Natural 20: Most Perfect Result, or Most Beneficial Result?

[igor140]

So, obviously there's got to be a sliding scale/ give-and-take on this at some point... but if a player takes an action that could not possibly ever succeed and rolls a 20, should the result be the entirely impossible thing that he wanted, or the most perfect possible result that could have logically happened?

Tonight, the party came across a locked metal gate. The rogue tried to pick the lock once, but did not succeed. I would have let him try again (unlike a stealth or perception roll, he would be aware that he had failed, and have the opportunity to try again), but he didn't.

Instead, the monk shoved a nail into the lock and hit it with a hammer, and rolled a natural 20 for the Strength check. My ruling on this was that the nail was then permanently jammed in the lock, and could not be removed.

Aaaannnddd this has split the party on whether or not this was how this should have been played. The monk's argument was that he was trying to break the lock, and his perfect roll should have given him that result.

My counter argument was that the action he took could never have possibly resulted in the outcome he wanted. He could no more open that lock with a hammer and nail than he could open his apartment door with a nailgun.

The ranger (who disagreed with me) then asked what would have happened had he rolled a 1. I responded that the result would have basically been the same, but his nail would have been driven through his hand and permanently stuck into the lock.

Another player (supporting me) likened it to setting a test on fire rather than writing anything... and doing a perfect job of burning the test. The action taken was executed perfectly, but that action could never have resulted in doing well on the test.

To make matters more ridiculous, the monk then tried to pry open the gate with the hammer... and rolled another 20! (Well... he rolled that like seven times before getting that 20, but whatever.) So I once again ruled that the most logical, most perfect outcome of that action came to pass: the wooden handle of the hammer broke off. Between the metal gate, the metal lock, the metal nail stuck in the metal lock, the metal head of the hammer, and the wooden handle... only one of those things could ever conceivably break. (They had already asked if the lock or gate were rusty or old, and I had told them they were not.) The worlds best-timed, strongest pull on that hammer could only have ever resulted in the hammer breaking.

Soo... thoughts? Was the breaking the hammer thing a step too far? (BTW, they're in a warehouse full of tools... he could open almost any random box and find another hammer.)

[Jerrykhor]

If there is no chance of success, there should be no roll, just narrate the failure or futile attempt (You spent minutes/hours trying, but nothing changed. You get the feeling its not the right method).

I had a DM once ruled that during a sparring match with an ally, my nat1 was a critical hit (result that i didn't want) instead of the usual auto miss. Though I'm not sure how he would rule the effects of a nat20.

[Greywander]

A couple things first: if the task is impossible, don't even let them roll, just tell them that they fail at the task. Second, ability checks don't have fumbles, so rolling a 1 is no different from rolling any other result that fails the check (unless your bonus is so high that even on a 1 you still succeed).

I'm generally of the opinion that a good roll should result in a positive outcome, but it's never going to produce an impossible outcome. If the action undertaken isn't going to result in the desired outcome, then the best result is that nothing of note happens. Using the hammer to pry open the gate and rolling a 20 probably should have resulted in no meaningful outcome. On the other hand, rolling low might result in breaking the hammer. Low rolls bad, high rolls good.

Let me put it like this: You should never, ever be in a situation where you roll a nat 20 on an attack and the DM rules that your attack is so effective that you behead not just the enemy, but also the party member standing next to them! Rolling well should result in good things, and it's going to feel like the DM is just screwing you over if they give you negative outcomes for a good roll.

[Elbeyon]

It seems like the gm is not giving the players appropriate feedback to their actions. The players seemed to be under the misunderstand that a hammer and nail would have worked. The gm could have told the players the action was impossible and not allowed a roll. By allowing the player a strength check to break the lock, the player would have rightfully assumed that success was possible. The dm saying the player fails harder on the best possible roll would feel like pulling the rug out from under the player.

The whole natural one means you stab yourself in the hand is also generally a horrible idea. Gms shouldn't punish players harder for a natural one failure more than a normal failure. Many players find that unfun.

[igor140]

Thanks for the feedback...

