Are AUTO Success and Failures in One D&D Good or Bad?

Natural 1 and Natural 20 are the two most iconic dice rolls in Dungeons and Dragons. In One D&D the rules have changed and now automatically grant success and failure, is this good for the new direction of D&D 5e?
⏬ More Below ⏬

=== 🔗 DC Links ===

=== 📍 Credits ===
🖱️ Video Editor: Zack Newman

0:00 Intro
1:10 D20 Test
3:04 Inspiration Issue
6:37 Stance on Auto Success/Failure
14:25 Final Thoughts

#DnD #DungeonsandDragons

[TreantmonksTemple]

I like the idea that a natural 1 gives you inspiration instead of a natural 20. For one thing, it gives the unlucky player a boost. Thematically though, the character failed spectacularly, and now they're driven to redeem themselves.

[scatterbug]

OMG, I love the idea of flavor checks. Nat 1, the gnome pulls a muscle. Nat 20, they rip a chunk out of the table, not moving it or damaging it in any real way, but it intimidates someone nonetheless.

[MiguelGonzalez-ltyj]

if this was a optional rule then it would be perfect. but the problem is that it is part of the base rule and it will cause problems. my point is it is easier to add rules then removing them

[DougCoughler]

Sly Flourish had a great idea: grant inspiration to the player if they roll a Nat 1 instead of a nat. 20. It turns the Nat. 1 into a fail forward.

[BastinatorXr]

I also despise the inspiration on a natural 20. Not only does it snowball, it makes it so there's an incentive to fish for more rolls and makes so classes that roll more are more likely to get it.

However, I disagree on auto-success and failure on a 20 and 1 respectfully. The first reason, if you roll that high or low, you're probably going to succeed or fail anyways. If my character has a -2 intelligence and I physically can't succeed against a spellcaster's Synaptic Static I should fail because that is how my character is built. On the opposite end, if I am a beacon of heroism and stalwart strength I want to be able to ignore certain effects like petrification. It is what my character is built for. The second reason is due to contested checks. If I roll a 1 or 19 to grapple someone but have a +9 to the roll, and they roll a 2 or 20 and have a -1 to the roll, that's a feel bad moment. The chance of getting either of those numbers is the exact same, but they're only one point away from the other. At that point, I should be looking at the other modifiers in play.

A natural 1 and 20 have the same odds to be rolled as any other number and honestly, in my opinion, there's too much awe in the recognition of either number. If you had to roll 2d6 and rolled a 12, that feels special.

[ReserCatloons]

I think something you're overlooking here is the fact that the system often calls for rolls (particularly during combat) that players might want to lean into with their build. For example, a sorcerer with +9 to Con saves would likely always pass their saving throw for concentration when taking less than 22 damage in one hit. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't physically make that roll then, or would you have this hypothetical sorcerer lose their concentration despite them investing so heavily into constitution? Another example is Dexterity saving throws at very high levels; an ancient Red Dragon's breath attack has a save DC at 24. If a creature rolled a nat 20 with a +3 modifier would you let them take half damage against the breath weapon? Rogues contain several issues with this rule both in their main class and subclasses. Both swashbuckler and inquisitive rogue have mechanics that rely on them making a contested skill check with a skill they more than likely have proficiency in, if not expertise. If they were to roll a natural 1 and total a 10, but the targeted creature rolled a total of a 5 would they still fail for rolling a nat 1? There's also reliable talent, does it just no longer work with natural ones? These are all huge negative implications that need to be taken into consideration before implementing a rule like this.

[meswain]

I feel like for things like the examples you gave, I agree, but I generally have them make rolls not only to see whether or not they succeed, but to see how successful they are.

For example, a rogue in my party wanted to spend time searching the mansion the party had just moved into for secrets. He had days to search, no one would be fighting him during it. I had a number of secrets in the mansion, so I had him roll investigation to see how many he was able to find in that time. He rolled low, so he was only able to find a few of them. Later on he was able to find more given more time, but given just a couple days with other things taking his time, I let his investigation roll determine how successful it was.

I try to do ability checks as having varying levels of success like this whenever it feels appropriate, but I feel like this change makes that harder.

[FreelancerLA]

I think a simple fix to the new "crits give inspiration" rule that Wizards is testing out is to change it from Nat 20's to Nat 1's. I've been using this in my home games for a while now and my players really dig it. It takes a bit of the sting out of critical failures and sets up the player's character for a better chance of success down the line.

[Silverfur]

I could see a natural 20 giving advantage/inspiration to allies who witness it but not the person who rolled it. But I think it should stay being something tied to RP.

[brianfroeschner]

Fumble is always not just a failure, but an additional complication added by the DM. This can even represent the Fates, gods, or powers acting in opposition to the PC in that moment, at higher levels.

[richardfritz]

I'd recommend using passive scores for some things that are not overly important like climbing a tree while there is no combat to simply look around. The tree DC could be 12 so a person with +2 or greater strength mod could just do it without wasting time as their passive athletics is 12 (barring proficiency). There is no sense of having everyone roll for something mundane and with little importance.

