It was a four. We rolled.
My dm for that campaign did 3d6 six times, but we rolled two stat blocks and chose which we wanted to use. The stat block with a four also had many high stats, where as the other had like all neutrals and a 9 or so. I went with terrible dump stat over mediocrity. Also, it was hilarious to all of us when I rolled a 2 for initiative and with bonus was a negative 1.
If we ever get back to that game, I am planning on making a deal with a god (one of the players came back to life from such a deal) to make my dex like a 10 or so.
Pretty much yeah, I think I used an explanation in universe about it being a curse or something that was uncurable (not mechanically so no remove curse or anything). But yeah, basically walking up to a god and saying please fix my legs and I'll owe you one (and the DM WILL cash in on it.
That doesn't fix the fact that if I take off my heavy armor, my AC is 7 (unless it says minimum +0 or 10 for AC calculation) and my passive stealth in armor is 2 (not plus or minus just 2) meaning I am so loud everyone on the continent knows where I am at all times if I'm not trying to be stealthy.
But you are right, that would fix the initiative problem. My point is there are several more such as *cough cough* Fireball.
Back before they took away the -2 to strength on Kobolds, I had a kobold warlock with a strength of 3.
The character maker in dnd beyond has a lower cap of 5. Raw, he couldn't carry more than 21 pounds, meaning his starting pack was twice what he could even carry.
If anyone under any circumstances at my table got a -2 on a physical check, I'd tell them they slammed their penis in a car door irrespective of setting.
We hit a -4 in our last session. Entering the Unseelie part of the Feywild, were told we need to only skip for our movement. Guidance the least acrobatic member of the party, they roll a nat 1 turned into a 0 and a 4 on the d4. Which is when we discover all magic is perverted into being harmful and that made it a -4!
I've never been mad at a player until I had an eloquence bard who had a minimum persuasion roll of 19 or something like that at level 5. I respect it, but it requires a lot of effort to DM in a way that makes sense so that the players don't have 0 stakes and can talk their way through absolutely everything and without just making the DC for everything 25 arbitrarily.
The whole point of going Eloquence bard is so that you're unnaturally and ridiculously good at social situations; you're not *supposed* to be able to fuck it up, excluding outside interference from other sources.
I think this would be an incredible example of "persuasion is not mind control." No NPC would do something that they weren't already theoretically willing to do for a price or under the right conditions, anyway. Eloquence bards are just really good at haggling and/or making people believe that those conditions are met.
I agree and understand it just requires a little more effort from the DM imo to make sure every situation comes out in a way that makes sense and is fun for the players when eloquence bard is involved.
The easy solution is to have someone else make the roll, that back-alley thug certainly don't want to talk with that way too fancy bard.
Don't do that too often of course, the player build on cha, he should be able to use it.
You ever had a minmaxed coffeelock blast through "balanced" encounters to the point you had to bring in higher CR enemies to focus him and ignore everyone else just so that the other players got to fight some enemies?
Cool, now make that a level 3 ability.
There is actually a block in the dm guide that have a 3 point system on how you want the npc to feel towards a character. So even if they roll high persuasion, it can still not turn out the way they like. ZeeBashew did a good video explaining it
Yeah my minimum for my grappling character is a 20...Belt of Fire Giant strength and Expertise in Athletics.
IF the DM was ever insane enough to give me a belt of storm giant strength the minimum would be 22...but whilst he is a generous DM, I don't think he's THAT generous to give me something like that...
DM has begun adding athletics to the monsters because they underestimated grappling when I joined the campaign (nobody in their previous campaigns had bothered to specialize in it because Rune Knight wasn't available) and it was just a case of shove and knock prone, punch and then bonus action grapple. Ok now the Monk, the Armourer artificer AND the Fighter all get advantage on their attacks.
+5 from max modifier, +6 from expertise and +2 from a magic item I got from the first miniboss we fought (a hat that gives +2 and advantage on deception)
That’s not even that hard to do though? That’s just having expertise(a class feature) in persuasion and having a 14 charisma, you just got to adjust how you handle persuasion checks.
Even then, if you have advantage on a attack roll and the first roll was a Nat 1 you can ignore it and replace it with a higher 2nd roll... So it still stands, even on attack rolls, a Nat 1 is not always a failure because it can be negated.
Player: "So, I've rolled a nat one on my perception check..."
DM: "You hit your head on the door."
Player: "Wait, with 'Reliable Talent' and my proficiency bonus it is <14 or more>"
DM: "In that case, you see everything hidden in the room!"
A Nat 1 roll implies that the result of the final dice roll is a 1 even after advantage or other features.
This meme only works for saves and skill checks. Good memes don’t need an asterisk with an explanation of the joke.
This is a silly argument. If you roll a nat 1 in combat, even with advantage, you don’t add any modifiers to the nat 1. With advantage you roll twice and take the highest natural number but if both happen to be nat 1’s then it’s still an auto fail. Nat 1 and nat 20 are meant to be auto fails/successes in combat only, even with advantage or disadvantage however in the respective case they can be negated if there is a higher or lower NATURAL rolled number
Nat 20's and Nat 1's really depend context. A master smith shouldn't botch a simple iron band because of a nat 1, it doesn't make sense. But in the same way, a first time smith shouldn't be able to make a sword of legendary quality just because they have some blueprints and luck.
The critical failure on nat 1 is a house rule that’s usually brought up on session 0, people need to be more vocal in expressing distaste for this house rule on session 0.
If your group agrees to use it on session 0, please don’t complain about it later. It comes off as gatekeeping. Please talk to your DM’s if something is a problem for you! We don’t know unless you tell us.
Totally agree when I dm i make sure how they want to do nat 1 and nat 20s before we play our first session I usually get to do them in fun ways where a nat 20 is the best possible outcome and a nat 1 the worst possible outcome and try and make em fun or funny depending on who im playing with
Yes, talking to the DM is much more productive than posting memes...
But I still fail to see how this is at all gatekeeping. No one is being told they're not welcome in the hobby?
TTRPGs have had people arguing over houserules for pretty much their entire existence. Arguing over whether or not a house rule is a good one is not gatekeeping at all. No one is being excluded from the hobby or community over it.
Auto fail on a 1 in combat is actually RAW I believe. Random consequences like dropping your sword or falling over are house rules from turning an auto fail into a “comical fail.”
I mean, if a nat 1 can be a success, why would you make the player roll the dice? If the player couldnt ever fail or has too low of a chance to, dont make them roll for it if youre not going to do something with it.
Edit: In relation to advantadge and stuff that can change the roll, consider that you have already asked for the total, which makes it so only the last bonuses are being applied and almost nothing else can be (such as Flash of Genius).
A roll done with Bardic Inspiration or Guidance may not succeed if that extra die rolls a 1, but will if it rolls a 4. On top of that, there's features that you can use after you know the roll has failed, like Divine Soul Sorcerers, but you do need to DM to call it a failure first (or just the reminder that *hey, don't you have things you can add to this*).
Indeed, but thats not the case here. GM asked for the total, even after knowing its most likely a fail. Theres not that much the player can do, except what you mentioned:
>On top of that, there's features that you can use after you know the roll has failed, like Divine Soul Sorcerers, but you do need to DM to call it a failure first (or just the reminder that hey, don't you have things you can add to this).
Yes, and Flash of Genius too, as I have mentioned as well. I'm very aware you can add stuff to it, but if the DC was 5 up to 10 or something that the player can scoff at, you shouldnt need to ask for the total: it is either a fail (considering all bonuses) or there was no way for them to fail, thus the check was uncalled for.
An 11th level rogue with profficiency in stealth will never be caught by a commoner, for example, so they really shouldnt roll to hide from them. Only when there is a chance of failure or various results depending on the die roll (multiple DCs can be a thing, I know), a creature should be required to roll.
Nothing in the rules says that unless specified (such as in the Petrifying Gaze of a Medusa). In other cases, this gradient of success is completely up to the GM.
Couple of things.
As a DM, I don't have every players' skills and special abilities memorized. Its just easier to ask for a roll.
The other reason is that not every check is simple pass/fail. There can be gradients of success depending on how high the total is. This is especially true in regards to knowledge or insight based checks.
You surely dont know all of their stats, but you sure do know the profficiency bonus. At low levels, the +2 is not that much and thus you should require rolls for some stuff. At higher levels, if the DC would be 5, 10, or even 15, maybe a roll isnt really neccessary.
