1 on d20 Attack [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Asmotherion

2018-01-12, 11:41 AM

This, as a blanket statement, is incorrect. That has been a popular house rule for decades, but it isn't a rule.
It only applies to attack rolls. A natural 1 is a Miss, regardless of any other modifiers.

RAW True.

However it is so incorporated in player minds that there might as well be an errata about it somewere in the future. I mean, I have never met a DM who said "hey, you rolled a nat1? you know what pal? today is your lucky day, everything went just fine". :P

It's the chance of epic failure that makes things more worth succeeding.

Tiadoppler

2018-01-12, 11:50 AM

RAW True.

However it is so incorporated in player minds that there might as well be an errata about it somewere in the future. I mean, I have never met a DM who said "hey, you rolled a nat1? you know what pal? today is your lucky day, everything went just fine". :P

It's the chance of epic failure that makes things more worth succeeding.

I'd rather have a DM who says
"Okay, that's trivial, don't bother rolling. You are able to climb the ladder."

instead of
"You try to walk down the street. Make an athletics check. Natural 1? Okay, you've had a heart attack. Start making death saves."

I'd say there's a bit of leeway when it comes to a specific ruling on concentration checks in battle, but it's okay for a PC to be awesome at something.

Tanarii

2018-01-12, 11:57 AM

I'd rather have a DM who says
"Okay, that's trivial, don't bother rolling. You are able to climb the ladder."

instead of
"You try to walk down the street. Make an athletics check. Natural 1? Okay, you've had a heart attack. Start making death saves."I would too, but only because 5e is fairly explicit the DM shouldn't be calling for that second roll in the first place. If an action cannot possibly fail or will automatically succeed, then don't roll the dice. And that doesn't mean "a rolled 1 could prevent it from automatically succeeding" either.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-12, 11:59 AM

RAW True.

However it is so incorporated in player minds that there might as well be an errata about it somewere in the future. I mean, I have never met a DM who said "hey, you rolled a nat1? you know what pal? today is your lucky day, everything went just fine". :P

It's the chance of epic failure that makes things more worth succeeding.

Your anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
A natural 1 is not an automatic failure.
A natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic miss.
A natural 1 under any other circumstances results in you adding or subtracting the modifier and comparing it to the DC to determine success or failure.

Same thing goes for a nat20.
Attack roll = auto-hit.
Any other roll = add/subtract mods and compare to DC to determine success/failure.

Just because many DMs house rule it, and have done so for years, does not make it a rule, nor does it mean that "there might as well be an errata about it."

Ninja_Prawn

2018-01-12, 12:23 PM

Is your house rule that, nope, there is always at least 1/20 chance minor damage will break concentration?

Yes, I am in favour of that.

Edit: and, yes, 5% chance to retain concentration against massive damage. Because that's super heroic!

Millstone85

2018-01-12, 12:36 PM

Yes, I am in favour of that.And 1/20 to maintain concentration too?

Tiadoppler

2018-01-12, 12:37 PM

Yes, I am in favour of that.

I see the point, and I understand the reasoning, but personally I would not choose to do so in my games. If a wizard player has focused heavily on making concentration checks, I'd accept that as a character trait. They've created a character that can, through sheer willpower and toughness, ignore pain and injury in the name of supporting their friends in battle no matter the cost to themselves.

Strangways

2018-01-12, 12:43 PM

If I roll 1 on d20 and still pass the enemy's AC, do I hit?

In Fifth Edition, a “1” on an attack roll is an automatic miss, regardless of modifiers, per this quote from the Combat section of the Players Handbook “If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.” Similarly, a 20 on the die automatically hits, regardless of modifiers or the target’s AC.

Note that this does not apply to ability checks, where a “1” might be sufficient to succeed if your skill is high enough or the DC low enough, nor does it apply to saving throws.

Also, if you roll a “1” on your attack roll, there are some abilities that let you roll that attack again (e.g. Halfling Luck, the Lucky Feat, Arcane Archer’s Curved Shot etc.) and the rerolled attack might succeed.

Asmotherion

2018-01-16, 05:07 PM

I'd rather have a DM who says
"Okay, that's trivial, don't bother rolling. You are able to climb the ladder."

instead of
"You try to walk down the street. Make an athletics check. Natural 1? Okay, you've had a heart attack. Start making death saves."

I'd say there's a bit of leeway when it comes to a specific ruling on concentration checks in battle, but it's okay for a PC to be awesome at something.

A Dm who asks for an Athletics check to walk down the street, without any good reason, probably has no idea of how D&D and Skill checks work. He probably thinks "hey, it would be funny to have the guy in full plate fall, so let's have him roll till he gets a natural 1" making D&D into some kind of Slapstic Comedy; That is really not for all groups, and a DM should be aware of that.

Your anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
A natural 1 is not an automatic failure.
A natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic miss.
A natural 1 under any other circumstances results in you adding or subtracting the modifier and comparing it to the DC to determine success or failure.

