D&D 5E Should there always be a chance of failure in D&D Next?

[ForeverSlayer]

The title says it all.

• Yes: You believe that nothing requiring a roll in D&D Next should ever be automatic except for a natural 20 and that the rolling of a natural 1 always results in a miss or failure.
• No: You believe there comes a point where something that once required a roll could eventually just happen automatically.
• Other: Give us an opinion on this in your own words.

I'm voting "Yes" and I'm going to give you my reason as to why.



I believe that no matter how good at something you are and no matter how many times a day you do it, things happen that are out of your control. Someone may drive to work everyday with no problems what so ever but one day another driver plows into you and causes you to wreck. Now your level of driving had nothing to do with this, an outside force, that you couldn't control, came into play and caused you to wreck. I know that a 20 sided doesn't give you a very real percentage chance when it comes to failing at things but it's all we have at the moment.



I have always liked the fact that failing on a natural 1 resulted in something that happened due to an outside force, or maybe just a slip up on your part.

 

[Minigiant]

The minimum chance of 5% is too high for a chance of failure for some actions.

Under certain conditions, certain actions could be automatic success.

 

[Dice4Hire]

This poll question is very unclear.

IMO, anything difficult enough to require a dice roll should not have auto success.

Anything too simple for a dice roll should be auto success.

By the first, I mean rogues should not have auto-success to open locks or disarm traps. There should be a chance of failure, of course dependent on the level and lock or trap's difficulty.

Same for cleric, mages and fighters doing things inside their area of specialization.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If there is a roll involved, then something important should hinge on that roll.

There are actions that shouldn't require a roll. Once the dice come out though, there needs to be a reason for the roll. I'm not against auto success for certain things, but then the dice don't need to be used at all.

So for those situations that actually require a roll, yes there should always be a chance of failure, else why roll?

 

[Croesus]

The minimum chance of 5% is too high for a chance of failure for some actions.

Agreed.

Also, the OP's suggestion hinges on the GM properly adjudicating when checks must be made, especially with a party composed of characters with significantly different skill sets. Consider the following example:

One character has never ridden a horse in his life. He's unsure he'll even keep his seat if the horse moves at a trot. Another character is an expert rider. All the other characters have some skill with horses, but not as much as the expert.

So...the party comes to a shallow stream and decide to ford it. Do they need to make ride checks? If so, does everyone make a check? If so, what is the DC?

If the GM does what most GM's do - "Make a Ride check" - then you have a 5% chance the expert will fall off his horse (or have some other problem) simply crossing a shallow stream similar to ones he's crossed his whole life. Is that reasonable?

How about the novice? There's a real chance he'll have problems, but what if the expert can help guide the horse across, perhaps even taking the reins? In such a situation, is there still a 5% chance of the novice falling?

One advantage of skill checks is that the GM doesn't have to be an expert on everything, able to make carefully nuanced rulings on esoteric subjects. If a reasonable person thinks a check might be necessary, the GM can call for one, confident that the expert character won't be affected. Once you include automatic failure 5% of the time, the burden shifts to the GM to determine when each character has to make a check, vs. the party as a whole.

BTW, this is a good argument for Monte's idea of skill levels vs. skill points. Characters are rated (IIRC) as Untrained, Novice, Skilled, Expert, etc. The GM assigns a level to the task. If a character has that level of skill, they succeed automatically. If they don't, then they roll. That is a situation where I could support automatic failure.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

If there is a roll involved, then something important should hinge on that roll.

There are actions that shouldn't require a roll. Once the dice come out though, there needs to be a reason for the roll. I'm not against auto success for certain things, but then the dice don't need to be used at all.

So for those situations that actually require a roll, yes there should always be a chance of failure, else why roll?

The bold part is how I feel.

If a roll of the dice is not needed then it will just be described as part of the narrative.

If it requires a roll then there should be some chance of failure.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If there's a roll, there should be a chance of failure. That failure can be variable, though. A novice might fall off of his horse with a 1 on a ride check; an expert might just slow down and fail his trick. (Aside -- for skill checks I prefer a 1 roll equals -10 to the check, while a natural 20 equals an additional +10 to a check. No auto-success/fail as a result depending on your skill level.)

I'm fine with including other mechanics that are not random and thus do not have a built-in failure chance.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Agreed.



If the GM does what most GM's do - "Make a Ride check" - then you have a 5% chance the expert will fall off his horse (or have some other problem) simply crossing a shallow stream similar to ones he's crossed his whole life. Is that reasonable?

The problem here is you are assuming that the "expert" is in 100% control.

Nobody should need to make a ride check for just riding a horse.

Now in this scenario, the rocks on the bottom could shift as the expert is crossing and cause the horse to become unbalanced or startled and cause the rider to try and control the animal.

You can be the best rider to ever exist but you can't control what goes on around you.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I said no, but I'm not sure I understand the question completely.

For example, I think that people should be able to take 10/take 20 or the like in many circumstances. Those are circumstances where there is no stress and not a lot is happening. D&D also presumes the automatic success of most spells; you don't try to cast one and fail and many don't allow saves or the like. If you're trying to do something meaningfully tough, there obviously should be a chance of failure.

 

[Zustiur]

I voted 'Other' because like others who have already posted, I think the question and available options are badly worded.