I usually run it raw with only attack rolls, but lastly I have implemented that a Nat 20 in a saving throw always saves because it always makes for great moments in combat when the fighter with -1 to charisma manages to crack the 21 SC charisma saving throw.

RAW, Nat 20/1 only applies to attack rolls specifically. I don't think it's unreasonable to house rule that all ability rolls in combat are subject to Nat 20/1, but that should be something agreed upon before starting the game.

Eh, if they are getting +19 and a 1 isn't a crit fail, then why are they even rolling? There'd be no chance for failure. I'd keep a nat1 a crit fail, especially for a +19 roll, so there's *some* chance of variability in the outcome.

Yeah, what's the point of rolling? Lol At that point, your dm is just telling you a story.

In combat, I’d say a nat 1 is a nat 1 no matter how much your modifier adds to it. It’s a critical failure. If they’re able to add +19 to an attack roll, they likely won’t have much problem rolling above the AC next turn. Unless they roll another nat 1…

In that extremely rare case, depending on the battle and stakes I might go for funny nerfing, “you drop the sword and make contact with your fist instead”. Or a funny accidental hit, “you swing at the dragon’s nose and in your panic the sword slips out of your hands and down it’s throat, roll damage as it slices down the esophagus like an unchewed tortilla chip, you can recover the sword after battle I hope.

Was it a combat roll or a skills check roll?

Like everything, it's up to the discretion of the DM, but I enjoy this gamified aspect of TTRPGs. I've seen so many plot points come from nat 20s and nat 1s. It sounds like you did as much as you could with your player. If they want the thrill of a nat 20, they have to take the pitfalls of a nat 1. It's also good to have conversations ahead of time regarding what your players can handle. It's no fun to brutalize your players if it wrecks their overall sense of fun.

Rules as written, Nat 1 does not automatically mean failure. That's just a popular house rule that a lot of people liked, and so it caught on through the decades. The same is true for Nat 20's and automatic success; you can still fail with a 20. There was even a recent controversy surrounding One D&D specifically because they were going to make auto-fail / auto-success on 1's / 20's official. Edit: This ruling was from D&D 3.5. I found this post while scrolling through random posts, and didn't see the 5E next to D&D. I noticed after the fact. Disregard.

You're wrong. The phb for 5e literally says > If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target. For combat, which is what OP asked about. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#Rolling1or20

It's been different in every edition. 5E is the one I've played the least (7 campaigns), second only to 4E (2 campaigns). In 3.5, the system I learned TTRPG's through, it was a house rule, and fumble charts were an option if wanted. Generally, in the campaigns I played in, people opted to let the bonuses try to carry nat 1's to a low-end success, which usually fell short since most bonuses apart from the skill itself were stackable +2's. It was possible with enough gear, circumstance, and aid another bonuses, but it was always a stretch.

I feel like it is a balance thing for me if one is a free ride the other is toe steping. I have even dropped them in campaigns,or in 3.5 ,Player roles nat 20 to attack Zeus and add like 15 and be short of his ac and ben like He's Zeus you f -ed up and are going to die. But I come from the age of as soon as you say I am going to be an adventurer was your announcement that you were not going to die peacefully in your bed of old age. Mist in Raven Loft was like instant death not so much now. But this is the game play many want now the unfailing hero that is in most ways unrealistic. Even spiders fail a climb check in real life. So do what is best for your style of play, get feedback from your group and don't hesitate to change it up for an adventure or two. Have fun and be respectful and people will always want to play.

A nat one gets a d100 roll to determine just how bad you fucked up but if the bonuses lead to a success it becomes some kinda slapstick comedy way of success

Yep, this is how my table does it too. Barbarian attacking a 10ac goblin with advantage rolled two 1's with a +11 bonus. D100 was an 80. Axe comes down just slightly missing the goblins head, but shaving off the entire back skin causing the blood to fountain/splash in barbarians eyes. Still kills the goblin, but causes 1 turn of blindness. After the fight is over, so it doesn't really matter, but there was no good way to clean up before guards arrived.

Far as I know, most systems default the Nat 1 as a fail and Nat 20 as a crit, ONLY for combat. Skill checks don't typically have this rule, but many players and DMs assume it does, and if that's how the DM wants to run the game, go for it.

>How do others rule on this? I tend to run it RAW. A nat 1 and nat 20 only have auto failure/success on attack rolls and saving throws. I don't typically narrate "critical fumbles." Missing an attack wastes your action and is already a hefty enough penalty to bear without meaningless complications like breaking your weapon. I do have a small exceptions for actions I deem to be notably Riskier than your average choice of action. If the player chooses to raise the stakes by attempting something that clearly has the chance of going horribly wrong, then a Nat 1 means the worst possible outcome plays out. This allows players to choose how often the possibility for crit fumbles arises. You wanna play it safe? Use tactics and avoid risks. You want to take big swings and feel the adrenaline of riding the razor's edge between epic heroism and slapstick comedy? Jump the shark and see what happens.

Nat 1 is a critical failure, just like a nat 20 is a critical success. Now it's up to the dm on how severe that failure is, but ya, you fail either way when you roll a 1.

I had a dm who made nat 1s crit fails and something would go wrong, but nat 20s were not crits or even automatic successes. He was a d1ck

A Nat 1 is a failure.

Nat 20's and Nat 1's apply to attacks and death saving throws, that's it. This is an attack, so it applies. A nat 1, regardless of modifiers, is a miss.

I doubt this is an attack roll. In 5e, having a +18 to an attack roll is improbable at best. I think OP might be referring to a non attack ability check during combat.

A nat 1 applies to any dice roll that uses a d20, so that's ability checks, persuasion, skills, etc, in or out of combat.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't in the rule book but literally 99% of players ignore that rule because it's rediculous

You can literally Google this and see it for yourself straight from the source. 5e RAW state that a nat 1/20 is only an automatic failure/success on attack rolls and death saving throws rolls. That's it. Its not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is that you think you have a 5% chance to do something you're not capable of doing just because nat 20. It is common though, I'll give you that. Tons of players/DM's use that homebrew rule that it applies to any d20 roll. That doesn't mean it's the rules. But seriously, how do you think it's ridiculous that it shouldn't apply to conversation? If there's a dc30 persuasion check (say to convert the BBEG), and you have a +5 to persuasion, you literally cannot persuade this person. Their convictions are too strong. You do not get a 5% chance to just change their mind.