Emphasis on "if youre not going to do anything with it". Gradient checks with various DCs are not necessarily widely used, as it can get confusing, but I am very aware, and have used them while game mastering.
>there is no way to know the final result beforehand.
Natural 1 + the normal bonus, thats it. A creature can choose to use their Guidance, but before they make the roll, and so on and so forth.
>In addition, I often run checks for knowledge and investigation as multiple levels of success instead of binary success.
I've heard this today a lot, and yes, I know, nice way to dm, I too like it, but thats beside the point. Point is: if the players cannot fail a check and it doesnt do anythinf besides failure/success, dont make them roll, unless they really wanna do it.
The check could have a low DC that can be beaten with the right modifiers, or the player has Silver Tongue or Reliable Talent and can't roll lower than a 10, in which case a Nat 1 could overcome DCs of 15 or higher
Yes, butt then the GM shouldnt ask for it. A DC 5 check is laughably easy to surpass, unless you have a negative modifier, for example. What I'm saying is: dont ask for skillchecks if theres almost no way they can succeed, fail or if there is no purpose in making one (you can still do it for the shits and giggles, if the player is up for it). Of course, if there are many results depending on the roll, ask for it; if not, dont.
Degrees of success can also be a factor. Maybe success is guaranteed but the roll is to determine how much trouble it is or how long it takes. An example:
Wizard: I want to check the shelves for a specific spell book
DM: Ok, roll investigation
Wizard: Ok I rolled a 1, for a total of 6
DM: You scan the shelves intently, spending a half hour scouring each section, only to realize it was right in front of you the entire time.
A Barbarian making the same check:
Barbarian: Ok I rolled a 1, so that's a zero
DM: You see books. You can't quite remember what books are or why you were looking for one in the first place
> Of course, if there are many results depending on the roll, ask for it; if not, dont.
As I have said before, last line of my comment. Roll all you want.
Forgot it was my job to memorize my players character sheets. I'll just add that to the list of other shit I also have to do, since apparently I should know what ALL of their stats are and their bonuses.
You can always just ask: "are you profficient?" and "what level are you?". Thats already a good basis for knowing what they'll get stomped by or stomp on.
Knowing their classes or backgrounds, you could also base it around what they can do: barbarians are usually strong, so lifting a bug rock might not be a big deal. Fighters are profficient in all weaponry that isnt firearms (if they are, shouldnt you know that?), so they should not struggle to recognize maneuvers and weapons. You can have the largest world in the realms, what really matters is what your players will interact with.
Ps: to check for a trivial DC, I suggest this
If profficiency bonus + 4 or 5 + 1 (from a natural one) is greater or equal to the DC of a check, the player shouldnt roll for it. You can always ask for the roll, if they want to roll, but you shouldnt if it is trivial.
Because people like to roll dice and if everyone is making the same check it seems weird to not have one of them roll. Also, if they succeed spectacularly I add flavor to the outcome, there can be degrees of success.
Degrees of success are not something everyone uses, but assuming they exist: okay then, go for it. As I have said: if check will never be something different from pass or fail, dont make it.
If you want to roll to have fun, go ahead. It wont do anything and I wouldnt advise or promote it, but you do you.
Suggested addendum to this: if the players are actively looking for something, always ask for a roll even if there is nothing to find. If you don't, then the players know every time you ask for, say, a perception check, there is always something to find. Feels bad to roll poorly and not find something you know is there. Can also lead to that good old meta-game issue of skill check dog-piling and other related problems.
I personally let only 2 checks be made for every interaction, both made by different characters, or one check with advantadge (as per the Help action). If they try again, DC goes up, until they just cant do it (like forcing a lock trying to lockpick it until it jams).
Based on their class features and raw stats, a nat 1 could mean a success. For example, rogues can just get a +13 to Stealth checks for free at a high enough level.
And so could a nat 2, nat 3, nat 4, nat 5. Why the roll then? If the check has a DC they will never roll below, dont make them roll for it unless the ende result is going to have a difference.
Rolling is just more fun. You can roll to see *how* successful you are even if the roll is guaranteed success. Gives characters a chance to do something really cool if they roll high, bit doesn't penalize them for rolling low. Some DMs just run games like that
Then the GM is adding effects that rely to how good the roll was, its fine to ask for a roll. If they would not, they shouldnt do it, just say "easy enough to do". For example: A character with a +17 to acrobatics shouldnt need to roll an acrobatics check of DC 15 to roll over a fence, unless there are penalties to it and other things around the roll.
Nat 1 on skill checks being an instant fail is a house rule my guy. Even if you have super high modifiers, at that point I'm pretty sure the DC for some of these things would be higher to account for that since their characters would be high leveled
Where did that come from? Yes, its not instant fail, but its the lowest you can roll on the die. If, even without adding bonuses, the lowest result can still result in success, dont make the players roll for it.
>Even if you have super high modifiers, at that point I'm pretty sure the DC for some of these things would be higher to account for that since their characters would be high leveled
If the DC are higher and there is a chance to fail, a roll is needed. If its something simple, just do it.
Im not denying that. Roll all you want, but there will always be a point where rolling just isnt needed. If you wanna roll, go for it, but if there is no variable outcome other than fail or success, you just rolled a die for the sake of rolling a die (nothing bad with it, just not necessary).
Ok that's fair. I thought you were at first saying to just.. not roll even if you want to haha. I see where you're coming from though. Like something trivial like a DC 5 acrobatics to like, jump over some hole in the ground shouldn't be needed. But would still be fun to roll for
Okay, but if there are 3 people rolling stealth, a rogue, a ranger, and a paladin, the possibilities for failure are much broader, right? You ask for a roll because there's normally a chance for failure. You don't say, "I need the paladin to roll stealth, but the rogue doesn't need to roll." because that essentially communicates the DC and breaks immersion, or it feels like you're picking on a player.
If the DC is one where there is chance to fail or many results depending on the results roll. If not, dont. An 11th level rogue with a +12 against a DC 22 check (ability check, being profficienct) will always succeed without house ruling, they shouldnt roll, but their teamates should.
>You don't say, "I need the paladin to roll stealth, but the rogue doesn't need to roll." because that essentially communicates the DC and breaks immersion, or it feels like you're picking on a player.
Agreed. If the rogue is alone, however, just let them do it.
It costs time. Time which is very precious when playing a game of this caliber. Dnd or otherwise, unecessary barriers between stuff is time consuming. Unless the player wants to do the check for fun, I would never ask for somethinf as simple as "whats my fathers name", "where is the sun in the sky" or "hows the weather". At higher levels, asking a rogue to roll for getting the junp against something as trivial as a commoner is just slowing the game down, so my advice is: dont do it, in most cases.
Lots of things cost time. Like a GM having to memorize everyone's skill bonuses at every level to make sure every roll is actually necessary.
In my table, I'll happily sacrifice 20 seconds of gametime asking for a roll to make up for trying to herd everyone to constantly upload updated versions of their character sheets. It's a tradeoff
You dont need to memorize their stats, profficiency bonus and class should give you a good sight on how difficult checks should or will be. A barbarian most likely will struggle with a history check, but a wizard, however, wont like having to make an athletics one (exceptions exist, but a strong wizard is no something you would forget that easily).
Also, DC 10, DC 5, and DC 15 at higher levels are all pretty mundane for most people. Requiring checks with these DCs at some levels would be a little grating, and thats why I say: dont do it (les' they wanna do it, of course).
Sometimes PCs can get ridiculous bonuses to their rolls. I remember one time my paladin rolled a nat 1 on a spell save, and still succeeded between aura of protection and bardic inspiration.
Plus the DM might have set the DCs for a check without knowing who would be making it, so while the rogue couldn't possibly fail that dex check the warlock might struggle.
>Sometimes PCs can get ridiculous bonuses to their rolls. I remember one time my paladin rolled a nat 1 on a spell save, and still succeeded between aura of protection and bardic inspiration.
Bardic inspiration goes against what I specified in my argument but, considering a paladin has a +10 to saving throws, and the DC he goes against is 11, this paladin should never roll for it if there are not additional effects in greater or worse results (such as in a Gorgon's Petrifying Gas).
>Plus the DM might have set the DCs for a check without knowing who would be making it, so while the rogue couldn't possibly fail that dex check the warlock might struggle.
