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

[Hussar]

My issue with the 1 always fails thing is that it privileges magic. Magic never fails. Need across that courtyard - poof, Misty Step or Dimension Door or whatever. And it becomes the default choice for dealing with any situation.

Instead of actually using skills or whatnot, just break out the spell list and move on.

 

[Alexemplar]

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.

So basically when it's already too late.

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.

It's hard to find invisible things, even when you can possibly hear them.

A +10 to Stealth is basically what the Reliable Skill feature does by turning anything less than a 10 to a 10.

Mislead would alert them to the illusion's presence and send them in the wrong direction. Afterall, you never said they weren't looking for the character/alerted to their 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.

Well yeah, it's a simple solution which has no further implications if used as a one off. But within the general context of "everything has a chance to fail" as the original house rule was presented, it does indeed kind of rob characters of the kinds of fantastic things fantastic characters are want to do 5% of the time for no other reason than for the vagueries of "realism".

 

[Fanaelialae]

So basically when it's already too late.

As has been pointed out, an 11th level rogue has a realistic chance of being able to fight his way through the courtyard, so I see little difference.

It's hard to find invisible things, even when you can possibly hear them.

Not by RAW. Invisibility allows you to hide in what would otherwise be plain sight. It gives enemies disadvantage to attack you, and it gives you advantage to attack the enemy. That's it. Unless you are also hidden (which requires a successful Sneak check) the enemy knows which space you are in.

A +10 to Stealth is basically what the Reliable Skill feature does by turning anything less than a 10 to a 10.

Hardly. If you roll an 11 it does nothing. If you roll a 10 it does nothing. If you roll a 9 it is worth +1. So on and so forth.

Mislead would alert them to the illusion's presence and send them in the wrong direction. Afterall, you never said they weren't looking for the character/alerted to their presence.

I said that the illusion would help, but if all 100+ guards chase it then they are very dumb. The rogue could have accomplices. It could be a diversion. I can't see more than half the guards pursuing. And as we established above, invisibility won't help much against the remaining guards, who will now be on extra high alert for obvious reasons.

Well yeah, it's a simple solution which has no further implications if used as a one off. But within the general context of "everything has a chance to fail" as the original house rule was presented, it does indeed kind of rob characters of the kinds of fantastic things fantastic characters are want to do 5% of the time for no other reason than for the vagueries of "realism".

Even fantastic characters fail sometimes. If 5% is too high for you, play a halfling and/or take the lucky feat. How a fantastic character handles failure is AT LEAST as defining as how fantastically they succeed, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

But, is dropping in a completely arbitrary 5% failure chance defining anything?

I remember the first time I ever saw this. It was actually a 4e game and my character had some ability or other that let him jump further on a jump check. We're standing beside a 10 foot pit with baddies on the other side. I'm jumping back and forth, taking pot shots at the baddies from the other side.

DM: You have to make your check.
Me: Why?
DM: You could fail.
Me: Um. No, I can't. My minimum jump distance is 11 feet and it's a 10 foot pit. I can't fail.
DM: No, it's a skill check, you always fail on a one.
Me: Um, that's not right. That's actually never been true in any edition.
DM: Well, it's a skill check, so, there must be a chance of failure.
Me: ... okay...

So, I spent the character resources to be able to reliably do something. The DM is then arbitrarily adding in a failure chance simply to satisfy his sense of "realism". To me, it's ludicrous.

Your 11th level rogue is ELEVENTH level. Every single character class by this point has supernatural abilities. But, it's totally unrealistic that my ninja character can sneak past a bunch of mooks in a courtyard without a chance of failure? Sorry, no thanks.

No wonder every class has magic now. At least then the DM's can't screw you over in the name of "realism".

 

[Alexemplar]

As has been pointed out, an 11th level rogue has a realistic chance of being able to fight his way through the courtyard, so I see little difference.

The difference is that the character is obviously trying to sneak and not looking for a fight. However, rather than let the character have this cool moment- that's fully supported by the rules and reflective of the nature of his character level- he has to risk failure chances because sneaking past that many guards is "unrealistic".

Not by RAW. Invisibility allows you to hide in what would otherwise be plain sight. It gives enemies disadvantage to attack you, and it gives you advantage to attack the enemy. That's it. Unless you are also hidden (which requires a successful Sneak check) the enemy knows which space you are in.

This is assuming you're doing something which reacquires a sneak check to avoid making noise- which if you can walk around without actually having to make any regards to the environment, becomes much easier. Most noise from skulking around comes from bumping into stuff you're hiding behind, having to move quickly from one point of cover to another, etc.

