D&D (2024) Inspiration From Nat 20 Will Bog Down The Game

[Mistwell]

I like and use inspiration as it is in the existing game, though I understand why many people don't or mostly ignore it. And I'm cool with introducing mechanical ways to gain inspiration, like the Musician feat.

I don't think the natural 20 "on any check" grants Inspiration is a good rule however. I think it has unintended consequences which will bog down the game a great deal for some tables.

If you get Inspiration from a natural 20 for any type of check, and you have reasons to use Inspiration more (both things stated by Crawford), then one unintended consequence is an incentive for players to be rolling a lot more d20s. Because it's just a 5% chance of rolling a natural 20, so the more d20s you roll, the more often you will achieve that natural 20 to generate more inspiration.

If your players right now don't check every door they encounter first to listen to see what they can hear behind it (Perception) then to check for traps (often Investigation), they will have an incentive to do that more often now. If they don't try to identify every religious symbol on a wall (Religion) or mural they encounter (History) or every tune they hear (Performance) or medicinal herb they find (Medicine) or which way is north (Survival) and on and on, they have that incentive to make those checks more often now. And most of these have very little risk involved in rolling a natural 1 and failing them.

And some of that might be fun of course and engage the players in the setting more. But I suspect a lot of it will be a waste of time.

And you might be thinking "But my players wouldn't do that." Great. Some players will. And their benefitting from it will incentivize others do to it more as well.

I just don't think a natural 20 generating Inspiration on an out-of-combat skill check is a good idea for the time management of a game. There should be some limitations placed on this concept, and I'd suggest the limitation should be that you're making the check under some sort of pressure where failure can have some meaningful cost in terms of your PC resources or enemy threats, etc. is required for a natural 20 to trigger Inspiration granting.

What do you guys think? Is this concern unwarranted? Is there a better way to deal with it? Am I reading these playtest rules wrong?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is this concern unwarranted?

In a word: yes.

Not because it's illogical, but because it's profoundly unlikely to happen IRL. It's not about "my group would never do that", it's that players in general won't, because it's boring and not fun. Further, it requires the DM to essentially collaborate, because RAW no roll is made unless the DM says to make the roll.

It's possible that, for like, one session, some groups will behave in a slightly silly way. But they'll get bored. It's not exciting or fun. And the DM will probably just let them make less rolls.

So it'll pass.

 

[Composer99]

PCs only make a check if the rules say they do or if the DM says they do. Most of the activities you're describing are things that, as far as I'm aware, the DM decides whether or not the PCs make a check.

So the way to avoid too many rolls is for the DM to remember not to call for checks for every thing the PCs do. That could mean the PCs automatically do the thing, automatically fail to do the thing, or if it's not worth a die roll, the DM uses their passive check totals to decide if they do the thing or not.

 

[Retreater]

The game is already too easy to need to worry about using Inspiration. 5.5/6E will make it even easier for players.

 

[Mistwell]

PCs only make a check if the rules say they do or if the DM says they do. Most of the activities you're describing are things that, as far as I'm aware, the DM decides whether or not the PCs make a check.

Well, yes and no. If a PC checks a door for traps, a DM doesn't have to call for a roll if there is no trap. But if the DM chooses to do that, then when there is a trap, you're immediately signaling to the PCs there is a trap when you do call for a roll.

Similar with a lot of these things. If identifying how someone was killed is a story element which can have meaning for the players and the one time they try on a body you suddenly call for a roll, they know without rolling the answer is important and are likely to feel like they want to act accordingly.

Some of the examples can be eliminated. Your Dwarf wants to know what way is North? Just tell them, without a check. Your druid wants to know what a medicinal herb is? Just tell them without a check.

But players are inventive critters. It is, after all, a part of the challenge of the game to be inventive for many. I suspect many will find numerous situations to increase their opportunities to roll another d20 if simply rolling a d20 comes with it's own potential built-in reward. And I think there should be rules to address this - specifically, a rule requiring negative ramifications for a failed check or a loss of a resource (like an action you need for something else) for it to count as a potential trigger for Inspiration.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But players are inventive critters. It is, after all, a part of the challenge of the game to be inventive for many. I suspect many will find numerous situations to increase their opportunities to roll another d20 if simply rolling a d20 comes with it's own potential built-in reward.

