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

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Yup, you got me. I hate rogues. It's why one of the favorite characters I've played in 5e was a rogue. It's why one of my players favorite characters in 5e was also a rogue. You are so clever, having seen through my brilliant ruse to the hate that lies beneath! I never thought you'd figure it out seeing as failure on a 1 leaves reliable talent just working dandy on a 2-9, and i can totally see how that is the same as removing the ability in its entirety. Well done!

For the record, despite the sight lines of 100 guards, I'd let the rogue try, because he's that good. Plus when he inevitably rolls that 1, he'll be swarmed by guards and die for sure. Cause, yup, I definitely hate them rogues!

 

[Sadras]

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.

I see what you mean but your argument is also approached from a flawed position in that you equate a resource (spell slot) with an at will ability.

 

[Alexemplar]

I see what you mean but your argument is also approached from a flawed position in that you equate a resource (spell slot) with an at will ability.

An at will ability is only as useful as the number of situations it gets used in.

How often is the character supposed to use their ability to sneak past these guys who have no hope of seeing him?

Also, by 11th level, a spellcaster has nearly 18 slots and several ways to get more. Spell slots are not that limited a resource.

 

[Sadras]

An at will ability is only as useful as the number of situations it gets used in.

Sure, are you questioning whether stealth in an underused ability?

How often is the character supposed to use their ability to sneak past these guys who have no hope of seeing him?

I'm not the DM.

Also, by 11th level, a spellcaster has nearly 18 slots and several ways to get more. Spell slots are not that limited a resource.

18 slots which are used for attacks and to facilitate the exploration and social pillars. Let us not even discuss which rest period one might be using at the table.

And again, you're coming from the position where you're equating Comprehend Languages with an at-will Int Knowledge check or Pick Locks check with a Knock spell ...etc with character assistance available at-will in both instances.

 

[Hussar]

I see what you mean but your argument is also approached from a flawed position in that you equate a resource (spell slot) with an at will ability.

Fair enough. Although, as mentioned, the resource cost isn't generally that onerous. At least, certainly not by 11th level (which we're talking about). I mean, by that point, the wizard is getting 5 levels of spells back on a short rest. It's not like you are making that many spells at a time. In the specific example, the wizard is using exactly one spell - dimension door or something of that ilk - to do automatically what we're forcing the rogue to have a failure chance at.

/snip

And again, you're coming from the position where you're equating Comprehend Languages with an at-will Int Knowledge check or Pick Locks check with a Knock spell ...etc with character assistance available at-will in both instances.

Comprehend Languages is a perfect example actually. It's a ritual, so, other than 10 minutes, it costs nothing at all. So, now we have a 100% effective spell with no failure chance vs a (admittedly minor) chance of failure for the skill character. Now, Knock, OTOH, actually does cost resources (and makes a lot of noise), but, again, is 100% effective, is likely only going to cost you that one slot (which you will regain on a short rest) and is very unlikely to be needed more than once in a given situation.

I dislike the fact that we are forcing failure chances arbitrarily. IME, what will happen is that every time any skill comes up, the players reach for their spells because mundane resources will inevitably fail. The party never tries sneaking anywhere. They drop Pass Without a Trace because doing so is just so much more effective. So on and so forth.

My biggest complaint in 5e is just how ubiquitous magic has become in the game. It's the first choice instead of the second or third, simply because the party has so much magic.

 

[Shiroiken]

Yup, you got me. I hate rogues. It's why one of the favorite characters I've played in 5e was a rogue. It's why one of my players favorite characters in 5e was also a rogue. You are so clever, having seen through my brilliant ruse to the hate that lies beneath! I never thought you'd figure it out seeing as failure on a 1 leaves reliable talent just working dandy on a 2-9, and i can totally see how that is the same as removing the ability in its entirety. Well done!

Glad I was able to do so /s

I've met MANY DMs who hate rogues. They'll never admit it, but they do everything they can to make the class suck. I've seen it in just about every edition, from 1st to 5E, so you'll have to forgive me when I'd assume you were one of these based on your previous posts! You're fine with majorly hurting an 11th level ability (no matter that it works 95% of the time, it's no longer "reliable"), which doesn't sound like someone who actually likes rogues.

For the record, despite the sight lines of 100 guards, I'd let the rogue try, because he's that good. Plus when he inevitably rolls that 1, he'll be swarmed by guards and die for sure. Cause, yup, I definitely hate them rogues!

So you have no problem with letting the Rogue break the rules... so long as they have a 5% chance to fail?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Glad I was able to do so /s

I've met MANY DMs who hate rogues. They'll never admit it, but they do everything they can to make the class suck. I've seen it in just about every edition, from 1st to 5E, so you'll have to forgive me when I'd assume you were one of these based on your previous posts! You're fine with majorly hurting an 11th level ability (no matter that it works 95% of the time, it's no longer "reliable"), which doesn't sound like someone who actually likes rogues.


So you have no problem with letting the Rogue break the rules... so long as they have a 5% chance to fail?

As I've said before, quite possibly my favorite character in 5e has been my rogue Iros (who was well over 11th and played under this rule). I didn't feel the slightest bit gimped.

I consider myself an enabler of rogues. When my player played his rogue in my campaign, I frequently let him assassinate targets outright. It was awesome!

As I've said before, my group (which currently has 3 DMs and has had more in the past) has always used this rule. As I see it, it's a lot better than what I've seen DMs who didn't use this rule do (set the DC high enough for the rogue to fail). What can I say, we like there to be a chance of failure or success when a roll is called for. Otherwise just declare it an automatic success/failure and be done with it.

 

[Satyrn]

As I see it, it's a lot better than what I've seen DMs who didn't use this rule do (set the DC high enough for the rogue to fail).

Far better indeed.

 

[cmad1977]

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sadras]

My biggest complaint in 5e is just how ubiquitous magic has become in the game. It's the first choice instead of the second or third, simply because the party has so much magic.

This!

I think for the most part we agree @Hussar, but my issue with magic in 5e does not stem because of some comparison to skills, it stems from other issues such as the proliferation of magic-using classes and sub-classes, not enough of a cost for rituals, cantrips, removal of side effects of using too much or powerful magic (Haste)...etc

Now you add to that a DM who insists on a die roll for every skill performed and you compound the above issue.