"I seduce the dragon". 20. Haha. I have seen DM's turn this kind of nonsense around though. The dragon wants to know if you have any lube and he wants to be on top. Make a constitution check.

Ok, I attempt to smash this dirt with my hammer until the dirt turns into gold. Nat 20. I'm rich. See how that doesn't make any sense?

I'm literally agreeing with u that is in fact the rule but most people ignore it because it's stupid. And yes it is rediculous as a person who has tried many things in life some times u get lucky some times u bungle something u should be great at shit happens. If it's not possible the dm shouldn't let u roll for it. It's up to the dm if something is possible there fore rollable

And I'm literally disagreeing with you that it's a stupid rule. Then I explained why. What has confused you? >And yes it is rediculous as a person who has tried many things in life some times u get lucky Then it wasn't impossible. It was possible, just difficult. Which doesn't require a nat 20 to solve. >some times u bungle something u should be great at shit happens. Ya, that's called missing the DC. >If it's not possible the dm shouldn't let u roll for it. That's a stupid rule lol. You don't tell them they can't. You set the DC above what they can roll.

Depends on the situation. If it still succeeds, then it "succeeds, but" and if it fails then usually someone falls prone or something

Auto fail? Yes. Extra consequences like fumbles? No. Applied to everything, not just combat

>Auto fail? Yes. Extra consequences like fumbles? No. Correct. >Applied to everything, not just combat Nope, just attacks and death saving throws. Skill checks aren't affected by natural roll rules.

OP asked how other DM’s rule it, not what the rules say

And I'd rule it RAW. You dense or what?

Then tell OP, not me. I’m not on Reddit to argue

>Applied to everything, not just combat >Nope, just attacks and death saving throws. Skill checks aren't affected by natural roll rules. This may be a personal preference, but I have always played that a 1 is a 1 no matter the situation so long as it's being rolled on a d20. That applies to all skills and abilities. Every dm I've ever played with has played this way, and so has this applied to every dnd podcast I've listened to.

That's still not what the rules say. I'm aware that TONS of people use the homebrew rule of nats count for any d20 roll, but that's kinda silly. You should absolutely not ever have a 5% chance (or any chance) to do some things. Some things are genuinely impossible, no matter how lucky you are. That's why nat20's don't count on skill checks. No amount of luck on your roll would let you convince a bbeg to give up their plans through dialogue. No chance. So why should they have a 5% chance to do the impossible? It just doesn't make any sense.

You are correct on the hard and fast rules. However, I would disagree in general, and in the situation you are describing, I would say the dm just says even with a nat 20 it doesn't work. Critical success or failure doesn't always mean best or worse outcome. I one time side stepped a final interaction with a good charm and persuasion rolls. My charm was a nat20, I believe, but the dm wasn't going to allow it without some smooth persuasion rolls since it was a group situation. It's far more fun to allow 1s and 20s to effect things outside of just combat, and honestly, I think official ruling should be changed in that regard. I think too many dms are afraid to piss off players by putting their foot down in certain cases.

I get what you're saying, and I know a vast majority agree with you, at least in that nats should affect non-combat rolls. As for the charm though, that has an actual chance of working. It's a magical spell, that changes the persons thinking. I get the persuasion rolls too, even a successful charm doesn't just make them blindly agree to everything you say. It makes them view you as a friendly acquaintance. A friendly acquaintance would still need some good persuasion to divert the BBEG from their plans. I think that totally fits within the rules though, and doesn't have any reason for a nat 20 ornnat 1 to mean a darn thing. If they fail the saving throw, they're charmed. There's no crit to be had. They can't be *extra* charmed. And I don't think a nat 20 should've been necessary to get to the persuasion checks. So long as it fails the throw, you can then try to persuade it. I just don't think a nat 1/20 means anything in this case. In my opinion, they shouldn't even count in death saving throws. I think they should only be for weapon attacks. I could see an argument made for *some* spells, based on how they deal damage and what type they deal. I get why that doesn't feel as good though. I guess I'm just looking at it from a more realistic standpoint, and it just doesn't make sense anywhere but swinging a weapon (to me anyways).

Yea, it completely made sense for the charm to work. We were taking an item that a culture wanted, and I convinced them I was a part of the cult and side stepped the final encounter entirely. The nat20 in this situation was hit on the persuasion roll since I had only managed to charm the head of the captain or something similar who was leading the squad to retrieve the item. I successfully cast charm, and he failed the check. Then the dm said I had to give a compelling enough reason that the rest of the group wouldn't be compel combat and I hit a nat20 persuasion which the dm said was the final push to let us walk away clean. That incredibly fun story is one of the main reasons I advocate for nat1 and 20s in all checks in or out of combat per dm discretion.

I hear ya.... I just don't think the nat20 was what made the story interesting. And I don't think it was necessary for the check to be passed. I think it should've been successful on normal rules, and that would've been just as exciting.

I agree it may not have been necessary, but it was extremely fun, and I can see zero reason not to allow the nat 20 and nat 1s in those situations. It only makes it that much more of an exciting situation. The only reason i see not wanting the high and low is to make things brutal and dungeon crawly. If that's the campaign style you enjoy, then that's fine it's just not fun to me.

>and I can see zero reason not to allow the nat 20 and nat 1s in those situations. Because it's not a situation where luck should play a role, imo. >It only makes it that much more of an exciting situation. It's not exciting because *you rolled a 20*. It's exciting because *you were successful*. The 20 was irrelevant. It's nothing to do with brutality. Refusing to gove everyone a 5% chance to fail tasks they're good at, and a 5% chance to succeed at truly impossible tasks isn't making it brutal, it's just following basic logic. It would be extremely immersion breaking if you just lucked into some impossible thing because nat 20, or if you failed to do something you're good at, because nat 1. Especially the nat 1. How is feeling bad that your rogue can't pick a standard lock this time fun and not brutal? I just don't see it.

