Hey Larian, you can't crit fail SKILL CHECKS ffs!

[Starwight/ttv]

NOTE: This first part before the dotted lines is from the Early Access period. Topic is still relevant as this is still an issue with the game, however see edit below the dotted lines for more up to date information with current game updates.

DC 0 wisdom check. Proficient in wisdom. Attempt to use the console to free Shadowheart. Should have a plus 2, so the min. I can roll is a 3--so I should succeed right?

WRONG because Larian is using the ridiculously stupid idea of crit failing skill checks. I am for homebrew but that is a stupid homebrew rule and should be in the options to change. Per RAW, you cannot CRIT FAIL A SKILLCHECK.

-------

EDIT: Hoooo boy, this suddenly blew up again out of nowhere; and I am glad! Because Larian needs to knock this crap off.

Okay, so there are a few things to mention in this edit. I am leaving the original post up for posterity, but some things have changed since I originally posted this in early access; there are also some arguments I didn't make or articulate well, and I am rectifying this.


So first thing is first--Larian ditched DC 0 skill checks as far as I can tell. I'm all the way in Act 3, and the lowest I've seen is DC2. So I think that DC 0 skill checks are no longer a thing. That said, the points I am about to make still stand.

For one, why the hells should everyone have a 5% chance to fail all of their skills--ESPECIALLY those they are proficient or have expertise in? Does an expert chef burn the steak he is cooking 5% of the time? Does an expert truck driver get into an accident 5% of the time? Does an expert football player critically fail and break his ankle trying to kick the ball 5% of the time? Of course not. It's ludicrous. That's not an expert, that's not being proficient at said skills. That's a 5% chance of derping for NO REASON whatsoever. There is a reason this is not a popular houserule (contrary to some of these misinformed comments).

For two: having a 5% chance to fail every single skill check in the game defeats the purpose of building to be really good at x skill. If I take expertise in persuasion, I have maxed out Charisma, and I have a number of other modifiers, I might have my modifiers so high that even if I roll a 1, I am hitting a DC 15. So by rules as written, if I am faced with a DC 10 persuasion check, I should not be able to fail it. I spent my feats, ASIs, and class features specifically to build to that point--and yet, because of this dumbass "nat 1's critically fail skill checks," my time and effort is wasted, because even though I met the DC, I still fail.

WotC designed their game in such a way that you could build to be experts and have a difficult time failing skill checks. No 5% chance of failing. That is part of the design, Rules as Written. Yes, attack rolls can crit fail and crit succeed--that makes sense, with how dynamic battles are, and considering that turns, no character is standing idle--they are trying to get the upper hand. This same policy makes zero sense for skill checks, and so as written, there are no crits one way or the other.

The opposite is also true; because nat 20s will auto succeed, regardless of your modifiers, theoretically someone could just save scum until they nat 20 a really difficult skill check. It would be annoying as crap, but it is true. In both of these cases, the game is rewarding save scumming as opposed to living with consequences of their decisions.

If I didn't build to be good at XYZ skill and failed it--THAT is my punishment. I should be rewarded for building my character in such a way that I can meet the vast majority of skillchecks. But the game decides, no matter what I do, I have a 5% chance to auto fail (or auto succeed).

If Larian is going to insist on this ridiculous house ruling they should at least make it a choice. I want my character builds to matter, and my skill choices to matter--not be unhinged just because I rolled a 1, still hit a 16, and failed a DC 2 skill check. It's ridiculous.

[larhtas]

I find this very good. I think it's subjective.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

While I do agree with you in general, it is a quite common houserule I've seen a lot of tables use, up to a point where it became part of my session 0 spiel to make sure everybody knows that I go RAW regarding auto successes and autofails with skillchecks.
So, no it is not that stupid. Some tables like to have the risk of failing even at high levels.

[tkis]

natural 20 and natural 1 is probably one of the most used homerules

[Carog the Fat]

if the GM says you can you can, the rules are a guide for the GM not something set in stone. Now a GM could change it so much it doesn't fell like 5e anymore in which case tell them and dont play in that game.