Same thing goes for a nat20.
Attack roll = auto-hit.
Any other roll = add/subtract mods and compare to DC to determine success/failure.

Just because many DMs house rule it, and have done so for years, does not make it a rule, nor does it mean that "there might as well be an errata about it."

Because, as you pointed out yourself, it was said in a light and joking tone (aka an anecdotal tone), accompagned by a smiley face. My point is that wile it's not RAW it's still a heavily used house-rule, and I've practically never met a group who does not use it.

No need to get that analytical over a joke. By RAW you are right. I still know I'm right by a vast amount of the comunity's house rules. I'm not sure how Adventure League handles those situations, as there are unfortunatelly no such events were I live, but I'm oppen to hear feedback on that as well.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-01-16, 05:23 PM

It's the chance of epic failure that makes things more worth succeeding.
Strongly disagree. Failure is one thing, but if, in the midst of an epic battle, my master swordsman accidentally chucks his sword across the room and hits a friend in the back, that's not an "epic failure"-- that's an intrusive, immersion-breaking slapstick moment that has NO PLACE in my generally-serious game. Failures are one thing, but I consider it an important DMing skill to be able to narrate them in such a way as to maintain the fiction of the characters. For example, a swashbuckler swinging from ship to ship on a piece of rigging and failing:

Bad: "You bonk your head on the side of the ship and fall in the water."
Good: "The rope breaks halfway through your swing, but you manage to turn your motion into a smooth dive at the last second."

Both lead to the same result (the player winds up in the water instead of on the ship), but the former makes them look like an idiot, while the latter continues to make them seem like a bad***.

Unoriginal

2018-01-16, 05:44 PM

However it is so incorporated in player minds that there might as well be an errata about it somewere in the future.

Hell no. If you want to houserule it, fine, but don't make it official.

Random epic failure/random epic success don't add anything most of the time, they're just jokes at the PCs/the NPCs' expense.

I mean, I have never met a DM who said "hey, you rolled a nat1? you know what pal? today is your lucky day, everything went just fine". :P

Should be "you rolled a nat 1? Doesn't matter, what is it with your modifier?" not "today's your lucky day".

It's the chance of epic failure that makes things more worth succeeding.

I disagree that this houserule provide that. The chances of epic failures come from attempting something epic with a big difficulty.

Not from "something goes horribly wrong because lolrandom".

Pex

2018-01-16, 06:02 PM

Your anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
A natural 1 is not an automatic failure.
A natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic miss.
A natural 1 under any other circumstances results in you adding or subtracting the modifier and comparing it to the DC to determine success or failure.

Same thing goes for a nat20.
Attack roll = auto-hit.
Any other roll = add/subtract mods and compare to DC to determine success/failure.

Just because many DMs house rule it, and have done so for years, does not make it a rule, nor does it mean that "there might as well be an errata about it."

Yay! We agree on something!
:smallbiggrin:

Asmotherion

2018-01-16, 06:43 PM

Strongly disagree. Failure is one thing, but if, in the midst of an epic battle, my master swordsman accidentally chucks his sword across the room and hits a friend in the back, that's not an "epic failure"-- that's an intrusive, immersion-breaking slapstick moment that has NO PLACE in my generally-serious game. Failures are one thing, but I consider it an important DMing skill to be able to narrate them in such a way as to maintain the fiction of the characters. For example, a swashbuckler swinging from ship to ship on a piece of rigging and failing:

Bad: "You bonk your head on the side of the ship and fall in the water."
Good: "The rope breaks halfway through your swing, but you manage to turn your motion into a smooth dive at the last second."

Both lead to the same result (the player winds up in the water instead of on the ship), but the former makes them look like an idiot, while the latter continues to make them seem like a bad***.

I do agree with this; Slapstick comedy is not apreciated when forced uppon a group by the DM. It can be fun in a one shot when everyone is on the same page, but if you have a serious campain going on, and your dm has your Character beat himself up every so ofter in a commic sence, you'll loose interest.

That said, I like realism, and having things going very grim make an adventuring career far more realistic. Rolling on a percentage and breaking the cord of your non-magical Bow (after failing a perception check for a small fall) for example is something both very realistic, and memorable that could happen during your adventure, and could represend a natural 1. It does not make you look stupid, instead it forces you to use a diferent weapon than your bow that might or might not be your default weapon.

Hell no. If you want to houserule it, fine, but don't make it official.

Random epic failure/random epic success don't add anything most of the time, they're just jokes at the PCs/the NPCs' expense.

Should be "you rolled a nat 1? Doesn't matter, what is it with your modifier?" not "today's your lucky day".

I disagree that this houserule provide that. The chances of epic failures come from attempting something epic with a big difficulty.

Not from "something goes horribly wrong because lolrandom".

