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

[Sir Brennen]

If the DM is following 5e guidance they will just grant auto-success on attacking chairs or flies, so there shouldn’t be a roll.

Exactly. But as Mistwell points out, that approach can be problematic when searching for things like secret doors and traps. The PHB mentions using Passive Checks, but also has a sidebar dedicated to Finding Hidden Things, where it says the player makes the Perception check, based on the description of where they're looking. It doesn't really offer advice on handling players who name every single object, in every single room, as something they want to search.

But to me, the fact the players make the roll at all is weird. If you make a roll that obviously, or even just likely, fails then the player knows they failed. How can you know the difference between "failing" to find anything - meaning you find nothing - versus "succeeding" to find nothing?

Getting rid of that weirdness would resolve the issue and probably the Nat 20 abuse question.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But to me, the fact the players make the roll at all is weird. If you make a roll that obviously, or even just likely fails, the player knows they failed. How can you know the difference between "failing" to find anything - meaning you find nothing - versus "succeeding" to find nothing?

Getting rid of that weirdness would resolve the issue and probably the Nat 20 abuse question.

100% agree, which is why I try to train my players that they will never need to randomly search for secret doors. If there’s a secret door to be found they probably will get some kind of hint to look for one, that if they use the hints to look in exactly the right place they won’t have to roll, and that if they haven’t received such a hint it’s a waste of time trying.

I don’t bother using randomly placed secret doors that might be randomly found.

 

[Amrûnril]

I suspect fishing for chances to roll will become marginally more common at a lot of tables, but will only rarely be a serious problem. That said, I really don't see the underlying benefit to this change. There are plenty of other ways the developers could add more inspiration to the game, and I've never felt like a natural 20 somehow needed to give an additional benefit.

My greater worry would be that this change feels like gilding the lily, so to speak. A natural 20 is already the greatest triumph possible, as far as the die-rolling dimension of the game is concerned, and tacking on inspiration could encourage players to think of it as a stopping point on the way to something else, rather than a moment to be savored in and of itself.

 

[Stalker0]

I think this speaks to a larger "problem", which is the scope of skill checks is not that well defined. Now we don't want to be too rigid, but I think some more guidance on this would be great.

For example, put a standard little dungeon in the DMG (like 3-4 rooms), and just walk through it as a big example. Show that perception at the door is meant to cover everything in the room....explain how often to give rogues a check on those traps, show some knowledge check examples of what works (and what probably shouldn't).

An example is worth a million words, and the DMG is a perfect place to show what the designers generally intended for skill check frequency. the DM is always welcome to throw off the guidance and go their own way, but this at least provides a little more "standard experience" without firming shouting, "you must play dnd this way or else"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think this speaks to a larger "problem", which is the scope of skill checks is not that well defined. Now we don't want to be too rigid, but I think some more guidance on this would be great.

For example, put a standard little dungeon in the DMG (like 3-4 rooms), and just walk through it as a big example. Show that perception at the door is meant to cover everything in the room....explain how often to give rogues a check on those traps, show some knowledge check examples of what works (and what probably shouldn't).

An example is worth a million words, and the DMG is a perfect place to show what the designers generally intended for skill check frequency. the DM is always welcome to throw off the guidance and go their own way, but this at least provides a little more "standard experience" without firming shouting, "you must play dnd this way or else"

Also, like, put pictures/diagrams, I swear to god, because otherwise no-one ever reads an example (except smart people, which excludes me, as a dingbat). There's nothing worse than see like a couple of pages (or more!) of a detailed example (no matter how well-written) with no pictures. It's so good at making me glaze over. It's pretty bizarre because I can read huge manuals and stuff for work, but examples, oh the glazening.

 

[pnewman]

If the DM is following 5e guidance they will just grant auto-success on attacking chairs or flies, so there shouldn’t be a roll.

Chairs are often made out of wood. Wood is AC15. Even if the DM is granting advantage to the attack because chairs do not have eyes and therefore they count as Blinded, a L1 character with a +5 to hit will still miss a chair over 20% of the time. Even a character with a +14 or more to hit would still miss one time in four hundred, because the player could roll two ones. Why would you grant auto-success, unless time did not matter?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Chairs are often made out of wood. Wood is AC15. Even if the DM is granting advantage to the attack because chairs do not have eyes and therefore they count as Blinded, a L1 character with a +5 to hit will still miss a chair over 20% of the time. Even a character with a +14 or more to hit would still miss one time in four hundred, because the player could roll two ones. Why would you grant auto-success, unless time did not matter?

Because if there's no consequence to failure why roll?

If this is during combat, and smashing the chair would achieve some objective (somebody is tied to it that you want to free?) then I would ask for a roll. The consequence of failure in that case is that you used your turn, so there's an opportunity cost.

But, again, if there's no consequence to failure, no roll. It's how 5e is intended to be played. It's right there in the book.

 

[CubicsRube]

I suspect for tables that really find these rules problematic they could easily change the rules to only giving inspiration on an attack roll or a saving throw.

The only "policing" you have to do then is make people roll ability checks to attack a chair, not an attack roll. But really if you have people gaming the system so much that it's interrupting play, that's a people problem, not a rules one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But really if you have people gaming the system so much that it's interrupting play, that's a people problem, not a rules one.

Worth emphasizing.

The solution to jerks is not to craft rules that prevent people from being jerks, but to not play with jerks.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I mean, that's the heart of the issue right? If they're only 1 in 20, but valuable, then players will naturally try to work to get more d20s rolled to increase their odds. Which can slow the game down if they're seeking Tests where they wouldn't have before.

I don't agree that any large majority of players is going to "naturally" do anything that impedes the flow of the game. Do your players constantly use Help actions and guidance at each and every skill check at your table, or do they trot those out for only very critical checks that carry significant weight?