With one of the last patches/fixes a bad thing slipped into the game. We now have critical fail on skill checks. We even have a tooltip that says it's there. It shouldn't be there. Not only because it's wrong by D&D rules, but also because it ruins the roleplay.
Imagine, I'm playing a wizard, who studied arcane magic for years, he has the proficiency and now he fails an arcane check with a difficulty challenge of 5 points just because he rolled 1 and his 5 points of well earned knowledge are not taken into account. This is madness! In examples from the real world it is the same if a programmer suddenly wouldn't be able to tell you what a compiler is. He may not be a super cool professional but he still should have some basic knowledge. If it's not a basic knowledge then the difficulty shouldn't be just 5.
Critical miss is there to represent things that are totally out of your control in a fight even if you were fencing and throwing offensive spells for centuries. You may slip, you may get distracted, your opponent can get lucky in his attempt to avoid your attack. They are also balanced by critical hits.
Critical failure on stabilization rolls is there to represent the struggle against death as not something that you can learn to do. And this is also balanced by critical success.
But skills… they are your knowledge, your training, which you're using in a quite controllable environment. If you don't remember something from your studies, you can just spend some time trying to remember. And the roll against higher difficulty is an extrapolation attempt, not an attempt to do something random to get a random result. And there is no mechanic for critical success.
Larian, please, fix it.

+1

I agree and there are already many posts to this effect.

When did this get in the game? What happens if you crit fail a skill?

Yeah, that's def not a 5e rule, not sure what it adds to the game, or what the thinking behind it is.

Same as with critical miss, you roll 1 means you fail, proficiency is ignored, buffs are ignored.
My guess is that it came in the game because many people who don't really know the rules were complaining otherwise:
https://twitter.com/larianstudios/status/1448698868556701701

+1

this should follow the rules, if some people want to critically fail skill checks I'm ok with two options:

1- let it be modded
2- make a configuration setting.

Just please dont make us mod to remove critical fails on skills or worse .. having to savescum to avoid it.

+1

It's actually been in the game more of less from the beginning, and it's been discussed (and for the most part objected to, with a few staunch supporters) quite a bit. The unfortunate news is that Larian's official word on this right now is that it's deliberate and working as intended, however I would encourage anyone who disagrees with the implementation to submit their own direct feedback reports saying so and seeking a proper implementation of the rules; as long as it gets enough attention and people asking for the actual 5e version of the rules here, there's a possibility of it being changed.

I have rolled quite a few critical fails on skill checks - and I am OK with it. I do not view it as unrealistic. Take lockpicking, for example. It’s an easy lock and I’ve done this a hundred times in my sleep so a DC 5 lock with my +5 bonus should be automatic - except that the stupid lock pick snapped off in my hand because it had a flaw - or - I didn’t notice that a tiny stone had gotten jammed in the lock before I tried - or - whatever. These things happen in real life, even on “automatic gimmes”. How many times on a real life intelligence check have you had something that you definitely know, but you just can’t pull up its name in your head? Geez, I can even see it and I had a whole college section on it, but I can’t pull it up in the heat of the moment, maybe while watching Jeopardy, or playing Trivia at the local bar. These things happen.

I do understand the argument of it’s not in the DnD rules or that there is not a corresponding good benefit of rolling a 20 to offset this. I’m fine and supportive of those arguments. I just don’t understand the argument of not being realistic.

They could easily implement the optional rule that a natural 1 on a skill check has an unintended consequence (like the lockpick breaking you mentioned) while the skill check in question is still a success. Bottom line, this is yet another deviation from the 5e rules that adds nothing to the game.

Your examples are simply wrong.
DC is there to show how hard it is from the start till the end.
Critical miss means something that wasn't there at first suddenly happened during the fight. It always translates that way.

