In D&D a natural 20 should always succeed and a natural 1 should always fail

Yes. If a 20 can not succeed, the player should not be permitted to roll. If a 1 cannot fail, the player should not be permitted to roll. Don't let players roll for everything. Sometimes you have to say 'you're good enough to just do it' and 'you're not good enough right now to pull it off'.

I agree. D&D at its core should be a game of heroics and extremes.

Attached: 1352688812946.png (571x481, 13K)

Only in combat. Also, if the amount by which the attack roll is under the targets AC is more than twice your attack bonus for that attack, you only hit for normal damage.

OP here. This is exactly what I meant.
If you have no chance to succeed, the DM should not let you roll. If you have no chance to fail, the DM should not make you roll.
Precisely.

>I'm gonna do the thing
>okay roll
>I rolled the highest possible thing
>lol u fail
>then why did you have me roll
>because fuck you mitch

I don't think people really disagree with that except players who think they should always get to roll for something no matter how impossible.

to be fair mitch is the WORST

Counterpoint: if a task cannot be done, you shouldn't roll, and if the player rolls for an impossible task without asking, its results should be disregarded.

>In D&D a natural 20 should always succeed and a natural 1 should always fail.
IF you have cause to roll at all, yes.

>d&d is created and get famous
>its the first rpg so (since its famous) you have all those extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>after some amount of time playing some players discover some stuff they think are flaws, while discover some rules they think are really awesome
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg player
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system.
>many of those players quickly jump into the new system, expecting fixed to what they think are flaws
>because the players have very different opinions on what rpg should be (despise playing the same exact system), what is a flaw to some is a fix to another, and what is a fix to another is a flaw to someone. So the system CAN'T be fixed.
>all those extreme amount of players quickly jumping to this new system, bring new (to rpg) players to the new d&d system
>this make the game have an extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system. No one knows what the system/d&d is suposed to be, because it was created based on a mess.
>the story continue ad infinitum

Attached: mu complaints departament.jpg (570x347, 40K)

I prefer my DM’s method of making you roll and then saying “you fail” before die hits the table

>>I want to persuade the guard that I didn't kill that man!
>They say while absolutely drenched in the dudes blood and holding the guys head.

This kind of stuff works for powerfull people at real life.

There is basically a video of the sandy hook actor reharsing.

>Because you rolled before I could tell you not to, fuckass.

>I have a dumb idea.
>Alright, roll.
>I got a 20, that dumb idea worked.
>No, because it's fucking retarded.

Versus

>I have a dumb idea.
>It's dumb.
>Oh, I don't do it then.
>Nope, too bad, that was your character's action, fuck you.

Rolling for something is you signing the contract that you are absolutely positively doing a thing, no takebacks. Rolling for something is the commitment to the thing your character is doing. It's "Yes, my character is willing to believe that there's a possibility that he is able to do this and he's going to do it."

Think about what you can do before attempting to do it, and you'll never roll a 20 that doesn't succeed.

A player should not always know if an action is possible. Let us use this as an example:
>the kindly old duke is actually the main villain
>the players wish to lie to the duke
>the duke, being far more powerful than they thought has a sense motive high enough the player can not succeed on a 20
>if I, as the GM, simply tell him not to roll that reveals that the action is impossible, revealing hidden information about the opposition

Denying the ability to roll can reveal hidden information to players. Players should always initiate rolls, and should always be allowed to roll when they initiate even when it is impossible.

>If you have no chance to succeed, the DM should not let you roll. If you have no chance to fail, the DM should not make you roll.
Sometimes you don't know whether you can succeed or not. The player doesn't have that information. Therefore you might make a skill check, get a 20, and realize that even your best is not good enough. That's a perfectly realistic scenario. Now fuck off. I am so sick of these fucking niggers who think that kust because they rolled a 20 they can do whatever they want. Or because the rules say they can do something, that that means they can do it. No. Stop getting excited when you roll a 20, stop fetishizing a fucking die roll, stop making the entire game into a hilarious joke. There is no value to ttrpgs when the immersion is being raped every 5 seconds by some loud normofucker making a joke. Yet you cunts still insist we should be encouraging more normos to join d&d when they are doing shit like making elves into canon trannies to try to pander to Tumblr fucks. And you encourage it because "without fresh players our hobby will die" kinda like that Anglea Merkel cunt going how "europe will die if we don't import ten million sandniggers a year to rape our women and make them pregnant on the public dole." And anyone who disagrees is intolerant. Fuck off. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect a culture, which you shame and Steadman as smelly neckbeards when that's really 5% the population at best. Kill yourselves you fucking shills, you have no argument and you are destroying d&d. And you fucks still rationalize it as "d&d is a shit game anyway". Well guess what? Once they're bored of d&d they'll start coming for other RPGs as well. And you fucks will lay down and take it while our hobby is completely destroyed.