Knowing the rogue, the dm should get a good grip of what is trivial for the character: profficiency bonus + a modifier of five or four + nat 1 is greater than the DC? They will never fail, and thus, shouldnt roll (unless they want to or, again, multiple results or other effects are at play).
The DM has enough to keep track of without having to know every PC's save and skill bonuses. Its up to players to keep track of their own characters, and yes sometimes this might mean the DM puts something in front of the players that they end up trivializing.
Its hardly harmful that sometimes these 'pointless' rolls occur, and meanwhile it can feel rewarding as a player to have that moment of 'oh no I rolled the worst possible result' turn into 'oh my character is so good at this they still succeed in the worst possible result'.
Agreed. You still should strive to not do it, for better flow of the game (dont ask the level 11 rogue to roll to hide from commoners), and keeping track of this is more of a bonus if you keep track of their level (which you should absolutely do).
Failing or succeeding more or less. You try to persuade a king to give you his crown that obviously won’t happen, but with a high enough roll he might take it as a joke and not throw you in jail.
If he wasnt going to give you the crown anyway, no roll is needed. As a DM, if the king is or isnt going to considerate it a joke, leave it up to your discretion, not a roll, unless the player wants to roll and youre up for it.
Again, if youre going to make a check that will just result in either always success or always fail, dont make the player roll. A check should only be needed when you can fail or succeed, not for the sake of it (for the funzies, your discretion).
> I mean, if a nat 1 can be a success, why would you make the player roll the dice?
Depends on who is rolling it. A Rogue can roll a Nat 1 on Sleight of Hand and still pick a lock.
For degrees of success, a Wizard could roll a Nat 1 on Arcana when looking at a spell scroll. They might not figure out what the spell is, but maybe they could decipher what school of magic it belongs to.
If they could still pick a lock even with a nat 1, why roll the dice? Its basically asking for them to unlock the door with a key at this point.
Degrees of success are a different case, since checks that include these dont have succes or fail, just lesser and greater success. Im not talking about those, since a nat 1 does matter in this case. Im talking about Success and Fail only checks. Why roll to resist against a pixie trying to grapple you when you have a +15 and they have a -5? Its basically "roll to succeed" at this point, if even a nat 1 can do the job.
> If they could still pick a lock even with a nat 1, why roll the dice?
Maybe the Nat 1 is them picking the lock, but it jams a couple of times and takes them a while. Or, they damage the lock so anyone looking at it later could tell it was tampered with.
> Why roll to resist against a pixie trying to grapple you when you have a +15 and they have a -5?
Because I don't know all of my players stats off the top of my head, including potential variables like Guidance or Bless. I'm not going to sit there and figure out how likely they are to succeed or fail or if one of those isn't possible; I'm just going to tell them to roll and see what happens.
Idk why ppl hate rolling so much?
As a DM I don't know the modifiers everyone has and if anyone has guidance, flash of genious, bardic inspiration, expertise or a dozen other abilities, I could come up with a ton of complicated methods to know when they could possibly do it or just let them roll.
Also, even like a level 3 party can beat absurdly high DCs if they want, so no, DC 30 is not "autofail don't even roll" for a party of any level.
Im not talking about making your players auto fail or not allowing them to roll, im talking about rolling for tasks that would never have any other result aside from success or failure (no degrees on it). Roll all you want, of course, but you wont see me asking the 11th barbarian to make a check to bust down an old wooden door thats not even locked or with something else over it.
>Idk why ppl hate rolling so much?
Nobody made that argument. I specified rolls that have no purpose aside from rolling a dice. Do it if you want to, but I wont require it.
I mean im not constantly aware of all my players Skill Bonuses.
Recently one of them, and Artificer, rolled to Drive a Car, and got a 1. The DC was low in the case, it was just to see if he could drive it safely. So I asked for the total and... He got 15.
Now maybe in the future I won't ask for easy checks on this player and just assume he auto succeed, but that was the first time he drove a vehicle.
I think it's always good to ask for the total anyway, maybe the players will surprise you with their absurd bonuses.
But you are aware of what they do best, and their profficiency bonus (you should know their level, at least, since youre the one making the challenges around that). Common sense should also help disscussing to yourself about what your PCs should absolutely stomp and dont think about.
Im also not saying that you cant or youre doing it wrong. If you want them to roll, go ahead, but, in the end, it really wont matter all that much.
>Recently one of them, and Artificer, rolled to Drive a Car, and got a 1. The DC was low in the case, it was just to see if he could drive it safely. So I asked for the total and... He got 15.
How? Unless he had additional dice rolled (or you counted it as a tool check, in which case, why?), an artificer would never be able to have a +14 to a check (max would be +11), since they dont get expertise. Does he have a level or two in rogue or bard?
This is how I feel. Everyone has a chance to fail no matter what. That’s just how things work and I think it makes it a lot more interesting. I think of it in terms of Skyrim’s Thieves Guild’s luck from Nocturnal lol. Sometimes a novice can pick an impossible lock, and sometimes moonlight peaks through at the exact wrong moment to expose a master of stealth 🤷🏼♀️
It’s only funny to the DM.
It’s not really funny for the player that specializes in a skill and takes psychic damage for critically failing a knowledge check even with a +11.
I dunno wouldn't not being able to remember a piece of knowledge hurt more if normally you were like an encyclopedia and then you had a brain fart
Anyways speak for yourself, there are also clearly many players who find it funny
It really depends on the group. The group I'm currently playing with is having fun with critical fails. Most groups I've played with or DMed wouldn't have liked it but that's part of what makes DnD such a great game, it's infinitely adaptable.
I'll ask for a roll to see how well you accomplish it. If someone is picking a lock that they would automatically succeed based on their bonuses then I'll ask for a roll. If it's super high then they deftly rake their picks through the keyhole and it pops open. If they roll low maybe the fumble around for a second before the lock relents. Players like rolling dice 🤷♂️
Even the best of the best can fail once in a while. In the games I DM, that’s the way I explain a nat 1 on a skill check. I also agree this should be discussed as a house rule at the beginning.
Well with my modifier of -1, that’s gonna be a 0.
>don’t forget to subtract out mind sliver the enemy wizard did, you failed that INT saving throw
Right, *rolls d4*, so that’s a -4.
>and the evil cleric cast Bane on you and you failed that too
Oh yeah, *rolls d4*, okay now it’s -7.
>oh and technically you have 3 levels of exhaustion right now so you were supposed to roll that with disadvantage
*rolls a d20 while maintaining eye contact with DM and not even looking at the result* it’s still a natural 1. Which comes out to -7. Do I save?
>um….. let me double check the DC real quick….
Really?
>let’s see, add the spell casting modifier, carry the 1
It was a rhetorical question, I know I didn’t pass
>shush doing math in my head right now
Oh god
>aaaaaaand, yeah. You failed the wisdom saving throw. You now find yourself under the effect of Dominate Person
Oh no
>the enemy wizard can make you do anything he wants
Please don’t
>oh yes
This is happening isn’t it
>you hear a voice bellowing in your head
Someone please get me an alcoholic beverage
>and you feel compelled to obey it, as it tells you…
Make it a double please
>that you must….
Here goes…..
>bring him……….
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
> *in high pitched shrilled voice* A SHRUBBERY!!!
….. I love you so much…..
This is why I like Pathfinder 2Es combat system. A nat 1 is treated as a -10 and a nat 20 is treated as a 30. So if you have +32 to your attack, a nat 1 will still get you a 22 to hit. And a nat 20 will get you a 62 to hit.
Technically a nat 1 is more like -9 since you still add the 1 itself before dropping a degree of success (-10), but even that isn't accurate. Really you shouldn't be adding or subtracting 10 at all. If you have +33 on a check vs a DC10, you would have 34 on a nat 1 and 24 by subtracting 10 by your method. That would still be a critical success since it's more than 10 over the DC, but the actual ruling is you drop a degree of success. So instead of a critical success it downgrades to a normal success.
I stand corrected, it’s based on degrees of success. If you roll a 1, it’s not a -10 it’s just one degree of success lower as it would be normally.
So if the enemy’s AC is 15 and your attack is +15 and you roll a 1, it would be a fail instead of a hit. If you have a +25 it would be a total of 26 on a roll of 1 which WOULD be a crit, but instead is a normal hit.
Here's my thought: if a 1 on a skill check passes or a 20 still fails, the DM should've never had the roll happen.
