PDA

View Full Version : Critical Failures



Fawsto
2009-12-27, 09:10 PM
This is just a technical question:


Where in the books it says that there are no crit failures during skill checks? Does the books even say something like that? I am a tad confused around here.

Thanks

Kelb_Panthera
2009-12-27, 09:14 PM
The book doesn't actually spell out that you don't automatically fail or succeed on a skill check if you roll a 1 or 20. However, it doesn't say that you do auto-fail/succeed on a 1/20. Since it's not explicitly stated that you auto-whatever, you don't.

Sinfire Titan
2009-12-27, 09:15 PM
Nat 1's and Nat 20's are discussed in the Combat Statistics section of the PHB:


Automatic Misses and Hits
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.


Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.


These are the only rolls mentioned to specifically fail on a Nat 1 or succeed on a Nat 20. People assume that this extends to all d20 rolls without actually checking.

Eldariel
2009-12-27, 09:17 PM
P. 63 in the PHB: "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

Fawsto
2009-12-27, 09:18 PM
Thx, just wondering where I'd find this.

My DM ruled that to skill checks and I could not find a reason in the books to counter this.

No big deal.

Thx anyways.

Daefos
2009-12-27, 10:21 PM
My DM ruled that to skill checks

1. Attempt to Craft a device that will grant Divine Ranks to you when it is used.
2. Take 20.
3. Win D&D.

Swordgleam
2009-12-27, 10:24 PM
These are the only rolls mentioned to specifically fail on a Nat 1 or succeed on a Nat 20. People assume that this extends to all d20 rolls without actually checking.

Most people I've gamed with know that it technically only applies to attacks and saves, but house-rule it to apply to any time you roll a d20, ever. I personally think a 1/10 chance of something absurd happening every time you roll a die is great.

Tavar
2009-12-27, 10:26 PM
See, I think it's absurd to use that rule. Otherwise, as Daefos above shows, things are even more ridiculous from level 1.

Swordgleam
2009-12-27, 10:42 PM
I don't know anyone who allows taking a 20 to equal a critical success. It's supposed to be something special - something that only happens when you roll a d20 and see a 20 come up. Likewise, if you took a 10 on something you had a -9 penalty to (for some reason), I don't know anyone who would rule it as a critical fumble.

I've usually seen it explained as the power of heroes to do incredible things. The chance of rolling a 20 on that otherwise impossible skill check is what separates the PCs from those around them.

Tavar
2009-12-27, 10:46 PM
Actually, taking 20 should work like that, as when you take 20 you're assumed to roll enough that one of the die eventually comes up 20. It's just you don't have to sit there rolling the die that many times.

Still, there's some things that you just shouldn't be able to do, even if you roll a 20 at low levels, and conversely, things you should always be able to do, even if you roll a 1 at high levels.

Swordgleam
2009-12-27, 11:08 PM
Yeah, but the rules for taking a 20 assume that a 20 on a skill check isn't extra-special, it's just whatever your bonus + 20 gets you. I believe I have also seen rules somewhere (cannot remember where) that state that in order to take 20, you have to play through the consequences of having rolled a 1 while trying to get there.

Stating a game-breaking goal and then rolling until you get a 20 on your check is an obvious abuse of the spirit of the system. I'm sure most creative DMs can come up with plenty of ways to make that fail miserably. A lvl 1 character trying to leap over a palace who rolls a 20 on their jump check doesn't necessarily make it - but they might snag the edge of a tapestry hanging out of a fairly high-up window, a greater distance than their total of 27 (or whatever) would ordinarily merit.

As for the crit fumbles at high levels, I like them mostly for humor value. I once had the entire party roll 1s on a DC 5 acrobatics check to climb a rubble-strewn staircase. But you could also argue that even mighty heroes fail sometimes, etc etc.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-27, 11:12 PM
As for the crit fumbles at high levels, I like them mostly for humor value. I once had the entire party roll 1s on a DC 5 acrobatics check to climb a rubble-strewn staircase. But you could also argue that even mighty heroes fail sometimes, etc etc.The problem is, for example, that a high-level player probably has a higher Swim check than Michael Phelps. Are you really going to say that 1 time out of 20, he simply flounders in place?

And really, if you're going to let nat 20s be auto-successes, expect the players to abuse that. Skills are already broken, don't break them further.