For the record, he never asked whether or not the nail-in-lock thing could succeed. He asked, "If I use the hammer, that's a strength check, right?" To which I responded "yes", not knowing how he was intending the use the hammer, but assuming he meant to try to smash the lock directly. He then just said he shoved a nail in there and then rolled the 20 unprompted.

More globally, had the scenario been different, or had he taken more time to think/ talk/ plan it out, I would most likely have ruled it differently. If he had proficiency or a background with basic tools (carpentry, smithing, etc), I would have told him that his character would have known it couldn't succeed. Had he stopped to ask the rogue, then the rogue (or me through the rogue) would have informed him that wouldn't have worked. He he examined the lock, I would have told him it was too complex to simply wedge open. He had already asked whether not it was rusty/ weak, and knew that the answer was no.

Instead, he just shoved the nail in and smacked the crap out of it. It was the metal gate equivalent of shoving a random fork into a random light socket while someone else is trying to figure out which light switch powers the socket.

[Greywander]

He asked, "If I use the hammer, that's a strength check, right?"
"Tell me what you're trying to do and I'll tell you what to roll."

Players aren't supposed to ask to make rolls. They tell you what they want to do, and then you, the DM, can ask them to roll, if necessary.

The whole experience sounds like it was frustrating for everyone involved. Hope you're able to sort things out, or at least that you and your table are able to learn from this so it doesn't happen again. Honestly this sounds like something that could be a common occurrence, even with an experienced DM, if it's with a table they're not familiar with.

[Droppeddead]

First of all, rolling a 20 on the dice doesn't matter one single iota except for when rolling for attacks, death saves and probably some other rare occassion that I have forgotten. Same goes for rolling a 1. The whole "critical success/failure" is probably something from older editions and/or Critical role.

So to give you the short answer, a natural 20 gives you the same result as rolling a natural 19, 18, 17, 16 and so on down to a natural 1, if the applied bonuses is enough to beat the DC of the task at hand.

That said, you can always use natural 20s (and/or 1s) to add some flavour to the situation, depending on if you succeed or fail. Rolling a nat 1 to pick a lock but since you are a rogue with expertise and it's an easy lock might still open the lock, but maybe one of your tools break or the lock squeaks so that a guard might hear it? Rolling a 20 when haggling for goods might have the storekeep throw in some worthless but fun item, just to get rid of them?
And also, vice versa, if you roll a 1 when trying to open a window stealthily (and failing to eet the DC), not only does the window squeak, the character also breaks a flower pot on the window sill, making the attempted entry obvious. Rolling a 20 but failing to persuade the cannibal halflings not to eat them might not be enough to have the halflings let them go, but it make the halfling chieftain think the character funny enough to eat last, giving them the chance to escape.

[Unoriginal]

As others have said, there is no crit success/failure for ability checks in the game. And if something is impossible to succeed or impossible to fail, there is no roll.

Also, if there is a miscommunication in the result of an ability check, or its imposdibility, it costs nothing to rewind things to before the ability check.

Out of curiosity, though, why was breaking the lock by hitting it with the hammer impossible?

[Rynjin]

This is the kind of thing I see from inexperienced GMs a lot, and it's always baffling to me.

Think a little bit about what a roll is meant to represent: an attempt at a task.

The task here was not "hitting a nail with a hammer". That is silly. The context of the situation makes it impossible to reasonably assume that was what was being attempted. It is the method by which the actual task was meant to be accomplished.

Imagine that the Rogue tried it first, using his thieves' tools. He rolls a natural 20. You...what? Assume he superbly wiggles his picks around in the lock? Supreme pick wiggling? Is that what's really happening?

No, he's trying to unlock the door. A natural 20 represents his absolute best attempt at unlocking the door, not just wiggling the damn picks around.

So too the hammer/nail in this scenario.

Feel free to say that the player cannot do such a thing and hope to succeed (though why you would I'm unclear on; does 5e not have rules for breaking objects?), don't try for this "exact words, gotcha!" stuff unless you want your players to get angry and leave, or turn it around and make your life a living hell by narrating in excruciating detail exactly what they're doing and how they're going about it for every millisecond of in-game time that passes.

