D&D 5E Should you always fail on a 1 and always succeed on a 20 for every d20 roll?

[Fanaelialae]

I don't believe there should be an automatic success on a 20 or failure on a 1, because this negates several class abilities, especially for contested rolls. I had an 11th level rogue in my game who's minimum roll for stealth was 23 (all rolls less than 10 became a 10), so I'd check the monster's maximum Perception. If the roll couldn't get to 23, I wouldn't even bother to make any rolls. If it could, I'd check to see if they even got to the minimum, and only then would I bother the player to roll. It actually saved time, and the player felt vindicated that his specialization (which came at the cost of other options) was useful.

Additionally, this takes away from the rule of the DM determining the outcome of an action and only using dice when the outcome is uncertain. If a 20 is always a success, or 1 a failure, then there is ALWAYS uncertainty, allowing players to do some really silly things (like jumping to the moon, or tripping over their own feet while walking) 5% of the time.

You can have auto fail on a 1 and auto success on a 20 without the things you suggest. The DM just needs a modicum of common sense.

Want to jump over the moon? Sorry, I don't care what your bonus is, under normal circumstances not gonna happen.

Want to jump over a pebble? Okay, barring something really weird, you just succeed (no roll).

However, I don't like the idea that your rogue could sneak through a court yard filled with minimal cover patrolled by a hundred (or a thousand) guards proficient in stealth but without a wisdom bonus (+2 perception) without any possible chance of failure. Sorry, not going to happen at my table. The rogue will have an excellent chance for success, but on a natural 1 he will fail because he is attempting something that would be nearly impossible for a lesser character. I think 5% chance to fail is quite reasonable in that scenario.

Conversely, if Grog the barbarian is trying to kick down an ordinary door, it's not a question of whether or not he will succeed, just whether he can do it in a single kick (potential surprise) or not (enemy will have weapons drawn). If there are no creatures in the vicinity, I wouldn't even have him roll, since success is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Alexemplar]

However, I don't like the idea that your rogue could sneak through a court yard filled with minimal cover patrolled by a hundred (or a thousand) guards proficient in stealth but without a wisdom bonus (+2 perception) without any possible chance of failure. Sorry, not going to happen at my table. The rogue will have an excellent chance for success, but on a natural 1 he will fail because he is attempting something that would be nearly impossible for a lesser character. I think 5% chance to fail is quite reasonable in that scenario.

Lesser characters don't have ability scores above 9 to 11, levels in character classes, or proficiency - let alone expertise- in the Stealth skill.

The Rogue you mentioned is capable of this feat: hiding guards with much lower stats who have no reason to be actively searching for them without fear of being caught because they made a fatal error, because they are not a lesser character... at least when it comes to sneaking about. They're way more gifted in sneaking about than the guards are in searching for them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Lesser characters don't have ability scores above 9 to 11, levels in character classes, or proficiency - let alone expertise- in the Stealth skill.

The Rogue you mentioned is capable of this feat: hiding guards with much lower stats who have no reason to be actively searching for them without fear of being caught because they made a fatal error, because they are not a lesser character... at least when it comes to sneaking about. They're way more gifted in sneaking about than the guards are in searching for them.

I'd say that having a 95% chance of success in that scenario is pretty darn gifted. And I never said anything about the alert level of the guards. It could easily be the case that the party caused a ruckus and the guards are on high alert. Sneaking through a court yard like that is not a scenario where a 100% chance of success ought to be possible, probably not even with magic.

Now circumventing the court yard is another story. Teleportation could work (although Teleport does have a failure chance), and said rogue might be able to find a route by which his level of skill makes failure impossible.

However, sneaking through a courtyard filled with people, using minimal cover? Definitely a chance of failure. You can of course decrease that chance with bardic inspiration, handling luck, the lucky feat, a cloak of elvenkind, or any number of other factors. However, even if the odds are just 1 in 1600, there's a chance you will fail.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think it'd be a problem (for example a lot of people insisted that the rule applied to ST in 3ed...) but personally I don't like it. As much as I am a fan of randomness, the 5% default is too much for my tastes. I can tolerate it for attacks just because it normally takes many attack rolls to end a fight, but I wouldn't like it for tasks that are most often decided by a single roll.

 

[Satyrn]

I'd say that having a 95% chance of success in that scenario is pretty darn gifted.

Of course, that depends on how many rolls you have the sneaking rogue make. If he has to roll for every guard he sneaks by, his chances of rolling a 1 skyrocket.

