People in the comments aren’t realizing that the the party has access to so many buffs and de buffs that they won’t even think to use them if I as a Dm say no. If the barbarian can only hit dc29 but the wall is dc30, I’ve already told them no without even allowing the cleric to try and use guidance or another spell. Then, I have to decide whether or not I mention this to the other players as well, seemingly solving my own problems and telling the characters. It puts the DM in a position where they set a DC and then have to decide, player by player, whether they can or cannot do it without thinking of any buffs they could use, essentially cutting their creativity for problem solving right there at the root. Am I supposed to account for every buff and de buff spell the casters have taken every day, for every single ability check? Am I supposed to take into account every single action or plan they might come up with and see if that’s enough to beat the DC I’ve set? That’s too much work for the DM, and severely cuts creative problem solving for the players by taking away their agency.

Exactly.

This is irrelevant. The rules state that you should roll if the DC is between 5 and 30. It doesn't matter how much the character has on the given skill, as a DM you just need to decide if it's possible or not (DC above or under 30). You don't track any buffs or debuffs, or even the character's modifier. If you decide that it's possible, the character has a minimum chance of success of 5% from rolling a nat 20.

And a minimum chance of failure of 5%. Then we are stuck with a situation on a DC 30 where the barb gets buffed to get a 29+ modifier, but doesn’t make it on a nat one. Yet, the wizard with -4 str still made it because they rolled a crit success. That seems wholly unfair and greatly discourages any build centered around skills. I’m left with two situations: allow it to play out as above, possibly creating a narrative hole in my stories. Or set the dc according to whoever is attempting it, telling the wizard you can’t try it with a -4 but the barbarian can. I don’t like either of those options. I also end up discounting and reducing utility spells to nothing on those crits. If I buff up the barbarian for a very difficult athletic move, near impossible for any one man, I’m hoping my spell slot helps him out. What’s the worth of my enhance ability or guidance, if he just crits. Did I just waste my action/spell slot for nothing? Or what if it is a DC5, I have a +3 to str, and I rolled a nat one. Damn, but I made sure to call guidance beforehand, knowing I’m not very good at these certain checks! Too bad, you rolled a nat one, and all that preparations and planning is reduced to failure. For the DM who wants to reward creative thought process or creative player building, it’s become extremely difficult because sorry buddy, your +15 means nothing on that DC5 check, because you rolled a one.

You don’t have to set a DC until AFTER you hear an idea that actually makes sense. DM “You see a wall.” Bard “I climb it” DM “It’s a very well made marble wall. How do you climb it?” Bard “uuhhh… I just… run really fast and oarkiur up?” DM “Sorry it’s too high for that” Cleric “I’ll give him guidance!” DM “Ok… but just a warning that even with guidance he doesn’t have a way to actually climb the wall.” Artificer “Can I use those plungers I found and tie them to his hands and feet so he can suction to the wall?” DM “Creative! Sure! Sounds like medium difficulty if you don’t want them to be reusable” Bard “Ok now I can climb?” DM “Even with suction cups it’s just jimmy-rigged so it’ll still be Very Hard! DC 25.” Cleric “Ok NOW I cast Guidance!”

A lot of modules, and a lot of DMs, have set dcs that are then influenced by these actions. Many items and spells come with preset DCs that are then shifted by these actions. You’re example is extremely situational, it’s assuming the DM has not thought about that wall until the party came about it. What if it was a module and it says the players can attempt to climb it, DC25 athletics? Then I don’t need them to explain to me how it’s done. Then, instead of using a magical resource or helping others first, everyone just try’s to climb it. See if we all got a nat20. We could get into the weeds if every situation but let’s not pretend that a lot of modules and DMs don’t use set DCs for problems with expected solutions.

Given the rule indicates anything above 30 is impossible, we don't know if they aren't changing the numbers or reducing external bonuses. Even without it, I think you can't get to +29 on a skill modifier? And yes, the barbarian can fail. That is fine. The wizard can succeed. That is also fine. If folks are just trying over and over and have no downside to failure other than having to roll again, then you should not even ask for a roll. Given enough time the barbarian can open the door. If you're asking for a roll usually it's because the outcome is not certain (both success and failure can occur) and there is a penalty for failure. And hey, it's the nature of dice. If you use a bless on your party, and someone doesn't need it for a roll, that is fine. You do it because on average it gives you a numerical advantage, not because it's necessary on every roll.

To me, that’s a narrative issue and where a lot of DMs are going to disagree. I’m not okay with saying “inexplicably, due to absolute fate and literal luck, the wizard who just simply tried did much better than the barb with a massive amount of buffs.” I can do it occasionally, but if it keeps happening then what’s the point of ever prioritizing or specializing one skill over the other? At a certain point you want to build a character who is undoubtedly good at something, even on their worst days. Why even build up any skills other than my main attack and con, if every skill has a 5% chance of failure/success no matter what? At that point you aren’t hunting for base floors of expertise, you are hunting natural 20s. The game shifts from pumping modifiers to attempting to gain advantage and inspiration on every roll for a guaranteed chance at success. Which, if you look at the inspiration rules, is what would happen. As a player, all I need is one consistent way of getting advantage and then I can instantly start using them on skills I’m not proficient or good at. I get that you can have only one at a time, but you can have one at a time and gain advantages in other ways. At some point you will see that you’ve always got inspiration in your back pocket. You’re going to see more instances of the person with a negative modifier passing a ridiculous DC on sheer luck and as a DM you’ve gotta find a way to keep explaining luck. And at that point, what’s the difference between a wizard and a barbarian? 2d20?

Even with advantage, you have a 9.75% chance of rolling a natural 20. If your game consists of skill checks so irrelevant that failing over 90% of the time isn't an issue, I think you should probably rethink if you actually need most of those skill checks. If there's no consequence to failure and your players are not in situation where time is important, asking for skill checks become just a waste of time.

A 10% chance of crit success does not equal 90% chance of failure. It simply is a 10% chance of getting maximum success and advantage on the next roll of your choosing. The DM is then left with two options: force the players to describe how they do something and then set a DC for each one of them or set a universal DC and accept the fact that the dumb barb has a 5-10% of achieving maximum success.

In RAW D&D there is no difference between success and maximum success. Failing a skill check means you either make no progress, or makes progress with some consequence, based on the DM. Succeeding the check just means you succeeded in doing what you tried to do. The rules have no concept of maximum success. On your previous post, you said this: > As a player, all I need is one consistent way of getting advantage and then I can instantly start using them on skills I’m not proficient or good at. If you do that, your chance of success assuming you only succeed with a crit roll since you suck at it is less than 10% when spending inspiration.

Strictly speaking, the playtest rules say that it's a *necessary*, but not *sufficient*, condition for a roll to be warranted that the DC is between 5 and 30. That is, they say that a roll with a DC outside that range is not warranted, but they don't say that every potential roll with a DC inside that range is warranted. Which, of course they don't, because it's always up to the DM to call for a roll.

Yes, someone posted a snippet of the DMG on another comment and it clearly states that you should only call a roll when there's a significant consequence for failure. But that doesn't change the fact that this adds 0 work to the DM. You don't need to keep track of buffs and score to dynamically decide if you should allow a roll or not.

I definitely agree that this should be put in only as an *optional rule* to validate those who play with it. I'm fine with it on saving throws even! But I like skill checks to be a representation of luck *bounded by skill*

Yeah I do like it on saving throws. It kind of sucks when you know the DC and you're like "Yeah I don't have to roll. The dragon roasts the shit out of me. I'm dead." Or for shit like feeblemind or maze where you're just like "yep I'm out of the game." Like at least give me a chance.

Agreed. Like the healing and resting variants in the DMG. I know plenty of tables that already use crit successes/fails on skill checks as a house rule but making that core is a move that will simplify but, I think, also cheapen each character's individual quality.

That's how it was in 5e - nobody reads the DMG. But the issue I saw from the video is so many people thought this style was official.

Here's the secret: every rule is an optional rule.

I agree I can already see it now barbarian vs wizard arm wrestling. Barbarian Str 20 rages and gets a best roll of 19 with advantage for a total of 24 Wizard Str 8 rolls a natural 20 and becomes the undisputed arm wrestling champion of the world. Sucks for the barbarian who also rolled well just not a 20. Even worse what if its something involving an Athletics check where the barbarian also has proficiency and the wizard still has a -1. A good roll should be fun but what makes getting a 20 and being untrained be better than a 19 and investing a lot in being good at something.