5DC means it's so simple and basic a commoner could do it.
If your low-level character has 5 points in corresponding skill means he is either naturally super good in this kind of work (20 in the ability) or has good knaks for it and it's part of his everyday professional practice (16 in the ability+proficiency)

So now to your examples:
1) You practically can’t snap a lockpick if you’re doing it right, even if it happens to have a flaw. It’s made of metal and lockpicking with a lockpick doesn’t use brute force (if you wish to take a look at some real lockpicking here you go https://www.youtube.com/c/lockpickinglawyer). If the brute force suddenly came into play it means the lock happened to be more sophisticated than you thought so it’s simply not 5DC from the start. Also lockpick has its flaw before the start, so you are either supposed to be able to examine it before even starting working with it or you anyway get your higher DC for working with broken tools beforehand.
2) The little stone didn't crawl into the lock while you were trying to open it. So it's a damaged lock from the start, which is supposed to be known by your DM beforehand and it is also not 5DC.
3) I highly doubt that you have problems with recalling things that you actually use all the time as part of your professional practice unless you have some health problems or temporary condition causing memory problems, which is again higher DC beforehand. I already covered the question of remembering stuff in the OP post:

+1

Skill checks already have an element of frustration where a new character who is as specialized as can be in a certain field (+3 ability modifier and +2 proficiency) will fail a Medium (DC15) skill check about half the time. Introducing critical fails only adds to the frustration and makes characters look even more incompetent. This isn't Disco Elysium either, there aren't any particularly interesting outcomes for failing checks (that I've seen, anyway).

Isnt there another option that he is a Rogue? (Meaning have Expertise?)

That would mean 12 + Proficiency ...

No?
(Seriously i dont know. )

Well that's not even implemented, but would make the problem even more ridiculous. As in you're a professional that not only does this stuff regularly, but also knows some very special pro-tricks, and you fail at performing the most basic task meant for newbie training because... random.
PS: And, yes, your value is wrong. Expertise doubles proficiency bonus, which is 2 for lvl1, so 4+ability modifier.

That 12 was for Ability Score.
I was using same format as you did in quoted part.

In my mind it was:

Ability 12 = +1 Modifier ...
Expretise = Prof 2 * 2 = 4 ...
Therefore Ability 12 should be enough for character to preform task of Dif. 5 on level 1.

Oh. That's what your meant with 12+! That's just not the proper way to write it, but ok. Well, a rogue with expertise would be fine against 5DC even with 10 point in corresponding ability. Because you can't roll less than 1 and you add your skill and ability modifier to it, so 1+4...

Another important reason why crit fails on skill checks should not be a thing is that all checks in the game are necessarily universal - they're the same for every character, so the DCs must be universal DCs too.

Normally your DM tailors DCs relative to the person performing the action, and IF the result is that the individual simply cannot fail at all, then there is no roll (same goes for impossibilities too - if a task is impossible to fail or impossible to succeed, the DM narrates the outcome - for everything in between, you roll). With flat universal DCs however, those extreme no-roll situations are rarer because every possible character needs to be accounted for - so what might be a sure thing for one character is not for another, and we must roll regardless. This is why you cannot have critical failures on skill checks:

If a young child runs up to the party and says "My mum says Mystra is the goddess of the weave... What's the Weave?" There is no possibility that Gale will not have an answer to give - but it is possible that someone else might not know much about magic and may not be able to answer this (still unlikely but possible). Because at least one character might fail this check, the roll must be made regardless, but the Dc is low enough that most folks can't reasonably fail it - Gale certainly can't. With critical failures on skill checks, however, Gale CAN fail to answer this question, and that just doesn't compute.

It's one of those rule misconceptions that becomes so ubiquitous that it starts being treated as real. Or maybe people just like opportunities to roleplay criticals.

While I don't actually think DCs need to be universal, there shouldn't be any critical success or fails.
In combat, because it takes place over such a short period of time and because it's outcomes aren't managed it makes some more sense.

Here's an interesting article on skill checks I like thealexandrian

I think this is one of best exaple where optional rule can be aplied.

I thought this is the reason we have those not-rolled dialogue options. O_o

You know ...
[Druid], [Fighter], ... but also [Drow], [Baldurian], etc ...