Swordgleam
2009-12-27, 11:16 PM
Yes. Even the best swimmer in the world can get distracted by something, screw up the angle of a dive slightly, etc. If you have a +20 to swim and crit fumble, you probably just swallow a bit of bad-tasting water, whereas someone with a +2 to swim who crit fumbles is in much worse shape.

In every game I've played in, 20s on skill checks are crit successes, and I've never seen anyone abuse it. Perhaps if it were added to a game in progress, abusing it might be the first thing that people try. But when you've always played that way, it really doesn't come up. As I said, any reasonably creative DM should be able to find interesting ways to punish PCs who are obviously attempting to abuse the system.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-27, 11:17 PM
I use critical success/failure for skill checks, within reason. Then again, as a DM, I have a lot of "grey area".

For instance, a player with a +10 in jump wants to clear 40 foot chasm. A natural 20 should do it. A player with a +10 jump wants to clear a 100 foot chasm. A natural 20 couldn't do it. There is not set point at which it switches, but then...

Also, I rule that taking 20 grants you whatever you exactly what you would get if you rolled a 19. Well, except that it's 1 higher. You shouldn't have a stroke of luck because you are presistant. You should perform at your best when you work at it, not better than your best.

icefractal
2009-12-27, 11:18 PM
As for the crit fumbles at high levels, I like them mostly for humor value. I once had the entire party roll 1s on a DC 5 acrobatics check to climb a rubble-strewn staircase. But you could also argue that even mighty heroes fail sometimes, etc etc.The problem is that 1 and 20 are not as rare as people seem to think they are. Sure, even epic heroes fail "sometimes". But not once in every twenty times. Do you think that if an elite group of SEAL-equivalents, let's say 100 people, tries to climb into a boat in shallow water, with no adverse conditions, five of them should slip overboard or do something else stupid while doing so? Do you think an expert mountain climber should have an accident every two minutes of climbing, even on an easy slope?

Swordgleam
2009-12-27, 11:23 PM
Do you think that if an elite group of SEAL-equivalents, let's say 100 people, tries to climb into a boat in shallow water, with no adverse conditions, five of them should slip overboard or do something else stupid while doing so? Do you think an expert mountain climber should have an accident every two minutes of climbing, even on an easy slope?

No, but I'll bet that at least five stub their toe on something, get part of their equipment caught on something, make more noise than they intend to, or some similar minor misfortune. Like I said, if you have +bazillion to a task and roll a 1, it's going to be far more minor a catastrophe than if it's something you're already bad at. And while I'm no expert climber, I tend to get into an incredibly uncomfortable position and/or skin my knuckles at least every two minutes while I climb.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-27, 11:24 PM
The problem is that 1 and 20 are not as rare as people seem to think they are. Sure, even epic heroes fail "sometimes". But not once in every twenty times. Do you think that if an elite group of SEAL-equivalents, let's say 100 people, tries to climb into a boat in shallow water, with no adverse conditions, five of them should slip overboard or do something else stupid while doing so? Do you think an expert mountain climber should have an accident every two minutes of climbing, even on an easy slope?

This is why the d20 system is less than perfect. 4d6, having a critical failure only on 4, is considerably more realistic. It's also much harder to play with, because nothing is very simple.

Also, those SEALS and climbers could take 10. They're that good at it. When you go for random amounts of success, you will trip 5% of the time. Because you're not necessarily focused.

Swordgleam
2009-12-27, 11:26 PM
Also, those SEALS and climbers could take 10. They're that good at it. When you go for random amounts of success, you will trip 5% of the time. Because you're not necessarily focused.

That's a good point, and something I totally forgot - you're only supposed to even require rolls when it's something that COULD fail. So yeah, failing badly 1/20 times you try something that you have a chance of failing at makes sense.

Fawsto
2009-12-27, 11:48 PM
Isn't it impossible to take 10 on Climb Checks that could cost your liefe? I mean, dramatic tension?

Certainly I am not entirely fond of having fumbles on rolling 1's on skill checks. I believe that after some time, let's say, level 10, where those skills are at a +13 just from ranks, you are badass enought to never comit a stupid mistake.

