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

[dropbear8mybaby]

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

Which is, again, offset by having a 5% chance of failure on saving throws. These rules don't just affect skills. I think you're all forgetting that.

 

[Sadras]

Which is, again, offset by having a 5% chance of failure on saving throws. These rules don't just affect skills. I think you're all forgetting that.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.
There are defined rules for when one needs to make a saving throw as well as the DC, whereas skill checks are decided upon by DM evaluation of the specific task's difficulty.

It is true @Hussar and I did not touch on our thoughts of 1's and 20's in the saving throw scenario, but I'm unsure how that relates to our discussion. I cannot see anything being offset - just because it happens here is not a good enough reason for me why it should happen there or why a roll is needed for every task (not even the core rule books follow that line of thought).

 

[Leatherhead]

If it is impossible to fail, why are you even rolling?
Likewise:
If it is impossible to succeed, why are you even rolling?

Therefore: If you are rolling a d20, there must both be a range for failure and a range for success. Because otherwise there is no point in rolling.

This means, by the default rules of the system, a 1 should always be a failure and a 20 should always be a success, as those are the static endpoints for their respective ranges of numbers.

The exception to this would be if you were using an alternate numbering system, such as one where lower numbers meant passing and higher numbers meant failure.

 

[Shiroiken]

If it is impossible to fail, why are you even rolling?
Likewise:
If it is impossible to succeed, why are you even rolling?

Therefore: If you are rolling a d20, there must both be a range for failure and a range for success. Because otherwise there is no point in rolling.

This means, by the default rules of the system, a 1 should always be a failure and a 20 should always be a success, as those are the static endpoints for their respective ranges of numbers.

By default the DM determines the outcome of any action, and often uses dice to determine the outcome if uncertain. If a roll would still succeed on a 1 or fail on a 20, there is no uncertainty, and therefore no roll is required.

 

[cmad1977]

I said no.
But I guess the real answer is:
If a character we’re attempting an action where a 1 couldn’t fail(given his bonuses) or a 20 couldn’t succeed(given the difficulty) I wouldn’t call for a roll at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hussar]

If it is impossible to fail, why are you even rolling?
Likewise:
If it is impossible to succeed, why are you even rolling?

Therefore: If you are rolling a d20, there must both be a range for failure and a range for success. Because otherwise there is no point in rolling.

This means, by the default rules of the system, a 1 should always be a failure and a 20 should always be a success, as those are the static endpoints for their respective ranges of numbers.

The exception to this would be if you were using an alternate numbering system, such as one where lower numbers meant passing and higher numbers meant failure.

Not really though. There are a number of checks where the total number is important, rather than success/fail. I'm thinking of stealth checks. There's no "failure" for a stealth check. You are always stealthed. But, the fail point is the opposed check. In the example of the hiding thief crossing the courtyard, he has such a high stealth check that the bad guys cannot possibly spot him.

Therefore, why would you call for a roll at all? There is no "range" here. The DC is simply too high for the perception checks to succeed. Fair enough, it's a high level thief.

 

[Alexemplar]

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

No. I'm questioning the number of situations where a Rogue has to sneak by a bunch of creatures that have absolutely no way of detecting it just ruining the game. Stealth (and the other dex skills they put Expertise into) is/are pretty much this Rogue's schtick in this instance.

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.

Yes and escaping a bunch of guys in a courtyard is one of those exploration encounters.

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.

If a character pumped all their stat boosts into Intelligence, took several features that increased their Knowledge check, and spent feats on stuff like Linguist in an effort to make a character who was the ultimate polyglot? Yeah, I'd let them make those checks to be able to understand someone speaking a very common/similar language. That player invested way more resources and energy to that niche situation (sacrificing in other areas) than did Wizard/Cleric who just prepared Comprehend Language as one of their dozen+ spells for the day and spent a level 1 slot to cast it and can choose to prepare/cast another spell later.

Same in regards to the lock picker. If your character is so focused on lock picking to the point where they put several features and stat boosts into making themselves the best lock picker in the world and they have a bonus high enough to allow them to effortlessly pick a certain kind of simple lock, they can pick the lock. All the caster with Knock had to do was prepare Knock and spend a 1st level slot for the day and they can open even the most complex and sophisticated lock.

I mean I could even give the High Intelligence character some ability like "You can cast Comprehend Languages X times per day" or give the character with high ranking lock picker "You can cast Knock X times per day," and I still doubt they would actually go through all those uses every day.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

But that is balanced by other means. If you don't know what is on the other side of a door, which is a common situation to be in, a dimension door into the unknown is very risky and will eventually bite you in the rear.

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.

Sure, because you always have 10 minutes to perform a ritual to hear what was just said in a few seconds. As for knock, just like in prior editions, 5e doesn't say that knock opens the locks as if a key was used. It just opens the lock. That means that a trap on the lock would be set off just as if a rogue was picking the lock. Knock is good, but it's a second level spell. It doesn't get to disarm traps, too. A lot of spells have been "broken" because players and DMs don't think things through all the way and allow them to do things that aren't a part of the spell.

 

[Wiseblood]

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?

It would be unbalancing. Unless spellcasters had to roll to cast spells or to roll for each enemy they were attempting to affect or skill they were circumventing.

 

[steeldragons]

Yup.

No exceptions or modifiers necessary.