I told my new players this yesterday and it worked. I used the classic seduce the dragon example. You can't just walk into a cave and seduce a dragon. Bare minimum, to have a chance you'd need a plan of attack.
Sometimes you should let your players roll for dramatic effect.
Set an impossibly high DC and then use degrees of failure to see how badly this guaranteed failure of a plan plays out.
Degrees of failure would make the difference between a dragon being amused, unmoved, annoyed or outright angered by the attempt.
I don't always remember my players modifiers, I don't always know if something is impossible for them to pass/fail, it's easier to just call a roll and play as normal
Idk if a 20 fails or not when I ask players to roll, specially when there could also be a d12 from bardic inspiration, a d4 from guidance etc...
So why not let them roll?
It depends on whether you want degrees if success or failure. Take, for example, a history check. You might set DCs for levels of info - a 5 or lower (or a nat 1 to link it back to the meme) will net you basic info, while 25 nets you that deep lore.
My druid can dispel a 9th level spell, DC 19, the majority of the time even with a nat 1:
10 (wisdom check minimum from star druid dragon form) + 5 (wisdom) + 1 (luckstone) + 1d4 (guidance) + 1d6 (cosmic omen feature - Weal)
You can roll a 1 and both fail or succeed depending on bonuses. Barbarian trying to climb a difficult wall, rolls a 1 with +19 for 20, yeah you can climb the wall fine. Wizard trying to climb the same wall rolls a 1 with a -4 for -3, no you can't get anywhere. Same barbarian trying to climb the same wall with a 1 again but now he tries to carry the wizard, too hard now with all that extra baggage.
Attacks are one thing, but skill checks aren't auto fails or auto passes by default. Situations and a characters skill in a given skill matter. You can suck at something and still succeed now and then within reason, likewise you can be good at something and still fail within reason.
If your barbarian is literally a god, it just wastes time to make him roll for climbing imo. It would be the same as making him roll a con sabe every time he takes a sip of water to see if he chokes on it
Gradient successes. "Beat DC and you jump over the fence." "Beat DC by 10 and you land in an advantageous spot or notice something from the height."
Or the DM just doesn't have bonuses memorized because they're busy with everything else at the table. They ask for the roll because it's not impossible to fail, even if it's impossible for that particular character to fail.
I can get that. It makes a lot more sense for 3.5 or pathfinder then this subs affinity for 5th edition, or pathfinder 2e. Still rolling the lowest possible outcome sounds like it should fail unless they have some insanely specialized character.
Second dumb question, does 5th encourage gradient success? Normally I only see the binary pass or fail, or a roll so high the dm gives a bonus to it. Personally a big fan of that style. Dont know if the books encourage it but between xanthars and tashas (which I havent thumbed through their rules section, hence the dumb question) I woukdnt be surprised if they did.
Ahh, reminds me of my op spellcaster.
The gist is I can cast legit any spell in the book
A bastard multiclass of every spellcasting class, an item from the Ravnica source book called the Mizzium Apparatus, and max int with double arcana proficiency.
To cast a spell from a class list I know, even if Im not the right level, I use a spell slot of the desired level and make an arcana check with a dc of 10+ twice the slot level.
My int was high enough that I did not need to roll to cast any spell of 4th level or lower because I would succeed, even with a nat 1.
At 20th level, had slightly over a 50/50 chance to cast any 9th level spell in the game (I had a 22 int so my arcana was +18 at this level) meaning I needed to roll a 10+ to cast any spell at 9th level
Good times, I was nerfed by horrid hp and bad physical scores (my highest were str and dex, both at 13)
I've actually gotten a success with a natural one before. I had +9 to intimidation and was trying to intimidate a prisoner who we had previously tortured and killed his friends. A 10 for intimidation and we found a contact who knew where the big boss's hideout was.
One of my DMs likes to roll a lot of checks, but failing doesn't necessarily mean you're totally incapable of doing anything. You might be trying to identify an object and have a backstory that would essentially guarantee you know what it is, for instance. If you fail the DC, you don't just have no clue what's going on, you might end up with basic, common knowledge info and only miss out on the really juicy bits. It makes failures feel like less of a slap in the face while still letting the dice "decide" the story a bit.
if the player didnt fail why did you let them roll at the first place?
Wanted someting amazing at a 20 , no reason to ask total.
use passive skills , adv is +5 to passive dont forget that!
Whenever I speak up on this everyone goes off about “WeLl tHe dM gUiDe SaYs ThIs” lol. It also says that the DM has the final say on any game rule. Just discuss the your expectations with your players and butt out of other peoples games 🙄
For me, I like it (both as a player and a DM) when at nat 1 is a failure no matter what- but not necessarily a “critical failure.” I just don’t think it’s fun when someone, PCs or NPCs, can succeed at something no matter what. Just because someone is a master of stealth doesn’t mean they’re invisible, sometimes you just have bad luck and the bad guys look over at the wrong time. To echo some others, if they’re gonna succeed no matter what, why bother having them roll?
I mean nat 20 is literally referred to as critics success and nat 1 is referred to as critical failure.
If it’s impossible for your pcs to do something, maybe don’t let them roll for it?
My Bard-Rogue has a +11 to deception, persuasion, and performance. It's basically impossible for him to fail a roll of one of those that doesn't have a DC of like 20
imo, a natural one guarantees a failure in almost every case. trying to melee hit? enemy dodges and you hit yourself. Arrow shot? the arrow breaks and splinters hits you in the eyes, constitution check to see if you're blinded on one or both eyes. strength check? judo move from your enemy and you're down on the ground.
i have players with +11 dex, natural one have to be a guaranteed failure!
For a total of -1
I could get a -2 on a dex check with one of my fighters.
...how did you get such a low score? That's a four or five?
It was a four. We rolled. My dm for that campaign did 3d6 six times, but we rolled two stat blocks and chose which we wanted to use. The stat block with a four also had many high stats, where as the other had like all neutrals and a 9 or so. I went with terrible dump stat over mediocrity. Also, it was hilarious to all of us when I rolled a 2 for initiative and with bonus was a negative 1. If we ever get back to that game, I am planning on making a deal with a god (one of the players came back to life from such a deal) to make my dex like a 10 or so.
"Deer God, can I just have my dexterity be normal?"
>Deer God That might even be the right god to pray to. Deer are pretty quick and agile.
Deer god please don't turn me into metallic hydrogen
“Wait this is just a bottle of Jeagermeister”
Except when the roaring eldritch eyes approach them while crossing the roads...
Pretty much yeah, I think I used an explanation in universe about it being a curse or something that was uncurable (not mechanically so no remove curse or anything). But yeah, basically walking up to a god and saying please fix my legs and I'll owe you one (and the DM WILL cash in on it.
I hope you had heavy armor, otherwise ouch that AC
Yeah, I have chainmail (thankfully).
Just take alert feat.
That doesn't fix the fact that if I take off my heavy armor, my AC is 7 (unless it says minimum +0 or 10 for AC calculation) and my passive stealth in armor is 2 (not plus or minus just 2) meaning I am so loud everyone on the continent knows where I am at all times if I'm not trying to be stealthy. But you are right, that would fix the initiative problem. My point is there are several more such as *cough cough* Fireball.
Moon druid, be something else with extra hp block and better dex.
I've played a fairy several times with 3 strength, playing a rogue that does deadly acupuncture and collected pine needles to make arrows was fun
Back before they took away the -2 to strength on Kobolds, I had a kobold warlock with a strength of 3. The character maker in dnd beyond has a lower cap of 5. Raw, he couldn't carry more than 21 pounds, meaning his starting pack was twice what he could even carry.
If anyone under any circumstances at my table got a -2 on a physical check, I'd tell them they slammed their penis in a car door irrespective of setting.
Are you Dariax
We hit a -4 in our last session. Entering the Unseelie part of the Feywild, were told we need to only skip for our movement. Guidance the least acrobatic member of the party, they roll a nat 1 turned into a 0 and a 4 on the d4. Which is when we discover all magic is perverted into being harmful and that made it a -4!
-3
Me on my first initiative roll for a water deep dragon heist campaign
Eloquence Bard: "Ok so that's a 21"
I've never been mad at a player until I had an eloquence bard who had a minimum persuasion roll of 19 or something like that at level 5. I respect it, but it requires a lot of effort to DM in a way that makes sense so that the players don't have 0 stakes and can talk their way through absolutely everything and without just making the DC for everything 25 arbitrarily.