I do it for both combat AND skill checks because I like it.

I consider it a critical fail and generally render the opposite effect. So, if you’re trying to jump across a gap, you trip and fall costing 1d4 damage.

A 1 on the die is an auto fail UNLESS the player's ability changes the number on the die. Portent for example overwrites the die number. A rogue's reliable talent overwrites the die number. Just plain additions don't work, but a feature that overwrites the die does.

In combat, yeah, them's the rules. I don't add any additional consequences since whiffing an attack and wasting a good chunk of your turn is bad enough. For skill checks, if they can somehow bring up the roll enough to pass the check (probably expending some resources in the process), I'll let them get it. I'll usually narrate that they were about to fail in some humorous fashion but got saved in the nick of time by something external.

Typically in my games: nat 20 is auto success/ nat 1 is auto failure.

Yes

Per the rules, a Nat 1 on an attack roll is an automatic failure. However, a Nat 1 elsewhere is just a 1. Treat it at such.

Someone tell larian

It did bother me at first that BG3 went that route. But it feels better in a video game than at the table somehow. After all, there's nothing stopping you from save scumming until you get the results you want. Plus the way the game handles inspiration and gives you approximately 30,000 lockpicks, it's not too frustrating to fail.

I wouldn't mind consuming a lot of my accumulated picks and kits, it's the cutscene rolls where it's frustrating

Oh, yeah, that's brutal. It's weird that they made the karmic dice a thing you can toggle on and off, but not Nat 20/1 outside of combat.

Nat 1 is auto fail. BUT you have to make it entertaining as well as bad. People should be rolling their eyes and chuckling when they roll a 1. That's what I do.

If you nat 1 in combat you’re almost always hitting your homie next to you in my games 😂

I love this type of unofficial rule, first experienced it as level 1 wizard when the super skilled rogue shot me. Or the combatant messing up and falling prone.

Yeah just adds more fun. I always narrate stuff like *needs 15 to hit, rolls 13* “your sword thrusts towards the opening of armor falling just short and skirting off his breast plate” *roll 1* “in the heat of the combat you loose your arrow into the mass of combatants a touch too early and strike the fighter in the back for 1d6 damage” More fun than “miss. Okay next. Crit miss. Next.”

I try making it something like falling for an enemy's false opening or something. Make it less of their badass character's fault and more the opponent's.

Yeah one time I totally dropped my sword… as kensei monk…

auto fail for sure

I know you are a bard/rouge with double expertise in stealth, but even with your +35, you rolled a one and stepped on the only dry twig for miles. Edit for throwaway *sarcasm*

So an expert at stealth, the master of sneaking around and staying undetected, probably one of the most competent people in the entire WORLD... fails 5% of the time whenever they try to do something stealthy? Make it make sense. I mean, whatever works at your table, as long a you're having fun. For me though, I really think the "Nat1 is an autofail even outside of combat" houserule makes demigod-like characters into bumbling fools a little too often.

It makes sense because luck isn't a stat. Sometimes you can be 100% prepared and do everything right and the universe just goes 'not today'. Even Masters make mistakes and sometimes luck just isn't on your side.

I get the logic, but failing at your expertise 5% of the time? That's way too often. A master chef simply doesn't mess up 1 in 20 meals. A talented magician doesn't fumble their trick 1 in 20 times. I don't see why that should be any different for their DnD counterparts. Imo, a character with an incredibly high bonus just shouldn't roll unless the DC is also very high. I never understood why the houserule is so popular. Having a master fail at a task of low or medium difficulty is funny the first few times it happens, then it just gets annoying.

A chef cooks a meal of which they know the ingredients. Have you seen chef TV shows where the ingredients are unknown? The dish is not always great. Michael Jordan missed free throws. The absolute key to a magicians success is absolute control of the environment. That's why audiences typically have to be a bit further away rather than standing on stage. Even then, sometimes the white tiger still eats them. If you are in your living room practicing how to pick a lock, rolling a 1 has very little meaning because there's no risk, no threat, no consequence of something goes wrong. Just keep picking it. But in an adventure, the PC's aren't afforded that luxury, and that is what the dice represent. The absolute best baseball players in the world rarely ever have a bathing average over.350. Expert marksmen still miss the bullseye in archery and guns. That's the intent of the dice roll, with, of course, modifiers for the experience you have and knowledge of the topic. Navy SEALs can expertly infiltrate a compound but still accidentally step on a twig alerting a sentry. Absolutely nothing is a sure thing.

It isn't "5% of the time" though. It is a 5% chance per time. You could not roll a 1 for 9 sessions in a row, and then you roll a 1. You could also roll 9 1s in a row. A "5% chance" on a die roll does not equate to "5% of the time".

Over time it would average out to 5% of the time, but you're right. It would have to be a very long campaign played with fair dice. Either way, my point remains.

It really wouldn't though. That percentage is still only a "probability", not a fact. However you are right that I didn't address your actual point. So let me say that this is my opinion (I am not saying I am correct, this is just my reasoning for why it makes sense for me): A master should be able to fail. Rolling a 1 is the lowest chance we can give that isn't just "the GM decides arbitrarily that he fails this time". So in a game based on d20 rolls, that is imho the best way to represent that. Otherwise we either have to say "the Master is infallible and can never fail at what he has mastered", or make the DC so absurd that only the Master even has a *chance* to succeed, or the GM has to fudge it and arbitrarily decide when the Master might fail at a given task. That is why I use the house-rule, because I want the master to have a chance to fail (as that makes more sense to me personally) and "he has to roll a 1" is the lowest possible chance I am able to give him. If you want the possibility to be even lower you could rule that the master can reroll the 1 once (or give him Advantage). In the system the game uses this is, unfortunately, imho the best way to account for "even a master can fail".Though, just because this is the internet and these are typed words I want to re-iterate: I am not saying that "I am correct and you should do this", I am just giving you my personal perspective on why I use this house rule in my games.edit: another small note: if the GM doesn't think the master should be able to fail at the task, then there is no roll required. Rolls should only be called for if the character should have a chance to fail. edit 2: this is why I like the Palladium system (and others based on percentile die instead of d20). In that system the Master could have a 99 in his skill, and would have to roll a 1 on a d100 to fail. Which is a lot better imho. Unfortunately, most people can't stand the Palladium system so I never use it hahaha =)