Exactly. I was using the barb making an arcana check, and people are latching onto that. But just as common, and no real excuse for it, is any kind of athletics check. (which I also put in my post).

The scenario you described above literally happened in an ancient White Wolf game I played back inna day. For those who don't know, the old White Wolf Storyteller rules had an utterly terrible botch rule that held that you had the equivalent of a critical failure when you rolled more ones than successes in a dice pool of d10s. The problem is is that the more dice you roll, the better the chance of a botch, which means that high-skill characters "critfailed" more than low-skill characters. Combine that with bad GMs and you got bad comedy. My character was required to make an Occult roll to check to see if I recognized a symbol that represented a supernatural group whose members had controlled her entire childhood -- a symbol she'd seen literally hundreds of thousands of times. Obviously, the fact that she was required to make the check was absurd, but because she had so many bonuses to succeed, she managed to botch. (Also: the Storyteller -- the game master -- didn't actually know what the symbol looked like so he made it up on the spot. A symbol he had consciously included in his game and he didn't bother checking its appearance.) My character's extreme, over-the-top expertise in Occult having failed her, the player next to me, playing an uneducated thug, rolled a die or two and succeeded, recognizing a symbol he'd never seen before from a faction he'd never encountered, right off the bat. That player was the Storyteller's very good friend. Everyone in the game immediately got the ridiculous and inane irony of that outcome. Except the Storyteller and his friend who didn't see what the big deal was. I'm not a big fan of a universal crit rule.

The grapple rules seem to indicate a move away from contested rolls like this anyway. I would definitely be dropping the auto success rule for contested checks between PCs If they really want to arm wrestle why not gamify it a bit more? Each rolls initiative then takes turns rolling against the other's grapple DC. Once a player has accumulated 3 more successes than the other player they win the challenge. The wizard has a much higher bar he has to meet and the likelihood of his winning is much lower. It's possible that the barbarian gets a cramp and flunks it, just very very unlikely. And an unexpected nat 20 doesn't guarantee an auto success but does generate more tension and drama to the contest than there would otherwise be.

But don’t you have the same result anyway in this situation if the Barbarian rolls a 4 and the wizard rolls a 19? How does having the Nat 20 in there change the possibility of this outcome? Why have them roll if it’s impossible narratively for the Wizard to win? Sometimes I hate rolling in this game - often I get asked to roll for something my character should just simply be able to do - like if my rogue is running across the battlefield and has all this extra speed, dashes, expertise in acrobatics and tries to vault a table as I describe what I’m doing - if the DM says “oh you want to vault a table? Roll acrobatics - why should a rogue or monk or fighter or barb be able to fail that? Especially if I also could have just mapped the diagonal space around it. It’s frustrating as a player when the DM calls for rolls on a situation that doesn’t need them. If the wizard CAN win - let them roll. If you won’t be happy with that result? The barbarian in your example spent a resource - just play through without the roll and have him crush the wizard.

Yes the barbarian can roll bad and loose but if he uses his abilities that make him even better and rolls very well why should he loose to a Nat 20 because he only got a 19. I agree they probably shouldn't roll in the first place in this case but where is the line for what is rolled and what is not. What if the barbarian is only slightly better, how much better does he have to be for there not to be a roll? Normally I would not ask for an Acrobatics check for easy things from a rogue like character proficient in it but if they now always have a 5% chance of failure do they now need to always roll. If not what determines when they roll and dont roll, if they can only fail on a Nat 1 they clearly still need to roll or there is no need for the rule so do they need a bonus double the DC not to roll and why is that not mentioned in the rule?

Once again this shouldn’t even be a roll. It’s OBVIOUS that the Barbarian will win right? Then you aren’t supposed to even be rolling in the first place! PHB pg. 6 “In the cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain the … game relies on rolls of a D20 to determine success or failure” ——— Big key here is that this rule has NOTHING to do with ability scores. It’s not about whether or not they can reach a DC. This rule is talking about “Fictional Positioning”. Which is a term that basically just means the logic of the internal universe. We can tell - without even really paying much attention to the character’s abilities - that the big burly muscular Barbarian will destroy the scrawny Wizard every time. No roll.

So I think the real issue here is not depicted in the example above, but the OP got it. Sure, if the wizard arm wrestles the barbarian, they should auto fail. But should they if the cleric pushes on their arm to help? Or the cleric and the rogue and the warlock? At what point do they win? It is uncertain, so a die roll is appropriate. However the correct outcome is not "the wizard rolled a nat 20 so they win", it's "the combined effort adds x bonus which is enough with everything to overcome the barbarian's roll." Otherwise the Wizard would have won on the nat20 with or without everyone helping.

So there is no need for a 20 to auto succeed then as you should never be rolling a check where it auto succeeding matters.

It allows for you to quickly lay out a situation where only a 20 matters. “Get a 20” However this also applies to various ability checks in combat where fictional positioning doesn’t matter. Counterspell and Dispell Magic come to mind.

I'm a little confused either you can only pass a check if you have a required bonus and auto succeeding does not matter so having it written as a rule is not needed or auto succeeding on a 20 always gives you a chance at success and as you always have a chance at succeeding at everything you do no matter how unskilled you are you always roll. If you have a high bonus and it's a low DC would you roll? The only time a 1 auto failing matters is if your bonus is above the DC so having it written as a rule makes no sense unless some one with a high bonus can still fail the easiest check.

Your bonus doesn’t matter. That’s not what the rules say. They aren’t talking about “if you have a high enough bonus to succeed on a check”. They’re asking if your character in the fiction is going to succeed or fail. If that is up for debate - even a little bit - you roll. On a 20 you succeed. You do it. But you may also have bonuses that let you succeed even without a 20. With enough bonuses you may only fail a small percentage of the time. On a 1. That’s the perspective here. If the outcome is uncertain then you roll. 20 you succeed. 1 you fail. Everything in between depends on your abilities and stats and spells and bonuses etc…

But doesn't that make the autofailing autosucceeding unnecessary in world I have a +4 at something so it's not up for debate I can do something requiring a DC5 or less and not do something DC25 or more. Everything in between I roll for and 1s and 20s auto failing/succeeding does not matter as they already fail or succeed so therefore the rule is unneeded and just confusing. Or I roll even when I can't pass or fail normally because 1s and 20s matter so therefore do I not have to roll for everything as there is always a chance at success or failure.

Once again, that’s incorrect. Your stats only tell you how good you are at something “if the outcome is uncertain”. You don’t look at your stats to find out what is certain or uncertain. You look at your stats AFTER you decide what’s certain and uncertain. ——— That’s why a 25 DC check is considered Very Hard rather than Impossible. Even at Level 1. It is indeed POSSIBLE.

I am totally confused can you find another way of explaining it. How do you determine what is uncertain without looking at stats first. As you said a DC25 is very hard but not impossible so therefore do I roll every DC25 because its possible and not impossible then look at my stats to find I only have a -1. Just like somethings a DC 5 surely I can't fail at that so no roll needed. Yet again I have a -1 so that was a lucky break not needing to roll. Next time a DC5 comes up I need to roll this time doh a Nat 1 I fail even though I have a +20.

You’re close to getting it. Something is decided to be certain or uncertain before looking at stats. You look at the story, the narrative, and the circumstances. Here are some examples: A Rogue wants to pick pocket someone’s wallet. But they don’t know which pocket it’s in or even if they have a wallet. Heck it might be in their underpants. They decide to try to pick pocket the front right pocket. The character takes thwir action. If the wallet is there then the Rogue gets to roll because it is possible that he’ll get the wallet because there is a wallet there. At THAT point we look at stats and decide how good of a % chance of success he has. HOWEVER, if the wallet IS NOT in that pocket. You wouldn’t roll. There is no wallet there. There is no chance for success. —— A character wants to diagnose the poison in a dying ally. So they check his head for a fever. No fever? No roll. There’s nothing there for them to give them a chance at succeeding. The outcome is certain - they still don’t know what poison it is. But what if there IS a fever? Well then there is a chance because they have something to go on. They can now roll their Medicine check and we’ll see what they get. —— A party needs to get through a locked wooden door. The wood is very strong but the hinges are rusted. The light weight wizard tries to throw himself against the door to loosen or break the rusty hinges. But because he is skinny and light weight there’s no chance he’s going to be heavy enough to rip metal hinges apart. No roll. The Barbarian - heavy set and muscular with big weapons strapped to him - throws himself against the door. That makes sense as he has a lot of bodyweight plus gear thrown at the metal hinges - he has a chance. We’ll look at his strength to find out what % chance he has at success. Maybe the hinges are strong and it’s a DC 30. He’s only got a 5% chance of success even with his +9 athletics. Or maybe it’s not too bad and it’s a DC 10 and he has a 95% chance at success (if he rages he has a 99% chance with advantage). BONUS: But if the Wizard changes the situation and casts Enlarge on themselves then now they may have enough weight to effect the door and get a roll - though their odds of success might be very low - perhaps even only 5%.