I mean PC game is explicit environment after all ...
We are unable to get into any unimplemented dialogue situation ... and while possibilities can be (and sometimes are) oversighted ...
We get this unfailable options for our unfailable situations ...

So in your exaple Gale would (or should) have options:
[Wizard] Weave is just other word for Magic.
[Insert skill here] *try to explain it as thoroughly as possible ... yet easily so that kid understands*

The joke is that currently in the game we sometimes have it as:
[Arcane magic] Weave is just another word for Magic. - ROLL
[Wizard] [Arcane magic] *read the full lecture to the kid and tell him the full story about Mystra* - ROLL

Cant say i remember such case ...
But its possible i gues. :-/

In such case, that sounds kinda ... dunno missinterpreted sounds like corect word here. :-/

I just wanted to chime in on this. I guess it never really came up in my previous play-throughs, but I've actually auto failed a few skill checks on this run that were absolutely ridiculous. Prime example is Astarion picking a lock with a DC 10. With his Dex bonus, Sleight of Hand bonus, a Happy bonus, and with Shadowheart providing the Guidance cantrip, there was, quite literally according to the D&D 5e rules as written, no way he could have failed, as a 1 was all he needed to roll in order for the other bonuses to add up to 10. Watching the die roll a 1 and then failing without adding in the bonuses was the first time I'd even realized that was a "feature" of this game. If it is a "feature," please, please, please Larian, make it an optional one, just like loaded dice! I know there are other things about this game that do not follow 5e mechanics exactly. Honestly, I'd rather everything did, or at least that there was a difficulty setting that made playing strictly by RAW an option.

I do not have any problems with it as long theres mechanism to help if people have really really bad luck.

CRPG are kinda bad at RP, because theres so many characters, anyway. Now Im Astarian, now Gale etc. Bird View isnt most immersive either. We humans likes to watch the world with our eyes. If I was Larian I would sell Characters.

I like RP, Batman Arkham Knight made me feel like a Batman but this isnt the right game. Interestingly Batman isnt even RP game. But this is. When I played DOS2 I felt like an ant. Thats even more reasons to put more focus on Characters, make them stand out.

Look at it this way; if cooking is a skill then statistically every 20 meals you cut your finger off with the knife. That's why a crit failure is poor design. I'd tentatively go for a "Roll 1, roll again to see if you get a 1/2 for a crit fail" but a simple 1=fail is 'eh'

1 = Critical Miss in combat ONLY. It also does NOT mean the character fumbled and flubbed up majorly. It just means that even if an enemy has AC 8 and you get +8 to Hit, there's still a chance you might fail.

The purpose is to prevent players from getting so good that they hit no matter what in combat, thus making combat pointless. It is not to symbolize just how poorly a person did.

It is NOT used for skill checks because the game is designed so that if you are good enough at something, a die roll isn't even necessary.

So, if you have +4 skill, a 5 or higher check is pointless. The difficulty is so low that unless you have no ability at all in that area, you shouldn't have to roll.

Similarly, if you get +10 for lock picking, because you are a Rogue with Expertise, any lock that is only 10 or higher is no roll necessary. You're an expert. You won't fail on something so trivial to you. That's why you're an expert.

There's nothing worse than being an expert at something in a game like this and then failing because of a dice roll.

True story, playing Star Wars RPG with my brother. Epic scene/ fight. Climax of the game/ story. He runs up stairs, but he has awesome Athletic skill. Rolls a 1. Trips and falls. Almost died. He doesn't almost die at the hands of a villain. He almost dies because of rolling a 1 to climb stairs.

Suffice to say, he was ticked. His argument? His character was super athletic. He shouldn't be almost dying by running up stairs.

I think it sounds pretty fun. Dice rolling is extremely popular across the entire world. Game industry is full of RNG games. Usually they are just too HC. There needs to be something if you're having a bad luck streak, typical RNG games doesnt realize if you're having bad luck, and it can get quite bad. I think Narrator might the way to go, game sees your luck is bad, he/she gives you something, or change the course of it.

