Why are Nat 1 and Nat 20 STILL Auto Fail/Succeed?

[Shining_Darkness]

Specifically on ability/skill checks. Larion have you never actually read the GM manual or player's guide? They do not auto pass/fail anything but saves and attacks. That is all. Not even variant rules allow for this. This is garbage houseruling and I cannot wait for a mod to come out to remove this filth. Oh a difficulty 0? and I don't have a negative 2... why am I rolling? I shouldn't be able to fail. Oh a difficulty 7 and I have a +6 why am I rolling? Because Larion fundamentally misunderstood a core game mechanic.

This was in EA but it wasn't even consistent there. Once I got a 1 and it just let me pass anyway. I assumed it was because it was never supposed to auto fail in the first place but here we are.

[bbii]

Originally posted by UnluckyDuckie:

Originally posted by bbii:

Any time you are rolling a die to decide if you succeed or fail there should always be a chance to fail or succeed. Otherwise you shouldn't be rolling.
Even 5e says don't roll on things that have a low DC. So no need to roll on walking upstairs.
No need to roll on charming the King to give you their kingdom because it would never happen. The only need to roll there is is they decide to kill you nor not.

Rolling the die is an element of chance and any element of chance should have a chance to fail. That is why the auto succeed/fail. Otherwise you can just build your character to never fail at anything ever.

You're suggesting you're already an expert at climbing upstairs by sheer virtue of experience and shouldn't risk fail doing that ever so no need to roll?

It does not track. If you build your character to be a mentalist who is able to deceive, make out useful information, and even use magic to influence dialogue then by all means that's in your virtue to auto succeed doing that. The downside is that you cannot afford to do something else and your path will be lead elsewhere. A total meathead would be forced into combat (because combat is the default fail state to a lot of these checks). A jack of all trades could risk going either way with their rolls.

Without some certainty, your character is pointless, like a Fighter who has a chance to 5% to slip and instantly explode at every step taken. The problem is that this doesn't happen to combat oriented characters, combat can always be resolved.

I don't know how to explain this to you.

D&D even suggests don't bother rolling for anything that is a DC of very easy. You don't need to roll for everything you do.

If there is a chance of failure than roll. If not then don't. It is that simple. There is always an element of chance on any contested action be it an attack, a social roll, or an attribute roll. Even the best can screw up. Even a novice can achieve greatness.

Your mentalist/dumbskull example, this is why the dumbskull doesn't do social checks in a party. If they do then they run the higher chance of failure.

Your way with no auto fail because your build is perfect makes people only do what they are good at. They won't risk anything else because failure is bad.

My way there is a chance of success or failure and they think about the consequences. They try things they may not be good at. They use their party and work together.

People always forget the later part of Jack of All Trades. Master of None.

[DuckieMcduck]

Originally posted by bbii:

Originally posted by UnluckyDuckie:

You're suggesting you're already an expert at climbing upstairs by sheer virtue of experience and shouldn't risk fail doing that ever so no need to roll?

It does not track. If you build your character to be a mentalist who is able to deceive, make out useful information, and even use magic to influence dialogue then by all means that's in your virtue to auto succeed doing that. The downside is that you cannot afford to do something else and your path will be lead elsewhere. A total meathead would be forced into combat (because combat is the default fail state to a lot of these checks). A jack of all trades could risk going either way with their rolls.

Without some certainty, your character is pointless, like a Fighter who has a chance to 5% to slip and instantly explode at every step taken. The problem is that this doesn't happen to combat oriented characters, combat can always be resolved.

I don't know how to explain this to you.

D&D even suggests don't bother rolling for anything that is a DC of very easy. You don't need to roll for everything you do.

If there is a chance of failure than roll. If not then don't. It is that simple. There is always an element of chance on any contested action be it an attack, a social roll, or an attribute roll. Even the best can screw up. Even a novice can achieve greatness.

Your mentalist/dumbskull example, this is why the dumbskull doesn't do social checks in a party. If they do then they run the higher chance of failure.

Your way with no auto fail because your build is perfect makes people only do what they are good at. They won't risk anything else because failure is bad.

My way there is a chance of success or failure and they think about the consequences. They try things they may not be good at. They use their party and work together.

People always forget the later part of Jack of All Trades. Master of None.

"Failure" is not meant to be bad in tabletop.

A meathead "failing" a check and getting more combat is what the meat head wants. Because he's a combat character; not giving them combat makes them bored. Indeed, the meathead usually can skip the roll entirely in most dialogue and pick the "attack" (fail) option right away or just force attack.

More narrative oriented characters do not have the same luxury, and thus struggle more for no good reason, it is literal failure, their calculated specialty failed them for no reason.

As mentioned, if your character is stupid good at something they shouldn't need to roll. You even said DC in combat should be ignored if it's too low. Social/Narrative builds are simply gimped by needing to roll even if they have insane stacks of advantage.

And the reality is such, a lot of people play DnD as plain stupid/violent characters. Hence the 5% fail sounds "interesting" to some; There's so much utility for crunchy violence packed in it that getting an excuse to use them whenever is the actual content instead of the roleplay aspect.

[Ephemerant]

Originally posted by cerabus2001:

Originally posted by Ephemerant:

If they're thinking it's RAW and not houseruling it in spite of RAW, then yes, they are getting it wrong.

