I think if the game (a) removed the "nat 1/20 is an auto-fail/success on skill checks" and possibly gave you the option to "take 10" 3e style on a bog-standard check (or take 20 outside of conversation at the cost of a short rest), that'd go a long way to solving the problem.
That drove me nuts when I played paranoia, since the more you roll, the more 5% chances you have to have something horrible happening to you. It makes you never want to do anything, since even opening an (untrapped) door can be hazardous.
removed the "nat 1/20 is an auto-fail/success on skill checks"
Note this isn't actually a rule in 5e for skill checks, only for attack rolls automatically hitting/missing. It wasn't a rule in 3.x either. It's just people keep misapplying the attack-roll rule to other rolls and inadvertently houseruling it even though it's a stupid change, sometimes including D&D developers and now apparently including Lorian Studios developers.
In 3rd edition it only applied to attack rolls, but then in the Deities and Demigods supplement they added a special rule for gods:
Deities of rank 1 or higher do not automatically fail on a natural saving throw roll of 1.
Yes, if you attain godhood you don't automatically fail saving throws on 1, just like everyone else. Then in 3.5 they actually did add automatic success/failure to saving throws (which I would argue was a negative change) but still didn't have it for skill checks. (3.5 came out a year after Deities and Demigods so they could have been consciously trying to make it backwards compatible, but I'd guess they just forgot it didn't work like that and then in 3.5 rewrote the rules to match the way they played it.)
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think if the game (a) removed the "nat 1/20 is an auto-fail/success on skill checks" and possibly gave you the option to "take 10" 3e style on a bog-standard check (or take 20 outside of conversation at the cost of a short rest), that'd go a long way to solving the problem.
That drove me nuts when I played paranoia, since the more you roll, the more 5% chances you have to have something horrible happening to you. It makes you never want to do anything, since even opening an (untrapped) door can be hazardous.
More options
Context Copy link
Note this isn't actually a rule in 5e for skill checks, only for attack rolls automatically hitting/missing. It wasn't a rule in 3.x either. It's just people keep misapplying the attack-roll rule to other rolls and inadvertently houseruling it even though it's a stupid change, sometimes including D&D developers and now apparently including Lorian Studios developers.
In 3rd edition it only applied to attack rolls, but then in the Deities and Demigods supplement they added a special rule for gods:
Yes, if you attain godhood you don't automatically fail saving throws on 1, just like everyone else. Then in 3.5 they actually did add automatic success/failure to saving throws (which I would argue was a negative change) but still didn't have it for skill checks. (3.5 came out a year after Deities and Demigods so they could have been consciously trying to make it backwards compatible, but I'd guess they just forgot it didn't work like that and then in 3.5 rewrote the rules to match the way they played it.)
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, agree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link