The Randomness of the D20

[dammitbiscuit]

Checks that are almost certain to succeed (or fail) simply expose the randomness of the d20.

I like how 5e fixes "certain to succeed" checks by granting auto-success based on your score. What if it also fixed "certain to fail" checks by granting score-based auto-fails?

I'm thinking especially of moments where a character with a good Wisdom score and +3 to Perception from their background fails to notice something. Immediately, the rest of the table throws their d20s down - and someone invariably rolls high and succeeds.

It almost feels like any check against which the whole party is allowed to roll will always result in a random, lucky success. That, to me, "exposes" the hell out of the d20's randomness.

So let's give auto-successes on the vast majority of checks to anyone who has an 18. Let's also give auto-fails to anyone with an 8 (on most, but not all, checks in which they don't enjoy a +3 from class or background).

 

[Minigiant]

Yes. Because of their large size, d20s were always poor at representing.

A) Difficult Checks you cannot succeed at and will fail at
B) Checks you sometime succeed and often fail at
C) Checks you often succeed and sometimes fail at
D) Easy Checks you will succeed at and cannot fail

5E got rid of those really low DCs. You autosucceed on tying a knot.

Then if your Ability score beats the DC by 5, the DM is encouraged to let you auto succeed.

Then if you are a rogue, you automatically cannot get worse than a 10 on a roll of a trained skill.

So for Level 1:

DC 1-10 No check is recommended.
DC 11-13 You usually roll unless your ability score is high (16-18). Rogues cannot fail on trained rolls with off stats.
DC 14-15 You usually roll unless your ability score is very high (19-20). Rogues typiically cannot fail on trained rolls with off stats.
DC 16-28 You roll
DC 29+ Impossible

 

[KesselZero]

Interesting idea! It's definitely a serious issue.

 

[El Mahdi]

...So let's give auto-successes on the vast majority of checks to anyone who has an 18. Let's also give auto-fails to anyone with an 8 (on most, but not all, checks in which they don't enjoy a +3 from class or background).

No Thank You.

My games are about Heroes. Heroes dare to do things, dare to attempt things, that they may even know are likely to fail or result in certain death...and somehow find a way to pull it off anyways.

I don't want auto fails. I'd much rather have a random chance for the poorly qualified underdog to pull off an amazing feat...a feat the Stories and Legends will remember.


...but I'll keep the auto-successes too.

 

[TerraDave]

The advantage and disadvantage system also tempers potentially swingy math.

So someone with a low bonus and disadvantage still has a chance...but not much of one.

 

[dammitbiscuit]

No Thank You

You don't get tired of seeing one monster's decent hide check opposed by 5 players' (and sometimes their pets') wildly-randomized spot checks? Or similar results on a bluff/insight check. Or an opposed intelligence check.

Even if the PC with the godly bonuses whiffs horribly, someone else will pull a 17 or more out of the air almost every time. I'm not opposed to the crazy heroic luck happening occasionally for one guy, I'm just looking for a solution to the problem of the whole party receiving 5+ chances to enjoy "heroic" luck on every roll.

Perhaps instead, a rule that only allows the player with the best bonus to roll, while the rest are assumed to have done worse?

Roll enough d20s, and the party may as well be given the chance to take 20 for free.

 

[Dragoslav]

You raise an excellent point, and the problem only gets worse as party size increases (one reason I dislike large parties). I've always thought that the "use a d20 for everything!" policy was strange given how the d20 automatically throws a massive degree of luck into any roll and dwarfs natural talent (ability scores), skill training, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

No Thank You.

My games are about Heroes. Heroes dare to do things, dare to attempt things, that they may even know are likely to fail or result in certain death...and somehow find a way to pull it off anyways.

I don't want auto fails. I'd much rather have a random chance for the poorly qualified underdog to pull off an amazing feat...a feat the Stories and Legends will remember.


...but I'll keep the auto-successes too.

By the same token I'd like to have the chance for an uber-expert to occasionally mess it up.

What's needed is flatter math - a smaller DC range such that there's always a chance both to succeed and fail.

Either that, or go to the more granular d% roll. I personally prefer this, as a 1 in 100 longshot is far less likely to come off than 1 in 20 and thus much more satisfying on the rare occasions when it does.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

You raise an excellent point, and the problem only gets worse as party size increases (one reason I dislike large parties). I've always thought that the "use a d20 for everything!" policy was strange given how the d20 automatically throws a massive degree of luck into any roll and dwarfs natural talent (ability scores), skill training, etc.

This caught my eye, as I almost always run large parties of 8-12 members.

The other way to handle it, which I do for perception checks now, is to have the best/most skilled person roll and have this kind of represent a general party roll, and if they fail then sure - other people can roll individually, but they're rolling at a significant penalty as the "generic party" roll has already been done.

Either that, or only the highest skill gets a roll at all.

Lanefan

 

[El Mahdi]

By the same token I'd like to have the chance for an uber-expert to occasionally mess it up.

What's needed is flatter math - a smaller DC range such that there's always a chance both to succeed and fail.

Either that, or go to the more granular d% roll. I personally prefer this, as a 1 in 100 longshot is far less likely to come off than 1 in 20 and thus much more satisfying on the rare occasions when it does.

Lanefan

Good Points. I like having a fail chance too, just not an auto-fail based on low ability scores.

I agree with you; I think the Fumble/Critical Failure takes care of it just fine. But I also agree with you about not liking a 1 in 20 chance either. Happens a little to often for my taste too. Percentile dice can take care of it for you (like you said), or you can go with a D20 "confirmation" roll (kind of like what used to be done with Critical Hits). I go with this: if you roll a 1, re-roll the D20 again - if it also comes up 1 again, then it's a Critical Failure/Fumble - anything other than a 1 and it's just a simple fail or miss. Rolling a 1 twice on two consecutive D20 rolls is 1 in 400, rather than 1 in 20.

If you want to make it uber-rare, have a third D20 roll for a 1 in 8000 chance.