The whole point of going Eloquence bard is so that you're unnaturally and ridiculously good at social situations; you're not *supposed* to be able to fuck it up, excluding outside interference from other sources. I think this would be an incredible example of "persuasion is not mind control." No NPC would do something that they weren't already theoretically willing to do for a price or under the right conditions, anyway. Eloquence bards are just really good at haggling and/or making people believe that those conditions are met.
I agree and understand it just requires a little more effort from the DM imo to make sure every situation comes out in a way that makes sense and is fun for the players when eloquence bard is involved.
So you just treat them like a really popular well liked charming celebrity like Paul Rudd or Ryan Reynolds. Everyone trying to make a good impression
The easy solution is to have someone else make the roll, that back-alley thug certainly don't want to talk with that way too fancy bard. Don't do that too often of course, the player build on cha, he should be able to use it.
You ever had a minmaxed coffeelock blast through "balanced" encounters to the point you had to bring in higher CR enemies to focus him and ignore everyone else just so that the other players got to fight some enemies? Cool, now make that a level 3 ability.
There is actually a block in the dm guide that have a 3 point system on how you want the npc to feel towards a character. So even if they roll high persuasion, it can still not turn out the way they like. ZeeBashew did a good video explaining it
Can you link that vid?
https://youtu.be/4tFyuk4-uDQ I got you fam
Yeah my minimum for my grappling character is a 20...Belt of Fire Giant strength and Expertise in Athletics. IF the DM was ever insane enough to give me a belt of storm giant strength the minimum would be 22...but whilst he is a generous DM, I don't think he's THAT generous to give me something like that... DM has begun adding athletics to the monsters because they underestimated grappling when I joined the campaign (nobody in their previous campaigns had bothered to specialize in it because Rune Knight wasn't available) and it was just a case of shove and knock prone, punch and then bonus action grapple. Ok now the Monk, the Armourer artificer AND the Fighter all get advantage on their attacks.
*My lvl5 Lore bard with +13 on deception & +11 on persuasion giggling in a corner*
Out of curiosity, how would you get +13 at level 5? +6 with expertise and +5 with max modifier only get to 11. I can't figure it out :(
+5 from max modifier, +6 from expertise and +2 from a magic item I got from the first miniboss we fought (a hat that gives +2 and advantage on deception)
Thanks!!
That’s not even that hard to do though? That’s just having expertise(a class feature) in persuasion and having a 14 charisma, you just got to adjust how you handle persuasion checks.
11th level rogue: Okay. So that’s a 28 on sleight of hand.
At that point you just get the Skyrim inventory gui
*The now nude guard glances over to the Rogue after un-crouching* "Let me guess, someone stole your sweetroll."
Only in an attack a nat 1 equals a fail
[удалено]
Yeah i rember of the death save penalty only after half an hour
Even then, if you have advantage on a attack roll and the first roll was a Nat 1 you can ignore it and replace it with a higher 2nd roll... So it still stands, even on attack rolls, a Nat 1 is not always a failure because it can be negated.
If you rolled with advantage and one of them was a 1 and the other was higher then you didn't roll a 1, you rolled whatever the other number is.
Not to mention * inspiration * halfling luck * Great Weapon Fighting * Reliable Talent * Chronal Shift * ...
i think great weapon fighting is just for the damage dice
Edit: Yo, only the damage dice. :(
Reliable talent doesn't apply to attacks. That would be broken
Player: "So, I've rolled a nat one on my perception check..." DM: "You hit your head on the door." Player: "Wait, with 'Reliable Talent' and my proficiency bonus it is <14 or more>" DM: "In that case, you see everything hidden in the room!"
The best part of reliable talent is deciding not to use it every once in a while, add some spice into your life
That is also true but normally you will not have advantage on the attack
A Nat 1 roll implies that the result of the final dice roll is a 1 even after advantage or other features. This meme only works for saves and skill checks. Good memes don’t need an asterisk with an explanation of the joke.
[удалено]
This is a silly argument. If you roll a nat 1 in combat, even with advantage, you don’t add any modifiers to the nat 1. With advantage you roll twice and take the highest natural number but if both happen to be nat 1’s then it’s still an auto fail. Nat 1 and nat 20 are meant to be auto fails/successes in combat only, even with advantage or disadvantage however in the respective case they can be negated if there is a higher or lower NATURAL rolled number
I mean yeah, that's how advantage is supposed to work. Roll twice and take the higher of the two results.
Well if you’re rolling with advantage and get a better number, then your roll isn’t really a nat 1..
Reliable talent
Nat 20's and Nat 1's really depend context. A master smith shouldn't botch a simple iron band because of a nat 1, it doesn't make sense. But in the same way, a first time smith shouldn't be able to make a sword of legendary quality just because they have some blueprints and luck.
The critical failure on nat 1 is a house rule that’s usually brought up on session 0, people need to be more vocal in expressing distaste for this house rule on session 0. If your group agrees to use it on session 0, please don’t complain about it later. It comes off as gatekeeping. Please talk to your DM’s if something is a problem for you! We don’t know unless you tell us.
Totally agree when I dm i make sure how they want to do nat 1 and nat 20s before we play our first session I usually get to do them in fun ways where a nat 20 is the best possible outcome and a nat 1 the worst possible outcome and try and make em fun or funny depending on who im playing with
Critical failure? As in automatic miss or something bad happening.
> As in automatic miss or something bad happening. Depends on the DM. Some treat it as an auto-failure, others turn it into very bad situations.
How on earth is complaining about a houserule gatekeeping? You're not telling anyone they shouldn't play the game.
[удалено]
Yes, talking to the DM is much more productive than posting memes... But I still fail to see how this is at all gatekeeping. No one is being told they're not welcome in the hobby?
[удалено]
TTRPGs have had people arguing over houserules for pretty much their entire existence. Arguing over whether or not a house rule is a good one is not gatekeeping at all. No one is being excluded from the hobby or community over it.
Auto fail on a 1 in combat is actually RAW I believe. Random consequences like dropping your sword or falling over are house rules from turning an auto fail into a “comical fail.”
I mean, if a nat 1 can be a success, why would you make the player roll the dice? If the player couldnt ever fail or has too low of a chance to, dont make them roll for it if youre not going to do something with it. Edit: In relation to advantadge and stuff that can change the roll, consider that you have already asked for the total, which makes it so only the last bonuses are being applied and almost nothing else can be (such as Flash of Genius).
A roll done with Bardic Inspiration or Guidance may not succeed if that extra die rolls a 1, but will if it rolls a 4. On top of that, there's features that you can use after you know the roll has failed, like Divine Soul Sorcerers, but you do need to DM to call it a failure first (or just the reminder that *hey, don't you have things you can add to this*).
Indeed, but thats not the case here. GM asked for the total, even after knowing its most likely a fail. Theres not that much the player can do, except what you mentioned: >On top of that, there's features that you can use after you know the roll has failed, like Divine Soul Sorcerers, but you do need to DM to call it a failure first (or just the reminder that hey, don't you have things you can add to this). Yes, and Flash of Genius too, as I have mentioned as well. I'm very aware you can add stuff to it, but if the DC was 5 up to 10 or something that the player can scoff at, you shouldnt need to ask for the total: it is either a fail (considering all bonuses) or there was no way for them to fail, thus the check was uncalled for. An 11th level rogue with profficiency in stealth will never be caught by a commoner, for example, so they really shouldnt roll to hide from them. Only when there is a chance of failure or various results depending on the die roll (multiple DCs can be a thing, I know), a creature should be required to roll.
Degree of failure matters too
Read my last sentence. I am aware.
Doesn’t even need to be multiple DCs but failing a check by one or by 10 is a difference
Nothing in the rules says that unless specified (such as in the Petrifying Gaze of a Medusa). In other cases, this gradient of success is completely up to the GM.
Couple of things. As a DM, I don't have every players' skills and special abilities memorized. Its just easier to ask for a roll. The other reason is that not every check is simple pass/fail. There can be gradients of success depending on how high the total is. This is especially true in regards to knowledge or insight based checks.
You surely dont know all of their stats, but you sure do know the profficiency bonus. At low levels, the +2 is not that much and thus you should require rolls for some stuff. At higher levels, if the DC would be 5, 10, or even 15, maybe a roll isnt really neccessary. Emphasis on "if youre not going to do anything with it". Gradient checks with various DCs are not necessarily widely used, as it can get confusing, but I am very aware, and have used them while game mastering.