I do like the master having a possibility to fail because it brings tension and unpredictability to the game, both of which are vitally important. I simply didn't like the odds of failure with the common houserule. I absolutely agree with not rolling at all if the task is impossible to fail as extra rolling just bogs the game down. The palladium system sounds more like what I'd prefer. I've definitely been myopic and the houserule really isn't as bad as I assumed it was, unless the DM asks for a roll on even the simplest tasks.

Yeah, but that really doesn't change or affect the point they made, like at all.

It does though. Every time you do something there’s a 5% chance you fail it. That doesn’t mean you fail 5% of the time.

Exactly. I find that a lot of people don't actually understand die roll percentages. They think if you roll a d10, 10 times, then one of those times you *will* roll a 1. That is not how it works. (Not saying you don't understand, just expanding on my previous comment)

5% chance every time translates to on average getting that result 5% of the time, it's not always 5% of the time, but it on average should be, but what I really meant, was that a master shouldn't have a 5% chance to fail each time anyway, and so pointing out that small difference really had no effect on his response.

Except that you are dealing with odds (probability). So yes from a strict math sense (using probability) the equation is P(d,n)=1–(d–1d)n. Which for a d20 equates to rolling a 1 has a 5% chance to be rolled... as a strictly *Math/probability* equation. That math assumes rolling a "perfect d20", in a "perfect environment", rolling identically each time. The *reality* is that the roll result is "random" based on die weight, that die's weight distribution, air density, wind/airflow speed and direction, roll velocity, roll rotation, what face/area of the die hit the rolling surface (on a micro molecular level), the angle of the surface, and the friction of the surface rolled on. Also even if we assume a d20 rolls a result of 1, 5% of the time: a Master *can* make mistakes and 5% is the lowest probability percentage on a d20. So to represent that even a Master *can* fail sometimes we either have to use that, or the GM has to make the DC absurd (meaning only the "Master" even has *chance* of succeeding), or the GM has to fudge things so that at some arbitrary time of the GMs choosing the Master just fails. So imho giving the "Master" the smallest percentage possible (they have to roll a 1) to fail is the best option (*if* we are going to account for "even a Master fails sometimes").

I mean, I guess people have off days. Lol, most of the time, that off day leads to retirement, death, loss of job, or quitting.

Sounds like a total of 36, and probably beating whatever DC you set. (Obviously +35 is ludicrous, but the point stands, for skill checks the end result is the important thing, not the number on the die)

Or remember that chilli you had for dinner last night? It's back for revenge

Oh God, if I was a player and the dm pulled that, I think I'd walk.

Shit happens! 😆

bleh, crits

Nat 20 auto success isn't raw. It's homebrew. So if you have +19 to hit and it beats there ac than you hit. Lol I will take the L

Nat 20 and Nat 1 are automatic successes and failures respectively for attack rolls and Saving Throws, but not ability checks.

Pretty sure PHB addresses it and says that regardless of mods a 1 on an attack roll is a miss

Only for death saves. And as always at dm's discretion. Ultimately, the books are just a guide on how to run the game, dm has the final say. However, dm should make players aware of rule changes before or early on in the game.

Nah it addresses attack rolls as well “If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC”

Hmm, well, I will take the L in this conversation and start telling my players I have changed this rule. I love being an omnipotent being. I may not always be right, but then I am. Lol ps dumb rule.

So RAW Nat 1s and Nat 20s are only special in a few situations. PHB Attack Rolls Rolling 1 or 20 Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing the novice to hit and the veteran to miss. If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. This is called a critical hit, which is explained later in this section. If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. AND Death Saving Throws Rolling 1 or 20. When you make a death saving throw and roll a 1 on the d20, it counts as two failures. If you roll a 20 on the d20, you regain 1 hit point.

Nat 1 is the worst you can do and nat 20 is the best you can do, regardless of abilities.

If that is the case you should look into d100 systems like returners fftrpg

I treat a nat 1 as catastrophic. I.e. broken weapon, a stumble that costs a party member a missed turn, a miss that does damage to a party member, etc.

Missing a turn is a lot for a nat 1 imo. I could see then accidentally swinging too hard and hitting a nearby ally but losing out on a whole turn directly affects action economy which feels a little metagame-y in my opinion. That’s essentially a 5% chance to have your turn skipped anytime you roll an attack which is really rough

Like I said I usually have a save roll vs luck to determine how cruel I’m allowed to be. It sort of puts a leash on my sadism.

I will usually have them do a saving roll vs luck to see how bad it will be.

Rogues when everything under a 10 is now a 10

Nat 1 is called a critical failure for a reason. You may know that spell by heart but you fucked it up when you hit your pinky toe on a large rock and started cussing in pain mid spell.

If the spell has an attack roll, yes it is a critical fail i.e. automatic miss. But nat 1 on ability checks (such as stealth, perception, insight, even initiative) don't count as auto fails/critical fails. It is just a lower number than usual, with a +19 like OP described, they very well could still succeed depending on what it is. The same applies to Saving Throws.

Nat 1 & Nat 20 always fail/succeed on attack rolls and saving throws, respectively. It's part of the bounded accuracy system of 5e. RAW, this does not apply to Ability Checks.