C'mon, after level 5 you are already one of the most acknowledgeable persons in the world. Level 10 is just, like, 2 times this badass (8 times if you are a caster).

drengnikrafe
2009-12-27, 11:54 PM
Isn't it impossible to take 10 on Climb Checks that could cost your liefe? I mean, dramatic tension?


That is.... absolutely correct. However, the example given was a very skilled climber on a light slope. If he tripped and fell, he would get, at most, a small cut. That's not life-threatening.

Think of how much stuff in D&D is retroactive. You can take a level in wizard, and it's assumed you were learning it, even if you didn't. Under some DMs. You rolled a 1 on your climb check? You forgot to put your boots on this morning. Or forgot to secure a pinton properly.

Or, in the case of extremely skilled people, they took a feat to make sure they could take 10 on that.

Swordgleam
2009-12-27, 11:54 PM
I'd assume that if you're climbing a rough wall in fair weather with no one shooting at you, you can take a 10 even though a fall could theoretically break your neck.

I don't think any level of expertise in a given subject renders someone perfect at it.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 02:58 PM
I don't think any level of expertise in a given subject renders someone perfect at it.

True. There are, however, levels of expertise in a great many subjects that will render someone capable of not failing dramatically 5% of the time.

There are also a great number of feats that poorly skilled people can not accomplish even 5% of the time.

Swordgleam
2009-12-30, 09:24 PM
True. There are, however, levels of expertise in a great many subjects that will render someone capable of not failing dramatically 5% of the time.

There are also a great number of feats that poorly skilled people can not accomplish even 5% of the time.

I'm not sure I've been getting all of what I'm trying to say across clearly. You're only supposed to require a roll on an action that could fail, and that such a failure would matter. Just to pick a reasonable-sounding number, let's say 1/5th of the time, something you routinely do that you're good at has a possibility of failing in a meaningful way. So 1/5th of the time, you have a 5% chance of dramatic failure - or 1% of the time, total.

And as I've been saying for crits on 1s, they're what separates heroes from ordinary people. A poorly skilled hero has much more of a chance than a poorly skilled normal person. And further, saying "I will do absurd thing with skill X" and rolling a 20 on that check doesn't guarantee that the absurd thing you asked for happens - just that you do better than a 19 + 1 would have gotten you.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 09:29 PM
So, on a roll of a 1 I've what...failed to tie a knot? Despite this character being supposed a better knot tier than every boy scout to have ever lived?

Suddenly fall down a slope I can climb with ease?

Disguise myself as....myself?

What does a critical failure mean? And why is it at all realistic?

The whole "not autosuccess but indefinably better" seems to be well in DM fiat land on a case by case basis. I dislike "rules" like that.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-30, 09:32 PM
Isn't this why we have the variant rule that was originally intended for things that actually had critical success/failure?

Something to the effect of "If you roll a 20, treat it as a 30. If you roll a 1, treat it as a -10. You may still succeed (or fail), if you're good enough".

So, somebody with a +20 in climb would still be able to scale a DC 10 hill on a natural 1.

(DMG: Page 25)

Swordgleam
2009-12-30, 09:33 PM
So, on a roll of a 1 I've what...failed to tie a knot?

That's what I'm trying to get across. You don't need to roll to tie a knot, so you never fail.

If you're referring to the climbing example, then maybe you forgot to tie a knot - out of the hundred other things you had to do right to make climbing work. Maybe it's that you didn't pound in a piton far enough, maybe you misjudged the strength of a section of rock, maybe there was guano on the ledge you reached for and it caused your hand to slip. It doesn't mean you're an incompetent who can't tie knots, it just means one of a hundred things that could have gone wrong, did.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 09:36 PM
That's what I'm trying to get across. You don't need to roll to tie a knot, so you never fail.

So, you never need to roll for use rope?


If you're referring to the climbing example, then maybe you forgot to tie a knot - out of the hundred other things you had to do right to make climbing work. Maybe it's that you didn't pound in a piton far enough, maybe you misjudged the strength of a section of rock, maybe there was guano on the ledge you reached for and it caused your hand to slip. It doesn't mean you're an incompetent who can't tie knots, it just means one of a hundred things that could have gone wrong, did.

This means that once per two minutes, an experienced climber makes a catastrophic mistake.

I don't see the realism here.