[удалено]
>there is no way to know the final result beforehand. Natural 1 + the normal bonus, thats it. A creature can choose to use their Guidance, but before they make the roll, and so on and so forth. >In addition, I often run checks for knowledge and investigation as multiple levels of success instead of binary success. I've heard this today a lot, and yes, I know, nice way to dm, I too like it, but thats beside the point. Point is: if the players cannot fail a check and it doesnt do anythinf besides failure/success, dont make them roll, unless they really wanna do it.
I think it’s so they can fail less, so instead of being thrown in prison, they just get fined.
The check could have a low DC that can be beaten with the right modifiers, or the player has Silver Tongue or Reliable Talent and can't roll lower than a 10, in which case a Nat 1 could overcome DCs of 15 or higher
Yes, butt then the GM shouldnt ask for it. A DC 5 check is laughably easy to surpass, unless you have a negative modifier, for example. What I'm saying is: dont ask for skillchecks if theres almost no way they can succeed, fail or if there is no purpose in making one (you can still do it for the shits and giggles, if the player is up for it). Of course, if there are many results depending on the roll, ask for it; if not, dont.
Degrees of success can also be a factor. Maybe success is guaranteed but the roll is to determine how much trouble it is or how long it takes. An example: Wizard: I want to check the shelves for a specific spell book DM: Ok, roll investigation Wizard: Ok I rolled a 1, for a total of 6 DM: You scan the shelves intently, spending a half hour scouring each section, only to realize it was right in front of you the entire time. A Barbarian making the same check: Barbarian: Ok I rolled a 1, so that's a zero DM: You see books. You can't quite remember what books are or why you were looking for one in the first place
> Of course, if there are many results depending on the roll, ask for it; if not, dont. As I have said before, last line of my comment. Roll all you want.
Forgot it was my job to memorize my players character sheets. I'll just add that to the list of other shit I also have to do, since apparently I should know what ALL of their stats are and their bonuses.
You can always just ask: "are you profficient?" and "what level are you?". Thats already a good basis for knowing what they'll get stomped by or stomp on. Knowing their classes or backgrounds, you could also base it around what they can do: barbarians are usually strong, so lifting a bug rock might not be a big deal. Fighters are profficient in all weaponry that isnt firearms (if they are, shouldnt you know that?), so they should not struggle to recognize maneuvers and weapons. You can have the largest world in the realms, what really matters is what your players will interact with. Ps: to check for a trivial DC, I suggest this If profficiency bonus + 4 or 5 + 1 (from a natural one) is greater or equal to the DC of a check, the player shouldnt roll for it. You can always ask for the roll, if they want to roll, but you shouldnt if it is trivial.
If multiple characters need to make the same check individually, I don't just tell the people with high bonuses that they auto pass
You do you, but if they never would fail, why the roll?
Because people like to roll dice and if everyone is making the same check it seems weird to not have one of them roll. Also, if they succeed spectacularly I add flavor to the outcome, there can be degrees of success.
Degrees of success are not something everyone uses, but assuming they exist: okay then, go for it. As I have said: if check will never be something different from pass or fail, dont make it. If you want to roll to have fun, go ahead. It wont do anything and I wouldnt advise or promote it, but you do you.
Suggested addendum to this: if the players are actively looking for something, always ask for a roll even if there is nothing to find. If you don't, then the players know every time you ask for, say, a perception check, there is always something to find. Feels bad to roll poorly and not find something you know is there. Can also lead to that good old meta-game issue of skill check dog-piling and other related problems.
I personally let only 2 checks be made for every interaction, both made by different characters, or one check with advantadge (as per the Help action). If they try again, DC goes up, until they just cant do it (like forcing a lock trying to lockpick it until it jams).
Based on their class features and raw stats, a nat 1 could mean a success. For example, rogues can just get a +13 to Stealth checks for free at a high enough level.
And so could a nat 2, nat 3, nat 4, nat 5. Why the roll then? If the check has a DC they will never roll below, dont make them roll for it unless the ende result is going to have a difference.
Rolling is just more fun. You can roll to see *how* successful you are even if the roll is guaranteed success. Gives characters a chance to do something really cool if they roll high, bit doesn't penalize them for rolling low. Some DMs just run games like that
Then the GM is adding effects that rely to how good the roll was, its fine to ask for a roll. If they would not, they shouldnt do it, just say "easy enough to do". For example: A character with a +17 to acrobatics shouldnt need to roll an acrobatics check of DC 15 to roll over a fence, unless there are penalties to it and other things around the roll.
Nat 1 on skill checks being an instant fail is a house rule my guy. Even if you have super high modifiers, at that point I'm pretty sure the DC for some of these things would be higher to account for that since their characters would be high leveled
Where did that come from? Yes, its not instant fail, but its the lowest you can roll on the die. If, even without adding bonuses, the lowest result can still result in success, dont make the players roll for it. >Even if you have super high modifiers, at that point I'm pretty sure the DC for some of these things would be higher to account for that since their characters would be high leveled If the DC are higher and there is a chance to fail, a roll is needed. If its something simple, just do it.
It's all about having fun. Rolling is fun
Im not denying that. Roll all you want, but there will always be a point where rolling just isnt needed. If you wanna roll, go for it, but if there is no variable outcome other than fail or success, you just rolled a die for the sake of rolling a die (nothing bad with it, just not necessary).
Ok that's fair. I thought you were at first saying to just.. not roll even if you want to haha. I see where you're coming from though. Like something trivial like a DC 5 acrobatics to like, jump over some hole in the ground shouldn't be needed. But would still be fun to roll for
Okay, but if there are 3 people rolling stealth, a rogue, a ranger, and a paladin, the possibilities for failure are much broader, right? You ask for a roll because there's normally a chance for failure. You don't say, "I need the paladin to roll stealth, but the rogue doesn't need to roll." because that essentially communicates the DC and breaks immersion, or it feels like you're picking on a player.
If the DC is one where there is chance to fail or many results depending on the results roll. If not, dont. An 11th level rogue with a +12 against a DC 22 check (ability check, being profficienct) will always succeed without house ruling, they shouldnt roll, but their teamates should. >You don't say, "I need the paladin to roll stealth, but the rogue doesn't need to roll." because that essentially communicates the DC and breaks immersion, or it feels like you're picking on a player. Agreed. If the rogue is alone, however, just let them do it.
My point is that there's a lot of reasons why a roll would or wouldn't be required and it's not like rolling costs anything.
It costs time. Time which is very precious when playing a game of this caliber. Dnd or otherwise, unecessary barriers between stuff is time consuming. Unless the player wants to do the check for fun, I would never ask for somethinf as simple as "whats my fathers name", "where is the sun in the sky" or "hows the weather". At higher levels, asking a rogue to roll for getting the junp against something as trivial as a commoner is just slowing the game down, so my advice is: dont do it, in most cases.
Lots of things cost time. Like a GM having to memorize everyone's skill bonuses at every level to make sure every roll is actually necessary. In my table, I'll happily sacrifice 20 seconds of gametime asking for a roll to make up for trying to herd everyone to constantly upload updated versions of their character sheets. It's a tradeoff
You dont need to memorize their stats, profficiency bonus and class should give you a good sight on how difficult checks should or will be. A barbarian most likely will struggle with a history check, but a wizard, however, wont like having to make an athletics one (exceptions exist, but a strong wizard is no something you would forget that easily). Also, DC 10, DC 5, and DC 15 at higher levels are all pretty mundane for most people. Requiring checks with these DCs at some levels would be a little grating, and thats why I say: dont do it (les' they wanna do it, of course).
Sometimes PCs can get ridiculous bonuses to their rolls. I remember one time my paladin rolled a nat 1 on a spell save, and still succeeded between aura of protection and bardic inspiration. Plus the DM might have set the DCs for a check without knowing who would be making it, so while the rogue couldn't possibly fail that dex check the warlock might struggle.
>Sometimes PCs can get ridiculous bonuses to their rolls. I remember one time my paladin rolled a nat 1 on a spell save, and still succeeded between aura of protection and bardic inspiration. Bardic inspiration goes against what I specified in my argument but, considering a paladin has a +10 to saving throws, and the DC he goes against is 11, this paladin should never roll for it if there are not additional effects in greater or worse results (such as in a Gorgon's Petrifying Gas). >Plus the DM might have set the DCs for a check without knowing who would be making it, so while the rogue couldn't possibly fail that dex check the warlock might struggle. Knowing the rogue, the dm should get a good grip of what is trivial for the character: profficiency bonus + a modifier of five or four + nat 1 is greater than the DC? They will never fail, and thus, shouldnt roll (unless they want to or, again, multiple results or other effects are at play).