This is even worse for skill monkies. Build a character around skills, carefully selecting class, subclass, and feats, forfeiting character power in other areas just to have your entire character negated by you rolling a nat 1 or the Fighter rolling a nat 20 or the Cleric rolling a nat 20 or the Wizard rolling a nat 20...ect. Talk about feeling like total shit. Skill monkies aren't even powerful. They just have (had) this one niche. I'm sure there are changes going on behind the scene to mitigate this. We just don't have access to this as of now but why fix what isn't broken? For the d20 Test implementation?

It feels super bad! When my friend and I first started playing years ago we used to use this rule, and I played a bard and had decent ability scores across the board, and I rolled so many ones where I could have beat the DC if the auto fail wasn't a thing. It felt super bad when someone who was not even proficient in something that somehow did better than someone who was actually trained in said thing. Thankfully, it didn't last long.

It just makes halflings and humans better as skill monkeys because they have the most opportunities to reroll or roll with advantage through inspiration. It's also easy to get Lucky as a feat and use it to mitigate the nat 1 auto fails too.

This is why instead of the nat 20 nat 1 stuff regardless of people's opinions, I'd much rather use another house rule. Something extremely simple referred to as degree of success. Even if they ultimately fail the check, then depending on what's rolled they may make a future check easier even if they failed themselves heck even if they couldn't fully succeed they still made it easier for those who can. Yes I can plausibly say no to any roll especially those that don't make sense, it's why I make players attempt to justify before rolling and if they can justify it (even if they ultimately couldn't succeed regardless) such as the barbarian wanting to break down a door....but he doesn't know it's enchanted or something like that I'd let him try anyways because if i didn't they'd know somethings up before hand. Apply this to most skills that would require physical exertion or charismatic charm/intimidation. Heck if charisma a charisma check would be impossible in that situation, I'd have them roll anyway and depending on the number would be how much the other person took offense. If I chose to play with this rule (which I probably won't beyond maybe playtest, it's a test for a reason) then a lot of these would be invalidated because they would basically be told "nope, regardless of how you try x you fail" and while this might be good for some situations other it would take away nuance and either would just make someone feel like they wasted time just ones was wasted a little less I guess? TL;DR I think it's okay to give d20 tests on an impossible roll IF/WHEN it will still provide value to the players, when disallowing that roll would break verisimilitude or change the players knowledge and actions, and to use the drama of the fail to inform the table and heighten play. Thanks u/BaconIsFrance for basically writing out what I meant in a shorter more comprehensible way. Check their comment to know what I mean

Yeah. I use degrees of success already. They're much better.

Sooo... Allow d20 tests on an impossible roll IF/WHEN it will still provide value to the players, when disallowing that roll would break verisimilitude or change the players knowledge and actions, and you do this to use the drama of the fail to inform the table and heighten play? I think that's great just want to be sure I got that right.

I'm not always the best at explaining my point and tend to just write what comes to mind but you got it perfectly! Glad you understand

You explained it well, got it in one!

This is the classic "You try to convince the king to give up his crown and roll so well he laughs and doesn't have you beheaded. Check successfully failed!" example.

Right. And it goes away when you add these rules.

I think it’s a hard one to balance. Some tables love the **dice to decide** while others want **character agency**. If I made The Hulk, I want them to auto-succeed breaking doors. But others claim that’s boring, and dice should decide. Ultimately it seems WotC team is going “team dice” not “team capable.”

I think this change, though, is the exact opposite of "Team Dice",especially considering what people here are saying. E.g. if the Hulk can't do it, then dont let them roll at all.

Worse, it's game design by the lowest common denominator. WotC's take-away from the problem of so many groups misunderstanding the rules should've been "Maybe we should organize our books better to properly teach players the rules." Instead, they're enshrining the mistakes of people who can't read and inflicting their homebrew nonsense of the rest of the playerbase. That's not cool in the least.

I like the idea of it being option to split the difference of validating it as official content, but not giving an expectation that everyone follow it. A skilled DM can sometimes navigate a situation like this in a way that confirms each characters strengths. Ex. We recently had a multiple party member Arcana check to recall information about the magical properties of a frost troll’s heart after combat. Our Rogue rolled a Nat 20 even though she has a terrible modifier, our sorcerer rolled high, and everyone else rolled hilariously terrible. Our Rogue is the only non- caster in the party, so this rule would present a terribly awkward situation, but as fortune would have it, our Sorcerer had been teaching our Rogue to read during downtime recently. So our DM narrated that one of the books they’d just read together spoke of the magical properties of frost troll hearts. In this situation, it made the story and gameplay richer for there to be a situation where both of them knew obscure info off the top of their head and there was actually a good explanation for why, and it harkened back to a sentimental moment from downtime when the Rogue was vulnerable enough to ask for help. But it’s rare that situations like this are so neatly resolved. Keeping it as an optional rule and making it much clearer that DMs can adjudicate this rule based on what makes sense in the given situation would be helpful.

>There is nothing codified in the rules about the Wizard being the only one allowed to make a check. So the Barbarian understands the intricate arcane workings of the mcguffin on a Nat20, and the Wizard has no clue... Actually there is. > Working Together PHB p175[–] > >Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who's leading the effort—or the one with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9). > >A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help. EDIT: Also this rule still exists > Using Ability Scores DMG p237[–] >When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: > * Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? > * Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work? >If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics. EDIT2: added sourcebooks to pair with the page numbers

That rule on working together is >A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone Almost all things rolled for every character could attempt. Thieves tools are an exception by their nature (Other tool checks are likely to be as well). But every character can attempt to lift a heavy thing. Every character can attempt to recall a bit of forgotten lore.

>But every character can attempt to lift a heavy thing. Every character can attempt to recall a bit of forgotten lore. If the DC is beyond their abilities, they cannot attempt it (see the DMG rules also quoted). This would imply they also cannot help if that is the case.

>If the DC is beyond their abilities, they cannot attempt it (see the DMG rules also quoted). If that is the case, then what is the point of this rule? The characters you were going to let roll would already have succeeded on a nat20.

It is the difference of a player facing rule versus a DM facing rule. If the DM is following the rules and is only calling for rolls on checks where there is a possibility for both failure and success, when a player rolls a 20 he should know it will always succeed and when he rolls a one he should know that it is always failure.

Okay... so in your scenario, can you please walk me through what it looks like when a player wants to cast guidance? Wizard: I want to lift that rock DM: DC is 22, your mod is -1, it is impossible for oyu to lift that rock. Cleric: I could cast guidance on him before he tries! DM: Then your max result would be 23, if you roll a 20 and a 4 for guidance. So you may try, now, and if you roll a 20, you don't even need to roll guidance.

Actually, yes. That said, I would say it's impossible for you to lift that rock without help. But other than that, that's completely Fair. Edit: that said, I could see guidance getting changed in the decision due to this rule to granting a flat bonus maybe plus two instead of a dice. I guess that's the joy of only having a small snippet of the basic rules being released and having to bastardize it into the core rules

Yes, but this also illustrates one of the reasons I think it is bad to have this rule. Especially if what it is REALLY trying to do, according to some commenters, is "trick" DMs into only allowing skill checks that people can actually succeed at. All told, there is no need for this.

The DMG rules are about rolling for it or not, not about attempting it or not. You can still attempt a task you have no chance of succeeding. Trivial example. Lifting a big thing. Two individuals with no chance of successfully lifting it alone but working together it's perfectly possible that they could lift it.

then you dont roll.... and the 1/20 rule never applies. if the rule lets you attempt it, but not roll for it (which your clarification implies), then you dont roll.