I don't really see it that way. A natural 1 (like a Natural 20) is a chance to enhance game play with the aspect of realism. A small event reminding players their mortality.

Tiadoppler

2018-01-16, 06:45 PM

If a Natural 20 is an automatic success, you mostly benefit low level characters attempting things they don't have the skills to accomplish (a +4 Athletics against a DC 25, for example). For most higher level characters and specialists, a 20+mod would be enough to succeed anyway, without the automatic success.

If a Natural 1 is an automatic failure, you hurt higher level characters and specialists. A low level character would have failed anyway. For many higher level characters and specialists, a 1+mod might succeed without the automatic failure.

If you make a Nat20 an auto-success and a Nat1 an auto-failure at the same time:
You grant a small benefit to low-level characters attempting things that should be impossible, and you penalize higher-level characters and specialists for attempting relatively simple tasks.

This is why a Nat20 attack also has extra damage: to give an extra benefit offset the penalty for high level characters and specialists.

This is also why Skills and Saves don't have auto-success or auto-failure. Skills and Saves should not have a bonus for low-level characters attempting the impossible, and they should not have a penalty for high-level characters doing simple things.

It should not be possible for a -1 Athletics character to succeed at a DC 30 athletics check. It should not be possible for a +14 Investigation character to miss the bloody footprints on the floor. A DC 30 poison will kill a level 1 fighter, but a goblin throwing a rock will not break the level 20 sorcerer's concentration.

Unoriginal

2018-01-16, 07:08 PM

I don't really see it that way. A natural 1 (like a Natural 20) is a chance to enhance game play with the aspect of realism.

There is nothing realistic about randomly failing 5% of the time.

A small event reminding players their mortality.

I use monsters for that, typically.

TIPOT

2018-01-16, 07:11 PM

This is also why Skills and Saves don't have auto-success or auto-failure. Skills and Saves should not have a bonus for low-level characters attempting the impossible, and they should not have a penalty for high-level characters doing simple things.

It should not be possible for a -1 Athletics character to succeed at a DC 30 athletics check. It should not be possible for a +14 Investigation character to miss the bloody footprints on the floor. A DC 30 poison will kill a level 1 fighter, but a goblin throwing a rock will not break the level 20 sorcerer's concentration.

Hmmm, I've always played the nat 1's auto fail and 20's auto succeed for saves and attacks but not skills. It rarely comes up, but it's nice to give people a chance to resist any effect rather than them autofail. I agree it's silly to let an untrained wizard even attempt a ridiculous jump but having the fighter have a chance to resist the poison through shear heroic grit sounds awesome.

If the goblin actually hit's the sorcerer then I'm fine with it possibly breaking concentration. It really doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-01-16, 07:14 PM

Pelle

2018-01-16, 07:47 PM

Here's the best argument for not allowing natural 20s on skills to be auto-successes: If you line up 20 commoners at knifepoint and force them to try to jump across the grand canyon, none of them should miraculously reach the other side.

To be pedantic, in 5e natural 1s and 20s should always be fails and successes for skill saves as well :smallsmile:

If you can't fail on a 1, you can't fail on any roll, and shouldn't really be rolling in the first place. Vice versa for 20s.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-16, 07:48 PM

Yay! We agree on something!
:smallbiggrin:

LOL, there have been other times where I have agreed with you, I'm sure.

MeeposFire

2018-01-16, 08:52 PM

This, as a blanket statement, is incorrect. That has been a popular house rule for decades, but it isn't a rule.
It only applies to attack rolls. A natural 1 is a Miss, regardless of any other modifiers.

Decades? If you are going back that far you may have to amend you statement since in other editions a natural 20 or a natural 1 could be an auto success and failure on saving throws and ability checks (though in AD&D and the oldest versions of D&D whether a natural 20 is an auto success or failure depends on what exactly you are rolling since not everything was roll high for success in those versions of D&D). Back in those decades this would not be a houserule but the actual rules of the game.

PhantomSoul

2018-01-16, 08:58 PM

To be pedantic, in 5e natural 1s and 20s should always be fails and successes for skill saves as well :smallsmile:

If you can't fail on a 1, you can't fail on any roll, and shouldn't really be rolling in the first place. Vice versa for 20s.

I can't decide if this is brilliant (there aren't skill saves and so it's vacuously ok and saying "pedantic" is highlighting that) or something I disagree with (that person who rolls constantly for absurdities doing absurd things breaking the game in a way that makes it unfun -- not really a problem if players roll for plausible things or don't roll constantly for everything, though).

EDIT: Didn't think to check for white text... My comment still works though! ("Shouldn't be rolling in the first place" is exactly my caveat, though, so in practice it's all good.)

