Can we all agree you can't nat 1 a skill check?

[Don-chan]

In normal DnD you can't nat 1 on a skill check, meaning that rolling a nat 1 does not mean you auto fail whatever check you were trying to make. For example, I came across a door that had a DC 10 sleight of hand to unlock it. Astarion rolled a nat 1 but because of his expertise in sleight of hand he got a 10 but I still failed regardless. That felt like I was robbed of a skill check. Granted, it wasn't that big of a deal considering that Astarion has like 10 thieve's tools but still, I TECHNICALLY shouldn't have failed the check, and I can only imagine how frustrating playing a bard is going to be when you nat 1 a DC 5 persuasion check and your modifiers get you to the DC but you still fail.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Autofail on 1 and autosucceed on 20 on apply to attack rolls, though it is not that uncommon to either houserule that or just misunderstand that, and also apply that to skill checks. But RAW you are right. there is no autofail for nat 1 on skillchecks.

Edit: however personally I think even the best can have a bad day, so I tend to prefer having autofails usually together with something preventing the player to just try again. This obviously has to be in agreement with the players etc. as any houserule on a table.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

I'm not a fan of automatic success or failure in anything - skill checks or attack rolls.

[BW022]

I don't agree.
First, it isn't earth breaking. The number of times someone is +9 in 5e is pretty rare and the effects of a failed DC 10 skill check are typically not that bad, plus even then it is like 1 in 20 times and only if you are rules lawyering. The fact you see the DCs is already not realistic.

Second, many tables play the 20 auto-success and 1 auto-failure rule as a hold-over from 3.5e. It is hardly earth-shattering and groups can go entire campaigns for years and not notice they are doing it 'wrong'.

Third, in a real game, a DM wouldn't even bother calling for a skill check if they knew it was an auto-success. So, it's a waste of time to go through with the mini-game/roll system if you can't fail in the first place. So... if you are going to waste 10 seconds of my time making me roll, I'm fine allowing a failure chance vs. just wasting my time.

[id795078477]

Originally posted by BW022:

I don't agree.
First, it isn't earth breaking. The number of times someone is +9 in 5e is pretty rare and the effects of a failed DC 10 skill check are typically not that bad, plus even then it is like 1 in 20 times and only if you are rules lawyering. The fact you see the DCs is already not realistic.

It's not TT, it's a video game. So seeing DC is fine (more - it is to be expected)

I wholeheartedly agree that auto-fail or auto-success are a terrible idea no matter what is involved. So long as it's outside of control of a player, it will never feel fun or fair. What point is it to have a high AC build if two bad rolls can still destroy it? What point is there in good strategy if a couple of bad rolls will negate all that effort?

And auto-success 20 is no better too, at least in a video-game setting. You can just spam save-load will you get the desired result, regardless of all other factors.

[SnarkOne]

Here's the fun part with the skill checks...
Tested on Patch 7

If you roll a 1 on a DC of 5, while you have +6 modifiers - you fail
If you roll a double 1s on a DC of 5, while you have +6 modifiers & Disadvantage - you succeed
If you roll double 1s on a DC of 5, while you have +6 modifiers & Advantage - you succeed

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

I hope they just give us an option to disable auto success/failure.

[ScythianUA]

again people are arguing about the optional rule
in dungeon master's book page 242:
CRITICAL SUCCESS OR FAILURE
Rolling a 20 or a 1 on an ability check or a saving throw
doesn't normally have any special effect. However,
you can choose to take such an exceptional roll into
account when adjudicating the outcome. It's up to you
to determine how this manifests in the game. An easy
approach is to increase the impact of the success or
failure. For example, rolling a 1 on a failed attempt
to pick a lock might break the thieves' tools being
used, and rolling a 20 on a successful Intelligence
(Investigation) check might reveal an extra clue.

this dnd stuff is full of optional stuff for "dungeon masters" (storytellers)
when players are mostly just actors of dungeon masters theater eligible for improvisation in "his" world and set of rules...

and so such questions nothing but "matter of subjective taste"
and every extra "option" or button can add more work and errors and just waste time...
imagine that your "option to remove criticals for skill checks" will also remove many of them in battles or start to buging some additional abilities...it is nightmere to double check and fix every single skill and ability to work correctly in every posiable situation...

so if it works so - it is FINE!

[PerniciousWalrus]

I agree. These discussions get a lot of the same points repeated, though...

(1) Yes, we all understand that 1s auto-fail and 20s auto-succeed on attacks. And yes, in prior editions, that applied to other rolls as well, for whatever little that matters. We are talking about ability checks using 5e here, so that's basically irrelevant.

(2) Yeah, I guess everyone can have a bad day, but when you have a DC 0 roll that you fail because you rolled a nat 1, that really sucks and also doesn't make sense within the narrative. Even when it's a bit tougher, say a DC 10 roll that you failed despite having expertise and guidance for a total of 13, that sucks. To each their own, but to me having a 5% chance of failure regardless of how supernaturally talented someone is at some skill is immersion-breaking, and also has little to no game balance benefit. I just don't really see the appeal.

Basically, even if the optional rule is widespread, I don't see any real point to it. No need to include it to make the game better, and no need to include it "because that's how 5e works." If it's still a mechanic at full release it's not like it'll be a huge deal, but I'll probably mod it out right away and never miss it.

[Aldain]

Honestly my vision of a nat 1 on a skill check is something like dropping your lockpicking tools on your feet before you even start.

[The Face]

Larian implementing more houserules . . .

[dolby]

nah they just adding future 5e rules. thank good they at least didn't add no spell crits as well...

[id795078477]

DnD was always a loose cannon balance-wise when it comes to natural 1 or 20. That is - in its many implementations it never differentiated on a "risk & reward" scale when considering auto-fail / auto-success.

It's one thing to miss an attack on a natural 1 (of which you have infinitely many). It's quite another to fail a saving throw vs. a death spell (which means game over). This never made sense to me so I agree - just as any sane PW does and disables these fails on natural 1, I hope there will be at least an option in game to disable it.

[kannibal25]

While I agree the 1/20 rule should technically only apply to Combat, I've yet to be in a D&D game that didn't treat 1/20 as auto fails/auto successes. It's a house rule that's become very ingrained.

[Panic Fire]

Originally posted by PerniciousWalrus:

I agree. These discussions get a lot of the same points repeated, though...

(1) Yes, we all understand that 1s auto-fail and 20s auto-succeed on attacks. And yes, in prior editions, that applied to other rolls as well, for whatever little that matters. We are talking about ability checks using 5e here, so that's basically irrelevant.

(2) Yeah, I guess everyone can have a bad day, but when you have a DC 0 roll that you fail because you rolled a nat 1, that really sucks and also doesn't make sense within the narrative. Even when it's a bit tougher, say a DC 10 roll that you failed despite having expertise and guidance for a total of 13, that sucks. To each their own, but to me having a 5% chance of failure regardless of how supernaturally talented someone is at some skill is immersion-breaking, and also has little to no game balance benefit. I just don't really see the appeal.

Basically, even if the optional rule is widespread, I don't see any real point to it. No need to include it to make the game better, and no need to include it "because that's how 5e works." If it's still a mechanic at full release it's not like it'll be a huge deal, but I'll probably mod it out right away and never miss it.

Not only is the rule widespread, it will the default rule in the New players handbook.

[Tuco]

Originally posted by Panic Fire:

Not only is the rule widespread, it will the default rule in the New players handbook.

Still time to fight back about a stupid rule.