Zaydos
2009-12-30, 09:52 PM
When I do use crit success and failure on skills (which is not often) I only have a nat 20 on the first try be a crit success. So if your first try to jump the castle is a nat 20... you still aren't jumping 100 feet. A nat 1 is just an auto failure or -10. A nat 20 is a critical success but has to be reasonable (your standing high jump is 10-ft? Maybe).

Stormlock
2009-12-30, 10:04 PM
I always liked rerolling with a -/+ 20 to the roll on a crit success or failure. Allows for both dramatic success and failure in extremely rare circumstances, and true experts not failing a full 5% of the time.

It's not any more ridiculous than the combat rolls are (Unless you figure an untrained child can hit a man sized target from 1100 feet away with a crossbow 5% of the time.)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-30, 10:17 PM
The whole "not autosuccess but indefinably better" seems to be well in DM fiat land on a case by case basis. I dislike "rules" like that.

This.

I trust you not to be unreasonable with critical failures/successes. It's just that the way you're going about it combines DM fiat with hard rules in a way I find quite distasteful. Just a pet peeve or something, I guess.

Zeful
2009-12-30, 10:22 PM
Isn't it impossible to take 10 on Climb Checks that could cost your liefe? I mean, dramatic tension? You're thinking of the Take 20 rules. You can't take 10 on something when you would be distracted (combat nearby for Pick Locks, being attacked while swimming or climbing (unless you have a Swim/Climb Speed)). So if you're dangling on the edge of slick stone cliff with no other handholds (I believe that's a DC25 check) and can only make it on a 15+ roll, you can't take 20 (as the 1 you are assumed to roll as part of that makes you fail by 10 or more, which means you fall), and taking 10 (roll of 20 in this case) doesn't do anything (You fail, so you can't make progress, but you don't fail by enough to fall).

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 10:28 PM
You're thinking of the Take 20 rules. You can't take 10 on something when you would be distracted (combat nearby for Pick Locks, being attacked while swimming or climbing (unless you have a Swim/Climb Speed)). So if you're dangling on the edge of slick stone cliff with no other handholds (I believe that's a DC25 check) and can only make it on a 15+ roll, you can't take 20 (as the 1 you are assumed to roll as part of that makes you fail by 10 or more, which means you fall), and taking 10 (roll of 20 in this case) doesn't do anything (You fail, so you can't make progress, but you don't fail by enough to fall).

If you "don't roll unless there's a chance of rolling low enough to fail", then isn't autofailing on a 1 completely pointless?

Bibliomancer
2009-12-30, 10:30 PM
This.

I trust you not to be unreasonable with critical failures/successes. It's just that the way you're going about it combines DM fiat with hard rules in a way I find quite distasteful. Just a pet peeve or something, I guess.

Personally, when DMing I tend to allow natural ones and twenties (mainly natural twenties) to be special events, if not automatic successes. For example, if someone rolled a natural twenty on a search check, they might find an imperceptible trace of an enemy who is in the area, or a random object dropped there centuries ago that still has some value.

I am very strongly against the idea that natural ones and twenties have to result in something happening, though. If this were the case, consider the following:

-walking on a flat surface is a DC -5 or so Balance check, with the added caveat of being so low that is does not render you flat-footed
-combat is a stressful situation

If you combine the above two with "natural one automatically means something bad," then, on average, every 5 rounds (for a four person party) someone trips, reducing their speed by 5 feet or whatever you feel like applying as a penalty. Does this mean that you are going to require players to roll an additional d20 each round to see if this minor penalty crops up?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 10:39 PM
Wow. Add that to every skill, and we have us a three stooges simulator.

Zeful
2009-12-30, 10:58 PM
If you "don't roll unless there's a chance of rolling low enough to fail", then isn't autofailing on a 1 completely pointless?

Not the point I was addressing. Fawsto was asking if there was a restriction on when you take 10 based on whether or not failing would be life threatening. There is no such restriction. The restriction Fawsto was referring to was on taking 20 when failing (which will occur due to the rule assuming that you roll every number on the die) would have a potentially dangerous consequence.

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 12:14 AM
-walking on a flat surface is a DC -5 or so Balance check, with the added caveat of being so low that is does not render you flat-footed
-combat is a stressful situation


I'm not sure how I can more clearly communicate that skill checks only need to be made in circumstances out of the ordinary where there is a chance for meaningful failure. Combat on a flat surface is ordinary.

