Don't. Reliable skills are nothing new and IMO are necessary for the game. 'Skill Monkey' classes need to be able to reliably propose actions, and it's good for the game because it means that they can now reliably perform stunts. In particular, you want to reach a point where any easy action with a skill doesn't require a roll, encouraging to the player to do it (because no risk) and avoiding slowing down the game with pointless dice rolling.
Earlier editions of the game, and many other RPG's somehow function without auto-succeed skills. And yes, I could go play those editions or other games, but I quite like 5E. I'm not here to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Unless you plan to implement a 'All spells fail on the roll of a 1 rule', don't nerf skills. Non-combat spells do not generally have a failure condition. Compare hiding with invisibility, climbing or jumping with flight, open lock with knock, searching with detecting/scry spells and so forth. Gimping a skill by making it permanently unreliable makes a non-spellcaster permanently less reliable and than a spellcaster's ability to alter the game universe and acquire narrative resources.
Non-combat spells use up a resource; a spell slot. Even ritual spells consume time.
And I don't think a very small possibility of failure is a gimp. To be clear, I don't really like the natural 1 = failure option much because it means a 5% chance of failure, and I think that's too high for an 11th level rogue skill monkey.
You can always have tasks that require nigh supernatural levels of skill that do have a chance of failure if you need to test the skill of a character.
Look at it this way, if a 12th level superhero (supervillain?) wants to break into the houses of ordinary mortals and steal thier stuff, he's going to succeed. The Joker, the Clown Prince of Crime, is not going to have a problem successfully breaking into a middle class home, terrorizing the inhabitants, and taking their stuff. It's an autosuccess for him provided he has not yet attracted the attention of The Batman. If your PC wants to go on a crime spree, the let him. There is no drama in that, but its not the fault of the rules. It's the fault of the player for setting his sights so small. Respond to that intelligently as a DM, with the overmatched peasants appealing to a temple or to a government for aid, and a team of Paladins and Inquisitors arriving to avenge the put upon peasants. That is where your drama comes from, not whether he can steal the candlesticks from some poor coppersmith, or loot the handful of silver that a fuller has hidden under his mattress.
1, comparing a literary character to a D&D character is a false equivalency. The joker auto succeeds because he's written that way.
2, A 5 second die roll takes too much time away from the game, but a full on side plot involving paladins and government that might take multiple full sessions to resolve is fine? I'm not saying that side plots kicked off due to player actions are bad. I've just read many responses that claim the die roll is a time suck, while at the same time advocating consequences that could well take up weeks or months of game time.
Besides that, if you want to make your thief breaking into homes challenging, there are ways to do that that don't involve failing ordinary skill checks. If you want advice, fork to another thread with a title like, "How would peasants protect their homes from thieves?"
As I said before, the rogue ripping off a whole town scenario is just an example. I wish we could get past it.
Last edited: