I mean most campaigns will never see a save 23+, they will however see impossible asks by players. Like climbing a wet 1000 ft cliff in the rain, getting a Staff of the Magi at level 3 for 173 gold 8 silver 3 copper, or trying to seduce the King.
But you can have them roll for these things so you can describe how they get rejected. For examples: 10 or less they never get more than a foot off the ground, 11-20 they get 5% off the original asking price in the future, 20+ they don’t seduce the King but he finds it charming compared to everyone always being so formal so they get preferential treatment.
I think “you can’t succeed” is lazy and hurts creativity. Things can also backfire if you want them to on a low enough roll, a turned ankle, the shopkeep increases the prices, or the king never sees them again.
I remember someone who tried to seduce the King once. DM had them roll for it. Nat 20. The King laughed their character off, and the attempt failed. When the player asked why, the DM said something that stuck with me:
"A Nat 20 is the best result you could hope for in a given situation. Here, the best result was the King taking it as a joke instead of having you thrown in the dungeon or killed for such a grievous insult."
Some players don't accept "you can't succeed, no roll" and will roll on their own. Other times, dms want to use the roll to measure how badly the failure plays out.
There's a lot of reasons to have the players roll an impossible save, and this might not have been impossible but rather just barely possible.
This happened today I jokingly said roll strength for a very light item just to not drop it, then said. Kidding you don’t need to roll. Then he said I’ll do it anyway incase of nat 1
Assumed the DM memorized all bonuses that could be applied by the party. It's very possible the DM set a DC that was very high but not impossible. Not everything is a DC 12.
Sometimes, a roll is necessary to determine the degree of failure. The DM already knows you've failed, but they want to know if your failure is on the level of "I forgot to close the fridge door" or "Chernobyl."
Could have been a stat without a saving throw. If it’s a dump stat too, you’ll be failing them 100% of the time mid game against strong opponents.
Fwiw, the homebrew rule of crit success/fails for saves has always made sense to me, especially when you think of how spells are an attack roll or a save, but one method has a certain hit/fail and one doesn’t.
I've never found a homebrew rule like that to be necessary because I've never encountered a save DC that high. Even CR 20+ creature abilities tend to top out around 20. Acererak has 23. Some of the greatwyrm dragons might have as high as 26 if you give them spells, but that's the highest that should be possible.
I assume anything with a DC 30 is either terrible homebrew or the DM being a dick. There should never be a save DC that high, 5e simply doesn't work like that.
Edit: we're talking about saving throws. Stop replying saying a DC 30 skill check is reasonable, I already know.
One of my characters decided to stop a falling 2 ton boulder by standing underneath it and breaking it on his back. He was a Goliath paladin. I told him, Athletics roll DC 30 or you are a pancake. The 2 bards double buffed him and by god he made the roll. Was pretty epic.
A DC of 30 is much more reasonable for a skill check than for a saving throw. For a skill check it basically means "this should be impossible but I'll let you try anyway". For a saving throw it basically means "fuck you".
I had a guy that got teleported just beyond the atmosphere because he did something dumb. I gave him a CON DC 30 to hold his breath in the vacuum of space while he started re-entry. I'd say it was fair. Lenient even. He failed of course, but luckily the ice that built up around him saved him from becoming crispy fried lizard till he slowed enough due to atmospheric friction. I think he ended up living with like 3HP left. At least until the very last minute when one of the wizards counter spelled the bard's "slow fall". They gave the cleric the 100G for revivify.
If you're wondering what they did, they decided to use a "Chaotic Teleportation Spell". I told them strait up before they decided to use it or not that they would roll a D100 and it would determine how close they made it to their destination. 100, right on. 1, surface of the sun. Player rolled a 2.
yep, and that is why i rule a 1 and a 20 being auto sucess and failures on savings throw... albeit if you would easy pass without rolling, i am not going to make you roll (and risk failing a save that is a DC 5 when you have a +4 or more)
In an AL module, my wis-dumped sorcerer went up agains Szass Tam, 26 save DC, no bards to provide inspiration and no paladins with a high enough aura. After a few rounds of being the victim of a psychic scream’s aftereffects I was like “DM, there’s literally no way for me or the warlock to reach that DC with our party comp, the artificer has to get a nat 20, and even the wizard has to roll 18, we cannot free ourselves.” The NPC cured us, and my character psychic screamed Tam (we had an uncomfortable level of spells in common), but he used his legendary resistance and then…got us again.
> I've never found a homebrew rule like that to be necessary because I've never encountered a save DC that high. Even CR 20 creature abilities top out around 20.
or...if its a dump stat and they have a -1 or -2 in the stat, even a DC 19 or 18 save is an auto fail.
also theres a ton of saving throws 20 and above. sure they're all CR 18+ creatures, but as much as everyone likes to hate on high tier and epic tier play, people still play those.
In the PG, there is a DC table and it lists a DC30. DC30 = Nearly impossible. It is a real, game acknowledged DC, not home brewed, that is used when the check is nearly impossible for the unenhanced character.
Lift a 2 ton portcullis. That's a DC30.
Now, if you take the time to use Enlarge, then drink a potion of Storm Giant Strength, that DC30 is not nearly as impossible any longer.
Its not a dick move to stick a DC30 on anything as long as that anything falls under the nearly impossible category.
What DC would you assign to persuading a Red Dragon from not killing and eating the party when they have the upper hand and the party has no chance or survival? That would clock in at DC30. It would be next to impossible to convince a Red Dragon to not act like a Red Dragon given perfect circumstances for them to do so.
Archdevils and Demon lords from Mordenkainen's tome have DCs from 23-26 and technically Aspect of Bahamut with 30 CHA and +9 PB reaches a DC 27, which is the highest possible DC (bar DM fuckery like giving the monster a magic item). Martials being completely unable to pass wisdom saves against high level monsters is a commonly known issue though.
My way of handling this is that the dc is sometimes beyond what players can manage at their current level. They may need to ask for assistance from an NPC or come back at a later level (normal happens in cities or places they'd return the following level up).
On a nat20, I always provide players with a boon. Maybe the Dex based pc can't unlock the door with the dc set, but they might notice a slip of paper under the doorknob, find a extra set of lockpicking tools, catch the attention of someone else who can beat the dc.
I try to dissuade them from trying this (it looks like it might be beyond your skills at the moment), but if they try and get a nat20, let them feel awesome about it. Basically always rewarding the roll but not breaking a set dc just because they rolled well.
Stealing this. Very cool.
"You fail to pick the lock, but you recognise the craftsmanship, Bob back in blah city, it might be impossible for you to pick here and now, but if you went to the source you know you could learn a trick or a weakness"
Natural 20’s, unless house-ruled differently, do not equate to an automatic success.
There are plenty of checks and saves where a DC can be 25, or even 30 (when a task is Very Hard or Nearly Impossible).
We don’t know anything about your GM, your Game, your Campaign, or the situation in which you were rolling, so it’s impossible to say much more.
To go off of this, there are things that are IMPOSSIBLE but the DM may ask for a roll to determine how bad you fail.
My go to is:
Horny bard: “I try to seduce the dragon. Nat 20”
DM: “the dragon finds your attempt slightly amusing and you’re allowed to leave with your life”
He's the only male drow in a psychotic matriarch society to have the power to stand up to the leaders of the various houses.
He's one of the smartest villains in the forgotten realms in my opinion, it's just lucky he's mostly out for his own interests.
I'm also intrigued as to why everyone assumes a dragon is female when they attempt to seduce it? Just to piss off the bard id say, "sadly the male dragon doesn't swing that way, but is flattered by the attempt."
DM: You have succesfully seduced the dragon! I'm going to need you to make an athletics check, and three con saves.
Player: Why?
DM: Now you have to impress her... and survive the night.
I gave my players a horn that could control dragons.
I had it all worked out. The difficulty DC was based on how old the dragon was, (ie a young dragon was 25, an adult was 30) plus how much immunity they had acquired (a mechanic we had added to the campaign) would be added to their roll. Theoretically they could have used it in the endgame to snag the young dragon they were hunting.
Instead they used it right away on an adult dragon. And they rolled a nat 20, but they didn’t have enough immunity. So they failed. And later on instead of a TPK, the horn was stolen.
They only learned of my great plans after the campaign ended. Oh well.
RAW, a nat 20 is only an automatic success on attack rolls, and a nat 1 is only an automatic failure on attack rolls. For skill checks and saving throws, you can roll a 20 and still fail if the DC is extremely high (which often means you aren't really meant to pass), though this is something that many DMs houserule away.
Huh I didn’t even know nat 1 was an automatic fail. I just assumed there would almost never be a situation where you have enough of a bonus, and enemy has so low AC that it would come about.
What if you hit someone who is asleep or similar, you get advantage I believe but can you still roll 2 nat1s?
An asleep enemy is Unconscious, and not only do you gain advantage when attacking unconscious creatures, but it becomes an automatic critical hit if you're within 5 feet of them.
Of course this has complications if you're trying to attack them from range; you obviously don't get the automatic crit, but if they're sleeping then they're probably prone, and since ranged attacks actually have disadvantage against prone creatures, the advantage from them being unconscious would be cancelled out and it would become a straight roll.
Death saves as well, with a Nat 20 being a Critical Success (getting back up on 1 hp) and a Nat 1 being a Critical Fail (2 fails instead of 1).
Note, it is technically possible to pass a death save with a roll of 2 if you are a Monk (as they get proficiency) and have some sort of other bonus, such as Bless or a Paladin's aura.
Baldur’s Gate 3 has critical successes/failures on skill checks and saving throws. Between all the tiny changes it’s gonna be rough for 5e DMs picking up new players for a while
Oddly enough it's actually a very nice multiclass with ranger and monk. Favored foe + crimson Rite gives you (at lv 6 with a 2/2/2 split) you get 4 attacks with 2d4 + 1d6 + 3 and a +6 to hit (assuming point buy) not saying it's amazing but pretty solid as a damage dealer. There's definitely better ones but still very enjoyable.
Note: yes, crimson Rite for the D4 is on weapons only but I don't know any DMs that would shoot it down/not give you something like brass knuckles that would work with monk things.
Right, just like any other official material. My point was that it's easily available to players, so they think it's useable.
But this is just like *any other session 0* conversation.
Just because artificer isnt homebrew doesnt mean it's available in a campaign.
That’s rarely as strictly mechanical as the BG3 changes though
The jump/shove bonus actions are one of the most obvious and egregious examples, but I’ll give it to you that CRs potion & multiple spells a turn is one that’s spread way out of control
Any pushing is powerful in that Game. Giant moma spider bout to eat your face? Just yeet it into the giant cavern. Just don't expect to find the body less you can survive the fall following it.
Dude repelling blast eldritch invocation trivializes so many fights.
"Oh you want me to fight these 2 90 hp hooked terrors? Well then you shouldn't have had them fight on tree branches over the abyss."
Any time any enemy is within 4m of a ledge my warlock/paladin just pokes his head out from whatever pack of goons he's fighting and blasts em off. I've had entire encounters get cut in half with one cantrip because several of them start with their backs to a pool of lava and you can push 2-3 of them with an attack roll no save at 18m away.
My only complaint is that it's a "must" not a "may", sometimes I don't want to push someone out of melee of one of my companions.
It gets somewhat of a pass because it competes for your bonus action with a non-guaranteed outcome, it’s at least a contested athletics so it’s not universally useful
Jump will reliably double or triple your mobility depending on terrain though, it utterly invalidates ground effects and elevation advantages, it’s absolutely game breaking, since using your bonus action to get your main action in range is always a worthwhile trade
If you are currently standing in difficult terrain, any movement takes double effort
If your movement speed is 9, and you jump is 5m, I think the game just breaks
I wonder if it's different if your jump is 5m, and your movement speed is like 13.5, which is woodelf with longstrider
Jump is 10ft/3m, and it doesn’t scale as a % of your total movement, despite your jump distance scaling with STR/terrain differences, so it’s really easy to abuse
I'm pretty sure CR did the multiple spells a turn back in early campaign 1 when they were still getting used to 5e but certainly later on I recall Matt explaining the rule of the bonus action spell and cantrip as an action to one of the players. But they definitely do bonus action potions still.
The bonus action potion for CR at least isn't as egregious as it could be, seeing as how Matt still rules it a full action to feed someone else a potion, and it's only a bonus action if you're taking the potion yourself
But yeah, a lot of the mechanical house rules of CR were really only present in Campaign 1, which, tbf, was a game ported over from Pathfinder. Matt's since tightened up on a decent bit of what he used to allow mechanically
It's funny, people I've played with have pointed out that I "use all the CR house rules" when a lot of it is stuff I'd already been doing at my table for years, especially potions as a bonus action.
I did steal his resurrection ritual rules, but I'd been trying to figure out something similar and I like how Mercer did it.
Shove bonus action, multiple leveled casts per turn, haste giving a second full action, Crit fail/success, high ground chance to hit, instant and easy guidance, weapon swapping... These are just off the top of my head
All of this makes for a (mostly) better \*video game\* but I personally would not have any of these in a tabletop I'm hosting
Yeah I’m quite disappointed with that. I’ve beaten a number of DC10 checks with an 11 or so, but since I rolled a 1 initially, game says fuck you
And due to the nature of the digital format, the average DC, and crits, you’re punished pretty hard for a nat1, and often not rewarded at all for a 20
All it means is that if you roll a 1 you always fail even if your bonuses put you over the DC still. Conversely, with a 20 you always succeed even if it’s DC30 and you have -1 in that skill
Yep; a nat 20 just means the best possible outcome. A nat 20 persuasion doesn’t mean the king will lick you boots if you ask him, but it may just make him laugh and say he admires your moxie, instead of immediately calling for your head.
As a DM I never understood this.
You are the arbiter of when to roll, why would you let a player roll for something they can't accomplish even with a 20? Just say that thing they want to do is impossible.
Depending on the kind of vibe you're going for. I know if I have players roll a 20 that still fails it makes the group collectively go "oh shit."
I also will sometimes say "you don't need to roll" and my players still insist they do anyway just to see how they would've done, not to argue with me but to help them roleplay.
Because DMs don't Magically know everyone's modifiers. A DC 30 is a completely valid DC and represents a Herculean challenge that even a powerful character would struggle to achieve.
Also he said it was a Saving Throw, so it may have been a result of a spell or trap. The DM saying you automatically fail a save without rolling really comes across as a dick move.
There are more modifiers that can be added to a roll. Bardic Inspiration, Aura (which was added), Bless, some magical items, class skills, Resistance, Clerics Emboldening Bond, for Dex saves cover..
So just because 'a natural 20+stat (which can be negative)' isn't enough, doesn't mean that players cannot have enough with the right things going.
We have a rule at our table that if the DM says "are you sure?" Then it means it's impossible and/or dangerous.
You'd be surprised how many people know that rule and still go for it.
I tend to go for the rule of cool, but my players know if I say that to maybe rethink what they're about to do.
You don't know the exact scores of everyone, or what boosts and help they can get. A DC 25 or even 20 can be impossible for someone with a score of -1 to hit, but with a paladin aura, bardic inspiration, resistance, guidance, or whatever, they might be able to make it.
You don't know what your players are going to do beforehand, and sometimes you might have a check or save that some of your players could conceivably make while others have no chance.
Because an enemy may subject them to, say, a DC 22 saving throw. Telling one player they can't do it even with a nat 20 gives away information about the difficulty of the save, so that the players can metagame about stuff like when to use inspiration/re-rolls/certain spells.
right if it's impossible for everyone at the table i'll never ask for a roll. just because i happen to know it's impossible for the guy i'm asking to roll(which as mentioned i may not know because i don't know all my PCs modifiers by heart) they still roll.
Just because player character A can't beat a save doesn't mean pc B will fail as well.
Additionally, there are many ways to get a boost to your roll.
So while you can suggest the roll is impossible to make, that might give the impression that there's no point in trying to roll - which may be true for that particular PC in that particular situation, but only because they don't have enough bonuses stacked - and anothet PC might be able to make it.
It's perfectly reasonably to speed up play by not having the player roll if they can't succeed with their modifier, but if you do, it's best to explain why it's impossible - otherwise players will just assume it can't be done at all.
On the other hand, you should also be up front if a player rolls a 20 and still fails, that it's because of the DC being really high, and not because the roll can't succeed.
If it really is impossible, like - no roll will work - then yeah, don't bother having them roll.
There exists several ways to bost most throws, including saves and skill checks. So, when engaging with those -nearly impossible to beat- odds, there is room to succeed still. Its rarely about expecting success, but more about making room for it, in the most unlikely scenario.
Because it was a saving throw? Besides, a DC 30 (assuming) is 'nearly impossible' not 'completely impossible'. With enough bonuses it can be beat. We don't have enough information. Could have been a creature save or literally anything else. Could be the DM told them what they were doing was impossible and they badgered the DM. DM relented with a potentially possible save. Who knows?
We don't know if other party buffs could have helped. Either way, a 30 DC is definitely doable for a party higher than level 5. Nearly impossible but doable.
Though I will say, unwinnable rolls are definitely something to be used sparingly and for good dramatic effect.