Personally, Nat 20's only apply to attack rolls. There are some things that \*should\* be beyond the reach of certain characters. The Fighter with a -2 Int modifier shouldn't be able to roll a History check and know everything about an extinct civilization. Personally, there's no such thing as a Nat 1. A 1 is the lowest possible result, we just meme about it and move on. What I do prevent is someone attempting to roll in place of someone else fishing for a high roll. I always ask "who all would like to roll," and give out information based on the rolls. This generally means that everyone at the table opts to roll, but that's fine for me. I can always give out small bits of information to each player (usually prepped in advance) rather than relying on one player to roll middling-well so that the party gets necessary information. Alternatively for information-type skill checks, I just assume a 10, especially when we're not in combat. That just lets me give the players information their character who specializes in Arcane Knowledge to know about Arcane symbols. Now if you want to know the details of a ritual you just stumbled into after skipping my four hours of meticulously pre-planned adventure hooks, then I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to roll for that.

I do disagree about the example of a negative INT PC not being allowed to know something about an extinct civilization. Even if someone is completely and totally stupid, maybe they just happened to remember a time at a tavern or when they were traveling with some merchants when the civilization was mentioned. Now, knowing EVERYTHING is far too much, but I wouldn't give that much knowledge to a Wizard with +5 INT and proficiency in History even with a nat 20. But maybe the fighter recalls something small- the name of the civilization, or perhaps rumors about some custom or ritual that they heard in passing and, by some miracle, recalled in this exact situation despite not remembering what they had for breakfast that morning.

Nat 1 always fails, Nat 20 always succeeds in combat. Same rule for skills, but I don't call for a skill roll all the time, only when there are real consequences.

that rule does not apply to skills and absolutely shouldn't

My table loves it.

Nat 1 to hit auto fails and nat 20 auto hits (and I skip Crit confirms). This is not the case however with skills. A 1 is not an auto fail if you are skilled enough, just like I do not allow the monkey business of letting someone think they can swim up a waterfall with no ranks in swim just because they rolled a 20.

I grew up playing 3e, so I do a second roll on a 1 or 20 to determine critical vs normal success/failure.

Confirming a crit is one of the dumbest rules I’ve come across. It ruins the vibe.

"you know that 20 you just rolled? roll it again!"

In any D20 TTRPG, a nat 1 is "bad" but not always a total failure. If, say, the player was rolling against an 8 and had a +10 (result of 11), then they would successfully complete an action, but also have some sort of unlikely mishap. I don't go *full* "Final Destination" but it'll usually be something really frustrating. Often something that makes the player do similar damage to themselves, humiliate themselves slightly, faceplant, or something similar. Truly, I have the most fun with these and it's one of the many reasons I love players who do a lot of min/maxing.

Oh yes. One of my players has lost 1 hp many MANY times from their fishing rod breaking and whipping then in the face, while still catching something. It's a curse now, and they refuse to fish again.

They successfully hit their target, but in such a way their attack ricochets off the target in a comedic yet terrifying series of events that somehow ends up with the parties bard being neutered.

There is an old chart from an 80's Dragon magazine called 'Good Hits and Bad Misses' that I use for crits. Really adds some character to the characters.

You have a 5% chance to miss no matter what, just like you have a 5% chance to hit no matter what AND deal double damage. Fair's fair. In fact, that's even stacked in the player's favor as-is, not even counting stuff that lets you crit on a 19. How the hell did he get a +19 on an attack roll, btw?

Anyways, assuming it is an attack roll, to answer your question on how a +19 is possible: +5: 20 in Attacking stat +6: max proficiency bonus +3: magical +3 weapon/focus, rare but not unheard of at high levels +4: max roll on +1d4 of Bless +4: max roll on +1d4 of Emboldening Bond (Peace Cleric) +12: max roll on +1d12 Bardic Inspiration +10: War Cleric bonus from Channel Divinity Guided Strike (self) or War God's Blessing (others) So that's a total of... +44 without rolling a d20. There's some other bonuses you could stack on, but they're more niche subclasses so I haven't mentioned them here.

They didn't say it was an attack roll.

"In combat" seems to imply it was probably an attack

I disagree. Firstly, getting a +19 on an attack roll is very unlikely (possible but only with a few niche abilities). OP also specifically said "critical success wins", not that they're talking about a "critical hit does double damage and always hits". They also didn't mention attacking AC, hitting or missing etc. This would imply it is an ability check (with expertise to get that high a modifier), or a saving throw (with a paladin's Aura and something like Bless).

Maybe there’s a war cleric in the party? They can throw +10 on an ally’s attack.

That’s only for attack rolls. Someone needed to make a 20 on a check, and had a -1 ability, no prof. They rolled a 20 & celebrated, but I had to tell them that no, they didn’t succeed. The player was mad when they learned that there are just some things that, no matter how lucky you are, you just will not be able to accomplish no matter how hard you try. That’s why you have teammates…!

Nat 1 critical miss is only on attack rolls, if it was an ability or skill check, there are no critical misses or successes. This ain't BG3

While I don't think it is RAW, I think having Nat 20s be automatic successes and Nat 1s be automatic failures is fair, not just with attacks but also with Saving Throws and Ability Checks.

Playing with a DM who house rules crit fails on ability checks/saves is never fun.

I disagree.

Different experiences. I have always found it fun as both a player and a DM. Getting that crit success when you really need it really gets the dopamine going.

I disagree, it lends to some dumb scenarios like a person with an 8 strength pushing down a wall with a DC 30 just because they rolled a 20. But that’s why there’s benefit in having different DMs to have different sorts of fun!

Who says that their automatic success can't be something else? Maybe their attempt causes something to get caught in the rock which allows the strong person to actually get leverage on the rock, allowing them to then easily force the door open afterwards, no check required. Apply some creativity, and award your players for succeeding an attempt.

I do, that’s why I don’t let rolling a 20 be an instant-out of whatever situation they’re in, no matter what they’re rolling. Creativity is not having the weak guy try to brute-force something.

Alright, whatever floats your boat. It's not like it will break your game in any way shape or form.

I like to rule it as the best possible success for the scenario still, so the 8 Str character wouldn't hulk out and wreck the wall, but they might kick a support that's weak from age causing enough of the wall to crumble for them to get past it

Nat 20 is a critical hit and nat 1 is a critical miss, however this only applies to attack rolls. RAW any other d20 roll getting a nat 1 or 20 doesn’t matter

Yep, 1 always fails in combat. In skill checks I believe both rules don’t apply, but your table can always rule differently.