[Unoriginal]

This is the kind of thing I see from inexperienced GMs a lot, and it's always baffling to me.

Think a little bit about what a roll is meant to represent: an attempt at a task.

The task here was not "hitting a nail with a hammer". That is silly. The context of the situation makes it impossible to reasonably assume that was what was being attempted. It is the method by which the actual task was meant to be accomplished.

Imagine that the Rogue tried it first, using his thieves' tools. He rolls a natural 20. You...what? Assume he superbly wiggles his picks around in the lock? Supreme pick wiggling? Is that what's really happening?

No, he's trying to unlock the door. A natural 20 represents his absolute best attempt at unlocking the door, not just wiggling the damn picks around.

So too the hammer/nail in this scenario.

Feel free to say that the player cannot do such a thing and hope to succeed (though why you would I'm unclear on; does 5e not have rules for breaking objects?), don't try for this "exact words, gotcha!" stuff unless you want your players to get angry and leave, or turn it around and make your life a living hell by narrating in excruciating detail exactly what they're doing and how they're going about it for every millisecond of in-game time that passes.

5e does have rules to break objects.

I personally rules that a Monk can damage metal objects bare-handed.

[Battlebooze]

I find this amusing, because brute forcing a lock mechanism is a totally legit way to open a lock. I know, in 5th edition there are no rules for that kind of thing.

If you watch lock pick videos, there are locks that are quite difficult to pick but can be shimmed or opened by jamming a screwdriver into the key socket with a hammer. Now doing something like this and failing would make it impossible to open without destroying the lock.

I don't blame the GM for not knowing this was a reasonable attempt, with a certain downside.

[Pandamonium]

My counter argument was that the action he took could never have possibly resulted in the outcome he wanted. He could no more open that lock with a hammer and nail than he could open his apartment door with a nailgun.

Soo... thoughts? Was the breaking the hammer thing a step too far? (BTW, they're in a warehouse full of tools... he could open almost any random box and find another hammer.)

Well I believe this is a clash between player expectations and DM style.

The player expected, since they got to roll, that they could succeed. And then since it was a 20 they expected a positive outcome.
You as the DM seem to allow a roll regardless of whether their intention is possible which I think is the source of the issue and not something I would recommend.
As previous posters have stated, don't let them roll if the action can't succeed.

You as the DM could, in hindsight, have asked before announcing the outcome to an unprompted roll what their intentions were and from there either stop the attempt or adjust the outcome from their intention. However I can agree to some degree that since they went of the rails so to speak and acted without thought you interpreted it in the way you did, players don't decide what to roll, they might ask if they can use a skill for outcome X and you might agree or not.

As a rule of thumb I think the intention of the roll is most important, in this case their intention and your decisions clashed with a poor outcome.

But you live and you learn :)

[Valmark]

So, obviously there's got to be a sliding scale/ give-and-take on this at some point... but if a player takes an action that could not possibly ever succeed and rolls a 20, should the result be the entirely impossible thing that he wanted, or the most perfect possible result that could have logically happened?

Tonight, the party came across a locked metal gate. The rogue tried to pick the lock once, but did not succeed. I would have let him try again (unlike a stealth or perception roll, he would be aware that he had failed, and have the opportunity to try again), but he didn't.

Instead, the monk shoved a nail into the lock and hit it with a hammer, and rolled a natural 20 for the Strength check. My ruling on this was that the nail was then permanently jammed in the lock, and could not be removed.

Aaaannnddd this has split the party on whether or not this was how this should have been played. The monk's argument was that he was trying to break the lock, and his perfect roll should have given him that result.

My counter argument was that the action he took could never have possibly resulted in the outcome he wanted. He could no more open that lock with a hammer and nail than he could open his apartment door with a nailgun.

The ranger (who disagreed with me) then asked what would have happened had he rolled a 1. I responded that the result would have basically been the same, but his nail would have been driven through his hand and permanently stuck into the lock.

Another player (supporting me) likened it to setting a test on fire rather than writing anything... and doing a perfect job of burning the test. The action taken was executed perfectly, but that action could never have resulted in doing well on the test.

