Ive really come around on this. I used to play crits only for attacks (RAW); but it’s much more fun to allow crits and saves and checks
Shitty DM that would modify a nat 20...
RAW in dnd, criticals only affect attack and death save rolls, there's no such thing as a crit save, so they should apply the modifier. Rules vary from table to table though, so if your group prefers crits to apply to saves, go for it.
Counter-point: to quote Brennan Lee Mulligan "if it's impossible for your players to succeed or fail a roll, why are you letting them roll in the first place?" The DM should know all of the players' stats, if a 20 can't succeed then just tell them what's happening to them, don't tease them with the possibility of success
Counter counter point, fuck this GM should know all the stats bullshit. I have a lot to keep track of and the players have one thing to keep track of, their own stats. I'm gonna let them handle the one part they are responsible for.
??
How do you create encounters without doing the math? Do you just wing it and hope for the best?
A good system shouldn't require me to know everyone's individual stats, just something like overall level and maybe their class composition to get a broad idea of capabilities.
This. Pathfinder 2e has a rather robust encounter building system. 5e not having one is a failure of the game designers
The DM should know all of the players' stats
I'm sorry, but unless you're paying me then no. I'm not going to know all of your stats or your prepared spells or every single item you have. I'm not gonna memorize every feat unless they come up. I've got a life. Players expect a staggering amount from us DMs while giving incredibly little in return.
I've got to build the world, set the stage, play the people, get the items, set the economy, decide the resources, make the maps, get the tokens, run the combat, get everyone's rolls, do the voices, check in with players, create the narrative, align with player goals, turn on ambience and so much more and you also want us to memorize every modifier for every player so we can mentally check if they can even succeed on the roll before we ask it? Just.... All the time as a basic requirement? Are you high?
Also I love Brennan but what he's saying also isn't true for every table. I would fucking HATE playing at a table where failure isn't an option. Sometimes you just aren't good enough at a thing to do it. I'm sorry but that's how it is.
I'm sorry, but unless you're paying me then no. I'm not going to know all of your stats or your prepared spells or every single item you have.
I think by "stats" they're referring to base stats, attributes and saves and stuff. Not every single line on their sheet. I use a GM control sheet that has all the basic info for each player, it's not really unreasonable.
Also I love Brennan but what he's saying also isn't true for every table. I would fucking HATE playing at a table where failure isn't an option.
I'm not sure you understand his point. It's not about failure not being an option, it's about not having a player roll when success isn't an option. If they're not good enough at a thing to succeed on a crit, there's no point in rolling. Just tell them there's no chance.
I think by “stats” they’re referring to base stats, attributes and saves and stuff.
I'm still not doing that. I trust my players to tell me what their modifiers are. They trust me to do the other things.
it’s about not having a player roll when success isn’t an option.
Which then leaves you with two options. First one is to make it so the highest DC is tied to the lowest modifier. Second one is to tailor every DC for every player. This completely defeats the purpose of skills and abilities. No one is good at everything. Some people will fail at some things that others will succeed at. If you want to have it so everyone can 100% succeed if they get the right roll every single time then you're not using dice rolls well as a narrative mechanic. Or as a way to help bolster some PCs over others to help them shine in moments when others normally don't get them. That line from Brennan always bugged me because it sounds like a failure of imagination when I know for a fact he has anything but.
I'm still not doing that.
Okay, no one's forcing you. It's useful to the GM, especially when it comes to rolls that the players wouldn't know the outcome of, Perception checks for example. You are free to not use useful tools, I just didn't know why you'd want to.
Which then leaves you with two options. First one is to make it so the highest DC is tied to the lowest modifier. Second one is to tailor every DC for every player.
You're still missing the point. No one's saying to do any of those things. I'm saying that if the DC is beyond the ability of a particular character, tell them that they have no chance of success, even on a crit, so rolling is pointless.
Okay, no one’s forcing you.
... This entire comment chain was literally because someone said "The DM should know all their players stats". I'm making the argument that is nonsensical, as well as your addition. That is all. I never said that anyone was forcing me either. Kind of a weird thing to say, to be honest.