This is the reason why Larian should take inspiration from Monty Python, Standup Comedy etc. "Hey I just failed, lol".

Sucks to say, but I think you're at wrong game. Mutant Year Zero has less RNG actually. But it isnt that good.

???

I think you didn't read everything I said and pulled that out of context.

I am 100% for dice rolling. I love the dice rolling in the game - in THIS game. I'd like more of it so that all the skills have meaning and purpose so each character is unique and useful. I want to see my rogue with expertise in Deception tricking people left and right and even rolling for disguise kit usage... Or rolling to sneak past enemies while behind them because they might hear me... And my cleric using Medicine rolls to stabilize not only fellow players but dying NPCs. I'd love it if they gave you the ability to save Arabella from the snake bite by succeeding in a Medicine check. Or my fighter wrestling an orc thug just to prove he has more prowess, rolling an Athletics roll against the orc's Athletics.

Dice rolls, the ability to fail, make the game exciting. If you can succeed every time, there's no thrill. It's just pick the right option and you win. Yay! [Bored cheering noises]

What I don't like is auto-fail due to a 1 in skill checks. Critical Miss is fine for combat, allowing for potential failure every round no matter how skilled, but skill checks, no. Plus, many skill checks are opposed, or should be, so auto-fail is impossible if both roll 1s.

I would love to bump the thread and bring something to Larian attention since this "feature" still in the game and in some other places people were speculating that criticals on skill checks got in the game because of OneD&D in the first place.
So, Larian, please notice that in current issues of OneD&D the rule was changed again and "criticals" were removed from skill checks and replaced with granted Inspiration. That's because it also got negative response from play-testers. You may presume by now that no one loves the thing to be used as an actual rule.

First issue of OneD&D:
https://media.dndbeyond.com/compend...m=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest1

Current issue of OneD&D:
https://media.dndbeyond.com/compend...m=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest3

I completely disagree and would like the game to keep 1 = fail.

The chance to fail, even if it's improbable can radically changes the playthrough.

Yes your Rogue can fail even after 1000 times success of picking bathroom lock.

Yes your Wizard can fail that Arcane checks, he may made a mistake after 1000 succeeded in deciphering information.

Yes your bard can fail a performance checks after 1000 Faerun Tour.

You can fail when the DC is to high for you. That's enough. And 1 on D20 isn't a one fail after 1000 succesess, it's potentially every 20th. Try to read the rest of the thread, there were more the an enough arguments by now.

I read the entire thread and I found nothing convincing.

Currently on steam there are a thread literally made few days ago and have accumulate hundreds of comments, not just 2 pages.

Safe to say people are divided, but largely leaning to say this is a non-issue.

I think it should be kept the way it is. If somebody want to mod it so that Crit Failure is Disabled for Skill checks, go ahead.

+1

I don't care if I rolled a 1. My 3rd-level fighter shouldn't fail at telling a guy how to swing a sword. Period.

I would prefer they do not make NAT 1 an auto-failure with skill checks (same goes vice versa for NAT 20).

Alaways having a fixed 5% chance to either fail or succeed indepently of difficulty of the check is so non-sensical to me.

But as with a lot of suggestions / feedback regarding BG3: please Larian make it a toggle in the options menu.

I do agree that natural win/fails in skill checks feel off to me.

However, I'd larian will keep them, I think they should also add some special feedback. Not passing AC of 5 feels off as the game doesn't really highlight that rolling 1 is a special case.

I dunno, the more i play the game, the more logical it seems to keep this intact. :-/

Shit just happens ...
Even the greatest master of sneaking can step of squeaking plank in the floor.
And even the clumsiest Zoidberg can manage to *somehow* lockpick a lock.

Chances for both are tiny ... and they hardly can get tinier than 1/20 on 20 sided dice.

I don’t mind 1s on skill rolls being auto fails, and even quite like the fact there’s always some element of peril, even if occasionally this is hard or even impossible to rationalise.