To make matters more ridiculous, the monk then tried to pry open the gate with the hammer... and rolled another 20! (Well... he rolled that like seven times before getting that 20, but whatever.) So I once again ruled that the most logical, most perfect outcome of that action came to pass: the wooden handle of the hammer broke off. Between the metal gate, the metal lock, the metal nail stuck in the metal lock, the metal head of the hammer, and the wooden handle... only one of those things could ever conceivably break. (They had already asked if the lock or gate were rusty or old, and I had told them they were not.) The worlds best-timed, strongest pull on that hammer could only have ever resulted in the hammer breaking.

Soo... thoughts? Was the breaking the hammer thing a step too far? (BTW, they're in a warehouse full of tools... he could open almost any random box and find another hammer.)

Like others said a natural 20 (or 1) on a check means nothing at all beyond having rolled that number.

While I don't know wether that was a reasonable attempt or not (I know that a key left inside a lock effectively blocks it because I shut myself out of my house this way but I have no idea what hammering a nail does) you likely shouldn't have let him roll if he couldn't succeed in opening the lock- by making him roll and giving him a success that wasn't what he was trying to do it felt like you were cheating him.

Same thing for breaking the hammer- while it makes sense you shouldn't have had him roll if what he was trying to do wasn't possible.

The monk is tecnically correct- if you make him roll it means he can succeed, and rolling the maximum tipically means success. But from the sound of it it wasn't possible so a perfect roll means nothing.

IMO I'd retcon everything to when the rogue failed to pick the lock, unless the session kept going afterwards. Give them another chance after clarifying the argument. Otherwise just keep it in mind going forward.

EDIT: speaking of which if the rogue could just try again there's no point in making him roll either, unless it's something along the lines of 'you got x trials before somebody comes'

And even then I'd probably make him roll once to determine how long it takes, honestly. But that's personal preference.

[MrStabby]

The monk tried to break the lock. He rolled a 20. He broke the lock.

The player decided to hammer a nail into the lock. That was his choice - the much vaunted player agency. You didn't tell him it was a bad idea so he followed through on his choice.

Now it might not have had the longer term outcome the player desired but they succeeded at proving enough force to wedge the nail into the lock.




I don't think it is the job of the DM to shepherd the players into only those actions where success will be beneficial. If a player were to make a medicine check to stabilise someone who would become an antagonist and cause them harm, would a natural 20 kill them instead because that is the best outcome?


I think both you and the player need to be clear about what you are looking to do specifically. If it is a strength check I would be saying that the uncertainty, the factor limiting success is whether you can apply enough brute force to the lock to displace the metal inside and get the nail in. If it were a question of using your knowhow of locks to chose the right spot to hit or using your fine sense of touch to align the nail just right to hit a specific part then it probably wouldn't be a strength check. The roll that you ask for is a communication of what you see happening - and in this case the likely consequences of applying a sufficiently large force to the nail.



Now this isn't to say you should be an ass about it. Don't deliberatly misinterpret what a player tries to do for a cheap Gotcha moment. Likewise make sure that your descriptions of what is happening are sufficient to enable players to make good decisions - but if nothing else let a player who has int 8 role play an int 8 character who thinks hammering a nail into a lock is a great plan (how bad it is really depends on the type of lock).

[Unoriginal]

I find this amusing, because brute forcing a lock mechanism is a totally legit way to open a lock. I know, in 5th edition there are no rules for that kind of thing.

There are.

[Rynjin]

5e does have rules to break objects.

I personally rules that a Monk can damage metal objects bare-handed.

Seems pretty clear cut then; that 20 plus whatever check is required (presumably a raw Str check, like most other editions, unless it's Athletics or something?) and he "nails" it.

[Lunali]

I find this amusing, because brute forcing a lock mechanism is a totally legit way to open a lock. I know, in 5th edition there are no rules for that kind of thing.

If you watch lock pick videos, there are locks that are quite difficult to pick but can be shimmed or opened by jamming a screwdriver into the key socket with a hammer. Now doing something like this and failing would make it impossible to open without destroying the lock.