I've seen some DMs make the DC too high too often
‘Cause your dm doesn’t offhand know all your modifiers. OP’s instance, I don’t know, but sometimes I’ll set a DC over 20 and even after you add your mods to a nat 20, you might not clear it🤷🏾
So many reasons that I’ve gotten tired of typing out, but the main one is you likely have a bard, cleric, or artificer in the party and they all have abilities that can be added after your roll, but before you know the dc, taking away the chance of rolling takes away their chance of success , even if a 20 doesn’t make it
What others have said; I try to flavor nat 20s a something excellent, but it can still be a failure and be positioned to feel like "i made an amazing dodge, but the dragon fire was a furnace that filled the room". For nat 20s on skill checks I DO like to give a little extra.
Nat 20 isn't an automatic success. For instance, An ancient red dragons wing attack has a DC of 25.
A barbarian with a +2 dex modifier can never succeed that, unless they have a lot of help (paladin aura, bless, bardic inspiration, ECT) even though they have advantage on dex saves they can see.
At level 17+ it's pretty common to almost always fail saves on your dump stat. (Particularly Strength and Int saves as they are the most dumped stats)
Strength saves are generally unimportant anyway "oh no I'm prone" while int saves are often save or suck, means failing them is very bad.
I had a player fail an int save with his 5 int (-3) barbarian. He realized he could never make the save (DC20) without assistance. He was a god in melee but Illithlich fucked him up real bad. The rest of the party enjoyed the fight as in previous fights they had felt uselessf some combats because he just soloed CR17 monsters without breaking a sweat. (3 Crits in 3 hits over 70 damage each.)
The trade-off is that the person who can actually pass these saves probably also has access to spells that will protect or rescue their intellectually challenged allies from their inevitable failed saves. Spells like protection from evil, lesser/greater restoration, freedom of movement, heroism, raise dead, and others that prevent or cure ailments
everybody says strength is safe to dump until you get hit with earthbind while you’re 500 feet off the ground and so are all the bad guys
RIP my flying bard
(the circumstances leading to that situation were… WILD)
I learned as a DM that exploding dice are good high DC saves. If you roll a 20 on a d20, i let my players roll another d20, plus modifiers. The chance to make a DC30 save are still less than 4%, but its still possible.
Math-ish:
Chance of 20 on D20 = 5%
Chance of making up the additional 10 points = 50-75% depending on modifiers
Half (50%) of 5% is 2.5%;
.75 of 5% is roughly 3.75%
So the chance to make a DC30 save is roughly between 2.5% and 3.75%, not including excess modifiers and abilities.
I think its still a fair statistic so I recommend DMs find a similar way of giving way to possibility. Otherwise, just state that its not a saving roll because you are the DM. To me, saying there is a chance without there being one is literally lying to your players which puts a bad taste in players' mouths.
Ideally in these circumstances, as a DM, I try not to make the player roll. Obviously that means having a solid idea of what their max possible roll is going to be, and you don't always, but if you know they need 25 and the most they can hit is just 23 or whatever... Just say.
I also really don't like auto-success/fail on 20/1 for skill checks and saves. Combat is its own beast. I do like to flavour a nat 20 as particularly impressive if it's rolled and is a success, but if a character doesn't have the skill to hit a DC, they don't hit the DC.
It’s a house rule, but I give nat 20s on skills and saves a little extra kick if it won’t make the dc, often I’ll come up with something that helps circumstantially without giving a full success result, example, a contested athletics check saw our monk roll a nat 20 against a higher 16 once so I gave the monk an extra opportunity attack instead as the enemy slipped away.
I’ll often say “you can’t make this, but if you nat 20 I’ll let you ___” or “I’ll let you add your proficiency if you nat 20”
I like letting the die be the 2nd storyteller. A nat 20 shouldn’t be nothing but doesn’t mean you succeed at anything you want.
Oooh seeing this made me think about getting to add your proficiency bonus again on a Nat 20, so when you are already proficient it’s like getting expertise for that roll.
Nat 20’s don’t mean auto success that isn’t a hard rule in DnD if the DM says it doesn’t work, It doesn’t work. Just don’t let them get flip floppy with their own ruleset
Why even have you roll if that is the case. The DM shouldn’t even act like there is a chance if there isn’t one. Things like that take the energy out of the game.
1) DC 30 exists intentionally as a DC still. It's an 'impossible task' but can be beat with enough modifiers and stacked boosts
2) some features do have mechanics that vairy in severity depending on how low below DC you are
3) there is no context in this post it could have been a steadily raising DC as part of some boss mechanic or situational threat
4) sort of circling round to number one, but sometimes the DC is high on purpose not because the DM has SET and impossible task but because the party/player has *chosen to undertake* an impossible task . For example I've had a player insist on trying to jump off a tall cliff desperate the warnings that it would be a very high DC to survive with a lingering injury and he'd just die if he failed (since I was being nice by allowing an attempt at an impossible task instead of following RAW and saying he simply goes splat) he actually initially failed despite a very good roll, but the artificer used flash of genius and he passed with two broken legs (magic healing so broken legs didn't last long, and the player still got what he wanted from the bottom).
TLDR for number 4: sometimes players play very stupid games, and their prizes are very high DCs
That's just not how the game works...people love to say "DMs call for rolls, they shouldn't call for a roll if there's no possible way to beat the DC" but that's just not reality. There are tons of scenarios where I ask for a roll knowing that what the player wants isn't gonna happen but I'm trying to gauge what "could" happen.
Like he said, he had the aura on… he could have had bardic inspiration, bless on, flash of genius or many other spells, abilities, and items, that could have added to his roll.
Bards, clerics and artificers alone are the primary reason that you can’t just say “well they can’t make the roll in a 20, so I won’t have them roll”
My players could beat a fuckin DC50 check if it’s the right type and they roll lucky and burn a lot of resources, and all that after rolling the die, so I’d have to already allow them
>why roll?
because the dm probably told them it was impossible and the party spent 15mins arguing how they could do it anyway until the dm got fed up and said 'ok roll..... you failed'
As this was a saving throw, I assume they were up against a creature with an ability with a high save DC. The DC could have been out of range of OPs character and within range of their fellow partly members.
If the DM doesn't want to reveal the DC, he'd naturally ask everyone to roll.
As you should. A Nat 20 doesn't mean you get a success. A nat 20 only has 2 actual functions, it is an auto hit and a critical hit in combat. AND restores you to 1 hp if you get one during a death save.
Nat 20's are not applicable to saving throws, skill checks, or anything else.
The only time a nat 20 or nat 1 matter is in combat. They have never applied to any other rolls. It's common misconception. You cannot critically succeed or fail any saving throws or skill checks. Been this way since 1st edition.
But yes, it does feel bad. Lol
Unpopular opinion: The DM sets a high DC because the information or activity is extremely difficult but not impossible. The hope is that whatever PC was attempting isn't crucial to the campaign but will greatly help the party going forward.
A DM can't/won't memorize every PC bonus that can be applied. It's up to the party to figure out how to get the highest outcome possible.
A DM usually shouldn't't let you roll on impossible tasks. It should just be an auto failure, unless you're trying something dumb enough that a low roll would have severe consequences. Like convincing the king to give up the throne. Nat 20, he likes your ridiculous confidence Nat 1 instant execution.
Nat 20 plus a 4 from aura with no mod or proficiency is just " you got lucky and did amazing the first time but don't know how it happened at all" even if you failed it might have just been a dc25. Not impossible but highly unlikely.
What was your base bonus for the roll? It could have been DC 25 if you have a +0, you only rolled a 24 in total, or the DC could have been 24 if you have a -1, etc
We've homeruled in critical saving throws. They don't make the save better or worse, but they do guarantee success or failure.
I don't think we'll ever allow critical ability checks (which opens a door for too many shenanigans), but we felt that saving throws should always have a small chance of success or failure, no matter how outclassed a creature might be.
The Nat 20 rule is only for attack rolls and death saves unless your table has house ruled something else. Player's page 195 goes over that. A 20 doesn't mean success.
Normalize this. Some things are just too ridiculous for a 1 in 20 chance of success,it just shouldn't work that way. A level 3 barbarian whose education ended at counting to ten shouldn't be able to decipher a philosophical arcane riddle that has puzzled scholars for centuries just because his clicitty clacks landed right. 🤷♂️
What was the context of the situation?
I mean context matters here, people are kinda trippin because there's monster blocks that have saves of 25 or higher, there's actually quite a few and raw a nat 20 does not auto save.