But given it’s a departure from 5e rules I do agree that Larian shouldn’t force it on people, and as it presumably makes QA an increasing nightmare to have everything optional, would be perfectly okay if they simply brought the treatment of 1s and 20s into line with the core rules.


Definitely agree that unless someone is already familiar with table-top rules they’re going to be really puzzled by this - unless there’s a tutorial topic I missed? Of course, given what people have said about the departure from core rules, it’s going to puzzle them anyway but at least they’d be in a position to make a good guess as to what was happening.

This is truth, except I don't think "we must roll regardless." Why not narrate and log the checks that we auto-succeed or auto-fail? Even if we add bonuses from Guidance, Enhance Ability after we pull up the dice animation, you could still move on immediately, and it would make certain scenarios flow better.

Some of this is DM discretion or common sense in TT, but they could build that criteria in when they set the DC.

For example, disarming traps. The consequences for failure can be severe, but maybe it doesn't make sense that there's always a 5% chance everyone with anywhere from +9 to +30 in boni is going to blow themselves up on DC 10 traps. Set an "auto-fail" and "auto-succeed" DC. If you've got a room full of DC 10 traps, and you've got a rogue with 18 dex, expertise, the ring, guidance and cat's grace, just let him click through the ten traps instead of forcing ten roll animations.

As in my previous post, I think this is something we take for granted in Table Top that is adjudicated by a DM and common sense. You could emulate it with an (hidden?) "auto-succeed" and "auto-fail" DC.

A manual task with minimal hidden variables might never fail on a Nat 1 if your boni are = or > than the DC. Persuading someone you just met to do something when you don't know them might have a higher "auto-succeed."

Stealth checks are not confronted by the enviroment, they are confronted by opponents perception. Passive perception for starters. And passive perseption is already 10+Perception skill value. So if the opponent managed to go down to 5 with his passive perception he is effectively deaf and blind.
And again a clumsy Zoidberg can manage to lockpick not so sophisticated lock, somehow without those 20s on 1d20, he just needs to roll more than 5 or 10 or 15 plus his Sleight of Hands value. Him openning a super sophisticated lock that has DC above 20 plus Zoidberg's Sleight of Hands value should be a miracle (not 5% chance) and miracles are provided by magic in this world.

That is why I prefer how pathfinder did it. If you roll a 10 lower then your required DC or above in 10 you get a critical fail or critical success. This makes it where harder enemies are virtually impossible to critical on [makes sense] while easy enemies always get critical on. There are also feats such as “always a chance” which removes 1s from being auto fail while keeping 20s as success.

The above would fix the problem as, your DC for your main stat would naturally increase with your level making it almost impossible to fail a DC for your class. Aka it fixes the RNG BS a lot

Yup ...
And that opponent is perceiving his surroundings.
And if you fail your stealth check, he notices your presence ...
Did he seen you?
Did he seen your shadow?
Did he notice crates behind wich you are hiding moved?
Did he heared your armor clings?
Did he felt your sweat droping?
Unspecified ... and not relevant, all that failed check is telling us is that he noticed you ... everything beyond that is matter of roleplay interpretation.

That is once aggain just roleplay interpretation ...
All that number tels us is how hard it will be to slip around him ... he can aswell be just ignorant, distracted, focused on sonething else, or simply sleeping (even if on duty) ... but even as such he cant ignore obvious threat.

Stealth just shouldnt equal "being undetectable by any means" ... and if (and that alone is a HUGE if ... its not even "a" ... its THE huge if ... thats how huge it is) it should mean "being undetectable by any means" ... there simply shouldnt be any check in the first place, since its effectively pointless.

Well its not my fault that D&D isnt played with 10.000 sided sice to mimic smaller chances.
Still even chance 0.000001% =/= impossible.

Probably been suggested before, but seems to me the better solution would be to keep critical fail but for skill checks where the player don't have proficiency only.

Isn't inspiration an already existing counter to critical misses on dialogues?

This would mean a new system on top of the existing system, which - at least in my experience - even after 2 years of EA still has bugs.