Fuck you, and fuck this stupid thread.

Players don’t always know if they can succeed or not even if the course of action is reasonable.

You have a lock. Your bonus to lock picking is +5, even in a 20 you can not succeed, however you do not know how good of a lock it is.

What your GM should just say ‘no you can’t do that’?

0-100 real quick, came right outta left field with that racism

Is your GM Todd Howard?

LOCKPICK 100 REQUIRED
THIS IS ROLEPLAYING BTW

Did this guy have a stroke? Can someone check in to see if he's dead?

counter suggestion: a natural 20 is always a positive effect and a natural 1 is always a negative effect, regardless of outcome

e.g. Natural 1 but still hit? Your sword gets stuck in the enemy. Natural 20 but still fail that persuasion check to get the guard to let you in the crime scene? He won't let you in, but he's open to discussing the case, as much as is appropriate

This.

I let to like my players make rolls if they really want to for something, but that doesn't automatically mean that there's a chance for success (or failure, for that matter).

Take, for example, a time when one of my players wanted to roll history on a dragon wyrmling they'd encountered to see if he knew who this dragon was. Since this was basically an orphaned little child dragon, the answer was obviously no, but he wanted to roll so I let him. No matter what his roll was the answer was always going to be "no you've never heard of or seen this baby dragon before in your entire life".

Now, don't get me wrong, maybe it COULD succeed on a 20 and maybe he DOES know where this dragon came from, but it doesn't always have to be the case. If you try to do a thing that just can't actually work rolling a 20 doesn't suddenly make bullshit a reality.

I'm pretty sure this is how it works since AD&D.

RAW: Attack rolls yes, Death saves yes, anything else no

>uses racist as an insult

>I do x.
>You give it a good effort but it's beyond you.

Then the DM tells you that you fail without rolling.

>that rant
I've been playing since the early 90s and my first RPG was B/X because it was what my grandfather had from when he'd DMed for my dad and his friends when they were in high school.

I'm saying the second you declare "I do x," you should be sure. And the DM decides if it succeeds, it fails, or you have a chance of either.

Things Natural 20s Can Never Do:
>change the laws of physics and/or general established rules that govern the setting’s reality
>change an NPC’s sexuality, gender identity, or personality
>anything else the DM says it can’t
>make a greentext interesting

DM is god
I don't care what you roll, if your character is incapable of performing such an action then they fail. You're not going to convince a paladin of an enemy force to fight for you, and the paladin cannot be swayed by you. This isn't railroading, some things are just impossible.

>a natural 20 should always succeed
Yes. Otherwise they should not have rolled and simply been told they failed. Success was not possible.
>a natural 1 should always fail
Yes. Otherwise they should not have rolled and just succeeded. Failure was not possible.

Yes. Otherwise, why roll dice?

I'd allow such things only if the players had something else to sway the paladin along with their roll attempt.

>Then the DM tells you that you fail without rolling.
No because that gives you information you shouldn't necessarily have.

Fuck off Reddit.

Sure, but I use 3d20

So for a natural 20, 2 out of 3 dice have to be 20.

It instantly stops the retarded EPIC CRIT and EPIC FAIL moments.

You'd probably just say that with assessment, it looks to be too complex of a locking mechanism.

So if a nat 1 succeeds mathematically, you make your players roll for it? What's the point. Just tell them "you succeed." Or what about a situation where they mathematically can't succeed? You make them roll? Really?

Is it just a dice fetish at that point? You let them roll because you love rolling dice so much?

OP is right, on the condition that rolls only count when you call for them, and you're not a retard. If a player says "I roll to convince him that black is white," and he's not a world-class flim-flam man, tell him "yeah that's gonna fail. I'm not letting you roll for that."

If he rolls for it anyways, then the rule doesn't apply. He's just wasting his time playing with a piece of plastic that means nothing.

For ordinary rolls, this is technically true.

The GM shouldn't ask for a roll if there was no chance of success or no chance of failure, if a 1 wouldn't fail, or a 20 wouldn't succeed, you shouldn't be rolling in the first place.

A role made before the GM says to, or without asking the GM, is inherently invalid however. Declaring you do a stupid thing and then rolling a 20 before the GM can tell you no does not oblige them to let you do the stupid thing.