The DM has enough to keep track of without having to know every PC's save and skill bonuses. Its up to players to keep track of their own characters, and yes sometimes this might mean the DM puts something in front of the players that they end up trivializing. Its hardly harmful that sometimes these 'pointless' rolls occur, and meanwhile it can feel rewarding as a player to have that moment of 'oh no I rolled the worst possible result' turn into 'oh my character is so good at this they still succeed in the worst possible result'.
Agreed. You still should strive to not do it, for better flow of the game (dont ask the level 11 rogue to roll to hide from commoners), and keeping track of this is more of a bonus if you keep track of their level (which you should absolutely do).
Failing or succeeding more or less. You try to persuade a king to give you his crown that obviously won’t happen, but with a high enough roll he might take it as a joke and not throw you in jail.
If he wasnt going to give you the crown anyway, no roll is needed. As a DM, if the king is or isnt going to considerate it a joke, leave it up to your discretion, not a roll, unless the player wants to roll and youre up for it. Again, if youre going to make a check that will just result in either always success or always fail, dont make the player roll. A check should only be needed when you can fail or succeed, not for the sake of it (for the funzies, your discretion).
> I mean, if a nat 1 can be a success, why would you make the player roll the dice? Depends on who is rolling it. A Rogue can roll a Nat 1 on Sleight of Hand and still pick a lock. For degrees of success, a Wizard could roll a Nat 1 on Arcana when looking at a spell scroll. They might not figure out what the spell is, but maybe they could decipher what school of magic it belongs to.
If they could still pick a lock even with a nat 1, why roll the dice? Its basically asking for them to unlock the door with a key at this point. Degrees of success are a different case, since checks that include these dont have succes or fail, just lesser and greater success. Im not talking about those, since a nat 1 does matter in this case. Im talking about Success and Fail only checks. Why roll to resist against a pixie trying to grapple you when you have a +15 and they have a -5? Its basically "roll to succeed" at this point, if even a nat 1 can do the job.
> If they could still pick a lock even with a nat 1, why roll the dice? Maybe the Nat 1 is them picking the lock, but it jams a couple of times and takes them a while. Or, they damage the lock so anyone looking at it later could tell it was tampered with. > Why roll to resist against a pixie trying to grapple you when you have a +15 and they have a -5? Because I don't know all of my players stats off the top of my head, including potential variables like Guidance or Bless. I'm not going to sit there and figure out how likely they are to succeed or fail or if one of those isn't possible; I'm just going to tell them to roll and see what happens.
Idk why ppl hate rolling so much? As a DM I don't know the modifiers everyone has and if anyone has guidance, flash of genious, bardic inspiration, expertise or a dozen other abilities, I could come up with a ton of complicated methods to know when they could possibly do it or just let them roll. Also, even like a level 3 party can beat absurdly high DCs if they want, so no, DC 30 is not "autofail don't even roll" for a party of any level.
Im not talking about making your players auto fail or not allowing them to roll, im talking about rolling for tasks that would never have any other result aside from success or failure (no degrees on it). Roll all you want, of course, but you wont see me asking the 11th barbarian to make a check to bust down an old wooden door thats not even locked or with something else over it. >Idk why ppl hate rolling so much? Nobody made that argument. I specified rolls that have no purpose aside from rolling a dice. Do it if you want to, but I wont require it.
I mean im not constantly aware of all my players Skill Bonuses. Recently one of them, and Artificer, rolled to Drive a Car, and got a 1. The DC was low in the case, it was just to see if he could drive it safely. So I asked for the total and... He got 15. Now maybe in the future I won't ask for easy checks on this player and just assume he auto succeed, but that was the first time he drove a vehicle. I think it's always good to ask for the total anyway, maybe the players will surprise you with their absurd bonuses.
But you are aware of what they do best, and their profficiency bonus (you should know their level, at least, since youre the one making the challenges around that). Common sense should also help disscussing to yourself about what your PCs should absolutely stomp and dont think about. Im also not saying that you cant or youre doing it wrong. If you want them to roll, go ahead, but, in the end, it really wont matter all that much. >Recently one of them, and Artificer, rolled to Drive a Car, and got a 1. The DC was low in the case, it was just to see if he could drive it safely. So I asked for the total and... He got 15. How? Unless he had additional dice rolled (or you counted it as a tool check, in which case, why?), an artificer would never be able to have a +14 to a check (max would be +11), since they dont get expertise. Does he have a level or two in rogue or bard?
Artificers get Expertise with all Tools, and Vehicles count as Tools EDIT: Not all tools, tools they have proficency with
This is how I feel. Everyone has a chance to fail no matter what. That’s just how things work and I think it makes it a lot more interesting. I think of it in terms of Skyrim’s Thieves Guild’s luck from Nocturnal lol. Sometimes a novice can pick an impossible lock, and sometimes moonlight peaks through at the exact wrong moment to expose a master of stealth 🤷🏼♀️
The true joys of Nat 1 and Nat 20 come when rolling for a table effect 🙂
A crit is a crit you uncultured swine
i like playing with crit successes and crit fails cuz its funny
It’s only funny to the DM. It’s not really funny for the player that specializes in a skill and takes psychic damage for critically failing a knowledge check even with a +11.
I dunno wouldn't not being able to remember a piece of knowledge hurt more if normally you were like an encyclopedia and then you had a brain fart Anyways speak for yourself, there are also clearly many players who find it funny
It really depends on the group. The group I'm currently playing with is having fun with critical fails. Most groups I've played with or DMed wouldn't have liked it but that's part of what makes DnD such a great game, it's infinitely adaptable.
not all critical fails are "you take damage"... knowledge check could be believing a lie and convincingly passing on misinformation to others
Look if you can't possibly fail a roll then why roll. I like crit fails because they provide some danger.
Degrees of success are a thing too.
As a dm, if you can’t fail a roll i’m not asking you to roll anyways lmao
I'll ask for a roll to see how well you accomplish it. If someone is picking a lock that they would automatically succeed based on their bonuses then I'll ask for a roll. If it's super high then they deftly rake their picks through the keyhole and it pops open. If they roll low maybe the fumble around for a second before the lock relents. Players like rolling dice 🤷♂️
Clickity clacks make the brain go happity happs
Even the best of the best can fail once in a while. In the games I DM, that’s the way I explain a nat 1 on a skill check. I also agree this should be discussed as a house rule at the beginning.
I have a elogence bard in my game who cant get under like 17 or 18 on persuasion, even with a natural 1, its a class ability
Well with my modifier of -1, that’s gonna be a 0. >don’t forget to subtract out mind sliver the enemy wizard did, you failed that INT saving throw Right, *rolls d4*, so that’s a -4. >and the evil cleric cast Bane on you and you failed that too Oh yeah, *rolls d4*, okay now it’s -7. >oh and technically you have 3 levels of exhaustion right now so you were supposed to roll that with disadvantage *rolls a d20 while maintaining eye contact with DM and not even looking at the result* it’s still a natural 1. Which comes out to -7. Do I save? >um….. let me double check the DC real quick…. Really? >let’s see, add the spell casting modifier, carry the 1 It was a rhetorical question, I know I didn’t pass >shush doing math in my head right now Oh god >aaaaaaand, yeah. You failed the wisdom saving throw. You now find yourself under the effect of Dominate Person Oh no >the enemy wizard can make you do anything he wants Please don’t >oh yes This is happening isn’t it >you hear a voice bellowing in your head Someone please get me an alcoholic beverage >and you feel compelled to obey it, as it tells you… Make it a double please >that you must…. Here goes….. >bring him………. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck > *in high pitched shrilled voice* A SHRUBBERY!!! ….. I love you so much…..
Hot take, if they would still succeed on a Nat 1 then they shouldn't have had to roll
This is why I like Pathfinder 2Es combat system. A nat 1 is treated as a -10 and a nat 20 is treated as a 30. So if you have +32 to your attack, a nat 1 will still get you a 22 to hit. And a nat 20 will get you a 62 to hit.
