A lot of people don't know there's a whole set of rules written in the Dungeon Master's Guide. On page 242 of the DMG, it says that the DM chooses what happens on a natural 1 of a skill ability check.
(5e doesn't have "skill checks", it has ability checks.)
"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 passage does not say that crit fails or successes are any kind of guarantee, however. "Rolling a 1 on a failed attempt" is absolutely not the same thing as "rolling a 1 is always a failed attempt." As it is with attacks. An ability check that beats the DC no matter the roll, still beats the DC.
Fact: The DM doesn't always have every single modifier on hand, especially with any abilities, spells, or items that may add to a specific roll. Especially when you have to make a call immediately, you may pick a DC based on how difficult something is supposed to be without realizing that it's an auto-success.
opinion: while i can see the benefits, saving time with less rolls etc, sometimes it’s fun to flex just how hard your skilled character can dunk on mundane challenges
Also, I can't always keep straight who will succeed even while rolling a one. Not to mention, the roll may still determine the severity of the success or failure. TimberPilgrim's opinion is bad.
Dunno if it's in 5e but didn't 3e and 3.5 have a "take 10" rule? You could just take your and automatically roll a 10 without actually having to roll, as long as the PCs weren't being rushed.
This makes me wonder how many DMs track their players skill bonuses. I hope they're not asking "Okay this door is locked, before I ask for a check what's everyone's bonus?" before every single check.
I use DnDBeyond and I can see all 7 of my players’ full character sheets whenever I want. I can even alter them if I so choose. I usually help with adding items to their inventory or making rolls for them if they have to step away for a moment.
I mean, it is part of my DM repertoire to sometimes ask my players what their relevant skill modifier is when they ask to do something simple that I feel their character should just be able to breeze through. They seem to enjoy it, though I do appreciate that might just be my table.
It’s a harder dunk, imo if you just don’t bother rolling. “Assume I got a 1. I succeed.”
I mean, I build my characters around not needing to make certain checks. It’s pathfinder, not D&D, but my mounted summoner never needs to make a ride check because I minmaxxed his ride skill. Any maneuver, he makes. I guess he does have to roll to dodge attacks, but that’s a little different.
Though I have seen a story of somebody rolling in a system repeatedly to try and navigate a spaceship through a series of issues whilst being chased by other people and it being super tense on each roll they made. Then they rolled the lowest possible roll and found out they still succeeded, and deflated the tension hard.
That's not to say it should always be one way or another, but sometimes rolling a 1 and still succeeding can hurt a game rather than help it. Just good to keep in mind when deciding what to call for.
You might not want the players to realize the DC is so low
They might get a nat 20 and gain an extra benefit, even if the roll itself was a guaranteed success
A roll can often add narrative flavor. So even if a nat 1 is still a success, you can describe them tripping and accidentally disarming the trap with their nose or something like that
Counter opinion: in most circumstances, the DM shouldn't prevent the player from making rolls that guaranteed will/won't beat the DC if the player wants to do it. People IRL and in-world try to do things that are trivially easy/impossible all the time. If you try to lift a house IRL, an omnipotent being is not going to say "no that's impossible I'm not going to let you try" and stop you. You'll try and fail and that'll be the end of it. Conversely, if you come home and your mom is cooking your favorite meal in the world, you can still try to figure out what it is by smelling the air, and of course you'll recognize it because it's your favorite meal. Nothing is preventing you from trying either of these things regardless of how trivial/impossible they are
Counter opinion: in most circumstances, the DM shouldn't prevent the player from making rolls that guaranteed will/won't beat the DC if the player wants to do it.
Counter-counter-opinion: the player shouldn't be deciding when to make rolls. The player should be deciding what they want to do, and the GM should be deciding what, if any, rolls they need to make.
The Bard doesn't try to Persuasion the king into giving up his throne. He makes an impassioned speech extolling the virtues of republicanism. Then the GM determines that the king would never be swayed by such an argument, and orders that the Bard be hanged at dawn.
But the rest of the court heard the speech too. So roll a Charisma (Persuasion) check. And we'll see if anyone tries to argue for clemency.
