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

[El Mahdi]

I selected No.

I think it should be left up to the DM of each game/group, just as the current 5E rules have it. The DM should be able to allow certain things to just automatically succeed based on a characters abilities or level of skill...if they want to do so...and having guidelines for how to do this is a good thing.

Those that want everything to be a check or save, just continue to do so.

The presence of guidelines for automatic successes, in no way impedes DM's and groups that don't want to use them.

 

[Umbran]

I just see it as a guideline for what you can handwave.

Exactly - the Take 10/20 rules are telling you when you can just go ahead and deal with it in narrative.

I'm in the camp of 'If you are making a roll you should have a chance at failure, otherwise, don't waste time rolling.'

I'm pretty much here, too, at least for D&D, where the roll is success/fail.

In a system where the roll determines a degree of success, then there's still reason to roll if you cannot fail.

 

[Elf Witch]

I say yes because even experts mess up now and then.

I also think there are times to just hand wave things away coming to the shallow creek as long as it is smooth then just say they ride across it.

I know DM fiat is not as popular as it used to be but I think this is a good place for it. I don't call for a roll for every time there are times it just does not add to the story.

I like mechanics for failing I use them in my games if you roll a 1 in combat you need to reroll just like with a crit if you make what you need to hit nothing happens if you fail then you lose a turn. If you roll another one you lose your turn and are flat footed until you go again.

If you roll a 20 to confirm a crit you get to add another dice of damage.

On skill rolls a 1 is a -10 a 20 is a +10 I like the fact that with this there is a chance of failing even if you have maxed out an ability.

 

[Lanefan]

It's purely a time-saver. In situations where you can take 20, you could otherwise just keep rolling and rolling. You will eventually roll a 20, so just say take the time in-game and say you did rather than sitting there and rolling over and over.

Depends how you define the initial roll.

To me, that roll represents the best you are going to do under the current circumstances, period. You can't just keep trying with a new roll for each try - the assumption of the roll is that you *have* kept trying and this is the best you're gonna get.

To get another roll you have to somehow change the circumstances - if you can.

3e's take-20 (and take-10) mechanic assumes you can keep rolling over and over again until you get the result you want; and I think this is the wrong approach.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

My short answer is no. My long answer is also no, but with a lot more explanation.

The existing answer, in many games, is already no. There are many actions, from walking to drawing a weapon to casting a spell, for which no roll is needed.

I suppose the crux of the question (and here I agree with the others who have mentioned that it could have been expressed more clearly) is whether an action for which rolls are required some of the time should always have at least some chance of failure and should always be rolled for.

The Take 10 rule is probably the most obvious example. A character with a +5 modifier would normally only succeed on a DC 15 roll 55% of the time. However, if he was allowed to Take 10, his success is now guaranteed.

Of course, there are two issues here. One is a matter of degree. The swing from 45% failure to 0% failure might be too large for some players. If we set the issue of degree aside (say by having only a Take 5 rule so that the automatic success only occurs if the chance of failure was 20% or less), there is still the philosophical issue of whether the chance of failure, once it has been set at a probability higher than zero, should ever be eliminated.

I personally have no problem with that, but that is because I believe it is more rewarding of player skill and choice (in terms of character creation and advancement and/or setting up in-game circumstances) to allow for the complete elimination of failure if the player is able to do so. I can see the argument for a small chance of failure due to external circumstances, but I think a minimum 5% chance of failure (for a d20 based system) is too blunt an instrument to model that. If I actually did want to introduce a mechanic to account for external circumstances, I might do it as follows:

The DM rolls 1d6. If he rolls a 6, the DC increases by 1, and he repeats the roll.

This allows for the possibility of external circumstances making the task more difficult and causing the PC to fail without imposing a flat 5% chance of failure. And from the perspective of the player, his character didn't fail at a routine task because he rolled badly. He failed at a routine task because external factors made it more difficult. It's a subtle difference, but one that may be important to some players.

 

[Fifth Element]

3e's take-20 (and take-10) mechanic assumes you can keep rolling over and over again until you get the result you want; and I think this is the wrong approach.