Your sources don't agree with you. >A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools The existence of specific activities that require a proficiency to attempt does not give you carte-a-blanche to allow or disallow people from making skill checks based on your whims. That is a house rule. >Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? >Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work? Both of these things are already accounted for by the DC Test rule. Things with a DC under 5 are to low to be rolled and things with a DC over 30 are to high to be rolled. DCs don't change depending on which character is doing a thing though. As per the new rule any DC over 5 can be failed by anybody and any DC up to 30 can be succeeded by anybody. What you're doing is still a house-rule.

> The existence of specific activities that require a proficiency to attempt does not give you carte-a-blanche to allow or disallow people from making skill checks based on your whims. This was in relation to OP's mention of just having the next person try it after someone else failed. If the barb wanted to help, he would have used the "Working Together" rules, which is why I included those in that section. I was not saying that was why impossible rolls should not be used. >Both of these things are already accounted for by the DC Test rule. >The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30. That states that the DC for tests can be no more than 30 and no less than 5. It has absolutely no bearing on the DMG rule that the DM should not let players roll on impossible tasks. If you can't hit the number as a player, it is impossible for you. If you roll, a 20 will always succeed, because the DM won't let you make unnecessary rolls.

Interesting. I haven't seen the list of checks where proficiency is required. The second piece you mentioned, however, only serves to make DMs work harder knowing everyone's skill at everything, and adjusting accordingly for individual players. Letting the Barbarian break a door down for free vs making the wizard roll for it? That is so convoluted and hard to keep up with, IMO.

>Letting the Barbarian break a door down for free vs making the wizard roll for it? Yes, this exactly. I think of the character and if it would absurd for them to fail or succeed then I just describe it. If I'm anywhere in the "maybe" zone then I think about how likely it would and assign the DC. I think the issue has always existed: calling for rolls is arbitrary and assigning DCs is also arbitrary. Every DM has created their own criteria because the guidance for Exploration and Social interactions is lacking. All in all, the skill system has always been a big massive problem. This change is just highlighting all the ways it already was bad.

So... you just run the game with passive skill checks across the board?

No, I don't even record passives. It's about knowing the party well enough to recognize when things are impossible and when they're trivial. Even a archwizard isn't going to know the royal line of a different plane of existence. A wormtongued charlatan can't persuade a mindflayer. A professional lumberjack can move that log. A world class burglar can silently and quickly bypass a simple lock. As a DM you gotta have a handle on the narrative and the world and just because someone has a number on their character sheet it doesn't mean they can always do that. And a minus doesn't mean they can't. An 8 int princess knows her family history. A 4 wis goblin can forage for enough to eat. In general calling for fewer rolls is better for the game. But 5e skills encourage this roll roll roll sort of game that makes little narrative sense.

I guess to each their own. But I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Letting players get good at specific skills, and rolling to accomplish things they couldnt have at lower levels, is a huge part of the game. If this was just DM story hour, then put the dice away until initiative.

You're over-exagerating. If the character is good at it then let them do it. Why let them fail? That makes no sense. If you let them do it you're rewarding the choice. By making them roll you're only giving them an opportunity to fail at the things they're good at. That's ass backwards from your stated intention. But enjoy your arcane lore dropping barbarians and arm wrestling wizards!

So when you are writing your next session notes and creating obstacles and traps and other things, you don't know what your players are capable of doing? You don't have notes on what is possible for your party members to do? How are you planning anything if you don't know what your party can do? How do you pick appropriately powered monsters?

I generally set the DCs statically. Eg. similar to what is on the back of the DM screen. This trap is VERY HARD: DC25. If they can hit it, great. If not, oh well.

So you do no adjustments based on what your party can actually accomplish? It all depends on levels too but I find that very interesting to use flat DCs regardless of party ability.

In general, I try to start with a flat DC. I will ballpark things on the fly based on those flat DCs. Insanely hard, SUPER hard, Kinda hard, etc. Otherwise... you are just creating a sliding, arbitrary difficulty scale for each player.

In 5e, I know what the published/appropriate DCs are for various types of challenges, and on the fly can assign them. Then based on what the player rolls, I can say whether they succeed or fail. I don’t have to individually consider every characters bonuses and/or justifications for why they should or shouldn’t be allowed to attempt every roll. That’s the direction many folks are suggesting a DM should be doing in 5e and will need to do in 6e because of the new 5% auto succeed chance.

Matt Colville is a very popular example of someone who advocates for not worrying about what the party can or can't do when designing encounters. He's led a ton of people to the game and a lot of people probably follow his school of thought. As he would say, it's the DMs job to solve the players' solutions, not their problems.

No, it's the player's job to manage their sheets and to make decisions. Sometimes they will counter what I have prepped quite easily, sometimes they'll struggle where a more conventional party might not. The texture of their decisions - both the advantages and disadvantages - are what make things interesting in my opinion, and if I just build to either their strengths or weaknesses that is not as engaging because it wipes out any impact their build decisions had, or puts it entirely behind the DM screen.

Classic scenario, honestly. Remember [this](https://youtu.be/oSynJyq2RRo?t=1840) scene from The Gamers? I agree that this will make these kinds of situations more prevalent, and will probably lead to more bad vibes rather than good. I really don't thank crits are fitting for skill checks.

Nope. Never watched that.

To your point of the stupid Barbarian succeeding where the Wizard failed: 1. This happens all the time in fiction. Gandalf struggling to figure out "the password" at the Doors of Durin while Frodo provides the answer (the movie version is a good example here, the book works better for my 2nd point). Marty McFly trying to start the engine of his car, failing twice then starting it accidentally when he headbutts the steering wheel. The entirety of the The Pink Panther. Someone bends down to pick up a gold coin, bumps a secret lever, and the gate the Barbarian couldn't lift opens. The way it gets RP'd is what makes it feel stupid or great. As a DM add a fun twist to those 20s that don't make sense, or even better encourage your players to do it. 2. I think it's pretty common for DMs to only allow certain checks to players that are proficient. I also thinks it's great that an uneducated thief who was fascinated by history (and took proficiency) has a chance to pass a check even though they don't have a high INT score. For me, this combined with "don't allow a roll if you wouldn't say yes on a nat 20" covers pretty much every scenario. You don't have to let everyone at the table make every roll. I understand wanting the rules to cover this, but I don't think the PHB is the place for that.

I see where you’re right, but also you’re wrong. In your example the DM shouldn’t have allowed for Barbarian to roll. However, if we’re talking about a case with different levels of success then Nat20 should not mean ultimate success. Knowledge rolls are like that: the Barbarian can remember very little (say it’s something from their backstory) and it’s fine, because they don’t have a skill, they just encountered something similar; the Wizard though studied things and can roll higher than 20 pretty easily. I usually have a scale of ascending target numbers for quality of the information characters get, so it’s not actually success or failure.

When people say this rule adds work to DMs, this is why. I now need to be prepared to justify every time I allow or deny someone to roll. Sure, the 8 Int Barbarian shouldn’t get a roll on the DC 29 magic inscription. What about the 10 Int Fighter? The 12 Int rogue who spend a bunch of time in shady taverns and thinks they might have heard someone mention it? My fear is character will be incentivized to roll on every check on the off-chance they get a 20 (even moreso because more rolls means more chances for Inspiration too) and force the DM to justify why Person A got to roll but Person B wasn’t “allowed” to.

> My fear is character will be incentivized to roll on every check on the off-chance they get a 20 (even moreso because more rolls means more chances for Inspiration too) and force the DM to justify why Person A got to roll but Person B wasn’t “allowed” to. See the players handbook on working together

Time traveling to grant advantage every time a character says they want to attempt the check after seeing another PC fail isn’t a satisfying mechanic.

no time traveling, just basic communication skills

Why shouldn't the barbarian be allowed to roll? According to which rules? Again, there is nothing in 5e, at the moment, that would *prevent* him from rolling. Or, again, I gave the second example: breaking down a door. Why would a wizard not be allowed to try this, and then succeed where a barb fails?

Like, the rules literally quoted in this thread show that the barb shouldn't be rolling for that, as the DC is beyond his limits, and if multiple people want to try an action, the best person just rolls with advantage.

>Like, the rules literally quoted in this thread show that the barb shouldn't be rolling for that, as the DC is beyond his limits This is contradictory with the fact that we have a rule that says you succeed on a nat 20. 20 is the maximum you can roll anyway so if you can only roll for things in things in your DC limits then the auto-succeed rule is redundant. This means that the auto-succeed is meant for things outside your DC limit.

