D&D 5E Questioning Nat 20's: Opposing Skills Checks.

[iserith]

At least you didn't tell the player that their character was instead intimidated by the knight!

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Per the official rules nat 20s are only special on attacks and death saves. This is fuddy-duddy and boring. Yes you could try to train players to not get excited by nat 20s on ability checks, but that just kills a source of fun at most tables in favor of... accounting. And the price they pay for nat 20s being special is that sometimes the specialness works against them.

This is not to say that a nat20 should be instant success on anything, but for purposes of a contested check (or if for some reason I'm letting someone roll for an impossible task) I'd let it count as equivalent to a 25 or so on the die. Exceptional success within the realm that success is possible, is the idea. Certainly I would let a nat 20 beat a contested check that with bonuses came out just a couple points higher.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another options you could always go with is that you can play the knight as not "intimidated" (IE scared) per se, but still willing to go along with what the Ranger put forth since they lost the roll. Maybe instead they were awed by the ranger... not frightened or browbeaten, but impressed enough to follow along with any good idea the ranger might present. That would get the ranger what they wanted from winning the contested roll, but the Nat 20 (from Brave) could also keep the knight from looking like a shlub (especially considering they even have an ability called Brave).

 

[Oofta]

A 20 doesn't mean automatic success, a 1 doesn't mean automatic failure except for attack rolls. It's fine if you want to handle it otherwise, but for me it's really situationally dependent and a 20 only "automatically" succeeds in rare cases.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

So just noting.... while you are mechanically incorrect, you weren't wrong.

DMs are going to make judgement calls, that's part of the game. You will do the best you can, and as long as your rulings have a reasonable basis your doing fine. No issue with double checking on the forums after the fact and changing your mind for future work, but never beat yourself up about those judgement calls!

From the Wild Beyond the Witchlight:

"Dungeon Masters are fallible, just like everyone else, and even the most experienced DMs make mistakes. If you overlook, forget, or misrepresent something, correct yourself and move on. ... As long as your players are having fun, everything will be just fine."

 

[Weiley31]

Another options you could always go with is that you can play the knight as not "intimidated" (IE scared) per se, but still willing to go along with what the Ranger put forth since they lost the roll. Maybe instead they were awed by the ranger... not frightened or browbeaten, but impressed enough to follow along with any good idea the ranger might present. That would get the ranger what they wanted from winning the contested roll, but the Nat 20 (from Brave) could also keep the knight from looking like a shlub (especially considering they even have an ability called Brave).

That's pretty much what I didish to not like mood kill the Ranger getting a two point high number on the roll: Neither character intimidated the other or what not, but I had the Knight do a slight nod of acknowledgement to the Ranger in regards to recognizing their skills. Had the Ranger rolled a super low or lower number than 20 after the CHA modifier, then the Knight would've rubbed it in the Ranger's face more on wasting everybody's time and not even acknowledge him at all.

 

[Weiley31]

In your shoes I'd own up to the mistake, clarify the rule for the future, but also give that player their next nat 20 skill roll a spectacular success to make it up to them.

Part of me is willing to legit give them an one-time auto Nat 20 on ANY roll of their choice during the session or future session in that regard basically.

 

[billd91]

One option, instead of auto-success on 20 or auto-fail on 1 is to use one of the sidebar rules from 3e. You add +10 to the result for a natural 20, subtract 10 for a natural 1 and then adjudicate based on the results. Given the bounded accuracy of 5e, I'd pare it down to more like +5/-5 but it can give you some wider result ranges without giving out auto-success/fail.

 

[delericho]

Huh. Is my playing that a nat 20 on a save is an auto-success a vestige of a previous edition then? (Not that I plan to change that).

It is.

Actually, I don't think it is - certainly, in 3e skill checks didn't grant auto-success on a 20 (only for attack rolls and saves), and in 1st and 2nd Ed proficiencies were roll-under. I'm not super-familiar with 4e, but a quick scan of the PHB didn't spot an auto-success for skill checks there either.

That said, it was always a common house rule, and appears to be far from uncommon in 5e too.

 

[Horwath]

One option, instead of auto-success on 20 or auto-fail on 1 is to use one of the sidebar rules from 3e. You add +10 to the result for a natural 20, subtract 10 for a natural 1 and then adjudicate based on the results. Given the bounded accuracy of 5e, I'd pare it down to more like +5/-5 but it can give you some wider result ranges without giving out auto-success/fail.

we did +5/-5 in 3.5e(+10/-10 was too much).
It was dumb that a weapon master would ever miss an unarmored peasant, unless very difficult situation(large penalties)