Hardly. If you roll an 11 it does nothing. If you roll a 10 it does nothing. If you roll a 9 it is worth +1. So on and so forth.

If you have a +13 to stealth and Pass without trace, you have at least 23 on hide checks and upwards of 33. Reliable Talent also makes it at least 23 and a possible 33.

I said that the illusion would help, but if all 100+ guards chase it then they are very dumb. The rogue could have accomplices. It could be a diversion. I can't see more than half the guards pursuing. And as we established above, invisibility won't help much against the remaining guards, who will now be on extra high alert for obvious reasons.

That means the character has nearly as many as half as many character searching for them.

And there's always the classic "Wildshape into a tiny unassuming critter" trick, which the Druid has had access to since level 2.

Even fantastic characters fail sometimes. If 5% is too high for you, play a halfling and/or take the lucky feat. How a fantastic character handles failure is AT LEAST as defining as how fantastically they succeed, IMO.

Sure fantastic characters fail, but there it's of special note when said failure is because the DM decided to arbitrarily used a houserule that introduces the risk of auto failure even when you've pumped your stats, class, skills, and features into a thing when that failure didn't exist before. Unless the character can go back retroactively and change their race to Halfling, they don't really have a choice.

And as mentioned before, it's generally these kinds of rulings that make players not really want to make skill rolls and instead resort to magic, as the effects are usually more explicitly spelled out and DM's never ask the spellcaster to make a check in order to ensure he's pulling off that complex series of gestures and utterances in the correct manner.

If I wanted to introduce this character to failure I'd acknowledge the fact that just because the character got past a bunch of guards doesn't mean they'll actually succeed at whatever they snuck in to do. There's so many ways for things to still go wrong that don't really require a houserule of that kind.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

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.

No, because the DM can always simply say something is impossible no matter what you roll. Ridiculous extremes like what you're using as a basis for your argument are irrelevant.

My issue with the 1 always fails thing is that it privileges magic. Magic never fails.

Failing on a 1 for a saving throw privileges magic? Dimension Door and Misty Step are bad examples. They're as effective and preferable whether you have a 5% chance of failure on a skill check or not.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But, is dropping in a completely arbitrary 5% failure chance defining anything?

I remember the first time I ever saw this. It was actually a 4e game and my character had some ability or other that let him jump further on a jump check. We're standing beside a 10 foot pit with baddies on the other side. I'm jumping back and forth, taking pot shots at the baddies from the other side.

DM: You have to make your check.
Me: Why?
DM: You could fail.
Me: Um. No, I can't. My minimum jump distance is 11 feet and it's a 10 foot pit. I can't fail.
DM: No, it's a skill check, you always fail on a one.
Me: Um, that's not right. That's actually never been true in any edition.
DM: Well, it's a skill check, so, there must be a chance of failure.
Me: ... okay...

So, I spent the character resources to be able to reliably do something. The DM is then arbitrarily adding in a failure chance simply to satisfy his sense of "realism". To me, it's ludicrous.

Your 11th level rogue is ELEVENTH level. Every single character class by this point has supernatural abilities. But, it's totally unrealistic that my ninja character can sneak past a bunch of mooks in a courtyard without a chance of failure? Sorry, no thanks.

No wonder every class has magic now. At least then the DM's can't screw you over in the name of "realism".

I think it is.

Note that, per my previous posts, magic would not be an auto success.

Granted, you might be able to use Dimension Door to succeed automatically, but as I said before there could very well be a route by which the rogue can circumvent this courtyard automatically. However, Dimension Door can most certainly fail (if you try to teleport inside a solid object). That's before we even consider areas that are warded against magic.

I see your example as a failure of the DM. As I've said many times in this thread, you don't need to roll if success is automatic. You had an ability that automatically allowed you to jump farther than the width of the pit. Hence, no roll necessary. You're conflating "always needing to roll for skills" with "a natural 1 always fails". You can choose to use one or the other, neither, or both. Personally, I think always needing to roll is the problem rule. It leads to all kinds of nonsensical results. Failure on a natural 1 (and success on a natural 20) simply means that IF a roll is called for then there is at least SOME chance of failure/success. The outcome is uncertain.

I could see your argument about an 11th level rogue in a scenario with plenty of cover or just a few guards. However, I posited (on purpose) a scenario with minimal cover and at least a hundred guards. This would be task that a lesser character would like find to be nearly impossible or completely impossible. This character is able to attempt a nigh impossible feat with at least a 95% chance of success (could be better than that based on race/feats/gear). I see nothing wrong with allowing for a chance of failure in that circumstance.

