Both 5e and the 2024 rules only crit / crit miss on attacks. But Baldur’s Gate 3 introduced them on checks, which muddied the waters.
BG3 also did drinking potions as bonus actions, which 5e did not do but many DM’s (including those in several well-known real play shows) did as a house rule, then they incorporated it into the 2024 rules.
So common that Critical Success or Failure is literally mentioned in the 5e Dungeon Master’s Guide (2014), though more as an enhancer rather than automatic success/failure.
The example’s wording does imply that the roll result needs to be successful for the enhancer to apply. However, it literally states beforehand that it’s up to the DM how it manifests, and increase of impact is just a suggestion.
Personally, I prefer what the example in the DMG implies than automatic success. It depends on the campaign, but giving a wizard with 8 strength a 1/20 chance to lift a Sequoia log by themself is a bit much.
Why is it a mess? It’s just the nature of TTRPGs. Like the books make it very explicit: the rules are only rules insofar as the GM and players agree; and the GM is always the final arbiter.
“Homebrewing” is just playing the game as intended.
Well, I like the way my DM does it. I would say I’m surprised, but the logic behind the rules is way too far beyond my understanding and I regularly am thrown off by the exceptions.
DnD 5e does not have critical successes or failures on ability checks. Only attack rolls have critical successes and failures.
Both 5e and the 2024 rules only crit / crit miss on attacks. But Baldur’s Gate 3 introduced them on checks, which muddied the waters.
BG3 also did drinking potions as bonus actions, which 5e did not do but many DM’s (including those in several well-known real play shows) did as a house rule, then they incorporated it into the 2024 rules.
What a mess.
Baldur’s gate didn’t really introduce them. It was a house rule so common it may as well been an optional rule.
So common that Critical Success or Failure is literally mentioned in the 5e Dungeon Master’s Guide (2014), though more as an enhancer rather than automatic success/failure.
The example’s wording does imply that the roll result needs to be successful for the enhancer to apply. However, it literally states beforehand that it’s up to the DM how it manifests, and increase of impact is just a suggestion.
Personally, I prefer what the example in the DMG implies than automatic success. It depends on the campaign, but giving a wizard with 8 strength a 1/20 chance to lift a Sequoia log by themself is a bit much.
Why is it a mess? It’s just the nature of TTRPGs. Like the books make it very explicit: the rules are only rules insofar as the GM and players agree; and the GM is always the final arbiter.
“Homebrewing” is just playing the game as intended.
Well, I like the way my DM does it. I would say I’m surprised, but the logic behind the rules is way too far beyond my understanding and I regularly am thrown off by the exceptions.