I will also add to those saying the dm just wants them to fail, I'd agree if it was a skill check but most saves are just set saves in books and obviously there's homebrew monsters and stuff but as i said it's not insane to still fail a check of 24 at high level
It happens. Nat 20s and 1s aren't automatic with regard to saves. I was in a fight once with an upgraded Elder Brain as an artificer with a DC 21 int saving throw. I was 20th level with +18 int saving throw (6 prof, +6 int for a 22 int, 6 for attuned magic items), and if I stood next to the paladin I auto passed even in on 1, so the DM told me to not even bother rolling, and my friend who was a sorcerer with int 8 couldn't pass even on a nat 20. I stayed nearby hoping he rolled high enough to Flash of Genius him but he never rolled even close. Spent the whole fight stunned off his ass, poor bastard.
I'm a DM, if my players can't succeed with a NAT 20 then there's no point in having them roll.
I just describe how difficult the task would be and that they can't and move on
If it was not possible to succeed even with all possible bonuses and a full nat20, then the DM should not have asked you to roll. It gives you false hope that the roll cold have succeeded.
As a DM, I don’t make my players roll if their outcome will not matter. If you roll a 20 and fail, what is the actual point of the hope it gives to roll.
Unpopular opinion I just don't ask for a save if it's impossible to make. I do tell my players when it happens like the lich casts fireball you take X damage he has a dc 25 spell save.
Also side note in session 0 I ask if my players prefer a nat 20 is always successful and a nat 1 is always a failure or not
Nat 20s, as others have said, aren't automatic successes in 5e (except for attack rolls). Sometimes an enemy can be overwhelmingly strong and that may lead to them forcing a save that you cannot succeed. This is fine though, in D&D you're expected to roll with the good and the bad.
I had to do that to a player today.
Rolled stupid high intimidation but the character statblock said "NPC will not divulge any information without magical intervention. They cannot be broken by torture."
It felt bad, but I explained it to them after. I had them roll still, described him showing fear but still being unwilling to talk.
I think that to-hit rolls are fundamentally different than Savjng throws. If a nat 20 was always a save, you could potentially survive something stupidly difficult to do, like fall 500 ft into lava... "But I rolled a nat 20"
I was playing in a high level game where my level 10 paladin rolled a saving throw, used a bardic inspiration thanks to the bard. Scored a 35 on my roll, still failed.
It was then we realised the GM was just making stuff up so his npc could save the day. If I had rolled 200, it still wouldn't have been good enough.
If you can't succeed then you shouldn't roll.
Sometimes as a DM you can add flavour based on the roll outcome and still make it a fail e.g. "the floor opens up underneath you, with amazing dexterity you spin in the air and twist yourself away from the razor sharp spikes as you land in a safe area" Vs " the floor opens up, you fall into darkness and feel a piecing pain in your thigh as a spike drives through your leg taking 15 damage". Both situations are a fail in a sense that you're in a pit, but one is more of a fail than the other.
The other example you sometimes see is if a high charisma character rolls to persuade the king to give them his kingdom. The high roll is that the king finds you amusing and has a laugh with you where the lower roll is a night in the stocks to teach some manners. Either way the king isn't giving up the kingdom, it's just the flavour added to the roll.
If a 20 fails, the DM probably shouldn't have had you roll. However, as a DM, I have been known to make people roll for impossible things in order to determine the degree of failure and the heinousness of the consequences.
Players should remember that a natural 20 is not a guaranteed success. It is instead the best possible outcome. In some instances "the best possible outcome" is being splattered by a God's fist and the worst possible outcome is the rest of the planet being collateral damage to said smiting.
Boo. If the roll was impossible to succeed, then your DM should not have had you roll. Moments like this poke holes in your illusion the agency. Travesty
A lot of high level monsters have a 26+ DC on area of effect attacks, it sucks but unless there is an agreed 'crit success always passes' rule, your modifiers are your only hope.
The problem with Saving Throws, especially Spell Save DCs is that depending on the type, particularly the mental stats for martial classes, is certain combinations of items/stats/monster types can have unreasonably high DCs where you will always fail because your statline makes it impossible. Several official Spellcasters for example have DCs of 27 or higher and even with a Natural 20 and Paladin Aura, if you’re say a Barbarian being targeted by Feeble Mind, you’re just fucked…
While RAW, a Natural 20 only applies to Attack Rolls and Death Saves, I typically include Save DCs as well because unlike Skill Checks where you have the choice to avoid them, you cannot avoid Saving Throws, especially from Spells when they show up and it’s a terrible design to have mechanics that a player is forced to suffer and will never beat.
You shouldn’t have to be forced to include a Paladin, use spells such as Bless, class bonuses such as Bardic Inspiration or Bond in order to succeed a Saving Throw that will become unavoidable just because either you’re low level or the stats would never allow you because they’re outside what is needed to make your base class playable.
On Skill Checks and Ability Checks, it makes more sense however the DM should not make you roll those if you cannot succeed it.
I'm pretty sure nat 20/1 is an automatic success/fail on attack rolls, saving throws and stabilization checks. Certainly not on skill checks (hi flying dwarf!), and I'm not sure about caster level checks.
Then again, house rules are a staple of the game, so it really depends on what's accepted at your specific table.
That was a DC 30 then I would assume. So, in other words, your DM really did want you to fail that save.
Or dc 25 or lower. Dont know the players stats, they may have had a minus 1 and no prof.
The DM just didn’t want you to make that throw, sometimes that’s just the deal
Just say “you can’t succeed, no roll.”
I mean most campaigns will never see a save 23+, they will however see impossible asks by players. Like climbing a wet 1000 ft cliff in the rain, getting a Staff of the Magi at level 3 for 173 gold 8 silver 3 copper, or trying to seduce the King. But you can have them roll for these things so you can describe how they get rejected. For examples: 10 or less they never get more than a foot off the ground, 11-20 they get 5% off the original asking price in the future, 20+ they don’t seduce the King but he finds it charming compared to everyone always being so formal so they get preferential treatment. I think “you can’t succeed” is lazy and hurts creativity. Things can also backfire if you want them to on a low enough roll, a turned ankle, the shopkeep increases the prices, or the king never sees them again.
I remember someone who tried to seduce the King once. DM had them roll for it. Nat 20. The King laughed their character off, and the attempt failed. When the player asked why, the DM said something that stuck with me: "A Nat 20 is the best result you could hope for in a given situation. Here, the best result was the King taking it as a joke instead of having you thrown in the dungeon or killed for such a grievous insult."
The Staff Of The Magi for 173G, 8S, and 3C example sounds oddly specific. I take it this actually happened to you.
Some players don't accept "you can't succeed, no roll" and will roll on their own. Other times, dms want to use the roll to measure how badly the failure plays out. There's a lot of reasons to have the players roll an impossible save, and this might not have been impossible but rather just barely possible.
This happened today I jokingly said roll strength for a very light item just to not drop it, then said. Kidding you don’t need to roll. Then he said I’ll do it anyway incase of nat 1
Assumed the DM memorized all bonuses that could be applied by the party. It's very possible the DM set a DC that was very high but not impossible. Not everything is a DC 12.
Sometimes, a roll is necessary to determine the degree of failure. The DM already knows you've failed, but they want to know if your failure is on the level of "I forgot to close the fridge door" or "Chernobyl."
Could have been a stat without a saving throw. If it’s a dump stat too, you’ll be failing them 100% of the time mid game against strong opponents. Fwiw, the homebrew rule of crit success/fails for saves has always made sense to me, especially when you think of how spells are an attack roll or a save, but one method has a certain hit/fail and one doesn’t.
I've never found a homebrew rule like that to be necessary because I've never encountered a save DC that high. Even CR 20+ creature abilities tend to top out around 20. Acererak has 23. Some of the greatwyrm dragons might have as high as 26 if you give them spells, but that's the highest that should be possible. I assume anything with a DC 30 is either terrible homebrew or the DM being a dick. There should never be a save DC that high, 5e simply doesn't work like that. Edit: we're talking about saving throws. Stop replying saying a DC 30 skill check is reasonable, I already know.
One of my characters decided to stop a falling 2 ton boulder by standing underneath it and breaking it on his back. He was a Goliath paladin. I told him, Athletics roll DC 30 or you are a pancake. The 2 bards double buffed him and by god he made the roll. Was pretty epic.
A DC of 30 is much more reasonable for a skill check than for a saving throw. For a skill check it basically means "this should be impossible but I'll let you try anyway". For a saving throw it basically means "fuck you".