As I was reading about your concern, I was thinking that a rogue who was guaranteed to beat these guards' perception has to have a minimum roll of 23 (because one of them can roll a 20). That's a dang good sneak, and I would be happy to let him sneak past these guards with impunity.

The fun bit for me would be letting that player just succeed on getting over the wall, getting deep into ths castle and then presenting the real challenge - the guard nicknamed "Eagle Eye." And in a way, the stakes are so much higher because he is deep in the castle and far more surrounded by enemies than he would be if you ask for checks at the outer wall.

That is, this rogue with the high score is obviously a master sneak, and the average guard really ought to be no challenge. But there's bound to be another way to challenge him.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Of course, that depends on how many rolls you have the sneaking rogue make. If he has to roll for every guard he sneaks by, his chances of rolling a 1 skyrocket.

As I was reading about your concern, I was thinking that a rogue who was guaranteed to beat these guards' perception has to have a minimum roll of 23 (because one of them can roll a 20). That's a dang good sneak, and I would be happy to let him sneak past these guards with impunity.

The fun bit for me would be letting that player just succeed on getting over the wall, getting deep into ths castle and then presenting the real challenge - the guard nicknamed "Eagle Eye." And in a way, the stakes are so much higher because he is deep in the castle and far more surrounded by enemies than he would be if you ask for checks at the outer wall.

That is, this rogue with the high score is obviously a master sneak, and the average guard really ought to be no challenge. But there's bound to be another way to challenge him.

Outside of combat (where a more nuanced resolution is warranted) I'd ask for a single roll. I find that asking for multiple rolls is punitive (unless it's a group check).

It's a level 11 rogue with 20 Dexterity and expertise in stealth. Pretty standard actually (albeit tier 3). Reliable talent allows them to treat any roll of less than 10 as if it were a 10. Certainly an extremely skilled character, but IMO giving them right of free passage is too much in this scenario. One or two guards and/or good cover, maybe. But not in the case of a hundred guards with minimal cover. The fact that I would let it be attempted at all would speak volumes of the rogues skill, and the 95% chance of success would say volumes more.

Sure, the Eagle Eye scenario is fine. That's a reasonable way to go. This Eagle Eye must be AMAZING though if he has a chance to spot what one hundred other guards couldn't.

I realize that D&D is in many ways part of the superhero genre, and your suggestion works very well in that respect. However, I like it when on occasion the mooks can spot Batman. It shouldn't ALWAYS take a super villain IMO. Even superheroes should slip up on occasion. It keeps them more grounded and relatable (which is why I prefer "normal" Batman over the basically superhuman version of Batman when he's with the Justice League).

The average guard is no match for the master sneak. But a hundred of them very well might be. The odds are very much against them, but there's a chance nonetheless.

 

[Alexemplar]

Outside of combat (where a more nuanced resolution is warranted) I'd ask for a single roll. I find that asking for multiple rolls is punitive (unless it's a group check).

It's a level 11 rogue with 20 Dexterity and expertise in stealth. Pretty standard actually (albeit tier 3). Reliable talent allows them to treat any roll of less than 10 as if it were a 10. Certainly an extremely skilled character, but IMO giving them right of free passage is too much in this scenario. One or two guards and/or good cover, maybe. But not in the case of a hundred guards with minimal cover. The fact that I would let it be attempted at all would speak volumes of the rogues skill, and the 95% chance of success would say volumes more.

Sure, the Eagle Eye scenario is fine. That's a reasonable way to go. This Eagle Eye must be AMAZING though if he has a chance to spot what one hundred other guards couldn't.

I realize that D&D is in many ways part of the superhero genre, and your suggestion works very well in that respect. However, I like it when on occasion the mooks can spot Batman.

Just want to point out that around 11 (give or take) is the point where D&D characters start resurrecting the dead, keep fighting even when you should have been dead, calling the gods to intervene personally into events, turning into elementals, becoming immune to all diseases and poisons/speaking any language

Being able to sneak by mooks that aren't looking for you when you have a legitimate place to hide is not terribly crazy. Invisibility, Pass Without Trace, Misslead, and other such spells make getting past such foes as simple as (flawlessly) spending one of your dozen and a half spell slots.

Although at 11th level, it's not like the Rogue couldn't make short work of those CR 1/8 guards anyway.