Grod_The_Giant

2018-01-16, 09:40 PM

Decades? If you are going back that far you may have to amend you statement since in other editions a natural 20 or a natural 1 could be an auto success and failure on saving throws and ability checks (though in AD&D and the oldest versions of D&D whether a natural 20 is an auto success or failure depends on what exactly you are rolling since not everything was roll high for success in those versions of D&D). Back in those decades this would not be a houserule but the actual rules of the game.
I don't remember 4e and can't speak for older editions, but 3e had natural 1s and 20s for saving throws, but not skills or ability checks.

MeeposFire

2018-01-16, 10:31 PM

I don't remember 4e and can't speak for older editions, but 3e had natural 1s and 20s for saving throws, but not skills or ability checks.

The really fun one was in 2e for the 1st set of psionics rules which essentially had spectacular success and failures baked in and were based on ability checks.

But yea different editions had different instances of auto success and failures for different things and they change over time.

As for 4th there were saving throws and I do not think they had auto failure on a 1 though since you needed to roll a 10 or better with no mods generally speaking it would be hard to pass with a 1 so mostly moot (hopefully I am remembering that right). As for what most people would think were saves (fort, reflex, and will) in 4e they were defenses which act like AC so it was affected by the rules for attack rolls.

Eradis

2018-01-16, 10:40 PM

Pex

2018-01-17, 12:58 AM

The really fun one was in 2e for the 1st set of psionics rules which essentially had spectacular success and failures baked in and were based on ability checks.

I remember that. Shudder. It was technically possible for a 3rd level character to Disintegrate something. He wasn't 100% successful in getting the power to work, but it was possible. However, if he rolls a Natural 20 he kills himself. Other powers were also roll a 20 to kill yourself, like Metamorphosis. 2E Complete Psionics was bad, very bad.

strangebloke

2018-01-17, 01:50 AM

JoeJ

2018-01-17, 03:55 AM

The obvious reason why nat 1's and nat 20's don't mean auto-success and auto-fail:

Roll enough, and eventually, you'll get a natural 20.

So every weak schmuck in the kingdom can break immovable rods apart of he has a spare minute and an ounce of patience.

Nat 20 auto success is bad. Nat 1 critical failure is often dumb.

That's why the more correct statement is that a roll of 1 or 20 always means failure or success respectively if you roll the die, but a roll is not allowed in every situation. The player does not choose when to roll; that's for the DM to determine.

noob

2018-01-17, 04:06 AM

I do agree with this; Slapstick comedy is not apreciated when forced uppon a group by the DM. It can be fun in a one shot when everyone is on the same page, but if you have a serious campain going on, and your dm has your Character beat himself up every so ofter in a commic sence, you'll loose interest.

That said, I like realism, and having things going very grim make an adventuring career far more realistic. Rolling on a percentage and breaking the cord of your non-magical Bow (after failing a perception check for a small fall) for example is something both very realistic, and memorable that could happen during your adventure, and could represend a natural 1. It does not make you look stupid, instead it forces you to use a diferent weapon than your bow that might or might not be your default weapon.

I don't really see it that way. A natural 1 (like a Natural 20) is a chance to enhance game play with the aspect of realism. A small event reminding players their mortality.

Also it is an additional incentive to carry three bows and three different melee weapons like most strong characters should.(even if you are super bad at using a bow having one is useful because you might find yourself more than once in a situation where you can not use melee attacks.)

Boci

2018-01-17, 05:38 AM

I do agree with this; Slapstick comedy is not apreciated when forced uppon a group by the DM. It can be fun in a one shot when everyone is on the same page, but if you have a serious campain going on, and your dm has your Character beat himself up every so ofter in a commic sence, you'll loose interest.

That said, I like realism, and having things going very grim make an adventuring career far more realistic. Rolling on a percentage and breaking the cord of your non-magical Bow (after failing a perception check for a small fall) for example is something both very realistic, and memorable that could happen during your adventure, and could represend a natural 1. It does not make you look stupid, instead it forces you to use a diferent weapon than your bow that might or might not be your default weapon.

No, the bow is broken whether or not I roll a natural 1 on the perception check, if the DM arbitrarily decides to include a system for a small fall nicking but not breaking the bow string. Organically that would be a DC 10 or 15 perception check to notice, pass or failure, shoehorning in natural 1 mechanics just makes it more contrived.

Zanthy1

2018-01-17, 08:23 AM

And 1/20 to maintain concentration too?

Concentration DC is not always set at 10. The concentration DC is half the total damage you took or 10, whichever is higher (page 203 of the PHB, bottom right under "taking damage").So you would rarely be taking so little damage at the point in your game with your +9 save, but ultimately I agree that if there is no chance of failure, then there is no point in rolling dice.

This also applies to making players make saving throws or checks that you as a DM need them to fail/succeed for plot reasons. If there is a hidden door that is opened by pulling a lever, don't make them roll perception checks to spot the lever (on the off chance they all fail). It is a waste of time, and annoying when the DM asks everyone to make a check, and then has people keep making them until someone rolls high enough. Its pandering and a waste of time.

strangebloke

2018-01-17, 08:31 AM

That's why the more correct statement is that a roll of 1 or 20 always means failure or success respectively if you roll the die, but a roll is not allowed in every situation. The player does not choose when to roll; that's for the DM to determine.

