Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8122513" data-attributes="member: 6987520">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... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).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.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification