“You should let a natural 20 always succeed on ability checks, because why would you have them roll if there’s no chance to roll high enough?” This is a piece of D&D advice I see a lot, and on the surface it seems to make sense, right? Like why would you have someone roll with their +5 bonus if they need a 26 to succeed?
But then you remember the Great Secret of D&D 5th Edition, the enlightenment not all have reached: the DM deserves to be treated with respect and dignity, and it’s not their goshdang job to know what all your stats are.
Also, having a 1/20 chance to succeed what whatever you are doing, no matter how outlandish, is really funny
You do realise that this post is against letting ability checks auto-succeed on a nat 20, right?
tumblr is a website known for its reading comprehension
#i do allow crits on attacks because if I create a situation where they can't hit any attack I've messed up as DM
I'd like to inform you that crits on attacks aren't something you need to really allow as such, as that's just in the rules.
I've noticed a lot of players have confusion about this In most editions of D&D: - You auto-succeed on attack rolls and saving throws of a 20 - In some editions, you have to then roll again to succeed on a critical hit - Other checks do not auto-succeed on a 20. Some things are simply outside of your skill. - Natural 1s auto-fail on Attack Rolls and Saving Throws - This does not mean you then stab yourself or fumble off a cliff. That is a house rule. A natural 1 is a normal failure. - Natural 1s don't automatically fail skill checks in most editions. The worst work by a master carpenter is still a functional chair.