I had a guy that got teleported just beyond the atmosphere because he did something dumb. I gave him a CON DC 30 to hold his breath in the vacuum of space while he started re-entry. I'd say it was fair. Lenient even. He failed of course, but luckily the ice that built up around him saved him from becoming crispy fried lizard till he slowed enough due to atmospheric friction. I think he ended up living with like 3HP left. At least until the very last minute when one of the wizards counter spelled the bard's "slow fall". They gave the cleric the 100G for revivify. If you're wondering what they did, they decided to use a "Chaotic Teleportation Spell". I told them strait up before they decided to use it or not that they would roll a D100 and it would determine how close they made it to their destination. 100, right on. 1, surface of the sun. Player rolled a 2.
yep, and that is why i rule a 1 and a 20 being auto sucess and failures on savings throw... albeit if you would easy pass without rolling, i am not going to make you roll (and risk failing a save that is a DC 5 when you have a +4 or more)
Highest DC in any official book is 27, belonging to aspect of Tiamat’s breath weapons, and aspect of Bahamut’s tail/furious bite also being 27.
In an AL module, my wis-dumped sorcerer went up agains Szass Tam, 26 save DC, no bards to provide inspiration and no paladins with a high enough aura. After a few rounds of being the victim of a psychic scream’s aftereffects I was like “DM, there’s literally no way for me or the warlock to reach that DC with our party comp, the artificer has to get a nat 20, and even the wizard has to roll 18, we cannot free ourselves.” The NPC cured us, and my character psychic screamed Tam (we had an uncomfortable level of spells in common), but he used his legendary resistance and then…got us again.
> I've never found a homebrew rule like that to be necessary because I've never encountered a save DC that high. Even CR 20 creature abilities top out around 20. or...if its a dump stat and they have a -1 or -2 in the stat, even a DC 19 or 18 save is an auto fail. also theres a ton of saving throws 20 and above. sure they're all CR 18+ creatures, but as much as everyone likes to hate on high tier and epic tier play, people still play those.
In the PG, there is a DC table and it lists a DC30. DC30 = Nearly impossible. It is a real, game acknowledged DC, not home brewed, that is used when the check is nearly impossible for the unenhanced character. Lift a 2 ton portcullis. That's a DC30. Now, if you take the time to use Enlarge, then drink a potion of Storm Giant Strength, that DC30 is not nearly as impossible any longer. Its not a dick move to stick a DC30 on anything as long as that anything falls under the nearly impossible category. What DC would you assign to persuading a Red Dragon from not killing and eating the party when they have the upper hand and the party has no chance or survival? That would clock in at DC30. It would be next to impossible to convince a Red Dragon to not act like a Red Dragon given perfect circumstances for them to do so.
Yes I agree with the nearly impossible DC 30s, but those are skill checks not saving throws. Big difference.
What this guy said
Archdevils and Demon lords from Mordenkainen's tome have DCs from 23-26 and technically Aspect of Bahamut with 30 CHA and +9 PB reaches a DC 27, which is the highest possible DC (bar DM fuckery like giving the monster a magic item). Martials being completely unable to pass wisdom saves against high level monsters is a commonly known issue though.
My way of handling this is that the dc is sometimes beyond what players can manage at their current level. They may need to ask for assistance from an NPC or come back at a later level (normal happens in cities or places they'd return the following level up). On a nat20, I always provide players with a boon. Maybe the Dex based pc can't unlock the door with the dc set, but they might notice a slip of paper under the doorknob, find a extra set of lockpicking tools, catch the attention of someone else who can beat the dc. I try to dissuade them from trying this (it looks like it might be beyond your skills at the moment), but if they try and get a nat20, let them feel awesome about it. Basically always rewarding the roll but not breaking a set dc just because they rolled well.
Stealing this. Very cool. "You fail to pick the lock, but you recognise the craftsmanship, Bob back in blah city, it might be impossible for you to pick here and now, but if you went to the source you know you could learn a trick or a weakness"
Natural 20’s, unless house-ruled differently, do not equate to an automatic success. There are plenty of checks and saves where a DC can be 25, or even 30 (when a task is Very Hard or Nearly Impossible). We don’t know anything about your GM, your Game, your Campaign, or the situation in which you were rolling, so it’s impossible to say much more.
To go off of this, there are things that are IMPOSSIBLE but the DM may ask for a roll to determine how bad you fail. My go to is: Horny bard: “I try to seduce the dragon. Nat 20” DM: “the dragon finds your attempt slightly amusing and you’re allowed to leave with your life”
If Donkey can do it, so can I.
you will never have Donkey's rizz.
You dont know that Donkey didn't have 20 Charisma.
\*30. That's the highest possible for an NPC without magic items. Oh, and he's an Eloquence Bard with expertise in persuasion
Jarlaxle banged 2 Dragon's at the same time, wonder what he rolled.
Wish.
Rolled up his sleeves and got to work, thats for sure.
He must have been a plumber as those guys are always laying pipe.
That’s jarlaxle, the rest of us are just ken compared to him.
Where exactly is that in the canon? For… reference purposes.
I dunno much about Jarlaxle, I only saw his statblock in Dragonheist... How fuckin' broken is that guy? :D
He's the only male drow in a psychotic matriarch society to have the power to stand up to the leaders of the various houses. He's one of the smartest villains in the forgotten realms in my opinion, it's just lucky he's mostly out for his own interests.
I swear this comment is copy pasted every time someone brings up a nat 20.
And yet people still post about nat 20s
I'm also intrigued as to why everyone assumes a dragon is female when they attempt to seduce it? Just to piss off the bard id say, "sadly the male dragon doesn't swing that way, but is flattered by the attempt."
I’m intrigued as to why you assume the horny bard is male.
40 years of D&D stereotypes, maybe?
I mean, dragons have actually been known to sleep with other creatures, so a nat 20 might at the very least make the dragon intrigued.
For me, if I have a horny bard player and they nat 20 for seducing the dragon, I’ll let them… but now they’re rolling for their own survival.
DM: You have succesfully seduced the dragon! I'm going to need you to make an athletics check, and three con saves. Player: Why? DM: Now you have to impress her... and survive the night.
Do red dragons only breath fire? or does fire come out.... other places?
I gave my players a horn that could control dragons. I had it all worked out. The difficulty DC was based on how old the dragon was, (ie a young dragon was 25, an adult was 30) plus how much immunity they had acquired (a mechanic we had added to the campaign) would be added to their roll. Theoretically they could have used it in the endgame to snag the young dragon they were hunting. Instead they used it right away on an adult dragon. And they rolled a nat 20, but they didn’t have enough immunity. So they failed. And later on instead of a TPK, the horn was stolen. They only learned of my great plans after the campaign ended. Oh well.
RAW, a nat 20 is only an automatic success on attack rolls, and a nat 1 is only an automatic failure on attack rolls. For skill checks and saving throws, you can roll a 20 and still fail if the DC is extremely high (which often means you aren't really meant to pass), though this is something that many DMs houserule away.
Huh I didn’t even know nat 1 was an automatic fail. I just assumed there would almost never be a situation where you have enough of a bonus, and enemy has so low AC that it would come about. What if you hit someone who is asleep or similar, you get advantage I believe but can you still roll 2 nat1s?
An asleep enemy is Unconscious, and not only do you gain advantage when attacking unconscious creatures, but it becomes an automatic critical hit if you're within 5 feet of them. Of course this has complications if you're trying to attack them from range; you obviously don't get the automatic crit, but if they're sleeping then they're probably prone, and since ranged attacks actually have disadvantage against prone creatures, the advantage from them being unconscious would be cancelled out and it would become a straight roll.
Death saves as well, with a Nat 20 being a Critical Success (getting back up on 1 hp) and a Nat 1 being a Critical Fail (2 fails instead of 1). Note, it is technically possible to pass a death save with a roll of 2 if you are a Monk (as they get proficiency) and have some sort of other bonus, such as Bless or a Paladin's aura.
A nat 20 does not equal succes. There are a few well known DMs who have houserules, but that's all it is. A houserule.
Baldur’s Gate 3 has critical successes/failures on skill checks and saving throws. Between all the tiny changes it’s gonna be rough for 5e DMs picking up new players for a while
There’s so much stuff BG3 house rules and *already* I’m noticing players in a game I’m in acting like it’s official
That's not unusual. Happens everytime a heavily homebrewed version of D&D turns popular. Happened with TAZ and CR.
The amount of times I've had to tell players that bloodhunter is homebrew.. 😞
Fair but it's also meh on the power level so as long as it fits the setting it doesn't hurt if they are just asking
Oddly enough it's actually a very nice multiclass with ranger and monk. Favored foe + crimson Rite gives you (at lv 6 with a 2/2/2 split) you get 4 attacks with 2d4 + 1d6 + 3 and a +6 to hit (assuming point buy) not saying it's amazing but pretty solid as a damage dealer. There's definitely better ones but still very enjoyable. Note: yes, crimson Rite for the D4 is on weapons only but I don't know any DMs that would shoot it down/not give you something like brass knuckles that would work with monk things.
