Open-ended die rolls in D&D 5e?

[jjordan]

Has anyone experimented with replacing criticals with open-ended dice rolls in D&D? What was your experience?

Example, instead of 1 being an automatic failure and 20 being an automatic success when you roll these numbers you'd roll again and subtract the second roll from the first (when you rolled a 1) or add the second roll to the first (if you rolled a 20). The DM uses the amount you exceeded your target number by (or failed to exceed it by) to determine the degree of your success. You can set this in a table or tables or just improvise.

[Zhorn]

so... pretty much a crit/fumble table but with extra math instead of rolling directly?

If you haven't had a crit/fumble table before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKg2_XK3ijs

[jjordan]

so... pretty much a crit/fumble table but with extra math instead of rolling directly?

If you haven't had a crit/fumble table before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKg2_XK3ijs
Yes, and no. Open ended rolls take away the 1=failure, 20=success mechanic. If you exceed the target number by a lot then you do really well and if you miss it by a lot then you fail really badly. It allows for a broader spectrum of success/failure.

Thanks for posting the video. I enjoyed watching it but it doesn't really answer my question. He's describing a crit/fumble table based on the 1/20 fail/crit dynamic, not open-ended rolling. I'm wondering if anyone has worked with open ended rolls and how it worked for them. Did it provide more flexibility? Was it fun? Did it bog down the game? Did players like it? Did they like it? And etc...

[Zhorn]

Ok, just trying to understand the exact nature of the mechanic you're suggesting.

My first interpretation was (excluding modifiers):
Roll natural 1; new roll 1 - 1d20; consult table from 0 to -19 for results
Roll natural 20; new roll 20 + 1d20; consult table from 21 to 40 for results
which is why I assumed it was just a crit/fumble table with an extra equation.


Second attempt at understanding (now including modifiers):

So lets say Bob (+6 to hit) and Alice (+7 to hit) both roll to attack a bugbear (AC 16)

Bob's 1st attack rolls a natural 6 for a grand total of 12: regular miss
Bob's 2nd attack rolls a natural 1 for a grand total of 7: miss, but also triggers a failure roll from the natural 1.
Bob rolls 1d20 as a failure roll: 17.
7 - 17 = -10, which comes to a total of -26 from the bugbear's target AC.
Consult's a table (or DM's fiat) to determine the magnitude of the failure.

Alice's 1st attack rolls a natural 10 for a grand total of 17: regular hit
Alice's 2nd attack rolls a natural 20 for a grand total of 27: hit, but also triggers a critical roll from the natural 20.
Alice rolls 1d20 as a critical roll: 15.
27 + 15 = 42, which comes to a total of 26 above the bugbear's target AC.
Consult's a table (or DM's fiat) to determine the magnitude of the success.

Is this closer to what you had in mind?

[jjordan]

Ok, just trying to understand the exact nature of the mechanic you're suggesting.

My first interpretation was (excluding modifiers):
Roll natural 1; new roll 1 - 1d20; consult table from 0 to -19 for results
Roll natural 20; new roll 20 + 1d20; consult table from 21 to 40 for results
which is why I assumed it was just a crit/fumble table with an extra equation.


Second attempt at understanding (now including modifiers):

So lets say Bob (+6 to hit) and Alice (+7 to hit) both roll to attack a bugbear (AC 16)

Bob's 1st attack rolls a natural 6 for a grand total of 12: regular miss
Bob's 2nd attack rolls a natural 1 for a grand total of 7: miss, but also triggers a failure roll from the natural 1.
Bob rolls 1d20 as a failure roll: 17.
7 - 17 = -10, which comes to a total of -26 from the bugbear's target AC.
Consult's a table (or DM's fiat) to determine the magnitude of the failure.

Alice's 1st attack rolls a natural 10 for a grand total of 17: regular hit
Alice's 2nd attack rolls a natural 20 for a grand total of 27: hit, but also triggers a critical roll from the natural 20.
Alice rolls 1d20 as a critical roll: 15.
27 + 15 = 42, which comes to a total of 26 above the bugbear's target AC.
Consult's a table (or DM's fiat) to determine the magnitude of the success.

Is this closer to what you had in mind?

Yes. I incline towards DM fiat with the scale as guidelines rather than set in stone results.

[Composer99]

Apart from the exploding dice mechanic probably not being a great fit with d20 rolls as they are implemented in 5e, I'm inclined to think this won't end well for PCs.

On the one hand, any given PC rolls more d20s than any given monster over their adventuring career, so each 20 or 1 matters more for them - especially the 1s, if they threaten a PC's well-being.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, monsters and NPCs usually are meant to have a short time on stage, so to speak, usually being defeated or interacted with once over a short interval, so their 1s don't matter as much. But especially in combat, their 20s matter all the more, because as an aggregate they roll far more dice than the PCs do.

[Zhorn]

Yes. I incline towards DM fiat with the scale as guidelines rather than set in stone results.

Ahk, good to know I now have a grasp what you meant by extended rolls

What kind of results did you have in mind to the degrees of success/failure?

[jjordan]

Ahk, good to know I now have a grasp what you meant by extended rolls

What kind of results did you have in mind to the degrees of success/failure? Part of me thinks there should simply be a scale of success/failure that characterizes the degree of success so the DM can make the call. But I also like having suggestions the DM can draw on as in the critical chart in the video.
Lose footing and spend the rest of your turn recovering (no bonus actions)
No reactions while you're recovering
Take a -5 on initiative next round
Drop your weapon
Damage your weapon

And so on. I'd probably try to include other, non-combat examples, to account for non-combat actions/interactions.

But while this allows for a greater scope of story-telling it seems like it could slow down the game and might not be worth the tradeoff.

[Zhorn]

Some big advice that was given to me (that I didn't fully appreciate until I was a player in a game that used it) is to not have fumbles that rob players of their action economy.
As a result of crits on targets, that is much more palatable. An enemy winding a player with a gut punch , preventing the player's reaction or bonus action this round, feels more fair than one of their own rolls inflicting a negative consequence that robs them of agency on their own turn.

It might seem like the end result is the same, but when it happens and as the result of who's roll it is can be a huge difference between an entertaining obstacle versus a fun killing hindrance.

It's one of the reasons I dropped fumble rolls from my games. I moved everything over to a harsh crit table, and players have been enjoying it even when it gets used against them because it doesn't rob them of agency over their own turn.

[jjordan]

Some big advice that was given to me (that I didn't fully appreciate until I was a player in a game that used it) is to not have fumbles that rob players of their action economy.
As a result of crits on targets, that is much more palatable. An enemy winding a player with a gut punch , preventing the player's reaction or bonus action this round, feels more fair than one of their own rolls inflicting a negative consequence that robs them of agency on their own turn.

It might seem like the end result is the same, but when it happens and as the result of who's roll it is can be a huge difference between an entertaining obstacle versus a fun killing hindrance.

It's one of the reasons I dropped fumble rolls from my games. I moved everything over to a harsh crit table, and players have been enjoying it even when it gets used against them because it doesn't rob them of agency over their own turn.That's a really good point. I'm not sure I'm going to take that advice, but I'm definitely going to consider it very carefully.