I understand that allowing crit failures and successes on skill checks is purely a matter of preference, and some people won't like it. I am merely trying to explain why I think it is valid and not any less realistic than the rest of D&D. Saying, "If I interpret your house rule in an absurd way, it becomes absurd" doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

SethFahad
2009-12-31, 12:42 AM
1. Attempt to Craft a device that will grant Divine Ranks to you when it is used.
2. Take 20.
3. Win D&D.

Woa-woa... guys, you are NOT ALLOWED to take 20 on craft checks!!!

You may take 10 but not 20! Read the rules!

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 01:09 AM
I'm not sure how I can more clearly communicate that skill checks only need to be made in circumstances out of the ordinary where there is a chance for meaningful failure. Combat on a flat surface is ordinary.But...if you can fail anyways, why auto-fail on a 1?

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 01:18 AM
But...if you can fail anyways, why auto-fail on a 1?

Because it's not "can fail" in terms of "the math makes this possible" but "can fail" in terms of "in the game world, this action could fail if this character attempted it." It might be true that rolling a 1 would not be a failure because the modifier is so high. Also, a "critical failure" is usually a little more spectacular than a typical one.

SethFahad
2009-12-31, 01:31 AM
Is jumping a 100ft chasm with a nat20(jump skill=+7) more absurd than hiting a monster with AC 67 with a nat20(att.bonus=+7)???
Or making the save vs death or die with DC 40...

Cute_Riolu
2009-12-31, 01:31 AM
I allow both, but only for the fluff, and only where appropriate. I like laughing with my friends about how they failed to see the wall and ran into it, or about how they managed to discern the ancestors of a creature based on its tracks. It's a means to make funnehs, and nothing more, to me.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 01:46 AM
Because it's not "can fail" in terms of "the math makes this possible" but "can fail" in terms of "in the game world, this action could fail if this character attempted it." It might be true that rolling a 1 would not be a failure because the modifier is so high. Also, a "critical failure" is usually a little more spectacular than a typical one.Except most of the time the mod is high enough that failure should be impossible. The character's mod at level 10 is probably similar to the most skilled person at that task in IRL history. A failure to make any progress while swimming is ridiculous for someone that makes Michael Phelps look like a fire elemental.

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 05:01 PM
Except most of the time the mod is high enough that failure should be impossible. The character's mod at level 10 is probably similar to the most skilled person at that task in IRL history. A failure to make any progress while swimming is ridiculous for someone that makes Michael Phelps look like a fire elemental.

Once again: swimming in calm water on a calm day is such an ordinary situation that, for a character even trained at all in Swim, it shouldn't require a check. Now, someone swimming in rough water on a stormy day in heavy armor while trying to avoid lightning bolts being shot at them by a wizard, that person might screw up no matter how good a swimmer they were.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 05:06 PM
Once again: swimming in calm water on a calm day is such an ordinary situation that, for a character even trained at all in Swim, it shouldn't require a check. Now, someone swimming in rough water on a stormy day in heavy armor while trying to avoid lightning bolts being shot at them by a wizard, that person might screw up no matter how good a swimmer they were.Would you call an Olympic race a situation that doesn't require rolling?

Cybren
2009-12-31, 05:06 PM
Woa-woa... guys, you are NOT ALLOWED to take 20 on craft checks!!!

You may take 10 but not 20! Read the rules!

It was a faster way of saying "try 20 times, you've probably made at least one by the end."

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 05:52 PM
Is jumping a 100ft chasm with a nat20(jump skill=+7) more absurd than hiting a monster with AC 67 with a nat20(att.bonus=+7)???
Or making the save vs death or die with DC 40...

I would say... yes. Because of the outside possibilities.

Someone with an AC of 67 could've been standing still, or off guard. You could've hit a chink in their armor as their magic items acted in a less than perfect fashion for a moment.
As for the poison? Hey, what luck, it never actually got into your system.

Give me a circumstance in which somebody who, under normal circumstances doesn't generally clear a 20 foot gap, could clear one five times that length.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 05:54 PM
As for the poison? Hey, what luck, it never actually got into your system.


Uh...that's not what a save vs poison is.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 05:59 PM
I am aware. But lots of stuff in game is retroactive. Plus, that was the only thing I could think of, within any level of reason, that would allow a frail person to fight off a poison that would negatively influence some of the mightiest beings on the planet.

