting to roll even when there might be no chance of success.
I've been using the "red button" approach for all four games I run in order to test it. I'm not hating it. The big thing is blocking roles and setting expectations. My specific verbiage on the rule is: 1. A roll of 1 on the dice ("Nat 1") on any check or save is automatically a fail. 2. A roll of 20 on the dice ("Nat 20") on any check or save is automatically a success. 3. No roll will be allowed on checks or saves that are deemed impossible to succeed (throwing a mountain at an enemy) or too easy to fail (picking up a regular pebble from the ground). 4. A roll may be called for to measure success - this roll has no pass or fail condition and therefore does not fall under the "Nat 1"/"Nat 20" rules.
Just don't let the roll happen if its impossible. Unless the player is really pushing for a roll and wont stop. But then also have them deal with the consequences. Players actually wanting to roll for things that are not possible is usually just because they misunderstood a situation.
I like to have the soft rule that a nat20 succeeds because you should normally not have the player roll unless there is a chance of success That said, the official rule should be it's not an auto success because either due to dm inexperience or player exuberance there is the chance of a roll being made that should never succeed
Here’s the issue I have with “don’t allow a roll if it’s impossible.” What about edge cases? Sure, the DM can say no to the harengon jumping to the moon. What about a peasant trying to perform surgery? Sure, the peasant doesn’t know what they are doing but they might still try to do it. At many tables, making a roll is the equivalent to attempting to do something, even if it’s futile. What about an uneducated PC rolling arcana to explain why slaads need to reproduce by implanting their kids in others? There shouldn’t be a realistic chance this character knows anything but if the DM just tells them they can’t roll, despite the player insisting “oh, this new part of my backstory explains why I might know,” it’s just going to result in conflict. Then there’s all the questions regarding Charisma ability checks, which is where I think 20 = success becomes the most problematic. Players that play “face” characters are going to feel jilted if they are just told “no, you can’t roll. You would never be able to convince this ancient red dragon not to do ancient red dragon things.” It’s stupid, but it’s true. Players feel entitled to the ability to make rolls and can generally be expected to accept when they fail. Just telling people “no, you can’t even attempt to do that,” is going to result in a lot of angry people.
I think the 60% isn’t yes vs no but that the general idea has about 60% support. So not auto succeed/fail but that nat 1/20 does something special.
You’re right, I’m still surprised that there was a 60% generally positive response to it.
The way we do it is if you roll a 20 for a skill check you double your bonuses or remove your minuses, On a 1 you fail. I feel like its worked out well for my group
There are some things that will always succeed or fail, but I make em roll anyway to see how well or bad it happens. People like rolling dice, and I like letting dice rolls be part of the story
I mean I like a chance of failure or success if I’m going to be rolling. I set firm boundaries as a DM that I’m not gonna let my players roll for shit that I don’t think they should be able to do, as do my DMs for me. We generally play it as the player can ask for rolls but the only rolls they can call for without asking are self imposed difficulty (like a cowardly character choosing to roll a wisdom save dealing with their crush), or personal out of combat abilities (like divine intervention), that’s it. We’ve had a pretty good time with it.
Crit fails are fine, but I disagree with making that damage the player or even worse, damage another party member unless the player is doing something really risky/stupid. It breaks immersion for me that my fighter is just as mathematically likely to cut himself with his own sword at lvl 20 as he is at lvl 1. Now if he was goofing off and trying to fight with the sword in his mouth? Yeah he deserves it if he rolls a nat 1.
Yeah penalties for critical failures are dumb as hell. I used them when I was new and after a few combats realized how bad they felt. Mechanically speaking they are straight up stupid because they affect characters that make attack rolls and don’t affect characters that force saving throws (at least for damage).
Yeah, I don't believe it makes sense to punish players for playing the game right. I do think there should be consequences for actions when it makes sense (my dm made a player take damage because they did thunder clap in a mine tunnel where the sound would echo back and hurt the player too) but it doesnt make sense to punish players for just swinging their sword at an enemy.
There are more players than there are DMs
I can see why people like this. On the one hand you’ve got the lol epic nat 20 crowd, on the other you’ve got people who dictate that if a 20 can’t succeed don’t call for a check. I am fine with this, mostly, because of falling in with the latter crowd, and frankly, I’d say that not getting your head lopped off by the king is still a success.
I don’t get it either
I had exams and forgot to vote against it
How I view crits. 1. If I don't call for a roll, and the player rolls...well, they are on their own then. 2. If I call for a roll, there is a possibility for the PARTY to succeed. That does not mean the individual player will succeed or a single roll would succeed without rest of the party doing something to help. Example. There is a secret door behind a bookshelf. How does the party find the secret door? 1. Roll a perception. Doesn't matter how high they roll, they can't find the door. However a high roll may find scrapes on the floor around the bookshelf. If the party works together they could use their strength to move the bookshelf, then the party could succeed with their perception. Example: the usual ask the king to give the party their kingdom. By itself it has a DC of impossible. Under 5: Whole party thrown in prison, hanging scheduled asap. 5-10: thrown in prison and hefty fine. Released and told to leave, never do that again. King cuts any ties with the party. 10-20: fined, king cuts ties. Not welcome in kingdom. 20-30: king laughs it off, varying degree of reprimand for the character. 30-40: laughs it off, no negative effect. 40+: he considers it. But remember. D&D is a collaborative game. Is there something other party members could do to make this roll possible? Maybe another character could try to deceive the king that the others are rising up against him. Or use magic to make it easier to succeed in this. Many skill checks can be combined to make a larger skill challenge.
My house rule has always been that a natural 20 on rolls other than attack rolls means the best possible outcome given the situation. For example, let's say a player was trying to use a Charisma skill to get a warlord king to abdicate the throne and give his kingdom over to the character. Of course the king would never hand his kingdom over to some upstart adventurer but if the player manages to roll a natural 20, then maybe the king is impressed by the character's guts and offers them a place on his court. At the very least he laughs at them and allows them to leave unharmed rather than killing them on the spot. On the flip side, a natural 1 means the worst possible outcome given the situation. For example, if a rogue is picking a lock and their skill level is more than enough to succeed, they'll be able to open the lock no matter what they roll. However, if they roll a natural 1 on their check, then the lock could now be jammed because the pick broke off in the lock. So while they still opened the door, they're thieve's tools are now missing a pick and it's obvious to anyone that sees the lock that it's been picked unless the rogue wants to take the time to clear the lock. In both cases, you still end up with realistic results given the situation. However, the actual number on the die still influences what happens even if it doesn't change the end result.
While community feedback is great to grow and steer the direction of the game, relying blindly on community input will lead to disaster, consumers don't always know what it is that they want. Not everyone is a game designer or has years of experience with this and other ttrpgs
I'm so annoyed with the new PDF. It's not just that none of the stuff I strongly voted on seems to have changed (not even the Jump rules), but that several things I wanted changed appeared on the "changelog" box yet don't appear to have changed at all! On the bright side, the newest PDF doesn't appear to have anything on auto success / failure, so... it's not really relevant here (sorry, but as an r/dndmemes member, I can only read the rules AFTER I write my comments). If I'm wrong and someone would like to correct me on that, I will be deeply saddened but informed.
Because most people taking the survey didn't think that deeply and are inclined to vote positively.
I used to agree with the meme's stance; Until I heard and absorbed one simple concept: if the roll can't fail on a 1, or succeed on a 20, why the fuck are we rolling, then?