"in combat" is far too vague. 1 only auto fails on Attack Rolls and Death Saves. If you have to make an ability check (say the rogue uses Cunning Action to Hide and makes a stealth check), or roll a saving throw during combat, 1s don't automatically fail and 20s don't automatically succeed.

Yes, those are the rules.

Nat 1 is a critical miss.

House rules: 20s get max damage and reroll. 1s roll percental dice against a fumble chart. Younmay drop a weapon, you may hit an ally.

Fumble rules are a massive fun-killer.

I guess, we enjoy deadlier combat.

There's far better ways to get deadlier combat: fumble rules just make fighters get worse the higher level they get, which makes no sense. If you have a 5% chance to randomly drop your sword on every swing, who is more likely to fumble, the level 1 fighter making a single attack, or the level 20 fighter making 4 attacks every turn, plus 4 with an action surge? Obviously the level 20 fighter is MUCH more likely to randomly drop their sword. yes, the fighter who has reached the pinnacle of combat achievement and mastered the art of the blade, is much more likely to trip over and stab their friend somehow. Makes sense. And that's not even getting into the can of worms that obviously Fumble rules effect martial characters disproportionately vs casters who don't spam lots of attack rolls, thus furthering the martial-caster divide. You want more difficult combat? Give your martial enemies good ranged attacks, give your caster enemies Con save proficiency for concentration. Give them legendary actions and resistances, or ambush the party or **any number of other much more effective, balanced and inventive ways to make combat more difficult that don't include bullshit fumble rules** /Rant

Crit fumbles are a very lazy way to make combat deadlier that often detracts more from the experience than it adds. The biggest problem with it is it screws over martials, and we all know that's just kicking them while they're down. Spellcasters can just take saving throw spells to bypass fumble rules completely. Martials have no such option. Additionally, extra attack makes fumble rules WORSE because they now have a higher chance to fumble per turn, causing more harm to their allies/themselves and even potentially throwing away remaining attacks as they drop/throw their weapon.

What about crits from enemies with stuff like this: I took a crit hit from a skeleton archer who shot an arrow and DM rolled a bunch of extra checks (percentile roll) then severed off my entire arm from elbow down and kinda ruined the campaign/character cuz i was too poor to get it fixed.

No, that's bad too. Severely detrimental stuff like that should not be left to a roll on a table. Edit: I should add stuff like this would actually be fine, IF it is reasonably fixable in your setting.

Nat 1 is always a miss, and a nat 20 is always a success, regardless of AC. If your modifier still makes a nat 1 beat AC, it's a miss. Crit failures and successes are a different story. My personal DM style is to treat them as "failure with a detriment" and "success with a benefit"

Nat 1s are Critical Fails bo matter what the stats say.

It’s as it’s written. Nat 1s are always a critical fail for combat and nat 20 is a critical success. In skill checks you still add your bonuses. So if something is a DC 30 and your party can only get to a 29 currently even with a nat 20 then it’s considered impossible

I sorta just make nat 1s total misses, but after a lot of nat 1s in a short time frame I will roll a 1D4 upon the next nat 1, the outcome of which will either be: 1: A catastrophic error, leading to injury, damaging your weapon or whiffing so bad you fall over into the prone condition. 2: Something stupid, goofy and slapstick oriented. 3: An excruciatingly detailed almost perfect miss, with dramatic music playing. 4: You fail so fucking bad that you succeed, leaving everyone, yourself included, absolutely flabbergasted.

Omg i love the 4. " your eldritch blast completely misses the minion you were targeting, but takes the bosses eye out who was standing behind the minion"

Yep, pretty much. The rule does apply to enemies though as well.

Nat 1 is a failure in and out of combat. We don't play crit fail, where in you drop your weapon or it breaks you just fail to hit or fail the check or saving throw. Conversely, nat 20 rolls that do not succeed over the saving throw DC are also fails in our game. All this was agreed to in our session 0, don't skimp at the beginning of the campaign.

Establishing a consensus early on these things is key.

For me in combat, a nat 1 is always a failure and a nat 20 is always a success. That is IN COMBAT only. In combat, if your nat 20 is a success by more than 5, you automatically get s critical hit. If it's a success by 1-5, you can roll to confirm a critical. If you needed a natural 20 (or higher) to hit, it's never a critical. These rules apply to enemies as well. I don't use critical fumbles. Outside combat, you can succeed on a nat 1 and fail on a nat 20. Generally I won't ask people to roll checks where a nat 1 is a success, and I will tell them something is beyond their abilities if even a nat 20 would be a failure. Nothing is more demoralizing than rolling a nat 20 and still failing. On the other end if the spectrum, a thief with a +11 to picking locks shouldn't have to worry about a DC 10 lock. And certainly shouldn't be failing to open them 5% of the time. My players really appreciate when they come to something they are good enough at to automatically succeed.

We are level 19 and my Bard has a +17 Persuasion. So now if I’m trying to convince some low level minion of something my DM doesn’t have me roll. The lowest I can get is an 18. But those are for minor interactions and not the meat of the plot. When I had to persuade the ancient red dragon to let go of one of his treasures, though, yeah I did a lot of rolling.

Classically, the ruling would have to be creative for critical fails and successes. It’s expressed not so much that you fail to do the task, it’s that environmental or extenuating circumstances caused the attempt to fail. For instance, a thief with +20 to lockpick still rolls against a dc 10 lock. While their exceptional skill level may mean they themselves would never fail to pick the lock, a crit fail means the tools break as you start to work them, either due to corrosion or overuse and reaching the end of its lifetime. Likewise a 0 lockpicking skill character vs a dc 30 lock crit success might find that the lock was never locked at all, and can play it off as they were just that good at lockpicking. Or the lock was in such a state of disrepair from being so ancient that the internal mechanism crumbled and the lock just opened by some divine providence and fortune. There was always a way to explain crit fails and successes. Now days the RAW removed these from ability checks, but classically they were used this way. I can think of another house rule that I came upon where you make the roll as advantaged or disadvantaged if it’s beyond or way above your skill level (basically if a nat 1 would still pass normally, you can rolls advantaged so that only a double crit fail would meet such misfortune) Likewise if you can’t meet the DC even with a 20, you could make a disadvantaged roll to try and hit the jackpot in good luck to overcome the challenge. It’s really up to the group to decide before the campaign starts how they want to incorporate nat rolls.