This is like half the truth.

Yes, players are inventive. But players are also fun-oriented and easily bored. They're not going to be interested in elaborately "running the clock" to get a couple more dice of mostly-useless Inspiration, not session after session. For one session maybe.

 

[Retreater]

But players are inventive critters. It is, after all, a part of the challenge of the game to be inventive for many. I suspect many will find numerous situations to increase their opportunities to roll another d20 if simply rolling a d20 comes with it's own potential built-in reward. And I think there should be rules to address this - specifically, a rule requiring negative ramifications for a failed check or a loss of a resource (like an action you need for something else) for it to count as a potential trigger for Inspiration.

Early in the days of 5e (back when players assumed it would be slightly challenging), I had players constantly fishing for Inspiration: "Oh, my Bond is this, so I did that for Inspiration," etc.
I put an end to that, just like I'd put an end to players rolling dice just for a chance to "win" Inspiration.

 

[Mistwell]

The game is already too easy to need to worry about using Inspiration. 5.5/6E will make it even easier for players.

The same rule ended crits on spells, ended crits applying to smites, and ended crits applying to sneak attack, and ended crits on a host of other added bonus dice to damage. All while increasing the use of foes using recharge abilities, which frequently are deadlier and are more often area attacks or movement based attacks. So I disagree with you claiming this rule in itself is making the game easier for players. It's changing things, but not necessarily to the "easy" end of the spectrum.

 

[Aldarc]

I like and use inspiration as it is in the existing game, though I understand why many people don't or mostly ignore it. And I'm cool with introducing mechanical ways to gain inspiration, like the Musician feat.

I don't think the natural 20 "on any check" grants Inspiration is a good rule however. I think it has unintended consequences which will bog down the game a great deal for some tables.

If you get Inspiration from a natural 20 for any type of check, and you have reasons to use Inspiration more (both things stated by Crawford), then one unintended consequence is an incentive for players to be rolling a lot more d20s. Because it's just a 5% chance of rolling a natural 20, so the more d20s you roll, the more often you will achieve that natural 20 to generate more inspiration.

If your players right now don't check every door they encounter first to listen to see what they can hear behind it (Perception) then to check for traps (often Investigation), they will have an incentive to do that more often now. If they don't try to identify every religious symbol on a wall (Religion) or mural they encounter (History) or every tune they hear (Performance) or medicinal herb they find (Medicine) or which way is north (Survival) and on and on, they have that incentive to make those checks more often now. And most of these have very little risk involved in rolling a natural 1 and failing them.

And some of that might be fun of course and engage the players in the setting more. But I suspect a lot of it will be a waste of time.

And you might be thinking "But my players wouldn't do that." Great. Some players will. And their benefitting from it will incentivize others do to it more as well.

I just don't think a natural 20 generating Inspiration on an out-of-combat skill check is a good idea for the time management of a game. There should be some limitations placed on this concept, and I'd suggest the limitation should be that you're making the check under some sort of pressure where failure can have some meaningful cost in terms of your PC resources or enemy threats, etc. is required for a natural 20 to trigger Inspiration granting.

What do you guys think? Is this concern unwarranted? Is there a better way to deal with it? Am I reading these playtest rules wrong?

I think that the GM calls for rolls and not players. So the amount that players roll will be gated by how often the GM calls for a roll.

 

[Mistwell]

I think that the GM calls for rolls and not players. So the amount that players roll will be gated by how often the GM calls for a roll.

It puts the DM in a more difficult position for a lot of kinds of checks. If you don't call for a roll when a player wants to check something, you're communicating it's either so simple or so complicated they cannot succeed or fail, or you're communicating to your players the question isn't important. IE there is no trap, or something useful connected to identifying something, etc..

So if a player says they check a chest for traps, and you don't call for a roll, then you're communicating there is no trap on that chest. You're communicating something you don't necessarily want the players to know by responding with no check. So you're more inclined to allow a check each time, so that when it does matter your players have an opportunity to detect it.

So yes of course it's the DMs call, but that doesn't really address the issue. It just highlights which person has to deal with the issue.