I don't blame the GM for not knowing this was a reasonable attempt, with a certain downside.

But all that is knowledge that only someone with the thieves' tools proficiency would have, anyone else has to break the lock to open it.

[GloatingSwine]

Soo... thoughts? Was the breaking the hammer thing a step too far? (BTW, they're in a warehouse full of tools... he could open almost any random box and find another hammer.)

If you put your players in a warehouse full of hammers, don't be surprised when problems start looking like nails.

If you're going to let them sit and bash on a door with a hammer over and over again with no consequences, just let them bash the thing open for god's sake. There's no reason not to allow it, you clearly did expect them to get through the gate because it was there (and you say you would have allowed a lockpick attempt to succeed), and there was clearly no consequence for them attempting a loud and violent solution to the problem because they could try over and over again without anyone coming to object, so why are you so married to the idea that they can't break it by force with the tools you have so amply provided?

[OldTrees1]

Most Perfect Result or Most Beneficial Result? They are the same in these examples. You just need to think about what the character is trying to do.

The Monk was trying to break the lock's locking functionality by destroying a key part of it with a well placed nail.
Most perfect result? They break the lock's locking functionality as best as they can without losing their nail or obstructing future attempts.
Most beneficial result? They break the lock's locking functionality as best as they can without losing their nail or obstructing future attempts.

Later the Monk was trying to remove the nail without breaking their hammer.
Most perfect result? They remove the nail as best as they can without breaking their hammer.
Most beneficial result? They remove the nail as best as they can without breaking their hammer.

Sorry for the criticism, but in these cases you did not hear what the PC tried to do. So when you resolved the 20, the players were surprised at the miscommunication.

[GloatingSwine]

There's also just taking a step back and thinking about end goals.

What did the players want to do? Be on the other side of the gate. (You can tell because it's a closed door in an RPG, players are basically cats, a closed door is an affront to their very being and they will want to be on the other side of it.)

So what you need to do is to decide whether the things they are attempting to do are a good faith attempt at a reasonable way to achieve their end goal, open the gate and be on the other side of it. If they are, decide a DC and ask for a roll. If they are not, say why not and don't.

[JellyPooga]

1) A nail can and will handily break a lock. Particularly if (as I assume) we're not talking about a modern high-security lock. Even many modern locks can be "popped" by sufficient force applied to the appropriate location, let alone cruder antique models.

2) No one. I mean no. one. is ever going to nail their own hand to something with a hammer. No. Not even intentionally. That's not how nails work.

3) That's not how ability checks work.

4) That's not how ability checks work. Worth saying twice.

5) It's not your job to be your players' adversary. Your response to your players in these scenarios was adversarial. You may want to review your GM style to address your instincts in this regard.

[Avonar]

I think this potentially sets a bad precendent for your players: Being creative will be punished.

The monk tried something that they thought would work. Not only did you not allow it to work, but you punished them for it as well by leaving them with a situation that was worse that how it started, despite rolling well for the subsequent check.

Now I don't think that's what you're trying to do my any means, but it's how someone might feel. Next time they come to a door, they will all just sit back and wait for it to be picked rather than try anything, since you have sent the message previously that attempting other ways will fail, and not just fail but might make things worse.

Even if you had not called for a roll and just said "You spend some time hammering the nail in, and the nail is now stuck" it might not have felt as bad.

The key thing here is: Does doing this improve the game? Does breaking the lock like that and then breaking their tools despite natural 20s make things better? Or would it have been better for the game to just allow it to happen? It's not a stupid idea, you can see how someone might logically think it would work.

[JonBeowulf]

This is yet another thing to cover in Session 0: All unprompted skill rolls will be ignored.

It doesn't mean they can't have their character try to do something that's not possible. It just means that the imminent failure is narrated instead rolled.

If rolling a 20 on check for something that can't be done somehow allows it to be done, then rolling a 1 should mean they failed at something trivial. I'm sure there are folks that would enjoy that sort of table.

[rlc]

Most beneficial. If it wouldn’t have succeeded, or even if it wouldn’t have failed, regardless of rolls, it shouldn’t bother being rolled. If the players really want to roll, then you just tell them that nothing happens, even if they rolled well.