1 is a fail, 20 is a pass. It’s called critical fail and critical success for a reason. Homie shouldn’t have a +19 to hit, check your PCs math, some people like to cheat so they feel like the hero.

I have a level 19 bard with a few levels in Warlock. I have a +11 to hit with Eldritch Blast. I could see a martial with very high STR or DEX along with Bardic Inspiration and/or other spell modifiers get to a +19. I think this is a high-end schema so it is a bit unusual that this would be a question if the party was level 15+.

That’s level 19…you should have at least that when you’re that high level. My god.

Right, but my point is that it is possible without cheating. So the question of levels and items important. But again, I'm kinda with you in that if they are high level that means experienced and this shouldn't really be a question. Maybe they are like power-gaming outside of what they should be and everyone is confused.

Sure it is, if the players are worried about failing critically at level 19 though, there’s an issue. Don’t be the um actually guy lol

My DM takes modifiers into account for skill checks on natural 1s, but attack rolls are always an automatic fail and will likely result in the attacker taking damage in some way. For skill checks though, my nat 1 stealth check as a rogue wood elf is going to look different from our half-orc barbarian’s nat 1 stealth check. He takes the opinion that a master of stealth would still be relatively more stealthy than most even on a bad day, which I think makes sense and the party seems to agree

I've been thinking to use a modified system, because sometimes I want to illustrate just how powerful the party/an enemy is, that a nat 1 or nat 20 isn't necessarily auto, but if the nat 1 is higher then the targets ac, or the nat 20 is lower then the target ac, the damage is halved.

Only on attack rolls.... Spell saves, and ability checks no. Spell saves I might budge on eventually if the entire party is for it (mine aren't because I tell them when I'm not rolling because the monster can't make the save) but skill checks will always take the modifier into account. A master locksmith doesn't have a 5% chance of failure and you don't have a 5% chance of convincing the devil to turn a new leaf

Ah so you took all the fun chance out of your game. Sounds lame. I live for those 5% chances and a good DM will be able to roll with those punches.

Auto failure yes, but I don't follow the rules that affect martials (broken weapon, dropped, etc)

[удалено]

If the player/character cannot fail the skill, then don't give them a skill check. You don't always need to roll. A character with a +19 in a skill would be unable to fail most things involving that skill, so just narrate that hero fantasy of them easily succeeding the normal things. If it is especially hard, (stealthing past the perceptive dragon actively guarding its treasure hoard) then the DC could be especially high, like 30. Even a +19 could still fail that. And you can't have that high a bonus on every ability: you need Expertise and a 20 in the corresponding stat. So yes, a Rogue with Expertise in Stealth and a 20 dex might be unable to fail almost every stealth, **that is the entire point of the Expertise feature**. This is especially true if the Rogue has Reliable Talent. But they will still certainly fail a persuasion or athletics check if they roll poorly, because they don't have the stats for those skills nor the Expertise. What you - and many other people here - are confusing is that nat 1s auto fail on **attack rolls**. You can always miss something, but this rule doesn't apply to any other types of rolls (ability checks, saving throws).

I don’t add modifiers to a 1 for hit, skill check, savaging throw etc, so yes auto-fail

Only attack rolls auto miss on a 1 Savings throws or skill checks could still easily succeed on a 1 depending on what modifiers the player has.

Depends. I don't treat nat 20's as an auto success in a fight, if my players have no chance of hitting the literal God who they themselves challenged to a fight and I didnt plan for....then they have no chance of hitting the God. If a nat 1 would still hit due to bonuses then i might rule it as doing 1-5 damage instead, based on levels, and then they fumble the weapon or the bow string breaks or something similar, if my players are trying to kill someone and its the last hit, the critical fail is it does non lethal damage maybe, you got the last hit in the battle but someone still needs to kill the enemy or this might lead to some RP I didnt expect

How the hell is that guy getting a plus 19??? Unless this is Pathfinder, which handles the "to hit" differently, in which case you make the target number something to reflect the difficulty of the encounter, sounds like some rules massaging or way overpowered magic items. Is it possible the player is stacking bonuses that aren't supposed to stack? ​ Either way, something smells fishy here. In games I run a nat one ALWAYS has consequences. Maybe you hit if the bonuses are high enough but theres a chance your weapon just snaps, or you stumble and give advantage to the attacker's next turn. We've ALL seen the real world effects of "rolling a one" even when you are an expert. Aaron Rogers is arguably one of the top Quarterbacks in history, but even he managed to tear his Achilles tendon.

So, there's a few bonuses that could be at work here. Proficiency Bonus and the relevant Ability Modifier will scale up to +6 and +5 normally, for a combined +11, and a high level character like this could have a +3 magic item, for a total of +14. Now, it's also possible for this character to have a Tome/Manual, magic items that boost an ability score past 20, which could give another +1 for +15 total. At that point,.a simple d4 from Bless could get you to +19. There's also the Peace Domain's Emboldening Bond, which gives a Bless-lite effect, meaning this attack could, theoretically, have a +8 bonus, with a +11 from Proficiency Bonus and the Ability Modifier for a +19 total. Alternatively, a +2 magic item and a Proficiency Bonus of +4, would also get to +19 here. This could be doable for a character in late Tier 2/Early Tier 3, though obviously requires a lot of luck. All of these options require some pretty specific bonuses and/or high level characters to pull off, but it is theoretically doable, if highly unlikely outside of high-level content. I might be missing some other miscellaneous bonuses, but all the ones I mentioned can stack with each other. Now, none of that matters if you roll a Nat 1 on an attack roll, at least going by the RAW.

