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

[Lidgar]

And here I thought this thread was about the halfling luck trait.

DM: “Ha! You rolled a 1 and missed!”

PC Halfling Rogue: (re-rolls 1) “I crit!”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Confirmation rolls slow down the game. They aren't needed if you don't introduce the silly fumble/autosuccess mechanic to begin with.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Is it ok to include other very low rolls too? I think the idea that failure can be fun applies to both!

if you allow my broadening of the concept of ‘1’ being rolled....

I ran across a narrow bridge over a very large pit. I was trying to get to a ledge where wights with longbows were stitching us up!

of course the pit was teeming teeming! With ghouls.

reaching the other side and feeling fortunate I hit a wight! But then came the low roll....

as you may have guessed the wight decided to drop his bow and shove me into the pit of ghouls! I was strong and had proficiency in athletics. I will take those chances....right up until I rolled a ‘3.’ Into the pit of ghouls I went!

the rest of the session was me trying to get to a rope ladder tossed down and friends throwing sanctuary on me, killing a ghoul that was quickly replaced by another. It was imminent death round after round. They followed me out.

one character paralyzed, another hefts and drags him, then trading places! A fighting withdrawal to the catacombs...

failure led to a very dangerous cinematic seen we will all remember!

 

[R_J_K75]

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.

I found this odd when I took a statistics course, didn't understand most of it, and its very possible Im wrong and misremembering, but I seem to recall that that yes if you flip a coin its 50% itll land on heads or tails. But I think that the if you flipped it 100 times statistically it will land on one more than the other. So 50% doesnt make sense to me but then again I got a D in the class so listening to me isnt wise.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Confirmation rolls slow down the game. They aren't needed if you don't introduce the silly fumble/autosuccess mechanic to begin with.

LOL considering they only happen 10% of the time, they don't slow things down that much.

Besides, a lot of players like the tension confirmation rolls and a critical hit/fumble system provides.

Again, you do you, but your tone that they are "silly" just because you don't agree with them or like them is a bit offensive. I am sure you do things in your game I would find silly as well, so let's drop it?

 

[Weiley31]

What are you talking about? Nat 1's were always great! People just have an unhealthy obsession with Nat 20's for some odd reason.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

LOL considering they only happen 10% of the time, they don't slow things down that much.

Besides, a lot of players like the tension confirmation rolls and a critical hit/fumble system provides.

Again, you do you, but your tone that they are "silly" just because you don't agree with them or like them is a bit offensive. I am sure you do things in your game I would find silly as well, so let's drop it?

If your group likes the houserule then that's great. I have nothing against you using houserules in a game I'm not playing in. But this tangent started from you saying that this should be an official rule and with that I strongly disagree.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I found this odd when I took a statistics course, didn't understand most of it, and its very possible Im wrong and misremembering, but I seem to recall that that yes if you flip a coin its 50% itll land on heads or tails. But I think that the if you flipped it 100 times statistically it will land on one more than the other. So 50% doesnt make sense to me but then again I got a D in the class so listening to me isnt wise.

The more flips you do, the closer you will come to 50/50 heads/tails. You might do 100 flips and get 43/57 or 48/52 or even 0/100 (insanely unlikely, though...). The further you get away from the 50/50, the more likely some other factor is contributing to the situation. If you got 41/59 or greater away from 50/50, I would question things such as the balance of the coin, etc. because you are significantly away from it just being random chance. It is certainly still possible, but at that point I would start to question things.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If your group likes the houserule then that's great. I have nothing against you using houserules in a game I'm not playing in. But this tangent started from you saying that this should be an official rule and with that I strongly disagree.

I never said confirmation rolls should be part of the system, just that it was an option for people who don't want a 1 to fail and a 20 to succeed because they feel 5% for each is too great. And at that point when I was talking about 20 always succeeding and 1 always failing, those weren't "silly" criticals/fumbles as you seemed to think.

 

[R_J_K75]

The more flips you do, the closer you will come to 50/50 heads/tails. You might do 100 flips and get 43/57 or 48/52 or even 0/100 (insanely unlikely, though...). The further you get away from the 50/50, the more likely some other factor is contributing to the situation. If you got 41/59 or greater away from 50/50, I would question things such as the balance of the coin, etc. because you are significantly away from it just being random chance. It is certainly still possible, but at that point I would start to question things.

Statistics are never straight forward.