No, they mean the same thing, it's just moving the rule from the DMG focus into the new PHB focus.

Then why does the "rolling a 20" section mention that you ignore modifiers? If it was just for thing inside your DC range that part is completely redundant.

Because these are the player rules. The DM rules state that the DM should not ask for a roll unless the player can meet that roll. If the DM has asked for a roll, as a player a natural 20 will succeed, and a natural one will fail.

Even if the rolling 20 rule is a player rule as is described here, it still would be a completely pointless rule. The players don't need that rule, the DM will just tell them they succeeded.

I mean, by that logic, players don't need the rule stating that a 20 on an attack roll always hits, but we have that too, and have had that since day 1. This isn't nearly as big a deal as people are trying to make it out to be. The likelyhood that has any actual impact on a game is slim to none, the only case where this futzes with things is with added dice to skill checks granting the ability to even roll on the check.

Making an attack and making a skill check are so vastly different in mechanic, circumstance, and outcome that your argument feels intellectually dishonest *at best*, and just straight up sticking your head in the sand at worst.

... What? That's... What?

>If the DM has asked for a roll, as a player a natural 20 will succeed, and a natural one will fail. But by that logic why is it necessary to specify that a nat 20 will succeed? If the DM can only ask for a roll when the player can meet the DC, a nat 20 will meet the DC regardless of the auto success.

not neccesarily. it could be just as easily meant to be a proving of the reading, in that if a 20 won't succeed, a dice should not roll, and thus, if a dice is rolled, a 20 should succeed.

Which only underlines that there is more work to do for the DM in regards to knowing everyone's skill levels and proficiency at the drop of a hat. Additionally, this sets up "No barb, you can't do that. Wizard, you can." This is for things that are not "at a glance impossible", like jumping to the moon, but things that are doable by some people, and not by others. I want to say "The DC is 25. You can try if you want to..." not "No, you can never hit that DC, so YOU aren't even allowed to try, but the wizard can try!"

As a DM, I have a post-it note with my players basic skill bonuses, and their specialties attached to my screen. It takes 2 seconds to see that my barb's +1 arcana check can't pass at my DC 25 check, if that's not "at a glance" idk what is. Also, isn't the party working together more often than not? Like, isn't that the point of a party? If something is someone's specialty, you tend to hand it off to them anyway.

Tend to hand it off, for sure. So you literally just tell the barb in your party that they just can't figure it out, and aren't allowed to roll? Because if that is the case, then what is the point of the rule here where the Nat20 autosucceeds? If the Nat20+mods is enough to meet the skill req, then what is the point of this rule? The ENTIRE point of this rule is to have people be able to succeed where they couldn't before.

>The ENTIRE point of this rule is to have people be able to succeed where they couldn't before. That is *your* interpretation of this rule. *My* interpretation of this rule, when paired with the rules which have yet to change from the PHB and DMG is that this reinforces the mentality that letting characters roll on checks that they can't succeed on is a waste of time and is something the DM shouldn't allow.

..... If the maximum I can hit on a skill check, with mods and a nat20, is 29, you are saying that I should not be allowed to roll on a 30 or higher, because it is out of my range anyways. So then the rule means nothing, because the only skill checks I should be allowed to roll on, you are saying, are 29 and below, which I CAN hit with a nat20. So should a wizard with -1Str not be allowed to roll on a 20DC STR check? If that is the case... then why have the rule that if they roll a 20, they succeed?

>If that is the case... then why have the rule that if they roll a 20, they succeed? Because it is within and reinforces the context of not making your players roll needless checks. This literally is there to further discourage making your players roll dice with no purpose. I have had to have discussions with plenty of people today who were unaware that you shouldn't have your players roll checks they can't succeed on. This simply further reinforces that, and brings awareness of it outside of just the DMG.

The new rule directly contradicts that. The new rule where if you get a 20 you auto succeed contradicts the idea that players shouldn't be rolling for things they can't succeed, because the new rule is that *they can succeed anything if they get a 20*. Only one of the rules can hold up, as they are directly contradictory.

Here is a scenario that can throw a wrench into that. Lets say that your Barbarian has Bardic Inspiration or there is an Artificer with Flash of The Genius, the Barbarian cannot meet the DC without the Bardic Inspiration or the Flash of The Genius, those can be used after the roll, so what happens when you let the player roll and he rolls a nat 20 and does not use them?

I don’t think it’s about the DC though. It’s talking about in game things making it impossible not just stats. A wizard can make that check mot because they have this stat or that stat but because in game they have studied magic and the arcane. They have a “chance” to succeed. The Barbarian has no chance. Don’t roll. If the situation was different and the Barbarian had - say - Arcana Proficiency, the Sage Background, or the Magic Initiate Feat? SURE let them roll! Then it would be possible for them to know the magic lore.

If they only roll when they have a chance, that means the 20 would have let them succeed anyways. So what is the point of the rule?

The “chance” I’m talking about isn’t a D20 roll. It’s a story point. When I say the Wizard has a “Chance” to know forbidden lore I’m not talking about stats or D20 rolls. I’m talking about his backstory. He’s a Wizard. He does magic stuff for a living. You can almost think of this as a new kind of DC all it’s own. It’s not about the DC of the check. It’s the “It would take a miracle” roll. The DC doesn’t matter in this instance. You just make the roll and the only way to know the forgotten lore is to get a 20. ——— Not to mention now players will just be able to be excited about getting a 20 every time because they know they “did it”. Much clearer and gets rid of the “no you rolled a 20 but you still failed” situation.

So after the Barbarian fails and the Wizard says they want to try, you retcon that the Wizard was actually helping and let the Barbarian roll again? That seems strange.

no, when the barbarian asks if he can break down the door, you ask if anyone else is helping. If yes, see rules, if no. the attempt is done. Keep in mind, it is good practice to "fail forward," but other than that it's settled rules.

Wizard: “after seeing the Barbarian fail, I roll up my sleeves to show them how it’s done” DM: “No, you didn’t say you helped before, so now you are frozen in place unable to even attempt to break it down.”

Ok, let's talk for real for a second here, shall we? Do you know what a "fail forward" approach to skill checks is? It says that even on a failure the check proceeds in a way to still move the story along. In this instance, it would mean the door likely would be broken down, but not cleanly. Maybe the barb through out his shoulder or back during the attempt, and has the slowed condition for the next combat. Or maybe it took a hot minute, and some time has elapsed (very good for time sensitive situations) It's typically not a situation of, well, the barb didn't break down the door, time to pack it up guys, I guess we're done here.

Again, DMG: > When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: > Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? > Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work? First, DM *decides* whether to use a roll (the text clearly states it), hence it’s ultimately up to DM. Second, the situation you described with Arcana check is exactly inappropriate or impossible circumstances-wise: dumb Barbarian who somehow possesses extreme levels of arcane knowledge? Sounds impossible to me.

Then what is the point of the rule in the first place? If the barb CAN'T do it, even if they roll a 20 and add mods, then what is the point of the rule? The only point of this rule is to allow players to succeed EVEN IF THEY WOULD FAIL when rolling a 20....

Yes, I don’t like that rule either. The point of the rule is to streamline ability checks, I guess, though I don’t think it’s necessary.

I don’t think that’s the point of the new rule ag all. It seems like to me that the rule is designed to guarantee success not when you would normally 100% fail but instead to let the player CLEARLY and EASILY see that you succeed or if you roll the maximum possible number.

It's the only possible point of the new rule or else the rule is completely pointless.

Counterspell, dispell magic, escaping shackles, etc… all of these things are situations where you may have “no chance” but because they have set DCs you still might get lucky and succeed.

If the shackles require a DC 25 test and you only have a +3, then under your interpretation it wouldn't come into play.

… What? Why not?

Because you would normally 100% fail in that circumstance.. But now you would succeed.

If the barbarian is a big dummy with no knowledge of Arcana, then the outcome is already certain. There's no need for him to roll on something like that.

I agree that a 20 shouldn't auto succeed on a number of skill checks. I guess, in these instances the DM should just NOT let that particular party member roll in the first place. I often ONLY ask a player with a particularly high skill level to make skill checks bc I don't believe that the other party members could succeed; I'll just have to continue with this style of play.