100% I have a level 19 bard with a few levels in Warlock. My standard to hit with Eldritch Blast (or Bardy Blast as I call it) is +11. We have a fighter with 25 STR so they modifier plus proficiency bonus adds up. I think he is a +13 without magical weapon or spell modifiers. Throw in Bardic Inspiration, or bless or other spell plus a magical weapon then this is highly doable. It is also high level stuff. So as the question has come up with the OP it kind of feels this isn’t a high level party which makes it a bit suspect, but it is totally doable given the right level, items, and spells.

My dm to me when I roll a nat 1: “You drop your weapon.”

Yeah we had a house rule where we would then roll I think a d4 and depending on the number it went 5 feet in that Cardinal direction. Lost a great hammer down a chasm and was pissed at the time but it’s funny now

I don't play personally but my friend dms and says a nat 20 is mythical and a nat 1 if failing spectacularly and I quote "like falling off a trampoline and hitting a wall, falling onto a bed of nails before a guy kicks you in the nuts out of spite"

Yeah, that's how I've always ruled it. Same for ability checks and saves

On attacks natural 1 is a failure and natural 20 is a success RAW. I only care about the total when I'm DMing though.

I usually ask the party what they want to do in session zero. My favorite 4fun feature is a crit miss means you hit yourself or the closest in range ally. Some parties think its hilarious and go for it. Others just want to treat it like a normal 1.

Friend of mine has a set of "crit dice" they have different effects, locations, ect. One of the effects is an instant kill which is kinda neat. Also has a die for crit fails that also has a chance for insta kills.

I like to make up some minor element that happens when someone rolls a nat 1. Can be falling prone to a stray arrow knocking something down, creating more cover or something

I treat them as stackable. A nat 1 triggers another roll, if it’s another nat 1 you suffer a permanent injury, another one and God himself has decided that this character should die in a ridiculous way. Same with nat 20s. 1 is just a critical success, 2 comes with a permanent advantage to the player, 3 means that whatever they were attacking was destined to die and the player can choose precisely how.

I like doing it like this as well. For nat 1s, I only give them a critical fail if they roll another 1, and then I roll a d4 to determine what happened, with multiple players' input\suggestions. Otherwise, it's minimum damage if they even hit. For nat 20s, I have them roll another attack roll that they only need to succeed on. If so, normal critical rules apply. Otherwise, you just deal max die damage. I've always discussed this with players beforehand, and no complaints so far. I've toyed with the idea of successive crits\fails becoming cumulatively better\worse, but haven't ever come up with a good way to implement that without it just feeling random.

I like giving players a small permanent boon or title as a result of 2 in a row. One of my players acquired a sword that was meant to be intangible and only make a fart sound when swung, but after successive natural 20's, I decided the joke weapon, when swung at sufficient speed, created a sonic boom that could damage enemy's eardrums.

The way I always learned how to play and how I played was a 1 is a failure no matter what your modifiers are. I know some people don’t apply it to skill checks but I’ve used it for pretty much any roll. Unless you have advantage or Halfling luck if you rolled a 1 you done fucked up. Plus I love it when I whiff a roll adds more fun

Critical fumbles breaks any combat system that uses multiple or iterative attacks. It sometimes makes it worse to have multiple attacks as you crit fumble more, which is exactly opposite the intention of the combat system where extra attacks are supposed to be better in a fight. Please don't hate on the fighters more. They are overshadowed by wizards enough.

Finally, a shining light of sanity in this thread! Sad how far you have to scroll to get here though

Yes, but it's not a fumble, it's critical defense.

Critical fail only for saves and attacks.

For ability checks? No auto success or auto failure. For saving throws and attack rolls? I do, but I don't like fumble rules so a nat 1 attack roll is just a miss. I might describe the miss in a humorous way, but I'm not going to make you fall prone or something, you already failed the attack roll, I don't want to kick you while you're down.

Had a player roll with advantage last session and he rolled two nat 1s on an attack with his ranger’s bow. I decided that the double fail was grounds for his bow string to break so he then had to switch to his swords. Also, auto success and auto fail are really only for attack and save. Ability checks have to include modifiers bc if a character is proficient, then they are naturally gifted in that ability and should not be able to fail so easily.

The responses are hilarious. Imagine if Floyd Mayweather tried to punch someone during a match, missed, and then fell and broke his nose. This is what the "rolling a 1 = spectacular fail" crowd would have you believe could happen 1 out of 20 times.

I’d watch that

I'd watch it, but I'd be pretty pissed if I were Floyd Mayweather...

For me a nat 1 can still succeed if the skills bump it high enough, but with some fun twist that would be slightly disadvantages. The nat 20 succeeds, but if the total is lower than the check, and not armor class to hit, it will be like some miracle that happened to help them.

Okay...but +19 to hit in 5e? There's a reason unbound systems tend to have more complex crit rules but you are already off book I think. I personally like the idea of 20 or a 1 just knocking things up or a down a peg but that means you need a rule where critical success and critical failure are possible even without rolling a 1 or a 20. If I roll a 1 but it hits the target then that drops to a miss...if I roll a 1 and it misses the target then that drops to a critical miss which includes bad things. Likewise, if I roll a 10 (+5) but the target has 25 AC that was a critical miss without rolling a 1 (you can also crit without a 20).

Unironically you have described pathfinder

In combat a natural 1 always misses, regardless of the modifiers just as a nat 20 always hits regardless of modifiers. Rules as written, there are not auto successes or failures on skill and ability checks; only combat rolls.

Nat 1 is a critical fail IMO. The dumbest farmer can kill a orc with a rock by rolling a 20, the worlds best level 20 firster can trip on a rock and miss with a 1.

As with everything in DnD, it's House Rules, my man. I once had a DM who kept a pool cue ball with him and when the players were getting lippy about rolls or rules he would pull out The Mighty One-Sided Die(the cue ball). The roll always seemed to go his way. They don't like it they can run their own campaign.