And don't put the blame on Critical Role, there were popular live plays before them doing it. Chris Perkins DMing Acquisition Incorporated played it that way all the time.

I have nothing against the houserule, I just don't think it's conducive to an enjoyable experience in a video game.

Weird thing is Matt Mercer actual asks the table for a "Total of..." if they get a Nat20 so not sure why anyonecwould blame them. Granted he doesn't do the same for Nat1s.

Anyway imagine moaning about the Nat20/Nat1 in a D&D game and not moaning that you can't go East, North or South from Act 1. Only west towards Baldur's Gate. Not very D&D

He only started doing that relatively recently, and even then, if someone rolls a Nat 1 or 20 on a group check like Stealth, he still counts it. When his table says, "Yeah, but that'd be a total of..." and he'd look at them and say, but it's still a Nat 1. He's incredibly inconsistent about it. He played it much closer to the houserule in the early years.

It's a core rule that has been changed alongside a lot of other weird changes Larian has made, and not all of them benefit the experience by being changed.

D&D has been using adventure modules for decades, which are essentially semi-railroaded stories the group has to follow if they want to play that book faithfully. BG3 is essentially an adventure module in video game form.

Imagine caring more about the game not being an MMO over core rule changes that alter the experience of the system as a whole, and not all as a good thing.

[wyndhambarnhill]

Spoiler ahead for one of the final scenes:
Nat 20 does nothing on a final check.
There were four dialogue checks when facing the Netherbrain with stones, for the first time. DCs 20/20/30/99, I believe. You have to like, choose which stat/abilities to exert dominance over the brain. Guess what, "succeeding" on every one of those rolls does NOTHING. Even if you Nat 20 the 99 check, NOTHING happens. You just get pulled into a portal and the Netherbrain continues being unaffected.

[Shining_Darkness]

Originally posted by Raythered:

5e split the rules between in combat and out of combat.
In combat rolling a 20 always hits and rolling a 1 always misses, no matter what your bonus is.
It's pretty common that most groups use this rule for all saves and ability checks wheither in combat or out.
If you can miss an attack when you have built a character to have a +17/24 on your attack roll because you rolled a 1, and that dosen't bother you, than why should it bother you that you failed to pick a lock because you rolled a one?
There were posts on reddit about crit fails/success going back 2 years duing early access, so it's pretty safe to assume you are very much in the minority if such compaints during EA were not acted on, most people don't care.

I admit that I found it much more intresting knowing I could fail a check, even if it was only a 5% chance, it would have annoyed me to have to roll dice whne the outcome was guarenteed and critical success allows them to add in impossible DC99 checks.

You can miss an attack because your opponent "caused" it to miss. If you are simply picking a mundane lock, lifting a heavy object, breaking a door, balancing, or some other unopposed thing there is no reason other than your own lack of skill to fail.

Attack rolls and saves are not the same thing as ability checks, hence why I am completely (well not completely but I have accepted it since it is fairly common in any d20 base system) fine with nat 1 auto failing and nat 20 auto succeeding attacks and saves but I am not okay with them working the same for ability checks. I don't know how I, or anyone that holds the same opinion can make that any more clear.

[BurningFalcon]

Originally posted by Ephemerant:

Originally posted by cerabus2001:

Weird thing is Matt Mercer actual asks the table for a "Total of..." if they get a Nat20 so not sure why anyonecwould blame them. Granted he doesn't do the same for Nat1s.

Anyway imagine moaning about the Nat20/Nat1 in a D&D game and not moaning that you can't go East, North or South from Act 1. Only west towards Baldur's Gate. Not very D&D

He only started doing that relatively recently, and even then, if someone rolls a Nat 1 or 20 on a group check like Stealth, he still counts it. When his table says, "Yeah, but that'd be a total of..." and he'd look at them and say, but it's still a Nat 1. He's incredibly inconsistent about it. He played it much closer to the houserule in the early years.

It's a core rule that has been changed alongside a lot of other weird changes Larian has made, and not all of them benefit the experience by being changed.

D&D has been using adventure modules for decades, which are essentially semi-railroaded stories the group has to follow if they want to play that book faithfully. BG3 is essentially an adventure module in video game form.

Imagine caring more about the game not being an MMO over core rule changes that alter the experience of the system as a whole, and not all as a good thing.

To be fair, Matt ruled like this especially in earlier games, because they came from playing pathfinder, in Pathfinder, in which you get a critical success with 10 over the DC, and a NAT20 would increase your success to a critical success, while the Nat1 would turn a failure into a critical failure. So, Nat1 and 20 were quite relevenat for them when doing ability checks.
He also ruled that Pike had major disadvantages for wearing armor, which didn't exist in that way RAW.
This was also fine for the players, since they also were used to the same rules.

And here is the point were Larian "failed" in that regard. They made houserules and the players have to play with them. While usually the DM explains the Houserules he'd like to use beforehand, and if they players don't like them, they can either leave the group, or the DM changes them. If you got 4/4 Players not liking the Houserules, it's more likely they are removed or adapted.
It also shouldn't be too hard to implement an option in the setting to activate/deactivate that houserule, just like they implemented karmic dice.
And yes, Owlcat used a total different engine, but they had a couple of 'homebrew' rules you could pick. - Not saying that Larian should have done it exactly like that, just stating the obvious that it would have been possible to implement optional rules within the settings.