So:
1. The player has a one in twenty chance all the time.
2. Unless the thing is impossible for him (but not for everyone)
3. In that case he isn't allowed to roll.

That seems super pointless. He auto succeeds on a twenty but we only let him make skill checks where a twenty would already have meant success??

Wut?

Pex

2018-01-17, 08:39 AM

5E does tell DMs situations exist where there's no need to roll the dice. The PC can just do whatever it is he wants to do. Experienced DMs know this. The trouble is new DMs are not comprehending or remembering this. 5E does not advise DMs what doesn't need a roll. They couldn't possibly describe every single instance, but they could have given examples among the various skills to give the DM ideas to work with and reinforce the concept of not needing to roll itself. New DMs need the player to roll. They feel there must be a chance of failure for everything. DCs are whatever they feel like, so they can make it that there's always a chance of failure and can never accept the concept PCs are just that good. Players can not choose to Take 10 or 20 as another means to reinforce not everything needs to have a chance of failure. It has to be a specific class ability so only those particular characters can have some reliability on what they can do.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-01-17, 08:42 AM

That's why the more correct statement is that a roll of 1 or 20 always means failure or success respectively if you roll the die, but a roll is not allowed in every situation. The player does not choose when to roll; that's for the DM to determine.
The general RPG rule is that dice should be rolled when
A) The task is possible but not effortless, and
B) Failure has an interesting consequence.

The thing is, with fumbles and crit successes, both things are always true. Everything is at least slightly possible, and everything can fail in a significant fashion. And if you sidestep that, and say "well, I'm only interested in rolling where non-crit rules would give you a chance of success and an interesting failure"... why are you bothering with them in the first place?

(Particularly since this is 5e, where the d20 dominates everything. If you have a +8 bonus to a save, you're going to fail on a roll of 1 regardless. If you roll a natural 20 on a skill check, you're probably going to succeed at all but an Impossible task regardless, and certainly anything that you'd be attempting as a non-specialist.)

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-17, 08:48 AM

Millstone85

2018-01-17, 09:21 AM

The way I see it, the following concepts...
* a task at which a character can not fail/succeed
* a DC so low/high a character can not miss/meet it
* a task for which a player need not roll the d20
... are and should remain equivalent in this game.

By contrast, there is no AC so low/high an attack roll could not miss/meet it. This is a consequence of the natural 1/20 rule, and it shapes the way we think of attacks.

BeefGood

2018-01-17, 01:16 PM

I may not recall the page of the reference book for this one, but a natural 1 rolled for a death saving throw counts as two failures and a natural 20 counts as two successes. I am unsure if they refer to them as critical anything, but they sure are part of the official rule book (either the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Player's Handbook) and not put as a variant rule.
Not quite right. If you get a nat 20 on a death saving throw, you're back in business (albeit with only one hit point)!
Here's the quote from the Basic Rules. I'm pretty sure it's the same in the PHB.
Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw
and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you
roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point.

MeeposFire

2018-01-17, 02:07 PM

I remember that. Shudder. It was technically possible for a 3rd level character to Disintegrate something. He wasn't 100% successful in getting the power to work, but it was possible. However, if he rolls a Natural 20 he kills himself. Other powers were also roll a 20 to kill yourself, like Metamorphosis. 2E Complete Psionics was bad, very bad.

I think they made those rules really goofy on purpose as if psionics was to be a bit funny on default and allow for some weird stuff. If you look back in the book it has joking captions which is very unlike any other book at the time. My biggest problem was that AD&D psionics in general did not lend itself to any particular style of fighting outside of being "different". Its powers were a really strange grab bag of different abilities that did not lend itself to any particular style.

Doug Lampert

2018-01-17, 02:36 PM

Here's the best argument for not allowing natural 20s on skills to be auto-successes: If you line up 20 commoners at knifepoint and force them to try to jump across the grand canyon, none of them should miraculously reach the other side.

It's better than that. Line them up 200' back from the edge and tell them to jump to the other side. One of them rolls a 20 and makes it, the other 19 fail, and land well short of the edge, back up and try again.

Within a few minutes ALL of them make it to the other side safely unless trying to jump when there's nothing hazardous going on and nothing hazardous within 200' can kill you for no particular reason.

This can also be used to save on plane fare when crossing the Atlantic, just jump! Step into your front yard with your luggage, and hop toward England.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-17, 02:41 PM

And this, kids, is why we have rules about jump height and distance.

noob

2018-01-17, 03:08 PM

It's better than that. Line them up 200' back from the edge and tell them to jump to the other side. One of them rolls a 20 and makes it, the other 19 fail, and land well short of the edge, back up and try again.