[diplomancer]

If it's impossible, tell your players so, and don't allow them to roll. Rolls are determined by the DM, and the moment the DM calls for a roll it means that the attempted GOAL has at least a 5% chance of suceeding. Just say "that's impossible", and, if called for, let them make the case about whether it's possible or not.

Letting the player roll for it and then creating a worse situation than before with a natural 20 WILL, inevitably and correctly, piss off your players. If a player says "I want to jump to the moon", you say "ok", he rolls a nat 20 and you say "you make an amazing jump, clearing 10' off the floor, and fall down; take 1d6 damage", your player will be upset, much more upset than if the interaction went "I want to jump to the moon" " you fail".

In the particular case of the OP, the interaction should have gone:
Monk- "I want to drive a nail into the lock with a hammer, breaking it, to open the door"
DM- "even if you drive it perfectly, it's not going to open the door, you know, it will just get stuck there, there's no relation between driving a nail into the lock and opening the door"
From there, players could make a case that indeed there IS such a relation (I have no idea, but then I know nothing of such things), or realize that it's a silly idea and try something else.

If the players DO insist on trying something after you've said it won't work, don't make them roll for it either, just narrate the consequences. Once you say "roll for it" there's an expectation that some success is possible. If you want some randomness to your narration of the failure, roll the dice yourself.

So, answering the OP question; a natural 20 should be the most beneficial result; if the most beneficial result is "you fail, but the situation remains as before", then there should simply be no roll.

[Kane0]

So, obviously there's got to be a sliding scale/ give-and-take on this at some point... but if a player takes an action that could not possibly ever succeed and rolls a 20, should the result be the entirely impossible thing that he wanted, or the most perfect possible result that could have logically happened?


If a PC is going to attempt something that they just cannot succeed (eg jumping high enough to touch the sun) i’ll say so, usually before the player gets a chance to roll so they dont get all excited if they happen to roll well (also if i’m not paying attention they cant just get a good roll then declare something using that roll)

If success is possible and a 20 gets rolled I go with the result that accomplishes what they were trying to do in the most beneficial way that makes sense, or the most badass/awesome way if its a less serious game.

Edit: brute-forcing open a metal door sounds entirely plausible, especially given the PCs had tools at hand. Hell in some instances a PC could just rip the damn thing off the hinges.

Edit edit: you may be interested in searching up the lockpicking lawyer on youtube. Good content.

[Aett_Thorn]

I think that people keep skipping over the fact that there was a misinterpretation between the DM and player on exactly what they were doing, which caused the action to go from possible to impossible after the player narrated what they were doing.

Player: "So the Rogue couldn't pick the lock? I take a hammer and try to open the door."
DM: (thinking: okay, the Monk is going to try to break down the door) "Go ahead and make a Str check"
Player: "Nat 20! So I took a nail, placed it into the lock, hammered it through, and picked the lock that way!"
DM: "Wait, you were trying to pick the lock with a hammer and nail? The nat 20 didn't work."
Argument ensues

So yes, this is a place where a DM would have likely said the task was impossible if the action had been described better before the roll was made. If I were the DM, after an argument started, I would have said that if you intended to use Str to break down the door with the hammer, this roll would have succeeded. Or, the player can continue with the narration of their action, with the result that it didn't work despite the good roll, because it was an impossible task. So the player can either say, "My character would have tried to use the hammer and nail, so I fail" or, "My character would have just tried to open the door with the hammer" and succeeded. If the narrative is important to the player, let them keep that.

[JellyPooga]

I think that people keep skipping over the fact that there was a misinterpretation between the DM and player on exactly what they were doing, which caused the action to go from possible to impossible after the player narrated what they were doing.