Your proposal sure sounds nice, but in practice the outcome is just the same as not making NAT 1 an auto-fail. So I would prefer to have less systems aka less possibilities for bugs.

The difference would be less dice rolls (for the player), which in and of itself can be an improvement, especially when having a situation as you described in your previous post (10 traps in a room), but for me I prefer simplier solutions over complicated ones (aka new system on top of a system) where the result would be (approximately) the same, hence i vote for abolish NAT 1 = failure.

That dont really sounds effective. O_o
sry. :-/

Once again: go get more familiar with the system. Nothing here is just roleplay interpetation. Numbers in D&D do have their interpretation by the book. You get -5 to passive checks when you have disadvantage. Guess what gives disadvantage on perception checks? Being deaf and/or blind! We here are forced to work with both at once since the game doesn't really work with hearing.
And no one says here that steath should be undetectable by any means. I'm among those who insisted that stealth shouldn't be just walking around those vision cones and hearing should exist. But you lost the point that stealth already opposed by 10+Perception of the opponent. Most of our opponents will have 10 and even more for us to roll against. Even if they are distracted, because that's what passive perception is, it's how good you notice things around you when you're not intentionally paying attention to them. If we remove auto fail on 1 for stealth check we still will fail, when rolling 1 in most cases. So you can just leave stealth out of this conversation entirely, it won't win anything from removed auto-fail in normal situations, we just won't auto-faill to stealth against deaf and blind anymore. You may say that said deaf and blind could get some compensatory feeling of environment, but that would mean that he has some points in perception and his passive perception goes above 5 and we once again get a good chance to fail against him.
There is no such thing as just numbers D&D, they have meaning and rules for going up and down. Larian here simply broke one of those rules and throw away the meaning that way.

Would we?
I mean, last time i was paying atention to skillchecks, it was with Astarion and i had 12-15 bonus!

//Edit:
And what else is inability to fail while rolling 1 if not this?

Would love to see sources of those bonuses. There could be messed up numbers pretty easily or you're not saying that it was with advantage or Shadowheart's buff, which is godly powers and failing because of some stupid 1 with them sounds even more stupid.
There is no such thing as inability to fail stealth check while rolling 1 in normal circumstances. And I explained why already. Rolling 1 makes us fail even at easy tasks that has 5DC for the rest on this levels they are just making us fail more often. Stealth check normally has at least 10DC.

Anyway. My last answer to you on this topic. You can go read the book and do some math yourself.

Not sure which version of pathfinder you were playing but things like lockpick and such we would always take 10 on.

1 was still a failure. 20 was not always a success, still had to go against the DC which could be nutty in mythic games.

As for what was homebrew in our games idk, because I didn't DM, but I recall older versions of tabletop rules = 1 = fail.

Sure we can do math ...

So Astarion starts at Dex 17 ... on level 4 its 19 ... using Ethel hair 20 ... that means +3-5
Since he is profficient in Stealth its +2 ... +3 on level 5 ... but he have Expertise there so actualy +4 resp. +6 ...
Drow Leather armor that is simply looted from container, there is no hard fight (Bulette can easily be avoided) or long quest ... you simply come and get it ... gives another +2
Same story goes on that Ring you find on rise road ... another +2
Also Astarion is a Vampire and if he drinks some blood he get +1 til Long rest ...

And just to have it covered all if you kill Duergars, Sovereign will give you Bliss Spores that gives you 1d6 on ability checks ...
There is ofc Guidance that gives you another 1d4 ...
And blessing of trickster wich is cantrip and gives you advantage for Stealth rolls.

So ...
Astarion on level 1-3 if i count corectly have +12 on Stealth ...
On level 4 he have +13/+14 depensing on of he allready used that hair ...
And on level 5 +15/+16 ...

And that still dont include his rolls NOR Bliss Spores, guidance, or blessing of trickster ... wich are all free.
But if we would count them ... we can reach ridiculous +17-26 AND ADVANTAGE ... and that is still just bonus to our roll!