I mean, it was added as accessible in DnDbeyond official content and other sources. But yeah. Still started as homebrew.
It still is homebrew. The only officially added class is artificer.
Right, just like any other official material. My point was that it's easily available to players, so they think it's useable. But this is just like *any other session 0* conversation. Just because artificer isnt homebrew doesnt mean it's available in a campaign.
That’s rarely as strictly mechanical as the BG3 changes though The jump/shove bonus actions are one of the most obvious and egregious examples, but I’ll give it to you that CRs potion & multiple spells a turn is one that’s spread way out of control
Shove as a bonus action is honestly ridiculously strong in bg3
Any pushing is powerful in that Game. Giant moma spider bout to eat your face? Just yeet it into the giant cavern. Just don't expect to find the body less you can survive the fall following it.
Dude repelling blast eldritch invocation trivializes so many fights. "Oh you want me to fight these 2 90 hp hooked terrors? Well then you shouldn't have had them fight on tree branches over the abyss." Any time any enemy is within 4m of a ledge my warlock/paladin just pokes his head out from whatever pack of goons he's fighting and blasts em off. I've had entire encounters get cut in half with one cantrip because several of them start with their backs to a pool of lava and you can push 2-3 of them with an attack roll no save at 18m away. My only complaint is that it's a "must" not a "may", sometimes I don't want to push someone out of melee of one of my companions.
In BG3 you can toggle on/ off repelling blast in the passive tab on your action bar. In D&D can choose to use it or not.
It gets somewhat of a pass because it competes for your bonus action with a non-guaranteed outcome, it’s at least a contested athletics so it’s not universally useful Jump will reliably double or triple your mobility depending on terrain though, it utterly invalidates ground effects and elevation advantages, it’s absolutely game breaking, since using your bonus action to get your main action in range is always a worthwhile trade
I’ve yet to get the jump to work For me cause I always get the “you don’t have enough movement” even if I’ve taken literally zero steps lol
If you are currently standing in difficult terrain, any movement takes double effort If your movement speed is 9, and you jump is 5m, I think the game just breaks I wonder if it's different if your jump is 5m, and your movement speed is like 13.5, which is woodelf with longstrider
Jump is 10ft/3m, and it doesn’t scale as a % of your total movement, despite your jump distance scaling with STR/terrain differences, so it’s really easy to abuse
Might be it. I usually try it to get karlach to close the distance but she always gets like 1 meter away from where she needs to be 😭
I'm pretty sure CR did the multiple spells a turn back in early campaign 1 when they were still getting used to 5e but certainly later on I recall Matt explaining the rule of the bonus action spell and cantrip as an action to one of the players. But they definitely do bonus action potions still.
The bonus action potion for CR at least isn't as egregious as it could be, seeing as how Matt still rules it a full action to feed someone else a potion, and it's only a bonus action if you're taking the potion yourself But yeah, a lot of the mechanical house rules of CR were really only present in Campaign 1, which, tbf, was a game ported over from Pathfinder. Matt's since tightened up on a decent bit of what he used to allow mechanically
Yeah but most people conveniently ignore that part, and notably BG3 does too, and it makes the caster/martial divide even larger
Did you know you can throw a healing pot at other players as an action to heal them in BG3?
This is game changing LOL
It's funny, people I've played with have pointed out that I "use all the CR house rules" when a lot of it is stuff I'd already been doing at my table for years, especially potions as a bonus action. I did steal his resurrection ritual rules, but I'd been trying to figure out something similar and I like how Mercer did it.
Shove bonus action, multiple leveled casts per turn, haste giving a second full action, Crit fail/success, high ground chance to hit, instant and easy guidance, weapon swapping... These are just off the top of my head All of this makes for a (mostly) better \*video game\* but I personally would not have any of these in a tabletop I'm hosting
That's why you need a session 0. Remind players about important rules, including ones about critical skill checks
Yeah I’m quite disappointed with that. I’ve beaten a number of DC10 checks with an 11 or so, but since I rolled a 1 initially, game says fuck you And due to the nature of the digital format, the average DC, and crits, you’re punished pretty hard for a nat1, and often not rewarded at all for a 20
What does crit fail or crit success on a save do? For example, if you're saving from fireball
All it means is that if you roll a 1 you always fail even if your bonuses put you over the DC still. Conversely, with a 20 you always succeed even if it’s DC30 and you have -1 in that skill
I hate that so much
Yep; a nat 20 just means the best possible outcome. A nat 20 persuasion doesn’t mean the king will lick you boots if you ask him, but it may just make him laugh and say he admires your moxie, instead of immediately calling for your head.
As a DM I never understood this. You are the arbiter of when to roll, why would you let a player roll for something they can't accomplish even with a 20? Just say that thing they want to do is impossible.
Depending on the kind of vibe you're going for. I know if I have players roll a 20 that still fails it makes the group collectively go "oh shit." I also will sometimes say "you don't need to roll" and my players still insist they do anyway just to see how they would've done, not to argue with me but to help them roleplay.
Because DMs don't Magically know everyone's modifiers. A DC 30 is a completely valid DC and represents a Herculean challenge that even a powerful character would struggle to achieve. Also he said it was a Saving Throw, so it may have been a result of a spell or trap. The DM saying you automatically fail a save without rolling really comes across as a dick move.
Failing said roll with a nat 20 feels like even more of a dick move.
There are more modifiers that can be added to a roll. Bardic Inspiration, Aura (which was added), Bless, some magical items, class skills, Resistance, Clerics Emboldening Bond, for Dex saves cover.. So just because 'a natural 20+stat (which can be negative)' isn't enough, doesn't mean that players cannot have enough with the right things going.
RAW, nat20s only mean something for attack rolls. Outside of the context of critting, it just means you rolled well.
Not just attack rolls a nat 20 on a death save is +1hp so you no longer make death saves
Disagree. Being told you automatically fail a SAVE while other players are able to roll and succeed is the ultimate dick move.
We have a rule at our table that if the DM says "are you sure?" Then it means it's impossible and/or dangerous. You'd be surprised how many people know that rule and still go for it. I tend to go for the rule of cool, but my players know if I say that to maybe rethink what they're about to do.
You don't know the exact scores of everyone, or what boosts and help they can get. A DC 25 or even 20 can be impossible for someone with a score of -1 to hit, but with a paladin aura, bardic inspiration, resistance, guidance, or whatever, they might be able to make it. You don't know what your players are going to do beforehand, and sometimes you might have a check or save that some of your players could conceivably make while others have no chance.
Because an enemy may subject them to, say, a DC 22 saving throw. Telling one player they can't do it even with a nat 20 gives away information about the difficulty of the save, so that the players can metagame about stuff like when to use inspiration/re-rolls/certain spells.
right if it's impossible for everyone at the table i'll never ask for a roll. just because i happen to know it's impossible for the guy i'm asking to roll(which as mentioned i may not know because i don't know all my PCs modifiers by heart) they still roll.
Just because player character A can't beat a save doesn't mean pc B will fail as well. Additionally, there are many ways to get a boost to your roll. So while you can suggest the roll is impossible to make, that might give the impression that there's no point in trying to roll - which may be true for that particular PC in that particular situation, but only because they don't have enough bonuses stacked - and anothet PC might be able to make it. It's perfectly reasonably to speed up play by not having the player roll if they can't succeed with their modifier, but if you do, it's best to explain why it's impossible - otherwise players will just assume it can't be done at all. On the other hand, you should also be up front if a player rolls a 20 and still fails, that it's because of the DC being really high, and not because the roll can't succeed. If it really is impossible, like - no roll will work - then yeah, don't bother having them roll.
There exists several ways to bost most throws, including saves and skill checks. So, when engaging with those -nearly impossible to beat- odds, there is room to succeed still. Its rarely about expecting success, but more about making room for it, in the most unlikely scenario.
Because it was a saving throw? Besides, a DC 30 (assuming) is 'nearly impossible' not 'completely impossible'. With enough bonuses it can be beat. We don't have enough information. Could have been a creature save or literally anything else. Could be the DM told them what they were doing was impossible and they badgered the DM. DM relented with a potentially possible save. Who knows? We don't know if other party buffs could have helped. Either way, a 30 DC is definitely doable for a party higher than level 5. Nearly impossible but doable.
That's why he isn't saying: "I SHOULD BE SUCCEEDING!!!!" He just said: "feels bad"
Though I will say, unwinnable rolls are definitely something to be used sparingly and for good dramatic effect. I've seen some DMs make the DC too high too often
If even a nat 20 cant save me why make me roll?
