D&D 5E How fantastic are natural 1's?

[Ovinomancer]

I don't claim to be a statistician. I don't even play one on TV. I still don't follow because a 1 always misses and there is a 5% chance of a 1 every time you roll a D20. If you flip a coin it doesn't matter if it was heads or tails the previous flip, it's still a 50% chance of heads or tails. But it's lies, damn lies and statistics so ... sure. Still more than I would care for.

Here's the longer breakout. While it is true the individual trials are 5%, ypu can't just add thise because you have to account for the probability of not rolling a one for the ither rolls. So, it's .05 x (.95^8). But, that's just for rolling a single one, and, even here, there's 9 ways ypu can do it -- first roll is a one, second is a one,... last is a one. Now ypu need to do 2 ones and all those combinations. Then three ones. Etc, etc. Now you can sum these to get your answer.

Or, you can recognize that all of that boils down to 100% minus the chance to never roll a one and do the simpler math.

 

[Oofta]

So, (and maybe you said this already) do you use critical hits? It is the same logic. It doesn't matter on a d20 roll if you make the target number (AC or DC) by exactly the number or by 5 or by the maximum.


Sorry, I am and when other people throw out numbers that aren't accurate I question their methods. My apologies.

Without the confirmation roll, I agree, it would be way too high. Without it, a fighter with 3 attacks would fumble nearly 15% of the time while a single attack only 5%. But, with the confirmation roll, it works out well.

As you said before, however, it raises the question of whether the additional rules/rollings make the game more fun or not? Since the base chance is only 1 in 20, it doesn't come up often, but when it does it adds extra tension I've always enjoyed and have always used in one form or another.


Not if confirmation rolls are used, but again then it becomes a question of whether the rules add to the fun or not. For many posters, obviously not. For me, yes.

Critical hits just add a small amount of damage. At first I was disappointed that it didn't do more, but I'm okay with it. Far better than the DM that used a six sided die with body parts and decided that if he rolled the "head" that you were decapitated. Did I mention he loved to throw large numbers of weak monsters that frequently needed a 20 to hit at all? That if he rolled right arm you lost use of that arm and could no longer attack?

Anyway, sorry about the rant, but yes criticals always hit and do a little extra damage. Just like ones miss.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, it just seems to me that that quibbling about the exact percentage is a tad besides the point.

Okay. I think math is both neat and important. Understanding it helps make good choices. Here, sure, it doesn't make a huge difference, and I'm fully onboatd with fumbles being a competence penalty -- they disproportionately impact the most competent even outside the fighter example.

 

[Oofta]

Here's the longer breakout. While it is true the individual trials are 5%, ypu can't just add thise because you have to account for the probability of not rolling a one for the ither rolls. So, it's .05 x (.95^8). But, that's just for rolling a single one, and, even here, there's 9 ways ypu can do it -- first roll is a one, second is a one,... last is a one. Now ypu need to do 2 ones and all those combinations. Then three ones. Etc, etc. Now you can sum these to get your answer.

Or, you can recognize that all of that boils down to 100% minus the chance to never roll a one and do the simpler math.

I never claimed to be a statistician.

My point is higher level characters should not fumble more often than low level ones.

Do the specific math details change the foundation of my preference in any way?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I never claimed to be a statistician.

My point is higher level characters should not fumble more often than low level ones.

Do the specific math details change the foundation of my preference in any way?

Did you not ask how it worked? Did I say it altered your premise?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Critical hits just add a small amount of damage. At first I was disappointed that it didn't do more, but I'm okay with it. Far better than the DM that used a six sided die with body parts and decided that if he rolled the "head" that you were decapitated. Did I mention he loved to throw large numbers of weak monsters that frequently needed a 20 to hit at all? That if he rolled right arm you lost use of that arm and could no longer attack?

Anyway, sorry about the rant, but yes criticals always hit and do a little extra damage. Just like ones miss.

LOL back in high school (late 80's) we used the critical hit tables so common at the time. It was one of those things where if it was good for us to get on foes it was good for them to get on us.