Within a few minutes ALL of them make it to the other side safely unless trying to jump when there's nothing hazardous going on and nothing hazardous within 200' can kill you for no particular reason.

This can also be used to save on plane fare when crossing the Atlantic, just jump! Step into your front yard with your luggage, and hop toward England.

It would lead to death(unless you carry a whole lot of rations) because you are capped in speed so the jump would last enormous amounts of time

Pex

2018-01-17, 03:37 PM

I think they made those rules really goofy on purpose as if psionics was to be a bit funny on default and allow for some weird stuff. If you look back in the book it has joking captions which is very unlike any other book at the time. My biggest problem was that AD&D psionics in general did not lend itself to any particular style of fighting outside of being "different". Its powers were a really strange grab bag of different abilities that did not lend itself to any particular style.

There was one psionic ability I thought was cool, but it was never in 3E and didn't exist again. I forget the name (Relativity?) but the idea is you create a time bubble. 1 round in the bubble equals 1 hour out of the bubble. You can choose to be in it or out of it. Your actions are always in 1 round increments for whatever you do based on your perspective, but how much gameworld time passes depends on if you're in or out of the bubble. I don't recall if you're allowed to travel between being in and out of the bubble.

Spiritchaser

2018-01-17, 03:59 PM

Here's the best argument for not allowing natural 20s on skills to be auto-successes: If you line up 20 commoners at knifepoint and force them to try to jump across the grand canyon, none of them should miraculously reach the other side.

I don’t allow an automatic success on a 20.

If I did, I can easily imagine the warlock doing exactly what you’ve suggested...

Though even DMs that allow success on a 20 probably monster bar the absurd.

A few decades ago I tried having a 20 be evaluated as a 25. It kind of worked, letting natural 20s be special and powerful, but still limited

Asmotherion

2018-01-17, 06:31 PM

There is nothing realistic about randomly failing 5% of the time.

I use monsters for that, typically.

An adventurer's career is filled with harships. 5% chance of things going badly is quite realistic the way I see it, at least at the percentage of how often the DM makes you roll.

Something going wrong may be just as memorable as something that gave you a big success. I still remember from a campain long ago, when a wizard I used to play failed a climb check with a natural 1, and ended up in a river, loosing his spellbook in the process. He tried desperatelly to save some of his notes, but the pages were too damaged, and that was it! A lifetime of research had to go from scratch! And it was some of the best RP oportunity I had for a Wizard gone Tainted Scholar and falling to his own Depravity I've ever had, because of his mourning over his life's work and not being able to recall key aspects of his "Magnum Opus".

Psikerlord

2018-01-17, 11:27 PM

I like fumbles to grant the target an immediate opportunity attack. Or if a ranged attack, and an ally is in melee with the intended target, then reroll the attack against the ally. Simple and helps keep combat dangerous/unpredictbale.

strangebloke

2018-01-18, 12:10 AM

I agree that in combat a fumble could be interesting...

But even then, it sounds like the kind of thing where a DM might find it 'fun' to make you kill your best friend by accidently throwing your sword across the map.

JoeJ

2018-01-18, 01:24 AM

So:
1. The player has a one in twenty chance all the time.
2. Unless the thing is impossible for him (but not for everyone)
3. In that case he isn't allowed to roll.

That seems super pointless. He auto succeeds on a twenty but we only let him make skill checks where a twenty would already have meant success??

Wut?

Is there a chance to succeed? If so, than a roll of 20 succeeds. A roll of 2-19 might also succeed, depending on the DC. If there is no chance of success, then you don't roll.

That is not the more correct statement, because it simply isn't true.
A roll of 1 or 20 is not an auto-success/failure, with the sole exception of attack rolls.

Please give me an example of a situation where there is a chance of success, but a roll of 20 does not succeed.

Tiadoppler

2018-01-18, 01:43 AM

Please give me an example of a situation where there is a chance of success, but a roll of 20 does not succeed.

A roll which has a penalty applied by an enemy as a reaction. Not common, but not an impossible situation.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-18, 07:58 AM

That's why the more correct statement is that a roll of 1 or 20 always means failure or success respectively if you roll the die, but a roll is not allowed in every situation. The player does not choose when to roll; that's for the DM to determine.
That is not the more correct statement, because it simply isn't true.
A roll of 1 or 20 is not an auto-success/failure, with the sole exception of attack rolls.
Please give me an example of a situation where there is a chance of success, but a roll of 20 does not succeed.

If that were what you had said, then it would have been correct.
You said nothing about "if there were a chance to succeed," you just said a 20 always succeeds.
That is not correct.

If the DC is high enough or low enough, then one character might have a chance of success or failure where another does not. I don't know every character's modifier for every roll, so I don't know if success is possible in some cases. I only know the DC, and if success is possible in general. So more often than not, a roll is required, even if there is no real chance of success or failure (which there almost ALWAYS is because of Bounded Accuracy).
So a 20 is not an auto-success, unless you're rolling to attack.