Ravens_cry
2009-12-31, 05:59 PM
My group uses a modified version of this houserule. 1 is -10, 20 is +10, along with other modifiers. That way, one supremely skilled at something will succeed, no matter what, at very simple tasks, while a complete newbie can't rule the world 1/20 times.

Optimator
2009-12-31, 06:11 PM
Isn't it impossible to take 10 on Climb Checks that could cost your liefe? I mean, dramatic tension?


You're thinking of the Take 20 rules. You can't take 10 on something when you would be distracted (combat nearby for Pick Locks, being attacked while swimming or climbing (unless you have a Swim/Climb Speed)).

This. I mean, Climbing is the example used in the take-10 description, is it not?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 06:45 PM
Well, crit failures on skill are pointless unless it's normally an autosuccess on a 1.

Therefore, it must be a skill you're highly overqualified for. I dunno, a perform check in front of an audience perhaps. So, the equivalent of the worlds best musician fails 5% of the time he tries to play. Im not sure what failure would consist of, but it seems odd.

Or an easy knowledge check. Like...do bears attack with their claws? Clearly, something that you'll randomly forget 5% of the time.

Nope...still not making sense to me.

Noble Savant
2009-12-31, 07:18 PM
It's not any more ridiculous than the combat rolls are (Unless you figure an untrained child can hit a man sized target from 1100 feet away with a crossbow 5% of the time.)

Natural 20s are for heroes and their enemies, not random NPCs. It's one of those rules that's meant to be cinematic and increase the drama of the game, not just be stupid.

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 07:29 PM
Would you call an Olympic race a situation that doesn't require rolling?

That would require rolling, since it's competitive. And while I'm not sure how often this happens for swimmers, I know that Olympic runners are disqualified scarily often for leaving the blocks a millisecond too soon. What would you call that, if not a critical fumble?




Well, crit failures on skill are pointless unless it's normally an autosuccess on a 1.

Therefore, it must be a skill you're highly overqualified for.

We are arguing in circles. A crit failure is not the same thing as an autofailure. It's a spectacular failure - if such a thing makes any sense under the circumstances. It means that rolling a 1 is worse than rolling a 2 with an extra -1 penalty.


Like...do bears attack with their claws? Clearly, something that you'll randomly forget 5% of the time.

Again, not something you would have to roll for.

Larspcus2
2009-12-31, 07:46 PM
That would require rolling, since it's competitive. And while I'm not sure how often this happens for swimmers, I know that Olympic runners are disqualified scarily often for leaving the blocks a millisecond too soon. What would you call that, if not a critical fumble?

That's called the stupidity of the olypmic rules on false starts. If a runner false starts, then everyone lines up again, and if anyone false starts again, they are disqualified. There is NO incentive to not false start on the first try, because, the penalty is applied to everyone equally. From wikipedia:
This rule has led to some sprinters deliberately false-starting to gain a psychological advantage: an individual with a slower reaction time might false-start, forcing the faster starters to wait and be sure of hearing the gun for the subsequent start, thereby losing some of their advantage. (They are changing this for the 2010 olympics)

False starts on the second try, however, are staggeringly rare.

Kylarra
2009-12-31, 07:49 PM
Or an easy knowledge check. Like...do bears attack with their claws? Clearly, something that you'll randomly forget 5% of the time.
Oh Bear Lore, when will you not appear?

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 07:57 PM
Oh Bear Lore, when will you not appear?

And now that I think about it, I realize I have no idea. Don't they usually mostly bite you to death? It might depends on the species of bear.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 07:58 PM
We are arguing in circles. A crit failure is not the same thing as an autofailure. It's a spectacular failure - if such a thing makes any sense under the circumstances. It means that rolling a 1 is worse than rolling a 2 with an extra -1 penalty.

Lovely. So, Im walking along a floor. A -5 balance check, I do believe. This is combat, so a stressful situation. What happens when I crit fail? Does this mean all characters fall down approximately once every two minutes in combat?

What's a critical failure on an escape artist check? You're tied to a tree. What could possibly happen?

You're an expert weaponsmith. What happens when you crit fail your craft roll? It's not like you can take 20 on this. So...you craft wooden spoons for a living, but one week out of twenty, you smash every spoon you try to make?