Player: "So the Rogue couldn't pick the lock? I take a hammer and try to open the door."
DM: (thinking: okay, the Monk is going to try to break down the door) "Go ahead and make a Str check"
Player: "Nat 20! So I took a nail, placed it into the lock, hammered it through, and picked the lock that way!"
DM: "Wait, you were trying to pick the lock with a hammer and nail? The nat 20 didn't work."
Argument ensues

So yes, this is a place where a DM would have likely said the task was impossible if the action had been described better before the roll was made. If I were the DM, after an argument started, I would have said that if you intended to use Str to break down the door with the hammer, this roll would have succeeded. Or, the player can continue with the narration of their action, with the result that it didn't work despite the good roll, because it was an impossible task. So the player can either say, "My character would have tried to use the hammer and nail, so I fail" or, "My character would have just tried to open the door with the hammer" and succeeded. If the narrative is important to the player, let them keep that.

Semantics.

How the player narrates their success is, largely speaking, irrelevant to the success itself. If we present the challenge a different way, the absurdity of the GMs ruling here presents itself;

Player: I try a hammer to break the lock. Str check, right?
GM: Sure.
Player: Rolls. Best possible result.
GM: (checks notes: result beats DC). You not only fail, but prevent any further interaction with the lock.
Player: ???

Whether or not the specifics of the Players narration would work or not in the GMs opinion has little bearing on the success of the check itself. If the narration was entirely absurd, such as driving the nail into the centre of the door as opposed to the lock itself, then yes, I would tend to agree that the narration is inappropriate but the solution here is not to negate the success, or worse turn the success into an outright critical failure, but to suggest an alternative narrative such as the character driving the nail into the mechanism, breaking a critical part and freeing the lock.

In the specific case of the OP, there was a failure on the part of the player to allow the GM to actually ask for the check before rolling, but it's also the responsibility of the GM to permit a roll to be valid. A Player can roll all the natural 20's they like, but it doesn't make one iota of difference if the GM doesn't think a roll is appropriate or required and it's the duty of the GM to tell the player so at the earliest appropriate juncture, even if that is after a player has taken it upon themselves to roll dice. The dice determine outcomes that are in question; they do not dictate the narrative.

[Composer99]

So, I think the issue here isn't really "what does a natural 20 on an ability check mean?"

The issue at hand is that if even a natural 20 can't succeed, it was an error to allow or encourage the player to proceed with an ability check. The PHB even says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." (From pg. 174 of my first printing PHB, also emphasis mine.)

If, in your view as DM, there was no chance of failure because the attempted action (break the lock by driving a nail into it) could not possibly succeed - that is to say, there was no chance of failure because failure was 100% inevitable and the outcome wasn't uncertain - then the player simply ought not to have made the check in the first place.

As you have said, it wasn't clear in your mind what the monk was attempting to do until they rolled the die. I would say that in future, the way to avoid this is to make sure that you have a clear idea of what a player wants their character to do - say, by making sure the player agrees with your description of what they want do do ("So, you want to force open the lock by driving a nail into it?") before calling for a check, and then only call for a check if you believe the outcome is uncertain. If not, you narrate the failed attempt.

Edit to add: Depending on the kind of game you're playing, if you think a reasonably intelligent PC, or at least a PC with training and experience in picking locks, could assess the situation and decide the method in question couldn't work, you can feed that information to the players in advance. But that's game-dependent: such behaviour would suit some games and not others.

In addition, depending on how comfortable you and the players are with such a thing, if you want to make use of the idea of scaling results, you can have situations where what someone rolls on the die matters beyond a simple pass-fail. In that case, beating the DC by 5 or 10 could have salutary effects beyond simple success, and falling short by 5 or 10 could introduce complications beyond simple failure. (PF2 makes extensive use of this mechanic, and if memory serves the 5e DMG suggests it as an option to spice up ability checks.) But that is not an assumed rule, and it certainly doesn't contradict the rule I cited above.

[Contrast]

So for my money there are three main issues I think that pop out to me here:


Tonight, the party came across a locked metal gate. The rogue tried to pick the lock once, but did not succeed. I would have let him try again (unlike a stealth or perception roll, he would be aware that he had failed, and have the opportunity to try again), but he didn't.

If there was no consequence for failure and success was possible, why was failure an option? In this case it seems like the narration for a failed roll (if you even ask for one) should be 'It takes you a minute or two but eventually the lock pops open'.