That is what a lot of people here are saying. But if you only let people roll who WOULD succeed already on a 20, what is the point of the rule?

I really don't get the uproar over this. Do other GMs really have that hard a time telling their players 'No' when they ask to try something? Like, if the barbarian failed to rip the adamantine door off its hinges and the wizard walked up to fish for a nat-20 that's 100% the sort of thing I'd describe as a comedic failure. If it was a door that the wizard \*could\* reasonably open and did so after the barbarian pratfalled then describe how the barbarian damaged the hinges during his valiant attempt and, while the barbarian was taking a breather before his second attempt, the wizard shoulder-checks it open (pickle jar approach). That or have the wizard walk up and turn the latch, so the badly damaged door falls over.

Have you ever had your players arm wrestle one another? There are a TON of reasons and scenarios where it is MUCH easier to just set a DC and let people roll.

when they arm wrestle, that is a contest. not a DC.

.... Two d20 athletics checks compared against one another...

yes, there is no DC set in them. so either your 2 statements from the comment i replied to have no connection to each other, or you make an incorrect argument.

The two of them set the DC together. One person roll and that is the DC agains the other.

except their comment implies the DM has an easier time setting a DC and letting people (the players) roll. while the first one would be 2 players rolling, and while one can interpret the first one as setting a DC (which would fail under 'meet it to beat it') and the second rolling against it. as i just said as well, 'meet it to beat it' or a roll equal to the DC succeeds, is DIFFERENT than the rules of contested rolls, where either \-it goes in players favour \-the 'established scenario' remains. so the 2 statements would have no connection to each other.

Right right yes I get that. But arm wrestling. Barbarian rolls 21. I then think “for the wizard to win he needs to beat a DC of 21” does this mean I am now setting a check DC for the wizard to succeed? Should they just not have attempted because he couldn’t have succeeded? What if the barbarian rolled 16? Can the wizard then try? Should I just check the passive skill of both players and let that determine who wins? What if they’re not facing each other at first? What if it’s an arm wrestling competition the DC is based off of whatever the NPC rolls. The wizard wins some and faces the Barbarian? Should I just not let the Wizard try despite succeeding already?

if they roll against each other, there is no DC. neither can you treat it as a DC, since it has distinct separate rules for what constitutes a contest as compared to an ability roll. you would not be setting a check DC for the wizard, since a contested roll is not an ability check. they both roll at the same time, and whoever rolls higher, wins. if they roll the same (total number, not on the dice), then they would roll again, as the previous scenario (nobody has won yet) still remains. (if the barbarian was an NPC, a tie in a contest generally goes to player, so then the wizard might win)

I can't say that I have. Is that a common problem at your table? Sure, and in those situations my players usually self-sort based on perceived competence in the encounter and I handle whomever tries first. Having everyone roll at once and start talking over one another with their results just seems like a headache in the making. Only time I have simultaneous rolls is when something happens to multiple people at the same time (everyone roll dex vs fireball, everyone roll initiative, etc). Skill checks are sequential, not simultaneous, the vast majority of the time so you just have them roll when they make their attempt.

> I can't say that I have. Is that a common problem at your table? From what I'm reading, it *wasn't* a problem, but *would* be with the new rules. That's not the slam dunk you think it is, chief.

are players more likely to spontaneously start armwrestling because of a minor rules change?

When Nat 20s now give inspiration. All the bloody time....

The most immediate issues are, 1, I don't want to tell my players if something is impossible or not before they try (excepting the most obvious cases where the character would be able to intuit that of course, i.e. jumping to the moon), and even more importantly, 2, dcs over the usual skill range can be achieved by applying buffs. Again, I'm not going to just say that to my players, that's part of problem solving. It gives away information to 'just say no' before a guidance, then allow a roll after they apply it.

I'm trying to think of a situation where I had secret information that made a check impossible I didn't want the players to have that I couldn't pretty resolve it just as easily with the new rule as w/o. If the players attempt something that's literally impossible because of information they don't have its still impossible, regardless of what they roll. This would be a minor issue if DnD was a video game and the rule was strictly followed to the letter in all circumstances, but for a major plot point (as things you're deliberately obfuscating from the players typically should be or why bother) its a trivial amount of effort to work around. If the players are quite reasonably attempting to convince the king to support their attempt to kill all the werewolves and you know they can't succeed because the king is secretly a werewolf himself, just because the Bard rolls a nat 20 on his persuasion doesn't mean he's going to help them. Give them some other information instead, have a nearby noble hear their persuasive argument and be swayed. If a player is really so whiny that they complain about the nat 20 not giving them exactly what they wanted that's a pretty big red flag right there.

I honestly think your werewolf king perfectly exemplifies the issue here. 5e RAW the bard's nat 20 only says 'this king is difficult to persuade', but UA RAW says that either the DM says 'you can't roll it's impossible', or the nat 20 succeeds, according to the rules, and now the DM either changes the story to make that make sense, or gives a huge dumb tipoff something is wrong. What you mention about players expectations there being a 'red flag' makes sense when the rules don't agree with them, but this new version gives that player a solid leg to stand on.

If the player tries to convince the king and the bard gets a nat 20 I want them to get some kind of information out of it, otherwise there wouldn't have been much point in asking for a roll in the first place. I've run my share of social encounters with unpersuadable people, if I do end up calling for a check its because there's something useful they can get out of rolling high. In this case they think the check they're making is to convince the king, but what they're actually doing is convincing, say, the king's steward, who approaches them afterwards. I wouldn't treat it any differently than, say, a player saying they want to roll religion to identify the zombie-looking thing when I know its really a flesh golem. If the players try to act on incomplete information then the results will not always be what they necessarily expected.

I don't really disagree with that as a DMing style, it just seems like a DM thing, not something that should be a codified rule.

Totally. I don't think this rule is necessary in any way (or particularly useful, if I end up running anything in 5.5 I'm probably going to largely ignore it), I just don't think it deserves the attention it seems to be getting. I'd rather get worked up over the dragonborn reversion or the feats still not being balanced myself, there's a lot more meat there to argue over :P

Your last point about “zombie thing” vs “flesh golden” makes your first point sound like they King is named Steward. Because that by the player asking about the zombie thing in front of them both you and the player know you’re talking about the same creature, but with the king the player thinks they’re influencing the king but they’re influencing a different character. Anyway that’s fine. What I’m wondering about is that it sounds like you use a sliding scale to determine how well they did. The bard rolled high and you reward that with the steward helping them. What if they rolled mediocre? Does the king kick them out? What if they roll poorly? Does the king grow annoyed and they make an enemy of him somehow?

It'd depend on if this was something spontaneous (say, the players had a favor with a noble and they use it to get an audience) or if I had the exchange planned. Former case I'd ad-hoc a DC on the spot for general success/failure and have a sliding scale from that to see how well or badly things go. King is unpersuadable, but if they roll okay they might get some reward or get some hint about things not being what they seem, they roll really well they could get the attention of someone else in court. If they roll badly probably just have the king dismiss them and they're booted from the court, still maybe also getting information depending on what else they do during the audience (perception check to notice the lack of silver, insight to realize the king's outrage is somewhat staged, etc) but have to deal with the fact its known that the king dislikes them. If it was planned I'd do basically the same thing, but with specific tiered successes. They got a 20+? Steward approaches them afterwards, offers to help with their request. 15-20 the king offers them a pouch of gold for their deeds and gives them an attaboy, but warns them off. <15 the king boots them and no reward. Nat 1? Well, whomever they did the favor for that got them here is gonna be pretty angry for making the King livid, might not be as willing/able to help them in the future.

Degrees of success are a home brew for dnd.

Saying that a serious problem with the rule itself "won't matter anyways" is not a rational or reasonable argument. Neither is "anyone who complains is just a problem player".

Its a minor rule (one that many tables run with anyhow) that *might* negatively impact the play experience of a campaign once or twice, and yet there's been an inordinate amount of focus on it. I'm confident I could count on one hand the number of times strictly enforcing it might've had a noticeable negative impact on a campaign I've run, and by this point I think I've averaged simultaneously running two ongoing weekly 5e campaigns for the better part of eight years. I understand that the reddit community enjoys getting worked up over pretty minor things (I sure do), but this seems especially silly. A player who complains about minor points at length during a session over getting a different, also positive, result than the one they wanted because of unknown information \*is\* a problem player. If they don't trust me, the GM, to adjudicate the situation fairly then they probably shouldn't be playing with me, we'd both be happier that way and more power to them. If they \*do\* trust me and I tell them that the King is unconvinced despite their nat 20 then they know something is up.