[Lepakko]

Well.. if this a deal breaker for you... Maybe reload and roll again when you get critical fail when you feel roll should not have been one.

[everybe2]

Low skill player?

[Indure]

While you are correct that it is not RAW for 5e, even with it implemented as such the amount of times it will effect your rules is very low. You only have a 5% chance on rolls to begin with and most checks are going to be high enough that even if you could add modifiers to the roll it would still fail on a 1.

So although I get your anger, in reality you would only experience something like this .5% or less, which is maybe 1-2 times a playthrough.

[Starwight/ttv]

Originally posted by (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥:

While I do agree with you in general, it is a quite common houserule I've seen a lot of tables use, up to a point where it became part of my session 0 spiel to make sure everybody knows that I go RAW regarding auto successes and autofails with skillchecks.
So, no it is not that stupid. Some tables like to have the risk of failing even at high levels.

It's one of the most controversial homebrew rules actually, and one *most* people don't like, right up there with critical fumbles. So that crap should stay optional and not forced.

[spectre199]

wrong most people from what I have seen do like the critical fail at "1" and critical succuss at "20". Every single game I have played over the year the nat 1 is a failure and a nat 20 is a automatic success has been around.

Also this game is a homebrew game. They are adding things that they want to add. Just like every single video game developer adds what they want in their game.

[Patrick]

Sounds like a bug for a DC 0 roll

[Starwight/ttv]

Originally posted by spectre199:

wrong most people from what I have seen do like the critical fail at "1" and critical succuss at "20". Every single game I have played over the year the nat 1 is a failure and a nat 20 is a automatic success has been around.

Also this game is a homebrew game. They are adding things that they want to add. Just like every single video game developer adds what they want in their game.

If you actually were involved in the tabletop community -at all- you would know that most people don't, in fact, like auto failing a SKILL check on a nat 1, period. You are wrong. Period.

[Coldhands]

The only time rolling a 1 being an auto-fail would ever matter on a skill check is if your flat bonuses added up to at least the DC minus 1, and in that case the game should just bypass the check entirely and not making us sit through the d20 animation for a 5% chance of failure.
In any other situation, rolling a 1 was going to fail whether it's automatic or not.

[Starwight/ttv]

Originally posted by Coldhands:

The only time rolling a 1 being an auto-fail would ever matter on a skill check is if your flat bonuses added up to at least the DC minus 1, and in that case the game should just bypass the check entirely and not making us sit through the d20 animation for a 5% chance of failure.
In any other situation, rolling a 1 was going to fail whether it's automatic or not.

That actually happens quite often, ESPECIALLY as your proficiency bonuses and your modifiers go up. I might have a +10 (which is entirely possible) on a persuasion check, and the DC be 10. And I roll a 1. Well, according to my proficiency and attribute bonuses, I shouldn't be ableto get less than an 11. Not to mention various class features that will let you treat *any roll less than 10* as a 10.

DnD was not balanced around auto fails on skill checks. It's why you get feats that give you a minimum possible roll.

And consider that on a DC 0 roll for a skill check why tf am I even rolling in the first place? There should be no chance for failing that, because RAW you can't get less than a 1 anyway and a 1 is not an auto fail on a skill check. The ONLY time a 1 is an auto fail is when you attack.

It's a stupid homebrew ruling that undermines a number of class features, it undermines having expertise, it undermines having a really high bonus to any skill in the first place--these are all reasons that this is unpopular as hell in the tabletop community and why yes, some do homebrew this, most people will not run tables that do and most players who actually know the game, will not play at tables that do.

[Lepakko]

Im sure there are mods to change game rules. If you dont feel like just reloading from save if you rolled 1. But i see no hurt adding this as optional rule in setting.

Edit: If i remember right. This rule of auto-fail on nat 1 will be part of rules when they releasing new update in D&D rules. At least it was on the test rules.

But you got kind bad way trying to get your message out. You claiming everyone else is wrong if they dont like same thing as you. Its like saying everyone is stupid to like fruit/music what you and your friends hate.

[GrandMajora]

Roll a 1 on using the console: "Which one's the any key!?"