Meaning ... unless i count incorectly ... since we are talking about rolling 1 ...
Our guard would need AT THE VERY LEAST pasive peeception 19+ to discover Astarion.
AND
Even that is only if Astarion would be incredibly unlucky to roll 1 for his skill check, bless and spores SIMULTANEOUSLY ... and there is still advantage from blessing of trickster ... i refuse to calculate chances for that so i just say they are incredibly low.

Shame you refuse to tell how exactly are we suposed to "easily fail" this monstrosity.

Patch 9 has crit hits and crit fails in and out of combat. We can tell Larian how each of these situations feel. For me, the relevant questions are:
1. Does the crit do anything special?
2. Would anything be different if I'd rolled a 19 (or 2) instead of a 20 (or 1)?
3. If I miss, can I try again?

In Combat

• Critical Hit: Double damage feels great! Rolling a 19 would probably have been a hit, but with less impact. Thumbs up for crit hit!
• Critical Miss: A crit miss is just a miss. Also, rolling a 2 probably misses. A miss never feels great, but the critical part is *shrug emoji*. Just try again next turn.

Skill Ckecks

• Critical Success: Feels like nothing. The only reward is not having to sit through the animations of every bonus added one at a time (which should be streamlined anyway). Unless attempting a check the PC has no business trying, a 19 also succeeds. Nat 20s aren't special here.
• Critical Fail: Crit fails are just fails. No feel-bad in that sense. But, assuming the PC's skills line up with the check, rolling a 2 will succeed a good chunk of the time. Worse, rolling a 1 sometimes would have been enough if the crit fail rule didn't exist. That feels awful.
  There are rerolls: Fine with thieve's tools as those are in good supply; not great with inspiration, especially if several successive checks are required, especially especially if your paladin seems to be rolling persuasion checks with a d10. Emotionally, crit fails range from annoying to let's-stick-a-few-more-needles-in-the-Swen-Vincke-voodoo-doll.

In the end, I agree with OP's suggestion: Please remove the one case which provides nothing but grief.

It doesn't provide nothing but grief, in my opinion. It is natural to fail sometimes even in things you are good at. It makes a story believable and interactions deeper.

As for the combat, the only remark I'd make is that critical misses matter. Because 95% to hit is not 100%. This auto-miss detached from your stats also makes fights unpredictable in a healthy way. May be it itches the nerves of min-maxers and save-scummers but for me it makes the game fun. Extra effects for crit misses would be nice though. If you hate crit misses, play a halfling

I do feel a combat Critical Miss more than a miss with a 2, given I don’t even get chance to apply my bonuses. But that’s not a bad thing, and I agree it doesn’t feel as consequential as a skill fail, given all being well I’ll get another opportunity to attack, whereas I only get a limited number of chances at skill checks. Perhaps only one, if I’m out of inspiration and it’s not one other companions can try!

In skill checks, it bugs me that the game doesn’t give any feedback about critical fails or successes which is extremely confusing to start with, particularly for players not familiar with D&D. If this is kept, then at the very least the same sort of feedback as we get in combat would be helpful, such as the text saying “Critical Fail” or “Critical Success” rather than just the normal “Fail” or “Success”. I do agree rolling a natural 20 isn’t that wow in early access, because there are hardly any checks that require more than 20, but presumably it could get more important as the game progresses.

As to whether they do keep skill crit fails/successes I think I might already have said that I’m slightly in favour as I perversely enjoy the element of peril and occasional pain, but am happy to revert to 5e if that’s the majority view.

Though I will say that yesterday I rolled a natural 1 for the first time and failed on the final line of dialogue when dealing with the injured mind flayer in the wrecked nautiloid. The results were quite fun to see, but only because I’d saved just before. There really should be an auto-save when approaching this encounter!

I don't find it natural to fail at things you're good at. When's the last time you failed to tie your shoes? If that's too simple an example, consider this: if you know the trick to making mayonnaise, you will never ever fail.