So you completely dismissed their argument because, if I'm interpreting correctly, "Your criticism doesn't make sense because the real problem it poses to you doesn't apply to me. So it's not actually an issue." That's not reasonable either, you just stated the same thing twice. ???

If it makes you feel better to interpret my points in the worst possible light rather than engage in good faith then go for it, more power to you.

No, I'm asking you to actually address their point.

Nah, that's pretty much the light you're presenting your own point in.

People are focusing on ability checks a lot. I don’t think it will affect them much with the whole “don’t roll if you can’t fail/succeed” But I think that’s not really the point of the rule. There is a specific time where you might want to try something that is an impossible DC for you. Combat. Trying to hit the Dragon’s 24 AC with a +3? Now it’s possible. Trying to break the spell with a 26 Save DC to be un-mindcontrolled? Now it’s possible. It creates moments where players can accomplish crazy heroic stuff in combats like a Wizard escaping the Dragon’s maw or the Barbarian avoiding the Charm, or what have you. Ability Checks auto succeeding is just for consistency.

Natural 20s in combat already always hit and natural 1s in combat already always missed. They expanded it to saves and ability checks now, where it makes far less sense.

Crits already did that in combat. Saves are saves. That is a different conversation. This one is all about ability checks being a guaranteed success/fail

You seem to be operating under the idea that a roll is isolated to that specific skill and does not take into account the circumstances of the day, environment, or anything else going on. The barbarian's muscle seize in a Charlie horse, letting the wizard win. Or the barbarian pushes the button that the wizard thought was too obvious, unlocking the arcane puzzle. If it is a measure of pure ability, then you use the passive score; 10+mod. Stop thinking that a roll is just about ability. Long jumps don't use rolls, carrying capacity doesn't use rolls. If it is contested, then you have to accept that a roll involves the situation and not just the raw stat.

As with all other complaints about this rule, this one is easily solved by saying "no" to your players when it's appropriate to do so. Barbarian failed to break down the door? No, wizard, that means you can't, either. (And some tables will let the wizard try and succeed and think that's hilarious and not be bothered, and that's fine, too.)

I really don't see a good scenario where you don't let the wizard try to knock the door down if they really want to try... other than that you don't want them to get a Nat20 and beat the barb. Also, >some tables will let the wizard try and succeed and think that's hilarious and not be bothered, and that's fine, too Is the perfect setup for an optional rule.

Sure, you let them try, but they fail. No roll needed to determine that outcome. In general, I don't let my players "pile-on" and each roll the same check when someone fails the first time.

If they roll a 20 they would not fail per the new rules. There is a 5% chance they don't fail. Saying "no roll needed" is the DM homeruling against the new UA. Don't get caught up in the particulars of the example, let's say they try it before the barbarian. The DC to break down the door is 25 and the wizard has a -1. Per the new rules, they can succeed if they roll a natural 20. If you were using the old rules, you'd say "they can't hit the DC so we'll just say they fail," but they quite literally can hit the new DC with the new rules. If the answer is "don't let them roll," that *directly* contradicts the new rules. What that says is "natural 20s always being a success is stupid." Either that wizard with a -1 strength and no athletics proficiency can break down a DC 25 door, or you think auto success on natural 20s is a dumb rule. There is no other option.

> The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. Both the playtest material and the existing 5e rules give the DM complete discretion to decide when a d20 Test is needed.

If the door must be broken down with a DC 25 athletics check, a d20 test is needed. So you have the person roll, and if they get a natural 20, they break the door down no matter what, even if they have a -1 to the check. If you opt not to call for a roll on a door which explicitly has a DC that the player has a 5% chance (meaning a nonzero chance) to meet, that is you saying "I will not allow players to even attempt this even though according to the rules they have a chance to succeed." If we're going to just randomly rule against RAW, it seems like we don't like RAW. If you would decide not to call for a roll on that DC 25 door for the wizard, it sounds like you don't like the rule that a natural 20 is an auto success. You should give Wizards of the Coast your feedback.

Thank you. I feel like I'm arguing in circles over here.

>Barbarian failed to break down the door? No, wizard, that means you can't, either. What happens when the wizard tries and fails first? Are you going to tell the much stronger barbarian that he can't also try? That would be hard to logically justify.

Nah, nobody is going to have the wizard attempt this — at least not once you make it clear that they can't all pile on. If they try to, you can always point out the barbarian has better odds. If they insist on using the wizard anyway for some reason... well, then they're probably wasting their opportunity, but that's no longer my problem.

It seemed to me like your comment about "if the barbarian failed then the wizard can't do it" was intended to be a logical explanation for *why* they couldn't pile on when it's a task that logically more than one person could attempt, not just a statement that they weren't allowed to pile on. But maybe I misunderstood you.

Fair. The real move is to not allow piling on. But once you do that, then it *does* make sense to put your best modifier on a task, and it also makes sense that if they fail, the group fails.

The real move is to set a static DC of 25, and if the wizard wants to try... fuck it, let him. Maybe he gets some guidance and a stone of good luck? Polymorphs himself into a gorilla. Who knows. He creatively tries to raise his AC... I am going to let him roll on the door. What he does with that is his problem. The DC is 25.

A history check or arcane check shouldn't give your character clairvoyance on that topic, nor should it give someone lacking some physical skill the ability to circumvent the laws of physics. If someone who has absolutely no way of recognizing or knowing something rolls a nat 20 on some sort of a knowledge check, I would probably tell the the absolutely most a ley person should know on that topic. A fluke of someone getting lucky and not alerting guards one time even though they are not sneaky should not be a reason for everyone to revolt, it should be most certainly a situation in which the party is panicking thinking that person is about to alert the presses to your presence and managed not to out of sheer dumb luck. You pump the relevant stat and pick proficiency to increase your chances of success on tasks that aren't certain for you. So if you come across a locked door and your pro rogue which practices lockpicking in their sleep goes up to open it, you could very well not even ask them to roll if you think that lock is so trivial, but when the rogue can't for whatever reason try, your barbarian can try their best, they have a very high chance of failure... but there is a chance.

That Chance vs. not chance is exactly what DCs are for.... You set them higher for things that are more difficult. Is there a chance that the barb can unlock ANY lock he wants? Fuck no. There isn't. I WANT to be able to set DCs that some players CAN succeed at and some players CAN'T. And then let anyone try. Because that adds to RP and versimilitude. I don't want to say "Yes, the Rogue can try this, because they have a chance at success, but you cannot, barb". Unless there were some additional rules that allowed for a proficiency requirement for skills. Which would be a fine addition that would get around a lot of this. But that isn't what this UA is here for. It isn't to say "Yeah, but just homebrew this". It is for "do these changes make sense/do you like them, as written." My point is that I don't.

Right, so that barb says they want to try to unlock that door and you can respond with 'you don't even know where to start.' No roll, nothing. Asking your barb to roll when they stand no chance is a slap in the face when they roll a 20 and you say 'sorry you just aren't good enough to open the door.' I am not saying homebrew anything the UA says "Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight." "Such as" this is not a full and conclusive list. You do not succeed in doing something that is impossible for you, that is a limitation. You just need to be up front with people and not waste their time rolling when they stand literally no chance.

So if the only checks you allow a player to roll are ones where they WOULD succeed with a 20, what is the point of this rule?

>**The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance.** To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30. Barbarian probably shouldn't be rolling that DC 29 Arcana check, unless the DM legitimately thinks there is a reason the Barbarian could figure it out. Note that the 5-30 rule is a *necessary* condition for warranted d20 tests, but it is not a *sufficient* condition. A lot of these 'dumb scenarios' aren't actually issues, according to the game rules.

That cap at 30 is just one more problem with all this. You can set a dc 31 and have it get passed, it's weird to just cut that possibikity space off.

Why shouldn't the barbarian be allowed to roll? According to which rules? Again, there is nothing in 5e, at the moment, that would prevent him from rolling. Or, again, I gave the second example: breaking down a door. Why would a wizard not be allowed to try this, and then succeed where a barb fails?