Laurefindel

2018-01-18, 10:15 AM

The general RPG rule is that dice should be rolled when
A) The task is possible but not effortless, and
B) Failure has an interesting consequence.

The thing is, with fumbles and crit successes, both things are always true. Everything is at least slightly possible, and everything can fail in a significant fashion.

I respectfully disagree.

Considering that fumble = failure regardless of total with no further consequences, and crit success= success regardless of total with no further benefits, it simply means that once the DM ruled that a roll is in order, everyone has a chance to succeed, and everyone has a chance to fail.

Note that failing on a check means failing at the task at hand, not getting screwed in the worst of ways. For example, in a chase, failing on a STR (athletics) check while climbing does not have to mean a fall, it just means that you have fail to catch up to /escape from your opponent.

Otherwise I agree with you that with bounded accuracy, 1s and 20s are failures and successes most of the time, but features and conditions like expertise or adv./disadv. can also make auto-fail/auto-succes a pertinent tool.

Personally, I believe that if a roll is called, failure and success should be possible outcome. I'm more ambivalent about saves since those are mandatory, not subject to the judgement of the DM.

'finder

Pex

2018-01-18, 12:37 PM

I respectfully disagree.

Considering that fumble = failure regardless of total with no further consequences, and crit success= success regardless of total with no further benefits, it simply means that once the DM ruled that a roll is in order, everyone has a chance to succeed, and everyone has a chance to fail.

Note that failing on a check means failing at the task at hand, not getting screwed in the worst of ways. For example, in a chase, failing on a STR (athletics) check while climbing does not have to mean a fall, it just means that you have fail to catch up to /escape from your opponent.

Otherwise I agree with you that with bounded accuracy, 1s and 20s are failures and successes most of the time, but features and conditions like expertise or adv./disadv. can also make auto-fail/auto-succes a pertinent tool.

Personally, I believe that if a roll is called, failure and success should be possible outcome. I'm more ambivalent about saves since those are mandatory, not subject to the judgement of the DM.

'finder

A roll can be called but statistically not necessary. My level 9 Paladin (really 8/1 Sorcadin) has +10 to Constitution saving throws thanks to CH 16 CO 16 Resilient (CO). A Concentration check is a Constitution saving throw. When I'm concentrating on a spell all individual damage I take of 23 or less I cannot fail the Concentration check even though I have to roll. For convenience of play sake I don't roll, but I technically have to.

A DM may call for everyone in the party to make a skill check. The DC is some number. Some characters can have enough of a modifier they can't miss the DC while other party members could miss it.

It's a rare accomplishment in 5E to autosucceed a roll you have to make, but it happens. The character is just that good. It's a feature.

ChampionWiggles

2018-01-18, 04:43 PM

I always love when people like to use the argument that something adds "realism" to a game that's in a world with dragons and magic that can literally alter the fabric of time. Indeed, I'm reminded that whenever I go into work everyday that almost any task I pursue has a 5% chance of either setting the place on fire or going so well that I get promoted immediately, regardless of my personal skill. But why not take it a step even further and implement scenarios that happen everyday?

Going down the stairs? Roll a d20. You rolled a 1? You trip, fall and break your neck and die.
Eating dinner? Roll. Rolled a 1? You start to choke on your food, suffocate and die.
Just got done running? Roll your 1 so you can have a heart attack.

In any case, to answer the OP's original question (which is supposed to be the point of this thread), yes you miss your attack, regardless of modifiers, if you roll a 1 on the die. (Reference Player's Handbook PG. 194)

JoeJ

2018-01-20, 12:58 AM

If that were what you had said, then it would have been correct.
You said nothing about "if there were a chance to succeed," you just said a 20 always succeeds.
That is not correct.

If you go back and look again at what I posted, I did make it conditional on there being a roll at all. Per the DMG, if there is no chance to succeed, or no chance to fail, you don't roll the die. That is, a 20 always succeeds because in any case where the DC is so high that a 20 would fail, there's no die roll; the DM just declares that the action failed.

A roll which has a penalty applied by an enemy as a reaction. Not common, but not an impossible situation.

Okay, I'll stipulate that one exception. Cutting Words can do this. Is there anything else?

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-20, 01:01 AM

If you go back and look again at what I posted, I did make it conditional on there being a roll at all. Per the DMG, if there is no chance to succeed, or no chance to fail, you don't roll the die. That is, a 20 always succeeds because in any case where the DC is so high that a 20 would fail, there's no die roll; the DM just declares that the action failed.

And if you go back and read the post you quoted, specifically the part that you edited out, you'll see that I already addressed this.

JoeJ

2018-01-20, 02:52 AM

And if you go back and read the post you quoted, specifically the part that you edited out, you'll see that I already addressed this.