Again, not something you would have to roll for.

When you're looking at an animal, trying to remember traits about it, Im pretty sure you can't take 10/20 on the knowledge check in the round before combat.

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 08:00 PM
Lovely. So, Im walking along a floor. A -5 balance check, I do believe. This is combat, so a stressful situation. What happens when I crit fail? Does this mean all characters fall down approximately once every two minutes in combat?



I'm not sure how I can more clearly communicate that skill checks only need to be made in circumstances out of the ordinary where there is a chance for meaningful failure. Combat on a flat surface is ordinary.

I understand that allowing crit failures and successes on skill checks is purely a matter of preference, and some people won't like it. I am merely trying to explain why I think it is valid and not any less realistic than the rest of D&D. Saying, "If I interpret your house rule in an absurd way, it becomes absurd" doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

I'm really not sure what more I have to say here that I haven't said yet. If you don't ordinarily require balance checks to not trip during combat, why would this rule change that?

Kylarra
2009-12-31, 08:01 PM
And now that I think about it, I realize I have no idea. Don't they usually mostly bite you to death? It might depends on the species of bear.No they can also crush you to death with their thick, bestial ... arms. :smallsmile:

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 08:02 PM
No they can also crush you to death with their thick, bestial ... arms. :smallsmile:

Their BEAR arms, you mean? I'm pretty sure they have a right to them, at least in the US.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 08:02 PM
So...it's lots of DM fiat then. Got it.

I find that ridiculous in and of itself.

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 08:05 PM
Yes, it is. Though I look at it less as fiat and more as an opportunity for colorful descriptions.

So you hate DM fiat in all its forms and believe the DM should be strictly ruled by the dice? I'm genuinely curious, since I don't know too many people who are total purists when it comes to that.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 08:11 PM
Yes, it is. Though I look at it less as fiat and more as an opportunity for colorful descriptions.

So you hate DM fiat in all its forms and believe the DM should be strictly ruled by the dice? I'm genuinely curious, since I don't know too many people who are total purists when it comes to that.

Mmm? I believe the DMs should follow the rules, yes, and that the rules for a game should be laid out in advance. No midgame switches. House rules are fine so long as they are known in advance, and generally agreed upon.

It's not like this is crippling to DMs in any way...I mean, they build the encounters, the entire freaking world. CR is already pretty loose, and D&D has a LOT of options for the DMs. They shouldn't need to resort to pure fiat.

Kylarra
2009-12-31, 08:11 PM
Their BEAR arms, you mean? I'm pretty sure they have a right to them, at least in the US.You won't know unless you make a DC 20 bear lore check.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 08:11 PM
Strictly based on rules, there are no circumstances under which critical failures happen 5% of the time, even in variant rules. Unless I horribly overlooked something in Unearthed Arcana.

In fact, the only, strictly rule-based, way to go about this is on page 34 of the DMG, something that's already been brought up, and something that should make you happy.

On a 1, if you fail the check on a second roll, you experience a critical blunder. It doesn't say anything about what happens if you roll a 1 and then succeed the second roll, therefore it's safe to assume that you simply don't fail (or you can say that it does fail, but there are no rules to say that for certain). Therefore, you only fail skill checks in which you are properly proficient 1 time out of every 400. Now a climber will make a critical error once every 40 minutes. This is infrequent enough that it can be overlooked, simply because it's obnoxious to roll every round for a 1 in 400 chance at something.

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 08:24 PM
Mmm? I believe the DMs should follow the rules, yes, and that the rules for a game should be laid out in advance. No midgame switches. House rules are fine so long as they are known in advance, and generally agreed upon.

I'm not sure how this relates to that, though. Everyone knows in advance that a 1 means you fail hilariously and a 20 is better than a 19+1. I agree I would be pissed if I didn't think we had this rule, rolled a 1 on something, should have succeeded anyway, and found myself failing... but that never happens, because we discuss house rules at the start of the game.

I suppose it's really just a matter of preference. My group prefers houserules that give me, as the DM, more power, because otherwise they could just go play Dragon Age. But I do know people who emphasize the G in RPG and don't think it's a fair "contest" unless the DM players by the rules. We'd rather ignore the rules if we have to do so to make the story is more fun.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 08:31 PM
I'm not sure how this relates to that, though. Everyone knows in advance that a 1 means you fail hilariously and a 20 is better than a 19+1. I agree I would be pissed if I didn't think we had this rule, rolled a 1 on something, should have succeeded anyway, and found myself failing... but that never happens, because we discuss house rules at the start of the game.