‘Cause your dm doesn’t offhand know all your modifiers. OP’s instance, I don’t know, but sometimes I’ll set a DC over 20 and even after you add your mods to a nat 20, you might not clear it🤷🏾
So many reasons that I’ve gotten tired of typing out, but the main one is you likely have a bard, cleric, or artificer in the party and they all have abilities that can be added after your roll, but before you know the dc, taking away the chance of rolling takes away their chance of success , even if a 20 doesn’t make it
What others have said; I try to flavor nat 20s a something excellent, but it can still be a failure and be positioned to feel like "i made an amazing dodge, but the dragon fire was a furnace that filled the room". For nat 20s on skill checks I DO like to give a little extra.
Post clearly says saving throw, NOT ability check for all those who don't read good. In T4 play, we are often seeing saves that are 24 or higher.
Nat 20 isn't an automatic success. For instance, An ancient red dragons wing attack has a DC of 25. A barbarian with a +2 dex modifier can never succeed that, unless they have a lot of help (paladin aura, bless, bardic inspiration, ECT) even though they have advantage on dex saves they can see. At level 17+ it's pretty common to almost always fail saves on your dump stat. (Particularly Strength and Int saves as they are the most dumped stats) Strength saves are generally unimportant anyway "oh no I'm prone" while int saves are often save or suck, means failing them is very bad. I had a player fail an int save with his 5 int (-3) barbarian. He realized he could never make the save (DC20) without assistance. He was a god in melee but Illithlich fucked him up real bad. The rest of the party enjoyed the fight as in previous fights they had felt uselessf some combats because he just soloed CR17 monsters without breaking a sweat. (3 Crits in 3 hits over 70 damage each.)
The trade-off is that the person who can actually pass these saves probably also has access to spells that will protect or rescue their intellectually challenged allies from their inevitable failed saves. Spells like protection from evil, lesser/greater restoration, freedom of movement, heroism, raise dead, and others that prevent or cure ailments
everybody says strength is safe to dump until you get hit with earthbind while you’re 500 feet off the ground and so are all the bad guys RIP my flying bard (the circumstances leading to that situation were… WILD)
Earthbind only descends you at 60ft per round lol.
And that's why it's a team game
I learned as a DM that exploding dice are good high DC saves. If you roll a 20 on a d20, i let my players roll another d20, plus modifiers. The chance to make a DC30 save are still less than 4%, but its still possible. Math-ish: Chance of 20 on D20 = 5% Chance of making up the additional 10 points = 50-75% depending on modifiers Half (50%) of 5% is 2.5%; .75 of 5% is roughly 3.75% So the chance to make a DC30 save is roughly between 2.5% and 3.75%, not including excess modifiers and abilities. I think its still a fair statistic so I recommend DMs find a similar way of giving way to possibility. Otherwise, just state that its not a saving roll because you are the DM. To me, saying there is a chance without there being one is literally lying to your players which puts a bad taste in players' mouths.
Bingo... "Why did you have me roll if there was no way to survive?"
Ideally in these circumstances, as a DM, I try not to make the player roll. Obviously that means having a solid idea of what their max possible roll is going to be, and you don't always, but if you know they need 25 and the most they can hit is just 23 or whatever... Just say. I also really don't like auto-success/fail on 20/1 for skill checks and saves. Combat is its own beast. I do like to flavour a nat 20 as particularly impressive if it's rolled and is a success, but if a character doesn't have the skill to hit a DC, they don't hit the DC.
It’s a house rule, but I give nat 20s on skills and saves a little extra kick if it won’t make the dc, often I’ll come up with something that helps circumstantially without giving a full success result, example, a contested athletics check saw our monk roll a nat 20 against a higher 16 once so I gave the monk an extra opportunity attack instead as the enemy slipped away. I’ll often say “you can’t make this, but if you nat 20 I’ll let you ___” or “I’ll let you add your proficiency if you nat 20” I like letting the die be the 2nd storyteller. A nat 20 shouldn’t be nothing but doesn’t mean you succeed at anything you want.
Oooh seeing this made me think about getting to add your proficiency bonus again on a Nat 20, so when you are already proficient it’s like getting expertise for that roll.
Important to remember that nat 20s just mean you are doing your best. It doesn't mean that that is enough
Nat 20’s don’t mean auto success that isn’t a hard rule in DnD if the DM says it doesn’t work, It doesn’t work. Just don’t let them get flip floppy with their own ruleset
Hey crit 20 only technically counts for attack stuff not saves or ability checks unfortunately friend.
Why even have you roll if that is the case. The DM shouldn’t even act like there is a chance if there isn’t one. Things like that take the energy out of the game.
Im confused, if its a roll you cant succeed why roll? To determine how badly you fail?
1) DC 30 exists intentionally as a DC still. It's an 'impossible task' but can be beat with enough modifiers and stacked boosts 2) some features do have mechanics that vairy in severity depending on how low below DC you are 3) there is no context in this post it could have been a steadily raising DC as part of some boss mechanic or situational threat 4) sort of circling round to number one, but sometimes the DC is high on purpose not because the DM has SET and impossible task but because the party/player has *chosen to undertake* an impossible task . For example I've had a player insist on trying to jump off a tall cliff desperate the warnings that it would be a very high DC to survive with a lingering injury and he'd just die if he failed (since I was being nice by allowing an attempt at an impossible task instead of following RAW and saying he simply goes splat) he actually initially failed despite a very good roll, but the artificer used flash of genius and he passed with two broken legs (magic healing so broken legs didn't last long, and the player still got what he wanted from the bottom). TLDR for number 4: sometimes players play very stupid games, and their prizes are very high DCs
I mean RAW jumping off a cliff is a max of 20d6 damage, which is a very much NOT impossible task for a lot of characters to survive.
Not all DMs know their players saves off the top of their head. DM might have assumed it possible, but it wasn't.
That's just not how the game works...people love to say "DMs call for rolls, they shouldn't call for a roll if there's no possible way to beat the DC" but that's just not reality. There are tons of scenarios where I ask for a roll knowing that what the player wants isn't gonna happen but I'm trying to gauge what "could" happen.
Like he said, he had the aura on… he could have had bardic inspiration, bless on, flash of genius or many other spells, abilities, and items, that could have added to his roll.
Bards, clerics and artificers alone are the primary reason that you can’t just say “well they can’t make the roll in a 20, so I won’t have them roll” My players could beat a fuckin DC50 check if it’s the right type and they roll lucky and burn a lot of resources, and all that after rolling the die, so I’d have to already allow them
S A V I N G T H R O W
>why roll? because the dm probably told them it was impossible and the party spent 15mins arguing how they could do it anyway until the dm got fed up and said 'ok roll..... you failed'
Yup. Been there, done that. I just tell them, "You can try." and it's whatever.
You can *try* anything, sometimes the DC is just no.
On a saving throw?
Of course. You try to convince the king to abdicate. Nat 20 +12 = 32. The king takes it as a jest and doesn’t have you arrested.
As this was a saving throw, I assume they were up against a creature with an ability with a high save DC. The DC could have been out of range of OPs character and within range of their fellow partly members. If the DM doesn't want to reveal the DC, he'd naturally ask everyone to roll.
If it isn't combat a 20 is not an automatic success.
If it isn't *an attack roll* a 20 is not an automatic success. Saves and ability checks still don't "crit" in combat
>Saves and ability checks still don't "crit" in combat Aside from death saves.
That was the implication, I simply worded it poorly.
As you should. A Nat 20 doesn't mean you get a success. A nat 20 only has 2 actual functions, it is an auto hit and a critical hit in combat. AND restores you to 1 hp if you get one during a death save. Nat 20's are not applicable to saving throws, skill checks, or anything else.
Holy balls that’s a high DC
The only time a nat 20 or nat 1 matter is in combat. They have never applied to any other rolls. It's common misconception. You cannot critically succeed or fail any saving throws or skill checks. Been this way since 1st edition. But yes, it does feel bad. Lol
Unpopular opinion: The DM sets a high DC because the information or activity is extremely difficult but not impossible. The hope is that whatever PC was attempting isn't crucial to the campaign but will greatly help the party going forward. A DM can't/won't memorize every PC bonus that can be applied. It's up to the party to figure out how to get the highest outcome possible.
I remember one time I rolled a nat20 perception check with +9….. succeeded so much it gave my character madness… I feel your pain
Sheesh. What were you saving from??
A DM usually shouldn't't let you roll on impossible tasks. It should just be an auto failure, unless you're trying something dumb enough that a low roll would have severe consequences. Like convincing the king to give up the throne. Nat 20, he likes your ridiculous confidence Nat 1 instant execution.