Also, (still purely subjectively) I find it hurts believability when my charismatic paladin fails to persuade someone with a sound argument that can only fail on a 1. What's the story justification for it not working? Did the paladin accidentaly flip the bird?

(All of this has been mentioned in the thread. I'm just trying to provide Larian with a data point).

I agree with all of that, with the caveat that exactly 95% to hit is vanishingly rare in my experience. Rolling a 1 doesn't really need to have a special rule to trip players up. Still, I'm pro-crit-miss for the reasons you mentioned.

You can alaways do a mistake, even at things you are excellent at. Just compare professional basketball players doing free throws at practice (were they are hitting dozens in a row) and during a match (where hitting above 80% is considered good).

If people claim that they never fail things that they think they are good at they don't live in reality or are not honest to themselves. Besides making a mistake sometimes random things happen that distract you or interfere. Is it 1 in 20 times you do something? Maybe not. But none of the D&D rules are realistical to that level of detail. There is a reason most systems have this rule and actually One D&D seems to be adding it to the next iteration of the ruleset.

I think that when it comes to dice rolls and natural 1s, the key to remember is that players should only roll the dice when there's a possibility of failure, and when that failure would actually be interesting/meaningful. So tying your shoes should never call for a roll in the first place. If a paladin gives a truly sound, even exceptional argument to persuade someone, then the DM should think hard about if the paladin needs to roll at all. And if the paladin does need to roll and rolls a 1, then that can represent the NPC simply being stubborn or illogical or erratic, something that doesn't require the paladin to retroactively not have made a good roll.

Strongly disagree with claim that Crittical Failure in ability checks adds "nothing but grief" ...

- For one, it justifies the very existence of ability check ...
If you cant fail, there is no reason to roll ... nor is situation anyhow tense, and speaking for myself, im not even happy from guaranteed sucesses ... if anything all that rolling animation anoys me.

- For two, there are roleplay reasons ...
Sometimes i simply want to fail, if nothing else, then to just know what will happen ... yes, im aware that i can easily create social illiterate that will fail most rolls, bcs his Charisma will be 8 (or 3 if we get rolled stats) ... but for such argument i ask you to focus on the first word in this sentence: "sometimes". :P

- And for three, (and this one will be possible little controversial) I dont give a shit.
Yes, i know its not really an argument pro or against, but lets be reasonable for a second ... how often do we critticaly fail? I dont know about you, but i usualy see around 3-5 crittical fails during single EA playtrough ...
That is simply something that in my honest opinion cant really create enough negative responces to be worth atention.
Just my opinion.

3 Days ago ...
My shoelaces were wet and frozen from the snow, also those boots wasnt exactly "new" if you know what i mean, so when i pulled them to tie my shoes tight (i dont really like snow in my boots) ... they ripped off.

Ergo i failed.

You are adding values ...
Quality of argument have none in PC game, since computer is not a DM that adjust your difficiulty if you create something really reasonable ... so ... sory, but it dont really matter how "good" your argument is. :-/

Also you are working with presumation that other side is even willing to accept your argument, or as the matter of fact, even listen to whatever you say ...

There is old joke we say in Czech:
If your wife is mad at you, pat her head and say: "Calm down, you are histerical." She will realize that you are corect and calm imediately.
(Juuust for the record i strongly advice AGAINST trying it. )

See? Its not that hard to fail with completely factual and sound argument, nor is it so hard to make things even worse ... much, much worse.

//Edit:
And remember ... if you remove possibility to fail, just bcs you have enough charisma and ability bonuses for persuation, you can easily end up with other bad extreme:

Yup, that sounds like a cricital fail if ever there was one. I got a good laugh out of that little anecdote.

Touché!

While a -5 rule could work with an actual DM, given the breadth of characters here... I can only narratively blame Tav's hidden -15 wisdom modifier. You know, the thing that let's you "eat" wine for a week and be /seemingly/ unaffected.

That must also be why druid Tav is so weak and concentration fails randomly. I've cracked the code!