It shouldn't ALWAYS take a super villain IMO. Even superheroes should slip up on occasion. It keeps them more grounded and relatable (which is why I prefer "normal" Batman over the basically superhuman version of Batman when he's with the Justice League).

The average guard is no match for the master sneak. But a hundred of them very well might be. The odds are very much against them, but there's a chance nonetheless.

I don't recall many instance of Batman trying to sneak up behind a mook only to mess up and get caught. If it did happen, it was likely a joke or subversion.

If you really want a reasonable chance to catch the Rogue, though, just add a guard dog. Mastiffs and wolves (and most animals in the game) have advantage on Perception checks and can track by smell. With the addition of 2 guard dogs, you double the chances of the Rogue getting caught compared to if you used the auto-fail on a 20 rule. In fact, employing guard dogs is exactly how mooks dealt with Batman in the Dark Knight.

Or give one of the Guards 12 wisdom, bumping their bonus up to 13. Now they're perceptive enough to find the Rogue. Or make them higher than 1/8 CR. Maybe CR 1/2, 1 or 2, with +3, +4, or +5 proficiency.

 

[Satyrn]

The average guard is no match for the master sneak. But a hundred of them very well might be. The odds are very much against them, but there's a chance nonetheless.

Aye, that makes sense.

I think I autofail on a 1 would work if, like you said, you'd ask for a single roll. I might consider a different way of handling it, too. Like give the guards a group check, where one makes the check with a circumstance bonus equal to the number of other guards around.

There are indeed so many ways to handle this that can work. The more suggestions we give to the OP the better.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

With expertise and bonuses to saving throws from class features, many skill checks and saving throws become almost impossible to fail even on a 1. On the opposite end, there are also checks and saves that can be nearly impossible to succeed at even after rolling a 20. I'm wondering what consequences there would be for extending the crit fail/success to all d20 rolls. Would there be any disastrous effects or could this actually be a decent balancing factor?

I sneak into the King's bedroom, waking him up I roll a natural 20 on my Persuasion roll convincing the King to renounce his son and make me his heir and immediately abdicate.

Make 20 always succeed and you will have players trying dumber and dumber stuff because they have a 5% chance to succeed, a 10% chance if they take the Lucky feat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Just want to point out that around 11 (give or take) is the point where D&D characters start resurrecting the dead, keep fighting even when you should have been dead, calling the gods to intervene personally into events, turning into elementals, becoming immune to all diseases and poisons/speaking any language

Being able to sneak by mooks that aren't looking for you when you have a legitimate place to hide is not terribly crazy. Invisibility, Pass Without Trace, Misslead, and other such spells make getting past such foes as simple as (flawlessly) spending one of your dozen and a half spell slots.

Although at 11th level, it's not like the Rogue couldn't make short work of those CR 1/8 guards anyway.




I don't recall many instance of Batman trying to sneak up behind a mook only to mess up and get caught. If it did happen, it was likely a joke or subversion.

If you really want a reasonable chance to catch the Rogue, though, just add a guard dog. Mastiffs and wolves (and most animals in the game) have advantage on Perception checks and can track by smell. With the addition of 2 guard dogs, you double the chances of the Rogue getting caught compared to if you used the auto-fail on a 20 rule. In fact, employing guard dogs is exactly how mooks dealt with Batman in the Dark Knight.

Or give one of the Guards 12 wisdom, bumping their bonus up to 13. Now they're perceptive enough to find the Rogue. Or make them higher than 1/8 CR. Maybe CR 1/2, 1 or 2, with +3, +4, or +5 proficiency.

I can recall instances where a mook glanced up at the right time and yelled, "It's the Bat!" Then they start shooting and Batman picks them off one by one.

As I've already stated, I NEVER said that the guards weren't looking for the rogue.

You're thinking of previous editions, or perhaps house rules. Invisibility won't get you past the guards without a sneak check. It just lets you attempt to sneak by without cover. Pass Without Trace just gives you a +10 to sneak (less than this rogue's +13). You could use Mislead to help you sneak by (using the illusion to distract the guards) but it will alert them to your presence.

Thing is, with fail on a 1, I don't have to do those things. Sure, as a DM, I can always finagle the DC so that failure on a 1 is a thing. But why bend over backwards for justifications when a simple house rule covers it?

Based on circumstances, you may succeed automatically (if the DM rules there is no chance of failure) or fail automatically (if the DM rules there is no possibility of success). If a roll is called for, a natural 20 automatically succeeds and a natural 1 automatically fails.

IMO, that's much simpler.