Yknow something that bugs me is when people say "A natural 20 doesnt ALWAYS succeed" but then when a player rolls a natural 1 they inevitably automtically fail And they fail hard.
I understand your point very well, if feels so unfair that you could be forced to make a roll without a chance for success, but always a chance for failure, but on the other hand, I also understand the DM perspective on it, where they are inevitably annoyed at that one player abusing the 20 is an automatic success rule. Personally I think that the ideal compromise is that 20 should get you the best possible result, regardless of bonuses, and a 1 should get you the worst possible result, regardless of bonuses. Both need to be reigned in, and neither should result in an extraordinary event occuring, such as failing more than you usually could, or automatically achieving the result you want.
...Do we just glance over the fun story bits that come from critical fails/successes? I mean... we all have bad days and good days irl. I landed on my feet after being hit by a car. I've also failed to do something I had done 100 times before, only to have someone else walk over and do it in 3 seconds later who had never dealt with the object in question before. So the day the goliath falls 10 times while trying to brute force open a door, and the wizard and ranger are putting a dent in cette door... I mean, don't use it if you don't want to, but I think it gives more flavor. Instead of "oh I failed" you get "...Can I go home and crawl under a rock?" And instead of "yeah, i got that door open" you get "*CRACK!* Heeeeeere's Johnny!"
Absolutely! Some tables thrive on that kind of story telling. It's why one of my homebrew rules is to grant inspiration on any Nat 1 if the player comes up with a fumble. Not everyone plays the same way, though. So tools are nice to have.
"...dealing with rules without ignoring them entirely." < We have to deal with rules, not use them to play. THAT IS THE ISSUE. Lvl 12 elven Rogue Soulknife 20 dex with expertise on thieves tools and slight of hand can roll 3 die and a minimum of 24 if they expend a physic die...with a nat 1. Add inspiration and they could have as high as 35. I guess Grog isnt getting in his lunchbox today, maybe he remembers his key tomorrow. 35 failure.
That's more a problem with the way certain features interact with the die rolls, than natural 1s being a failure. Reliable Talent theoretically just turns off the automatic failure by eliminating the possibility of a roll of 1 entirely. Things like Psi-Bolstered Knack and Bardic Inspiration move the decision point of a roll a step down the line with the promise of altering a result from a failure to a success. If you're using automatic failure, the easier idea might be to not allow those bonuses to be added on after the fact, since the natural 1 has already been rolled. They can keep their resources for later attempts. In most cases, players wouldn't throw those resources away on a natural 1 anyway, since they're still likely to fail. Also, I assume from your specifically mentioning the rogue being elven and rolling 3 dice, you're thinking of elven accuracy. That only applies to attack rolls, but even still, I can't imagine being made about a 1/8000 chance of failure.
The best answer to the problem of Nat 20 and Nat 1 is if the DM doesn't want something to be possible just say no don't allow them to be able to do it if a character in the party literally shouldn't know the history of something just say that every possible roll you can make will fail because you literally don't know this information Also I always bring this up every D&D character even the peasants are superhuman so even a character with 7 strength is still stronger than an average human they can bust down most doors no problem some people just have off days and great days it makes sense I find Critical successes and failures always entertaining when glorious success and hilarious and dangerous failure are just 1 roll away it always keeps me on my toes and it's always impressive
Interesting story developments from crits aside, the new rule do make sense because pros and masters sometimes mistakes and apprentices sometimes have bouts of genius. Continuing to make mistakes even when you reach lv 20 makes your character more realistic in my opinion.
Hmm 🤔 so disadvantage for the rogue on open doors that would make it better I think. They seem to be putting a lot more onto the DMs in one D&D Just my two cents
This approach definitely depends on them having much better guides for DMs in the book that's supposed to be for that. We don't need pages and pages of world building, we need guides for decision making and planning.
Reminds me of a frequent justification I use for making players roll for particularly simple or easy efforts, like hitting a statue or breaking down a secret door. Just checking for crits, or checking degree of failure/success. You're obviously able to, just how quickly or will your weapon break?
I wish they would add more concrete rules over suggestions and guidelines. The amount of homebrew rulesets for things I've seen for stuff wotc should've had rules for is staggering. The current DC scale is okay, but you can get modifiers that let you reach the supposed nearly impossible DC 30 at early levels like a rogue's expertise. I think it's too simplified.
Suggestions and guidelines are great, but it would be nice to see the base assumption that they diverge from. First a rule, then the guide to changing it.
Your specific example doesn't work without including a skill proficiency somewhere in the mix, but your point is still valid. Of course this already happens, it would just be more common with critical ability checks. These techniques are still useful even if that change never gets made, though.
@@RulesandRulings Fair enough - I just don't think it's a good idea to have success with concequence on a nat 20 when let's be honest in almost every situation a nat 20 would have succeeded *anyways* sure if they total up to 19 on a DC 30 succeed with concequenses fits, but just ruling that a nat 20 on a weak character succeeds with concequences when an 18 would not have those concequences seems... wrong...
this rule will only make things worse in the never ending argument of ''i rolled a nat20 why am i not allowed to derail the campaign to the point of no return''. now all times where a nat20 is a success arent exceptions but rather the rule. what wotc did is put more pressure on the dm
If this is a rule they want to be part of the game, they need to really improve the way they deal with it. The player's handbook needs to set expectations about what a natural 20 means, and the DMG needs to give tools to keep things on track.
Yknow something that bugs me is when people say
"A natural 20 doesnt ALWAYS succeed" but then when a player rolls a natural 1 they inevitably automtically fail
And they fail hard.
