Lanefan
Victoria Rules
That's just it - it'd never be 1 in 20 but by RAW these accidents would be declared impossible and thus never happen."1 in 20 caravan drivers suddenly had accident driving through crowded market streets....news at 6."
That's just it - it'd never be 1 in 20 but by RAW these accidents would be declared impossible and thus never happen."1 in 20 caravan drivers suddenly had accident driving through crowded market streets....news at 6."
They'd be rolled if succes was in doubt in a dramatic situation. Proficiency with vehicles (land) would be needed to try, though.That's just it - it'd never be 1 in 20 but by RAW these accidents would be declared impossible and thus never happen.
But that's just my point - success is always in doubt. Any carriage driver could crash at any time, even though most don't. It's just that the chance of failure at any given time is very small - close to zero, but not actually zero; and that tiny chance makes all the difference.They'd be rolled if succes was in doubt in a dramatic situation.
I'd say no, anyone can try; but lack of proficiency would make failure much more likely. Just the same as someone who has never driven a car (or even learned how) getting behind the wheel and giving it a go. Odds are much higher for problems than with a trained driver, but success is still quite possible.Proficiency with vehicles (land) would be needed to try, though.
The D&D standard is legalese. Beyond a reasonable doubt = impossible/no doubt. It there a chance that I will be hit by a meteor tomorrow when I step out of my front door? Yes. Not getting his is technically in doubt. No reasonable person would doubt my safety on this subject, though.But that's just my point - success is always in doubt. Any carriage driver could crash at any time, even though most don't.
No. No it doesn't make all the difference. And D&D can't model that anyway. You shouldn't get a roll that has a 5% chance of failing just because there's a .0000003% chance that failure could happen.It's just that the chance of failure at any given time is very small - close to zero, but not actually zero; and that tiny chance makes all the difference.
So what's the threshold? .0000003% is too low to worry about, yes; but IMO 0.1% is often worth a look and 1% should be rolled for pretty much every time.No. No it doesn't make all the difference. And D&D can't model that anyway. You shouldn't get a roll that has a 5% chance of failing just because there's a .0000003% chance that failure could happen.
DM ruling. Always has been.So what's the threshold? .0000003% is too low to worry about, yes; but IMO 0.1% is often worth a look and 1% should be rolled for pretty much every time.
And D&D can model it, if not perfectly then at least to a much better extent than now, if one is willing to step just a tiny bit outside the RAW box and use something more granular than a single d20.
I certainly use high DCs sometimes. The party in my game is only level six and there already is as high as eleven point difference in some skills between the characters. I want to have some difficult task that challenge the skilled characters and allows them to seem amazing if they succeed. That is kinda diminished if any idiot can do those things by pure blind luck.Do people regularly use DCs of 20 and higher that many characters can't possibly hit in their 5e games? I think this rule will have little impact on actual play. In my experience, if you need a 18 or more to succeed on a roll, it already feels like a serious long-shot.
Right. And that has been discussed less but will probably be very common and really annoying. I don’t want skilled experts to embarrassingly fumble at easy tasks.in 1D&D the roll will be mandatory since failure is always possible on a 1. That's really the only difference between the old and the new rules.
That's why you gate by proficiency, and don't call for a roll on penny ante stuff.I certainly use high DCs sometimes. The party in my game is only level six and there already is as high as eleven point difference in some skills between the characters. I want to have some difficult task that challenge the skilled characters and allows them to seem amazing if they succeed. That is kinda diminished if any idiot can do those things by pure blind luck.
Right. And that has been discussed less but will probably be very common and really annoying. I don’t want skilled experts to embarrassingly fumble at easy tasks.
And do you think people who didn’t understand the old rule will do that?That's why you gate by proficiency, and don't call for a roll on penny ante stuff.