That's taking issue with the "try again" rule, not with Take 20. In 3.x whether you can try a roll again is defined in the rules, and Take 10/20 are an outgrowth of that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think you always need need a chance to fail, no, but like Fifth Element, I'm just confused by the logic of the original post(er).

But, I love mitigating things so much that my RPG has a feat called Consistent Skill which gives you +1 on a skill, lets you take a 10 on it even when threatened or distracted, and explodes (you apply it to more skills the more intelligent you are). And, in my RPG, a feat is about 1/5th of a level (it's a point-buy game), so not a trivial investment, but not as rare as 3.X/PF/4e.

Yes, the Consistent Skill feat makes it so that a lot of things no longer need to be rolled for anymore. Now, certain people can always climb consistently, or jump consistently, or evade consistently, etc. I'm more than just okay with this: I love this. It's adds a lot to character concept ("I'm good enough to always do this now! And this! And this!"), while also saving a lot of time at the table. I'm a big fan of consistency and character competency, and this adds greatly to it.

On the flip side, making this a feat means that there's an investment to be made to be able to do this. You can't take a 10 while threatened or distracted with the majority of skills, so there's still a large element of luck when you're unskilled or not as invested in an area. Which I also like.

So, getting past Fifth Element's problems with the question, I voted "no" in the poll. I'd like a lot of ways around a chance of failure. As always, play what you like

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't think you always need need a chance to fail, no, but like Fifth Element, I'm just confused by the logic of the original post(er).

But, I love mitigating things so much that my RPG has a feat called Consistent Skill which gives you +1 on a skill, lets you take a 10 on it even when threatened or distracted, and explodes (you apply it to more skills the more intelligent you are). And, in my RPG, a feat is about 1/5th of a level (it's a point-buy game), so not a trivial investment, but not as rare as 3.X/PF/4e.

Yes, the Consistent Skill feat makes it so that a lot of things no longer need to be rolled for anymore. Now, certain people can always climb consistently, or jump consistently, or evade consistently, etc. I'm more than just okay with this: I love this. It's adds a lot to character concept ("I'm good enough to always do this now! And this! And this!"), while also saving a lot of time at the table. I'm a big fan of consistency and character competency, and this adds greatly to it.

On the flip side, making this a feat means that there's an investment to be made to be able to do this. You can't take a 10 while threatened or distracted with the majority of skills, so there's still a large element of luck when you're unskilled or not as invested in an area. Which I also like.

So, getting past Fifth Element's problems with the question, I voted "no" in the poll. I'd like a lot of ways around a chance of failure. As always, play what you like

The point I am trying to make is the fact that a PC is not in 100% control when it comes to skills and I think the system needs to reflect this with a mechanic that will always allow a failure to represent that outside influence.

It's not a complicated math equation. It's rather simple actually.

 

[Shadeydm]

I voted other but my answer really depends upon if all rolls are important/meaningful. If a roll is important/meaningful then yes there should a chance of failure (even fail on a 1 is ok). If there are rolls that are not important or meaningful then I think a chance of failure is pointless and adversarial.

 

[Jester David]

Given the addition of Advantage this dynamic is changed. If it seems unlikely that the hero has even a 5% chance of failure then they gain Advantage and that drops to 2%.

I think if you're rolling there should be a chance of failure. But high level characters shouldn't always have to roll and there should be some kind of "take 10" rule where you just muddle out a base success after a couple attempts. You spend a minute bashing in a door rather than rolling and trying to get it on the first attempt.
But sometimes you shouldn't have to roll. Sometimes the DM should just let you succeed.

There's also ranges of success to consider. Which is something that should be in the game. Sometimes just failing isn't too bad, but you can fail spectacularly. Likewise, sometimes minimal success isn't enough.
This might be the case for rogues where they can disable a trap with minimal success but it's broken and cannot be reactivated or salvaged for parts. If they roll badly and take that auto-10 when picking a lock they might get the door open but it's obvious it was picked and might not re-lock.