I understand your point very well, if feels so unfair that you could be forced to make a roll without a chance for success, but always a chance for failure, but on the other hand, I also understand the DM perspective on it, where they are inevitably annoyed at that one player abusing the 20 is an automatic success rule.
Personally I think that the ideal compromise is that 20 should get you the best possible result, regardless of bonuses, and a 1 should get you the worst possible result, regardless of bonuses. Both need to be reigned in, and neither should result in an extraordinary event occuring, such as failing more than you usually could, or automatically achieving the result you want.
...Do we just glance over the fun story bits that come from critical fails/successes? I mean... we all have bad days and good days irl. I landed on my feet after being hit by a car. I've also failed to do something I had done 100 times before, only to have someone else walk over and do it in 3 seconds later who had never dealt with the object in question before. So the day the goliath falls 10 times while trying to brute force open a door, and the wizard and ranger are putting a dent in cette door... I mean, don't use it if you don't want to, but I think it gives more flavor. Instead of "oh I failed" you get "...Can I go home and crawl under a rock?" And instead of "yeah, i got that door open" you get "*CRACK!* Heeeeeere's Johnny!"
Absolutely! Some tables thrive on that kind of story telling. It's why one of my homebrew rules is to grant inspiration on any Nat 1 if the player comes up with a fumble. Not everyone plays the same way, though. So tools are nice to have.
Love degrees of failure and success at a cost!
"...dealing with rules without ignoring them entirely." < We have to deal with rules, not use them to play. THAT IS THE ISSUE. Lvl 12 elven Rogue Soulknife 20 dex with expertise on thieves tools and slight of hand can roll 3 die and a minimum of 24 if they expend a physic die...with a nat 1. Add inspiration and they could have as high as 35. I guess Grog isnt getting in his lunchbox today, maybe he remembers his key tomorrow. 35 failure.
That's more a problem with the way certain features interact with the die rolls, than natural 1s being a failure. Reliable Talent theoretically just turns off the automatic failure by eliminating the possibility of a roll of 1 entirely. Things like Psi-Bolstered Knack and Bardic Inspiration move the decision point of a roll a step down the line with the promise of altering a result from a failure to a success.
If you're using automatic failure, the easier idea might be to not allow those bonuses to be added on after the fact, since the natural 1 has already been rolled. They can keep their resources for later attempts. In most cases, players wouldn't throw those resources away on a natural 1 anyway, since they're still likely to fail.
Also, I assume from your specifically mentioning the rogue being elven and rolling 3 dice, you're thinking of elven accuracy. That only applies to attack rolls, but even still, I can't imagine being made about a 1/8000 chance of failure.
The best answer to the problem of Nat 20 and Nat 1 is if the DM doesn't want something to be possible just say no don't allow them to be able to do it if a character in the party literally shouldn't know the history of something just say that every possible roll you can make will fail because you literally don't know this information
Also I always bring this up every D&D character even the peasants are superhuman so even a character with 7 strength is still stronger than an average human they can bust down most doors no problem some people just have off days and great days it makes sense
I find Critical successes and failures always entertaining when glorious success and hilarious and dangerous failure are just 1 roll away it always keeps me on my toes and it's always impressive
Interesting story developments from crits aside, the new rule do make sense because pros and masters sometimes mistakes and apprentices sometimes have bouts of genius. Continuing to make mistakes even when you reach lv 20 makes your character more realistic in my opinion.
Hmm 🤔 so disadvantage for the rogue on open doors that would make it better I think.
They seem to be putting a lot more onto the DMs in one D&D
Just my two cents
This approach definitely depends on them having much better guides for DMs in the book that's supposed to be for that. We don't need pages and pages of world building, we need guides for decision making and planning.
Reminds me of a frequent justification I use for making players roll for particularly simple or easy efforts, like hitting a statue or breaking down a secret door.
Just checking for crits, or checking degree of failure/success.
You're obviously able to, just how quickly or will your weapon break?
I wish they would add more concrete rules over suggestions and guidelines. The amount of homebrew rulesets for things I've seen for stuff wotc should've had rules for is staggering. The current DC scale is okay, but you can get modifiers that let you reach the supposed nearly impossible DC 30 at early levels like a rogue's expertise. I think it's too simplified.
Suggestions and guidelines are great, but it would be nice to see the base assumption that they diverge from. First a rule, then the guide to changing it.
A fighter with 20 strength already can fail to open a door that a rouge with 8 strength can - it's called a DC 25 str check... it already happens
Your specific example doesn't work without including a skill proficiency somewhere in the mix, but your point is still valid. Of course this already happens, it would just be more common with critical ability checks. These techniques are still useful even if that change never gets made, though.
@@RulesandRulings Fair enough - I just don't think it's a good idea to have success with concequence on a nat 20 when let's be honest in almost every situation a nat 20 would have succeeded *anyways*
sure if they total up to 19 on a DC 30 succeed with concequenses fits, but just ruling that a nat 20 on a weak character succeeds with concequences when an 18 would not have those concequences seems... wrong...
Yeah, it's a judgement call. I'd only apply success at a cost where they wouldn't otherwise have succeeded.
You have a 1 in 20 chance of either automatic success or fail, so why not?
this rule will only make things worse in the never ending argument of ''i rolled a nat20 why am i not allowed to derail the campaign to the point of no return''. now all times where a nat20 is a success arent exceptions but rather the rule. what wotc did is put more pressure on the dm
If this is a rule they want to be part of the game, they need to really improve the way they deal with it. The player's handbook needs to set expectations about what a natural 20 means, and the DMG needs to give tools to keep things on track.
@@RulesandRulings i bet a total of 3 internet points that the phb will conflict with the dmg when the new edition rolls around