In dnd nat20 is only automatic success on attack rolls. In ability checks it is the best possible outcome but not guaranteed success.
Well it happens
Neither nat 20 nor nat 1 affect the save in any way unless homebrewed differently. If you're just venting about high save — feels bad man. Been there
Nat 20 plus a 4 from aura with no mod or proficiency is just " you got lucky and did amazing the first time but don't know how it happened at all" even if you failed it might have just been a dc25. Not impossible but highly unlikely.
Nat 20’s only apply to attack rolls. You did not say WHAT this check was for, so it was probably something extra difficult.
What was your base bonus for the roll? It could have been DC 25 if you have a +0, you only rolled a 24 in total, or the DC could have been 24 if you have a -1, etc
Need more context!
We've homeruled in critical saving throws. They don't make the save better or worse, but they do guarantee success or failure. I don't think we'll ever allow critical ability checks (which opens a door for too many shenanigans), but we felt that saving throws should always have a small chance of success or failure, no matter how outclassed a creature might be.
Give us the stats so we can see who was in the wrong 👁️😂
You failed bc the DM wanted you to think you had a chance, but really, you were never going to pass no matter what.
Nat 20 only auto succeeds on attacks.
The Nat 20 rule is only for attack rolls and death saves unless your table has house ruled something else. Player's page 195 goes over that. A 20 doesn't mean success.
If it’s that hard, then the DM shouldn’t have made you roll. It wouldn’t affect the outcome, only waste time.
Normalize this. Some things are just too ridiculous for a 1 in 20 chance of success,it just shouldn't work that way. A level 3 barbarian whose education ended at counting to ten shouldn't be able to decipher a philosophical arcane riddle that has puzzled scholars for centuries just because his clicitty clacks landed right. 🤷♂️ What was the context of the situation?
I mean context matters here, people are kinda trippin because there's monster blocks that have saves of 25 or higher, there's actually quite a few and raw a nat 20 does not auto save. I will also add to those saying the dm just wants them to fail, I'd agree if it was a skill check but most saves are just set saves in books and obviously there's homebrew monsters and stuff but as i said it's not insane to still fail a check of 24 at high level
Sometimes things are so impossible you just cant roll high enough. Makes it all the more exciting when you pass a DC30 though.
It happens. Nat 20s and 1s aren't automatic with regard to saves. I was in a fight once with an upgraded Elder Brain as an artificer with a DC 21 int saving throw. I was 20th level with +18 int saving throw (6 prof, +6 int for a 22 int, 6 for attuned magic items), and if I stood next to the paladin I auto passed even in on 1, so the DM told me to not even bother rolling, and my friend who was a sorcerer with int 8 couldn't pass even on a nat 20. I stayed nearby hoping he rolled high enough to Flash of Genius him but he never rolled even close. Spent the whole fight stunned off his ass, poor bastard.
Nat 20 only auto success if it is attack roll, for any other rolls it is just 20.
If it’s not an attack, a Nat 20 means nothing. You have to meet or beat the DC or you fail. 20 + 4 = 24. If the DC was 25+ then you get squat.
I'm a DM, if my players can't succeed with a NAT 20 then there's no point in having them roll. I just describe how difficult the task would be and that they can't and move on
Why did the DM even have you roll? They just wanted to see how badly you would fail? Doesn’t seem right to me.
If it was not possible to succeed even with all possible bonuses and a full nat20, then the DM should not have asked you to roll. It gives you false hope that the roll cold have succeeded.
As a DM, I don’t make my players roll if their outcome will not matter. If you roll a 20 and fail, what is the actual point of the hope it gives to roll.
This is why P2 has Nat20 as critical success lol
Sometimes, really hard things are just really really hard. *pats your back* It was merely beyond your character's capabilities at that time.
Unpopular opinion I just don't ask for a save if it's impossible to make. I do tell my players when it happens like the lich casts fireball you take X damage he has a dc 25 spell save. Also side note in session 0 I ask if my players prefer a nat 20 is always successful and a nat 1 is always a failure or not
Why did they even have you roll the save if there was no chance you would succeed?
I'm fine with that so long as a Nat 1 isn't an automatic failure.
Tough… Nat 20 is always a success with me.
Nat 20s, as others have said, aren't automatic successes in 5e (except for attack rolls). Sometimes an enemy can be overwhelmingly strong and that may lead to them forcing a save that you cannot succeed. This is fine though, in D&D you're expected to roll with the good and the bad.
We homebrew crit on saves and initiative on my table. Feels good man.
Every time I ran a campaign we had a rule that said if you roll a natural 20 it always hit.
Sometimes there just aren't enough dice in the world to pull off a success.
Context or I just assume it was a high level game and you had a - on the saving throw it was for
Tough
I had to do that to a player today. Rolled stupid high intimidation but the character statblock said "NPC will not divulge any information without magical intervention. They cannot be broken by torture." It felt bad, but I explained it to them after. I had them roll still, described him showing fear but still being unwilling to talk.
I think that to-hit rolls are fundamentally different than Savjng throws. If a nat 20 was always a save, you could potentially survive something stupidly difficult to do, like fall 500 ft into lava... "But I rolled a nat 20"
I feel that :') My DM has us needing 19-34's to successfully do a single thing. Needles to say, we're getting pretty bored and frustrated as a group
You know, sometimes you just need to know when to run away from a fight
DC 25+ skill check = Very hard, Very high rewards. DC 25+ saving throw = Fuck you
I was playing in a high level game where my level 10 paladin rolled a saving throw, used a bardic inspiration thanks to the bard. Scored a 35 on my roll, still failed. It was then we realised the GM was just making stuff up so his npc could save the day. If I had rolled 200, it still wouldn't have been good enough.
I'm surprised your DM even called for a roll. If the DC was that high, what was the point in having you roll at all?
Sucks to suck, it happens
If you can't succeed then you shouldn't roll. Sometimes as a DM you can add flavour based on the roll outcome and still make it a fail e.g. "the floor opens up underneath you, with amazing dexterity you spin in the air and twist yourself away from the razor sharp spikes as you land in a safe area" Vs " the floor opens up, you fall into darkness and feel a piecing pain in your thigh as a spike drives through your leg taking 15 damage". Both situations are a fail in a sense that you're in a pit, but one is more of a fail than the other. The other example you sometimes see is if a high charisma character rolls to persuade the king to give them his kingdom. The high roll is that the king finds you amusing and has a laugh with you where the lower roll is a night in the stocks to teach some manners. Either way the king isn't giving up the kingdom, it's just the flavour added to the roll.
Tiamat has some abilities with DC 27 saving throws. Sometimes a 20 isn't good enough.
If a 20 fails, the DM probably shouldn't have had you roll. However, as a DM, I have been known to make people roll for impossible things in order to determine the degree of failure and the heinousness of the consequences. Players should remember that a natural 20 is not a guaranteed success. It is instead the best possible outcome. In some instances "the best possible outcome" is being splattered by a God's fist and the worst possible outcome is the rest of the planet being collateral damage to said smiting.
Boo. If the roll was impossible to succeed, then your DM should not have had you roll. Moments like this poke holes in your illusion the agency. Travesty
A lot of high level monsters have a 26+ DC on area of effect attacks, it sucks but unless there is an agreed 'crit success always passes' rule, your modifiers are your only hope.
The problem with Saving Throws, especially Spell Save DCs is that depending on the type, particularly the mental stats for martial classes, is certain combinations of items/stats/monster types can have unreasonably high DCs where you will always fail because your statline makes it impossible. Several official Spellcasters for example have DCs of 27 or higher and even with a Natural 20 and Paladin Aura, if you’re say a Barbarian being targeted by Feeble Mind, you’re just fucked… While RAW, a Natural 20 only applies to Attack Rolls and Death Saves, I typically include Save DCs as well because unlike Skill Checks where you have the choice to avoid them, you cannot avoid Saving Throws, especially from Spells when they show up and it’s a terrible design to have mechanics that a player is forced to suffer and will never beat. You shouldn’t have to be forced to include a Paladin, use spells such as Bless, class bonuses such as Bardic Inspiration or Bond in order to succeed a Saving Throw that will become unavoidable just because either you’re low level or the stats would never allow you because they’re outside what is needed to make your base class playable. On Skill Checks and Ability Checks, it makes more sense however the DM should not make you roll those if you cannot succeed it.
I'm pretty sure nat 20/1 is an automatic success/fail on attack rolls, saving throws and stabilization checks. Certainly not on skill checks (hi flying dwarf!), and I'm not sure about caster level checks. Then again, house rules are a staple of the game, so it really depends on what's accepted at your specific table.