It's not about screwing the player. I can't see how I would spring this on them. The player would be well aware that it is a heavily patrolled area with little cover. They are welcome to find another path if they don't like their odds. However, I as the DM have to make determinations about what is reasonable and what isn't. And to me, an 11th level character isn't getting through that courtyard automatically (unless they come up with a really clever plan). At 20th level, sure. At 11th, you're goid enough to attempt it, you might be good enough to only fail on a 1, but it isn't guaranteed.

In fairness though, if you were running that scenario with my rules and you felt this a trivial task for one such as him, don't even ask for a roll. Just have him succeed automatically. That's the beauty of it. A roll means a chance of failure (as well as success). No doubt about the outcome, no roll.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The difference is that the character is obviously trying to sneak and not looking for a fight. However, rather than let the character have this cool moment- that's fully supported by the rules and reflective of the nature of his character level- he has to risk failure chances because sneaking past that many guards is "unrealistic".



This is assuming you're doing something which reacquires a sneak check to avoid making noise- which if you can walk around without actually having to make any regards to the environment, becomes much easier. Most noise from skulking around comes from bumping into stuff you're hiding behind, having to move quickly from one point of cover to another, etc.



If you have a +13 to stealth and Pass without trace, you have at least 23 on hide checks and upwards of 33. Reliable Talent also makes it at least 23 and a possible 33.

I said that the illusion would help, but if all 100+ guards chase it then they are very dumb. The rogue could have accomplices. It could be a diversion. I can't see more than half the guards pursuing. And as we established above, invisibility won't help much against the remaining guards, who will now be on extra high alert for obvious reasons.

That means the character has nearly as many as half as many character searching for them.

And there's always the classic "Wildshape into a tiny unassuming critter" trick, which the Druid has had access to since level 2.



Sure fantastic characters fail, but there it's of special note when said failure is because the DM decided to arbitrarily used a houserule that introduces the risk of auto failure even when you've pumped your stats, class, skills, and features into a thing when that failure didn't exist before. Unless the character can go back retroactively and change their race to Halfling, they don't really have a choice.

And as mentioned before, it's generally these kinds of rulings that make players not really want to make skill rolls and instead resort to magic, as the effects are usually more explicitly spelled out and DM's never ask the spellcaster to make a check in order to ensure he's pulling off that complex series of gestures and utterances in the correct manner.

If I wanted to introduce this character to failure I'd acknowledge the fact that just because the character got past a bunch of guards doesn't mean they'll actually succeed at whatever they snuck in to do. There's so many ways for things to still go wrong that don't really require a houserule of that kind.

(You are mistaken about invisibility. While the DM is well within his rights to rule that it let's you auto succeed, by RAW it does not. All it does is allow you to attempt to hide and remain hidden when you would otherwise be in plain sight. Nothing more. If you don't make a Sneak check to hide - and invisibility confers no bonus or advantage to this check - people know where you are. Maybe you are being too noisy, maybe you are leaving footprints, or maybe you just need to bathe more regularly. Regardless, they know where you are unless you are hidden.)

To each his own. I don't just run by these rules, I also play by them, and skill characters are one of my favorite archetypes to play. I don't have an issue with the rule. Plenty of my players have played skill characters without taking issue with the rule. I find that the chance of failure (tempered by the common sense rule of not needing to roll for trivial tasks) is exciting. This, despite the fact that I was well known for many years for my abysmally bad luck at the gaming table.

I've seen DMs who didn't use this rule and just artificially inflated the DC to guarantee a chance of failure. I don't care for that. Not only does it strike me as a bit like cheating, but it just makes the check that much harder for anyone who isn't the person the DC was intended for.

YMMV

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I've always used that rolling a 1 is always a fail, and there is some minor set back to doing so. The opposite is true for a natural 20, in that if you do roll it, you always succeed and there's a minor benefit. Has it ruined anything at my table? Not in the least. If anything it makes the game more exciting for the players, and keeps me on my toes as a DM. Hell, the other week we turned it into a drinking game. If I rolled a 1 as DM, take a shot. If I roll a 20 as DM, the character I'm attacking can either take a shot and minus 1d6 from the damage, or take double damage. Any PC's roll a 1, all of them take a shot. If a PC rolls a 20, I take a shot. Never before had I rolled so many 20's in a period of an hour.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

The rogue still has to follow all the normal rules to become Hidden, so given enough guards, one of them would be able to see him directly. However, you would remove a major class ability (Rogue 11: all skilled rolls below 10 become 10) in order to force an arbitrary 5% chance of failure? I have to wonder if you'd do the same for other classes, or if you just have a hate for the Rogue.