Don't worry about the rant at all. We all have things we are passionate about rule-wise. Personally, if I could convince tables to remove critical hits and fumbles from the game, I would be just as happy. As I mentioned earlier I think the only rules that should be part of the RAW is a 20 always succeeds and a 1 always fails--for attacks, ability checks, saves, or whatever.

FWIW we recently changed our critical hit rule to granting another attack instead of double damage dice. The additional attack does not need to be on the same target or even with the same weapon, but it must be of the same "type" (i.e. weapon or spell). So far, we all love it and will continue using it from now on IMO, it offers more tactical options in many ways.

Anyway, thanks for your input and the discussion.

 

[Oofta]

When I'm caffeinated, and actually awake (not half asleep like this morning ) I get that my 45% was FUBAR. After all if I flip a coin twice it's not a 100% chance to get heads. There is a (very small) statistical chance that you could roll a D20 100 times and never roll a 1.

I just dislike rolling a 1 (or a 20) having an outsized impact. Which is kind of a problem I have with the current system, and the outsized impact it feels like it gives rogues. Or is it just more spikes than overall cumulative damage? I'm sure someone has already done the analysis somewhere. Maybe they could also tell me if it was really worth it for my first 5E rogue to take levels of fighter to get champion and crit on a 19 or 20. Not that it would have mattered much, he multi-classed for other reason, but it was fun to double significantly increase the chance of getting a critical hit on my turn. Now for my paladin that can decide after the roll whether to smite or not ... hmm.

On a related note, I also used to ask people to confirm crits. So if you rolled a 20, roll again to see if you do extra damage. If you hit the target AC again, double your damage. Confirm with a 20 and not only do you double damage, but you get to roll again. Rinse and repeat. In theory that 1 lucky blow could kill a dragon. Unlike @dnd4vr though, it was just the idea that the blow hit a vulnerable spot. I thought it was fun, but it confused the players so I ended up dropping it.

But I think we've derailed this thread enough.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Hey OP! OVER HERE! I actually have a story for you instead of being a poopy pants and complaining about your fun (like who would deny there 11 year old daughter the chance to have a dragon as a friend in a game about make believe?!)
Anyway, I was playing with a DM who loved crit fail and crit success tables. Roll percentile dice and see what craziness happens. We were fighting a green dragon that was poised to absolutely wreck us. The DM rolled a natty 1 and consulted his crit fail table. After rolling the percentile dice he gets quiet and I can see he’s having a hard time with what he rolled. He always rolls out in the open and never fudges his die rolls. He then declares that the dragons HP has been reduced to 1. He gave a reason for it happening but I don’t remember what it was. He used his DM powers to have the dragon fly away as he wanted it to be a recurring villain

Did this sorta break the immersion? Sure. Was it hilarious and fun? ABSOLUTELY.

I use crit fail tables, but reduced it to less specific ideas that allow me as DM narrate why things went wrong. Math be damned!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I mentioned earlier I think the only rules that should be part of the RAW is a 20 always succeeds and a 1 always fails--for attacks, ability checks, saves, or whatever.

No, it shouldn't. D20 is already absurdly swingy. We don't need to on top on that to add a mechanic that allows utter incompetent buffoons to succeed in most epic of tasks and legendary grand masters fail at trivial ones.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No, it shouldn't. D20 is already absurdly swingy. We don't need to on top on that to add a mechanic that allows utter incompetent buffoons to succeed in most epic of tasks and legendary grand masters fail at trivial ones.

You can disagree all you like, but yes, it should IMO and in my games. It is a 1 in 20 chance for something significant to happen for the positive or for the negative (ok, 1 in 10 if you combine them... ).

Remember also that in 5E a "failure" is also a lack of progress. There is also the variant rule that if your modifier is high enough and the DC is low enough, you don't even need to roll. For the people (like you) who don't want the straight 1 or 20 to have that impact, you can employ a confirmation roll. If they are buffoony enough that would basically need two 20's in a row and if they were legendary grand masters, they would need two 1's in a row.

As for the swinginess, I agree. Which is why many tables have adopted 2d10 or 3d6 even for ability checks. But they often don't do the same for attacks and saves. Personally, it is why I like other systems that don't use a linear d20 for most rolls. I like games with dice pools as the more dice greatly decrease the chance of a botch, fumble, or whatever.