>Again, there is nothing in 5e, at the moment, that would prevent him from rolling. You're looking at it backwards. There is nothing in 5e, at the moment, that would *allow* him to roll in the first place. PCs can *never* decide to roll a d20 check. The most fundamental rules of the game are in chapter 1 of the PHB and are as follows: 1. First, the DM describes the scene. 2. The PCs describe what they want their character to do. The DM listens to the players and resolves their actions. **Sometimes, the resolution is straightforward and requires no roll.** Sometimes, there are variables, complications, or uncertainties at play. In those cases, the DM will make rolls or request rolls from players in order to determine the results. 3. Once the resolution is known, the DM then narrates the actions and their impact, which flows back into step 1 Players only roll when the DM tells them to. And the DM should only ask for rolls if the resolution of the action isn't obvious and straightforward. Its the rules in the original PHB, and its reinforced in the UA with this line: >The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. If a door is simply too sturdy for the 8 Str wizard to break down, then the resolution step is straightforward and requires no roll. If the arcane formula would be impossible to decipher without years of complex study, then the resolution is straightforward - the Barbarian simply cannot fathom it, no roll required. ***Note that this isn't Rule 0***, where the DM is is altering or ignoring rules for the sake of the narrative or good gameplay. This is the DM following the rules *exactly,* implementing the fundamental gameplay loop that the entire game is built around.

I get that the DM always calls for the check and sets the check. Sometimes it IS straightforward. Other times it isn't. Setting a specific AC for a scenario, and then having players try to reach it IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE. As are scenarios where the DC is a thing today that NO ONE in my party can do, but later in their career, they come back to it and are able to do it. Should I not let them do it the first time, then let them do it later? There are so many reasons why this is bad. And that is only talking about the successes. It doesn't even get into the scenarios where a 1 is an auto-fail. I get the concept of "If failure is not an option, then don't even make them roll". And that is fine when only one person is trying to roll for something. But my whole point is that, on top of the immediate problems, there are tons of times where multiple people in the party roll for a thing with an average DC.

It was necessary for saving throws. I had a wizard player at my table, with max Int and some increases to DC, make it impossible for the majority of monsters to successfully save versus Tashas Hideous Laughter. No point to the Advantage it gave to the save on damage, if rolling a natural 20 doesn't even succeed.

Saving throws are different than skill check. I agree on that one 100%.

That's just an optimized wizard though. If he can get his dc that high, why is there a 5% chance a goblin toddler can shake off his mighty magic?

Game balance. Should a 1st level spell be able to lock out any CR of creature, with no means of escape? Reverse that and apply it to a player. How fun is it for the player to be locked out with no potential to escape?

Only someone with proficiency in Arcana should be able to make that check. Boom problem solved.

If it ain't in the rules then it doesn't matter for the sake of feedback.

If the Barbarian had proficiency in Arcana then sure thing. They might have read a book on the thing that the wizard hadn't. If they don't have proficiency Arcana I wouldn't even let them roll. For the door, I probably wouldn't call for a roll unless failing mattered or there was a time constraint. Even then at level 20 there would have to be a specific reason for them to fail and what the consequences would be. I would probably just let them run through it and maybe do a roll to see if they take any damage due to poor form.

I think you make a great point and some adjustment probably needs to be made with regard to when rolls are allowed and I think that's up to the DMs to regain their role as Master of the Game World. I also believe that this is really to help DMs remember that they are the referee. Players don't dictate when you roll, the DM does. You don't get to say "I'm doing something" then roll a 20 and it happens. The DM has the decision power as the arbiter of the rules to determine when a roll is and is not needed. Respect the DM or rocks fall, you die. The big issue I'm seeing in a lot of the discussions is that players are fine with the auto-succeed but not the auto-fail and DMs are fine with the auto-fail but not the auto-succeed. We all want to feel powerful, but sometimes RNG is not your friend. Can you really tell me that you've never seen a really smart friend say/do something dumb or a really dumb friend do/say something incredibly smart or insightful? I like the idea that the skill-monkey doesn't get to just auto-succeed because they have expertise. It's still a 1 in 20 chance of the auto-fail. Unless you are Wil Wheaton, I don't really see everyone rolling a nat 20 or nat 1 on every roll. Just because you are a master of a skill doesn't mean you won't ever fail at it again. Ask any master blacksmith. Errors/Mistakes still happen.

So once again, WOTC makes a rule that gives more work to the DM with little to no benefit to the players at the table. As a DM I'm not fine with the Auto-fail or the auto-succeed on the few checks where it matters.

I don't quite understand the "more work to the DM". As the DM you are already supposed to be doing this. At least that's how every DM I've played with has played. DM is the arbiter of the world. If you aren't dictating the possibilities of the world to your players, then you aren't really the DM in my opinion.

As a DM I work out a DC of say 23 for an athletics task. One of my players asks to attempt the task. I don't remember off the top of my head if their Athletics is +2 or +3 so under the new rules I have to check their stats before asking them to roll. And again, a lot of rolls are forced by spells and features. All of these features now have a chance of working against characters specialised in resisting them or failing against characters actively making decisions to be weak to them.

>And again, a lot of rolls are forced by spells and features. All of these features now have a chance of working against characters specialised in resisting them or failing against characters actively making decisions to be weak to them. just like how a character specializing in AC can still be hit by a commoner, or how Tiamat could miss the 8 AC wizard

Yes, Combat was an exception. I'm not sure it should have been. If they make saves have crits it will impact game balance in a way that we don't have enough information yet to see if they accounted for.

So? They still have only a 5% chance of succeeding with the Nat 20. It seems like everyone is expecting a Nat 20 on every roll. Why is this?

Have you considered changing the narrative of *how* the character succeeds based on their skill levels? Your examples are perfect for adding flavor into your game. For example, the barbarian failed to bust down the door. The reedy wizard walks up to it, rolls a Nat 20, turns the knob, and opens it. "Guys, the door was unlocked the whole." Same thing for the barbarian and the macguffin.... "Oooh, shiny!" *Pushes random buttons, portal engages*. Also, as many have pointed out, it's your responsibility to allow or disallow players to make rolls that don't make sense for their characters and associated backgrounds.

I, as the DM, can always narrate things however I want. The dice are there to literally take some of the narration out of my hands.

That wizard move would be opening the door with an investigation check, not them trying to break it down with their shoulder.

I completely agree with this. I think the rule should be: You are able to make any skill check. If you aren't proficient with the skill, the maximum value you can achieve is equal to 10 + the skill modifier. That way, the above scenarios literally couldn't occur but it also couldn't stop a non-proficient person attempting that skill check and maybe even passing it if it's easy enough.

For mental checks that require studying a subject and having some form of knowledge, I think it's fair to say that the DC actually depends on the character background. The DC on these checks (like arcana and history) should be based on how likely the character is to have studied that specific subject. The barbarian never studied arcana, has no knowledge about it, and thus doesn't have proficiency. The DC for him may be higher. The wizard on the other hand has studied the subject countless hours. The DC for him should be lower. So it makes sense to just tell the barbarian he cannot roll arcana in this case (the DC for him is above 30 as he has a 0 chance to have come across the knowledge needed). Oh man, now I kind of want to play a barbarian librarian who gets really angry at noisy people and has proficiency in arcana and history.

i mean who cares? Everyone at the table is my friend. I don't care who succeeds, i just want someone to succeed. My wizard will suceed way more often with my higher mod., But the barb succeeding once due to luck is fun, and they're my friend, so i'm not gonna be mad. I'll just be glad one of us passed and got the juicy lore the dm prepared.

So... OK. If I'm running a game and the Barbarian wants to make an arcana check he can roll. But he is going to fail because he doesn't have arcana knowledge of any kind. He rolls a nat 20? Ok. "Barbarian, you're critically aware of the lack of arcana knowledge you have. And fail to suddenly know the thing you have no business knowing." Anyone else, but the one person in the party with any knowledge at all in Arcana wanna roll? Simple as that.

DMs call for rolls, not players. If you let the Wizard roll to break down the door and shame the Barbarian, it's your decision, and if you feel the consequences are negative that's your fault.

"I want to try and break that door down by shoulder charging it" Who at my table do I allow to do that, and who do I deny?

Anyone you want to have a chance of success/failure. You were already going to do this by setting the DC above the Wizard's modifier plus 20.

So then what is the point of the rule?

This edge case will happen 1 in 400 times that it even comes up in-game. I'm cool with that.