I’m saying that if the DC is beyond the ability of a particular character, tell them that they have no chance of success, even on a crit, so rolling is pointless.
And remove a chance for roleplay or funnyness from my players? Yeah, no thanks. I've seen plenty of hilarious moments, and been part of some myself, from people failing to do a thing because they just simply couldn't. Besides, a character might still want to do it anyway regardless of whether or not they succeed. Then there are the people like myself who abhor that because it breaks immersion for me to have a DM say "You can't do this, don't even try". I'm not missing the point. I just hate the idea of a DM blatantly telling me "You are not good enough to do this thing" when the entire concept is fantasy and being able to try that I dismissed it as an option. I should have said it leaves you with three options, the third being blatantly telling a player that they will be incapable of succeeding.
I stand by everything I said.
I'm making the argument that is nonsensical, as well as your addition.
I disagree. I've been doing it for years and not only is it trivially simple, it's extremely useful. I can't think of a single reason not to have a sheet with base stats, perception, and saves.
And remove a chance for roleplay or funnyness from my players?
Nobody said you can't do the funny thing. They're always free to try, but if the roll cannot possibly affect the situation, there shouldn't be a roll. Just roleplay the failure. Do you let your players roll for abjectly impossible things, like jumping to the moon?
You're now just being argumentative and facetious. You're taking what I'm saying out of context, outright ignoring certain parts and forcing it to fit your own narrative. You're disingenuous.
Nothing can come from this and I don't have the energy for it. Goodbye.
Nope, still the same argument, still valid. Argumentative would be if I called something nonsensical, and then doubled down and acted like an asshole when someone took the time out of their day to explain why it isn't. You don't have to do it, but there are legitimate reasons.
I think by "stats" they're referring to base stats, attributes and saves and stuff. Not every single line on their sheet.
As a GM, I'm not doing that. I'm already tracking 1-5 monsters per encounter, trying to plan out which of their various abilities and attacks to use for the next turn. Players should track their own stats if they've played more than 4 sessions
No one's forcing you to, it's just a useful practice. No one's saying that it becomes your responsibility to track their stats, just that certain stats are useful for you to have handy.
Knowing all your players current stats, feats, and items is a pretty high bar for a casual DM.
But also, if some of your player's characters can make the roll and some can't, I'd say it feels worse to say off that bat, "Roll a WIS save, except you Phil, you fail." That will feel more like getting targeted than your build just not being suited to the current situation when you roll well and still fail.
They can succeed, their modifiers might push them over the line. The title suggests a 21 DC, so even a +1 modifier to wisdom would do it. The ominous face is just because a DC that high means it's really tough.
Nat 1 or 20 is only garanteed rolls for attacks. Nothing else.
Nat20 always succeeding is a house rule. Often implemented but not used by all GMs.
Someone in our party rolled a nat 1 when we were sneaking past a boss. Thankfully I casted pass without a trace +10. So he ended up with 11 stealth.
Boss woke up. Sniffed.
Buttholes clenched.
Then the boss rolled over and went back to sleep.
DC was 10.
So if nat 20 always wins. Nat 1 always fails.
It depends on what kind of game you wanna play.
The Nat 1 did fail though, but someone in the party had a good kit to save the day.
My point is Nat 1 or Nat 20 aren't automatic fail/succeed.
Meaning nat 1 + 0 dex mod + 10 (pass without a trace) = 11
If you flip it and it's nat 20 vs a boss perception of 22 then does the boss see him or not?
All rolls get modified except for attacks with nat 1 or 20. Unless it's a house rule then you gotta be consistent with it and have fun with the mayhem it can cause.
Failures tell stories and everything is part of the ride.
A community for Dungeons and Dragons Memes and Comics
/c/DnD Network Communities
Rules (Subject to Change)
"Title" - [Comic Name]
e.g. "Krak of Dawn" - [Swords Comic]
*Does not apply to memes