[timothykreider]

Agree! How about this change: “If you get a natural 20, you may give inspiration to a teammate who observes your success.”

[UnsounderGnome]

7:06 So I get your point here, but what about a scenario where there is a check that multiple players are trying to do? Like searching for a hidden door? Maybe the DC is doable for the rogue or wizard, but the monk and the fighter literally can't hit the DC. I feel like it kills the flow to like check with each player what their bonus to investigation is and then say ok, you can roll, you can't roll, you can, etc... And then you are also telegraphing a lot of info to the players about how difficult or doable the task is by doing it this way.

As for the Nat 20 giving inspiration, I don't love it but also don't hate it. One tweak I thought of was, you get inspiration when you roll a 20, but you have to give it to another player. Spreads the good fortune around a bit more that way.

[dlaserus]

As someone who has been a dm since the late 90's, I have found that sometimes you don't want people to know if things are outside their need to roll. For instance, a party of level 4 players meet someone that they don't know is actually an ancient dragon in disguise. The party attempts to bluff the dragon. If I just tell them that they have no chance, the way they interact with this seemingly normal npc changes. By asking for a roll, they won't know if they just happened to fail by 1 or 20. Back in 3.5 I actually played with the optional rule that took away the automatic status of 1/20's and treated them as if they rolled -10/30 respectively.

[davidmorgan]

My concerns with Nat 20 = Auto Success are:
> Having to reveal information that wouldn't be obvious to the characters.
> Degrees of success.
> Having to be super-specific with language to avoid player disappointment.

So, suppose a player says "I want to search the room for the McGuffin." Now, as the DM I might know that that's impossible because the McGuffin isn't there. Or it may be there, but protected from conventional detection. But the PCs wouldn't know that. By saying "you can't do that" or "you try, but there's no sign of it, " instead of asking for an Investigation check, I am giving the game away.

Also, the PCs might be able to find other useful or interesting things, even if what they are specifically looking for couldn't be found, so I am going to want a check to see what they do find (degrees of success). But that means I am going to have to be really specific that this is a general check to find any concealed or non-obvious items or clues, to avoid disappointment if there's a Nat 20 and the MgGuffin isn't revealed. And I am going to to have to be really clear every time, or the occasions I do make that sort of clarification will, again, give the game away.

Some things you only find out you can't do by trying, and with the current rules I can just ask for a check and give a partial success if that makes sense in the situation.

[justashooter]

I have a big issue with auto-fail/success on a nat 1/20. Remember, a nat 1 (or 20) is 5% chance - that's really huge if you think about it.

I refuse to believe that a PC with proficiency in a skill that has trained for years has a whopping 5% chance to fail on even the easiest of applications of that skill. And on the other end of the spectrum, a PC without proficiency in a skill succeeds 5% of the time on an almost impossible application of the skill?

Similarly, with Saving Throws - on a DC 10 save a Level 20 PC with a +16 or better should not have the same chance to fail as a Level 10 PC with +9. It just doesn't seem reasonable that the PC with exceptionally better bonuses has the same (relatively huge) 5% chance of failure. And as above, the same applies on the other end of the scale.

Attack rolls, sure. But not Skill/Ability Checks or Saving Throws.

[yanlong]

I don’t agree with nat 20 being an auto success. A commoner or your wizard with no proficiency with a -1 dex can’t paint the Mona Lisa or open the magical vault of orcus 5% of the time. There are things you need experts for. DC 25 and 30 exist to wall off dumb luck rolls. Yes you can always tell people that they can’t roll that check but a DM needs a rule in the book to point to so they don’t get dogpiled by their 6 players into letting it go because it’s “possible”.

[TalkativeHands]

Despite which way you use rolls, I think we can agree that the DMs need to be smarter when they ask for rolls and players cannot roll unless the DM says yes.

Cuz you know the players who asked to seduce the king or jump to the moon are the ones who roll as they asked to do it. Then you have to be the bad guy in saying no.

[casualPandy]

I just don't particularly like autofailing on a nat 1s, primarily because i don't think it feels good to build a character to do a specific thing and then arbitrarily having a 5% chance to always fail. For example, if there is a dc 10 dex save, a person with a +9 to their save has the same chance to fail as someone that has a +18 to their save, I don't like that the person that is extraordinarily better has the same chance of failure. I would prefer if it was a bit more nuanced, like a nat 1 adds +5 to the DC. This makes it an autofail for most people and accounts for things like something going wrong that made the check more difficult, but for the person that's hyper specialized it means that you'll only really fail when the check is at least relatively difficult. This might not be the best solution, it's just an example to show my thought process.

[Plasmagon]

7:38 - 7:42 Not true.
Player: I rolled a Nat 20
DM: I didn't ask you to roll.
Player: I seduce the nimph as my ugly basterd
DM: No you needed a 40 to seduce
Player: But my modifier is +14 so my max is 34!
DM: Thems the rules.

This is very likey the origin story of the "failing on a Nat 20" ruling.