You discussed how you handle it in your game, yes. But the fact that it's sometimes convenient for you to call for unnecessary rolls does not change what the rules actually say.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-20, 08:02 AM

You discussed how you handle it in your game, yes. But the fact that it's sometimes convenient for you to call for unnecessary rolls does not change what the rules actually say.

Whether a roll is necessary is not relevant.
Whether a die gets rolled or not is relevant.

seventh_soul

2018-01-20, 11:04 AM

My table rules that you take your level minus your con mod damage on a nat 1.

noob

2018-01-20, 01:38 PM

My table rules that you take your level minus your con mod damage on a nat 1.

On an attack or something else?
If I am hitting a small ring with an hammer do I harm myself on average one time every twenty uses of the hammer?

JNAProductions

2018-01-20, 02:00 PM

My table rules that you take your level minus your con mod damage on a nat 1.

So, as you level up, you take MORE damage from failing?

That's... That's really dumb.

JoeJ

2018-01-21, 03:19 AM

Whether a roll is necessary is not relevant.
Whether a die gets rolled or not is relevant.

You've got it exactly backwards. We're having a discussion about what the rules call for, not what does or does not happen at your specific table. According to the DMG, you do not roll for tasks that are so simple there is no realistic chance of failure, or for those that are so difficult there is no realistic chance of success, or for those where there is no important difference between success and failure.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-21, 08:43 AM

You've got it exactly backwards. We're having a discussion about what the rules call for, not what does or does not happen at your specific table. According to the DMG, you do not roll for tasks that are so simple there is no realistic chance of failure, or for those that are so difficult there is no realistic chance of success, or for those where there is no important difference between success and failure.

You're missing the point. Emphasis mine.

What you are saying is that every roll essentially needs to be calculated with that particular character's modifier and compared against the DC prior to every roll, and if a result of either success or failure is impossible then you do not roll.
That isn't what those rules are telling you.
What those rules are telling you is that if a certain action's DC would be so high or so low that success or failure would not be possible on the normal spectrum, then don't bother rolling.
I'm not doing the math every time before the roll to see if a particular character can handle it.

An individual character's personal chance of success is irrelevant to that rule. The difficulty of the task is relevant to that rule.

Contrast

2018-01-21, 10:35 AM

I'm not doing the math every time before the roll to see if a particular character can handle it.

I do see what you're saying but as a player I would be rather annoyed if my DM asked me to roll and then I rolled a 1 and still did it or rolled a 20 and still failed.

In fairness I usually announce my modifier before I roll which would give you the chance to stop me before beforehand without having to have memorised everyones character sheets.

DivisibleByZero

2018-01-21, 10:56 AM

I do see what you're saying but as a player I would be rather annoyed if my DM asked me to roll and then I rolled a 1 and still did it or rolled a 20 and still failed.

In fairness I usually announce my modifier before I roll which would give you the chance to stop me before beforehand without having to have memorised everyones character sheets.

And that's fine. But that's a very different thing then not asking for a roll to begin with when the DC falls in the normal range, based on the fact that you misinterpreted what a certain rule said.

The rule said that there is no need to call for a roll if the task is so easy or so difficult that there is no reasonable chance of success or failure, not if a particular character's skill makes it so. It's based on the objective DC, on the difficulty of the task, not on your relative, personal, and subjective chance of success or failure.

Consider a level 20 character with an 8 Wis.
-1 Perception
Now consider a level 20 character with a 20 Wis, proficiency, and expertise.
+17 perception.
If the DC is 20, that is normally a difficult, but attainable, DC. It is impossible for the former. If the DC were 18, the latter cannot fail.
In both cases, a roll is technically still called for, because the task itself is DC 18 or 20, which is not a task that is so easy or so hard that there is no reasonable chance of success or failure.

strangebloke

2018-01-21, 12:00 PM

And that's fine. But that's a very different thing then not asking for a roll to begin with when the DC falls in the normal range, based on the fact that you misinterpreted what a certain rule said.

The rule said that there is no need to call for a roll if the task is so easy or so difficult that there is no reasonable chance of success or failure, not if a particular character's skill makes it so. It's based on the objective DC, on the difficulty of the task, not on your relative, personal, and subjective chance of success or failure.
If you call for a check, the DC should be the same no matter who is making the check.

But whether you call for a check or not can absolutely be character dependent.

For instance, in my paladin's backstory she's been afflicted with visions of the shadowfell, specifically of a dragon who lives there. Of the party sees a shadow dragon, the wizard will have to roll knowledge, my Paladin won't.

Similarly, a bard might not need to make a perform check to perform a simple tune they've been practicing for weeks. A fighter who picks up an instrument for the first time might need to make a check to play the song.

A Goliath might need to make an acrobatics check with disadvantage to squeeze through a hole. A human might shoot for the same DC, but not have disadvantage. A gnome might not need to make any check at all.