The ranger (who disagreed with me) then asked what would have happened had he rolled a 1. I responded that the result would have basically been the same, but his nail would have been driven through his hand and permanently stuck into the lock.

This seems...punitive. You seem to be assuming no degree of basic competance on behalf of the adventurers on good rolls and actively assuming massive incompetence on bad rolls.


For the record, he never asked whether or not the nail-in-lock thing could succeed. He asked, "If I use the hammer, that's a strength check, right?" To which I responded "yes", not knowing how he was intending the use the hammer, but assuming he meant to try to smash the lock directly. He then just said he shoved a nail in there and then rolled the 20 unprompted.

Here it seems like you need to sit down with your table and have a dicussion about how you all fundamentally expect the game to work. Generally speaking, players shouldn't be rolling dice unless a DM has asked them to and the approach should be to explain what you're doing and then see if the DM wants a roll.

[GloatingSwine]

I think that people keep skipping over the fact that there was a misinterpretation between the DM and player on exactly what they were doing, which caused the action to go from possible to impossible after the player narrated what they were doing.

I think the miscommunication was at the layer of "is this a reasonable way to achieve the objective".

The monk player obviously expected the outcome to be a smashed lock and an openable gate, possibly by having seen or heard of locks that can be opened in exactly the manner he chose, the GM decided that it wasn't. The action at no point went from "possible to impossible", it was possible in the mind of the player and not in the mind of the GM.

This is also one of those situations where GMs should generally err on the side of yes, because it's a good faith attempt at a reasonable solution to the problem, which engages with the gameworld as you have described it. So even if you don't think locks can be opened that way, you should allow it because it rewards the player being creative and engaging with the world as you have described it.

Punishing the player by moving success further away will teach them that nothing you put in the world matters, only the "allowed" solution.

[Unoriginal]

This seems...punitive. You seem to be assuming no degree of basic competance on behalf of the adventurers on good rolls and actively assuming massive incompetence on bad rolls.

Indeed. I somehow missed that part, but if you have 5% of mutilating yourself whenever you use a tool you're not going to be an adventurer long.

[Rynjin]

Indeed. I somehow missed that part, but if you have 5% of mutilating yourself whenever you use a tool you're not going to be an adventurer long.

The problem with critical fumble rules in a nutshell, really, you end up with "The Three (or more) Stooges: The Game!" when you do **** like "when you roll a 1 you whack yourself with your own sword lmao".

[JellyPooga]

The problem with critical fumble rules in a nutshell, really, you end up with "The Three (or more) Stooges: The Game!" when you do **** like "when you roll a 1 you whack yourself with your own sword lmao".

To be fair, a lot of people treat Critical Hits/Success as similarly absurd. Case in point, the OP falls into at least the fringe of this category with "Your critical hit is so good the result is bad", but I've seen plenty of GMs have crit hits do absurd things like break the sword used to attack because the hit is "soooo hard", cause characters to over-jump their intended mark (often into danger that wasn't previously present), make NPCs instantly fall in love or drop their pants on social checks, etc.

It can be fun to play with such extreme success/failure, but to remain fun but stay out of the realm of pure comedy a GM has to be cautious and sparing with their use of such events. Most importantly, it has to make sense. In the OP's case, the threat of nailing your own hand to the lock is wildly absurd. On the flipside, breaking the hammer is a possibility but should probably be limited to a fail result rather than a success, unless the fate of the hammer is entirely inconsequential, such as in this case where the PCs are in a room full of tools; in this instance, the hammer breaking can be used as a narrative tool to describe just how much force was required to succeed at the task it was put to...emphasis there on the success of the task; the hammer breaks, but the task succeeds.

It's worth interjecting again that Critical Success/Failure is not the standard rule for Ability Checks. All that matters to the rules is Failure or Success. How you narrate the quality of success/failure is up to you as a Player and/or GM, but the result itself should not change because of that 5% chance either way. Beating a DC of 22 should not have any different end result whether you roll it with a 20 and a +2 modifier or a 10 with a +12, except where you might describe the former as a lucky shot-in-the-dark and the latter as a tried and practised routine.