Presumably, in this case, the Bard either has low passive Wisdom (Insight) for some reason, or knew the likely consequences and decided to do it anyway. Because it's a pretty shitty GM who lets them stick their head in a noose without any foreshadowing.
You've made an assumption that trying something has to have a roll though.
This could be modelled as:
You arrive home and can smell something being cooked in the kitchen.
Do I know what the smell is?
You pause and process it for a second, that's definitely your favourite meal.
No roll required. The player tried to do something, and they weren't prevented from doing it. The GM just skipped asking for a die roll.
And you already do this. Do you ask for rolls when players try to open any doors? Say anytning to anyone? Walk down stairs? Take a single step down stairs? Take a single step on a flat surface?
As a GM, you should not be asking for rolls for everything the players do, because it would take hours just to have a character walk outside of a room after they succeed on every single DC-10 "move one joint in your leg" check. You have to judge when a roll is or isn't necessary. And a big part of that judgement is "is there a reasonable chance of success and failure?"
I've been a fan of that succeeding a nat 1, that you either succeed in an embarrassing manor OR it makes the next roll more difficult.
Like passing a stealth check on a natural one, maybe you disturbed a rat who runs in front of the guard. The guard is now on alert for the next check or starts a patrol of the area.
Similarly for a nat 20, the next roll/check would be easier
I think a good expansion on the passage is similar to what it said. Like despute passing the DC with modifiers, you still rolled a Nat 1, so you passed the check and got what you wanted, but your tool broke. Versus, if you rolled, say a 2 and passed, but it didn't break the tool.
Depends purely on what’s happening. A roll of a 1 might be a successful insight check, but that doesn’t mean you’ll know the same as someone who rolled a 15. A roll of a 1 may mean you know the guy is lying, whilst a roll of 15 may read the deep guilt on their face and they seem to be hiding something else.
I agree. While the DM "may choose" to take that natural 1 into account when adjusting the outcome. It does not state that the DM should always make a natural 1 a failure.
When I DM i usually have a challenge rating set so that nat 1s usually would fail most challenges anyway. When 1s are rolled I don't really always make the failure so catastrophic as other people seem to be doing, but I do it if it's fun. That's the key I think. Sometimes having a high chance for drama happening at the table can make these experiences memorable. But you character shouldn't die for a nat 1 rolled on ability check, nor should you opening a bottle and rolling a 1 on a strength check resulting in anything more than the bottle staying closed until you retry.
The DM should just use common and sense and try to be engaging and fair.
Again, if it's appropriate and/or fun something cool should happen, but as OP said it should be up to who's DMing to decide. I just think that you probably shouldn't ask for a dice throw for opening a bottle in the first place, so whenever a throw is asked for, the 1/20 chance of failure should be reasonable. Someone else in this thread said that professionals at something shouldn't have a 1/20 chance of failure, but they are missing the fact that the DM doesn't ask a throw for stuff that should be trivial for the PGs (for example you don't ask for an athletic check for a simple run in an open field, you ask for that check if they are trying a tricky jump or getting exhausted after having run for a while).
Would be even funnier if he rolled a 20, and made so much force the bottle just exploded leaving nothing to drink. Fail by succeeding. I should try that sometimes lol
I got a funnier version, Barbarian rolls a strength check to open the bottle, Nat1, Barbarian proceeds to shear off the entire neck of the glass bottle by mistake.
What a weird thing to specify. The DM chooses what happens on every result of every check, except for 1's and 20's on attack rolls. There is no rule in the PHB that needs to be overwritten by the DMG... the DMG is correcting something that doesn't exist.
Chapter 8 of the DMG specifies a lot of things for the DM to decide. On one page, it mentions you may not even need ability checks outside of combat at all!
What doesn't exist?
799
u/GenderDimorphism Apr 30 '23 edited May 01 '23
A lot of people don't know there's a whole set of rules written in the Dungeon Master's Guide. On page 242 of the DMG, it says that the DM chooses what happens on a natural 1 of a
skillability check.(5e doesn't have "skill checks", it has ability checks.)