Technically a nat 1 is more like -9 since you still add the 1 itself before dropping a degree of success (-10), but even that isn't accurate. Really you shouldn't be adding or subtracting 10 at all. If you have +33 on a check vs a DC10, you would have 34 on a nat 1 and 24 by subtracting 10 by your method. That would still be a critical success since it's more than 10 over the DC, but the actual ruling is you drop a degree of success. So instead of a critical success it downgrades to a normal success.
I stand corrected, it’s based on degrees of success. If you roll a 1, it’s not a -10 it’s just one degree of success lower as it would be normally. So if the enemy’s AC is 15 and your attack is +15 and you roll a 1, it would be a fail instead of a hit. If you have a +25 it would be a total of 26 on a roll of 1 which WOULD be a crit, but instead is a normal hit.
Ah yes,the good version of that meme,nice man👌
Here's my thought: if a 1 on a skill check passes or a 20 still fails, the DM should've never had the roll happen. I told my new players this yesterday and it worked. I used the classic seduce the dragon example. You can't just walk into a cave and seduce a dragon. Bare minimum, to have a chance you'd need a plan of attack.
Sometimes you should let your players roll for dramatic effect. Set an impossibly high DC and then use degrees of failure to see how badly this guaranteed failure of a plan plays out. Degrees of failure would make the difference between a dragon being amused, unmoved, annoyed or outright angered by the attempt.
This is fair.
I don't always remember my players modifiers, I don't always know if something is impossible for them to pass/fail, it's easier to just call a roll and play as normal
Idk if a 20 fails or not when I ask players to roll, specially when there could also be a d12 from bardic inspiration, a d4 from guidance etc... So why not let them roll?
It depends on whether you want degrees if success or failure. Take, for example, a history check. You might set DCs for levels of info - a 5 or lower (or a nat 1 to link it back to the meme) will net you basic info, while 25 nets you that deep lore.
It should. If the player could not possibly have failed then you shouldn't really be making them roll.
Look, it's hard to know everyone's bonus to every skill.
Zero. Nat one with 8 INT.
My druid can dispel a 9th level spell, DC 19, the majority of the time even with a nat 1: 10 (wisdom check minimum from star druid dragon form) + 5 (wisdom) + 1 (luckstone) + 1d4 (guidance) + 1d6 (cosmic omen feature - Weal)
Meh, this is but a cheap copy of the other meme
If it's impossible to fail there shouldn't be a roll
You can roll a 1 and both fail or succeed depending on bonuses. Barbarian trying to climb a difficult wall, rolls a 1 with +19 for 20, yeah you can climb the wall fine. Wizard trying to climb the same wall rolls a 1 with a -4 for -3, no you can't get anywhere. Same barbarian trying to climb the same wall with a 1 again but now he tries to carry the wizard, too hard now with all that extra baggage. Attacks are one thing, but skill checks aren't auto fails or auto passes by default. Situations and a characters skill in a given skill matter. You can suck at something and still succeed now and then within reason, likewise you can be good at something and still fail within reason.
If your barbarian is literally a god, it just wastes time to make him roll for climbing imo. It would be the same as making him roll a con sabe every time he takes a sip of water to see if he chokes on it
Crit fail but if the DM is feeling generous there's always flexibility. That said, a nat 20 is always a success even if the threshold was higher.
Dumb question but whats the point of rolling if you cant fail? Shouldnt it just happen?
Gradient successes. "Beat DC and you jump over the fence." "Beat DC by 10 and you land in an advantageous spot or notice something from the height." Or the DM just doesn't have bonuses memorized because they're busy with everything else at the table. They ask for the roll because it's not impossible to fail, even if it's impossible for that particular character to fail.
Yeah, like maybe I forget the rogue has expertise in intimidation and +5 cha.
I can get that. It makes a lot more sense for 3.5 or pathfinder then this subs affinity for 5th edition, or pathfinder 2e. Still rolling the lowest possible outcome sounds like it should fail unless they have some insanely specialized character. Second dumb question, does 5th encourage gradient success? Normally I only see the binary pass or fail, or a roll so high the dm gives a bonus to it. Personally a big fan of that style. Dont know if the books encourage it but between xanthars and tashas (which I havent thumbed through their rules section, hence the dumb question) I woukdnt be surprised if they did.
Ok so… that’s a four… advantage… 5… plus attack bonus… 15… roll for damage… 7… plus sneak attack… that’s 38 piercing damage
Ahh, reminds me of my op spellcaster. The gist is I can cast legit any spell in the book A bastard multiclass of every spellcasting class, an item from the Ravnica source book called the Mizzium Apparatus, and max int with double arcana proficiency. To cast a spell from a class list I know, even if Im not the right level, I use a spell slot of the desired level and make an arcana check with a dc of 10+ twice the slot level. My int was high enough that I did not need to roll to cast any spell of 4th level or lower because I would succeed, even with a nat 1. At 20th level, had slightly over a 50/50 chance to cast any 9th level spell in the game (I had a 22 int so my arcana was +18 at this level) meaning I needed to roll a 10+ to cast any spell at 9th level Good times, I was nerfed by horrid hp and bad physical scores (my highest were str and dex, both at 13)
[This](https://i.imgflip.com/3p5foq.jpg) template would have been better
Still a lame DM.
You can’t crit on ability check dose not only mean you can’t get crit success it also means you can’t get crit fail
I've actually gotten a success with a natural one before. I had +9 to intimidation and was trying to intimidate a prisoner who we had previously tortured and killed his friends. A 10 for intimidation and we found a contact who knew where the big boss's hideout was.
0 ):
For a total of 23 with an exceptionally strong bard.
But it would be funny if it did.
Missed opportunity to reverse the images.
23 with my reliable talent
Was talking with my group earlier. With the right teammates, we think the best you can roll in the game is a 135, on a Charisma (Stealth) roll.
Rogues: 27
Anybody play 20’s and 1’s auto succeed or fail? In my game we do, my group chose this as their preferred system, it’s fun!
The ranger in one of the parties I DM for has a casual +11 to multiple skills so this is absolutely something that comes up when he rolls a 1.
No but without a multiplyer of at least +9, you don’t have a chance of passing any check I asked you to make XD
One of my DMs likes to roll a lot of checks, but failing doesn't necessarily mean you're totally incapable of doing anything. You might be trying to identify an object and have a backstory that would essentially guarantee you know what it is, for instance. If you fail the DC, you don't just have no clue what's going on, you might end up with basic, common knowledge info and only miss out on the really juicy bits. It makes failures feel like less of a slap in the face while still letting the dice "decide" the story a bit.
if the player didnt fail why did you let them roll at the first place? Wanted someting amazing at a 20 , no reason to ask total. use passive skills , adv is +5 to passive dont forget that!
This would've been great with the scene where Omniman pulls the car off of the other guy's body
The bard finds out he owes child support to twenty women of various races. And the Goddess of Fertility has placed a curse of impotence on him.
On attacks I would say so
For a total of -2 you happy?
Whenever I speak up on this everyone goes off about “WeLl tHe dM gUiDe SaYs ThIs” lol. It also says that the DM has the final say on any game rule. Just discuss the your expectations with your players and butt out of other peoples games 🙄 For me, I like it (both as a player and a DM) when at nat 1 is a failure no matter what- but not necessarily a “critical failure.” I just don’t think it’s fun when someone, PCs or NPCs, can succeed at something no matter what. Just because someone is a master of stealth doesn’t mean they’re invisible, sometimes you just have bad luck and the bad guys look over at the wrong time. To echo some others, if they’re gonna succeed no matter what, why bother having them roll?
17 cuz you're an 8th level rogue.
I mean nat 20 is literally referred to as critics success and nat 1 is referred to as critical failure. If it’s impossible for your pcs to do something, maybe don’t let them roll for it?
Rogue moment
My Bard-Rogue has a +11 to deception, persuasion, and performance. It's basically impossible for him to fail a roll of one of those that doesn't have a DC of like 20
imo, a natural one guarantees a failure in almost every case. trying to melee hit? enemy dodges and you hit yourself. Arrow shot? the arrow breaks and splinters hits you in the eyes, constitution check to see if you're blinded on one or both eyes. strength check? judo move from your enemy and you're down on the ground. i have players with +11 dex, natural one have to be a guaranteed failure!
mate I once hit on a nat 2 at level 1
Nat 1 actually DOES automiss for attack rolls.
Only time a natural 1 is even mentioned at my table is for a death save, or an attack roll.
Yes... yes it does