Yes, you have rules for crit failures(and of course, not all rules are good. Crit fails without confirms are particularily bad, yes), but you don't have complete rules.

It's...if you roll a 1, and the DM feels like it, some unspecified thing happens. That's not really a rule. That's just making stuff up.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 08:36 PM
That's not really a rule. That's just making stuff up.

The entire story is something the DM made up. Possibly off the top of his head, possibly with foresight and planning.
Critical failures and successes can be fun because they are dramatic. Therefore, critical failures and successes are based more upon fluff fun than crunch fun. "You hit and deal double damage" is a lot less exciting than "You sever the orc's spleen". Granted, this is generally the case, but if you remove the specifics of the bad things that happening, criticals in either direction lose most of their appeal, and just start to get in the way.

I am willing to agree that that level of control can be negative, and, when you take D&D rules into regular life (the same rules that say you can't hear what your allies just said directly to you 45% of the time), it starts to create faults. Turning D&D rules into real life causes problems a lot. Why are you picking on this example?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 08:49 PM
The entire story is something the DM made up. Possibly off the top of his head, possibly with foresight and planning.

The story is not a rule. There are rules for HOW you play through the story.

See the difference?


Critical failures and successes can be fun because they are dramatic. Therefore, critical failures and successes are based more upon fluff fun than crunch fun.

Stormwind fallacy much?


"You hit and deal double damage" is a lot less exciting than "You sever the orc's spleen". Granted, this is generally the case, but if you remove the specifics of the bad things that happening, criticals in either direction lose most of their appeal, and just start to get in the way.

There's nothing wrong with adding flavor text, explaining WHY a crit worked. I mean, it's clearly because you hit some vital area...nothing wrong with describing that.

However, if "severing the spleen" results in some different crit effect than "Poking him in the pancreas", you've gone off the deep end.


I am willing to agree that that level of control can be negative, and, when you take D&D rules into regular life (the same rules that say you can't hear what your allies just said directly to you 45% of the time), it starts to create faults. Turning D&D rules into real life causes problems a lot. Why are you picking on this example?

If you can't hear what allies just said to you, something is terribly wrong. People talking is a DC 0 listen check.

Now, there are good rules and bad rules, yes...but if you can't describe it in such a way that other people can understand what the effects are...it's not a rule. It's just random stuff you do.

If you say, whenever we roll on a 1, we roll on a crit fumble table...that's a rule. We can discuss if it's good or bad, but we can objectively discuss it. When you say "Sometimes, when someone rolls a 1, the DM makes stuff up"...yeah, we have no idea what that means.

MeTheGameGuy
2009-12-31, 08:50 PM
What's a critical failure on an escape artist check? You're tied to a tree. What could possibly happen?
You end up get actually tightening the rope as you squirm and contort, increasing the DC for your next attempt. I think this was explicitly stated in the PHB somewhere.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 08:52 PM
It's not mentioned in the SRD.

Stormlock
2009-12-31, 08:53 PM
Keep in mind this is climbing in a circumstance that doesn't allow you to take 10; I can see a climber in real life failing in some way every two minutes if he's trying to climb a relatively easy rock face... while people are throwing rocks at his junk.:smallbiggrin:

And listen DC is 0 to know they're talking, add 10 to understand. Throw in a wisdom penalty and things start to look grim. Forget about combat.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 08:57 PM
Keep in mind this is climbing in a circumstance that doesn't allow you to take 10; I can see a climber in real life failing in some way every two minutes if he's trying to climb a relatively easy rock face... while people are throwing rocks at his junk.:smallbiggrin:

Yknow, players don't HAVE to take 10/20 in every place it's available.

I mean, I may not take 10/20 just because I don't want to waste buckets of time constantly.

Keep in mind that most skills, including climb, already include penalties for failing. Fail a climb check by 5, and fall. If people are throwing rocks at your junk, I presume that's an unfavorable circumstance, and will affect your necessary DC.

Stormlock
2009-12-31, 09:11 PM
Taking 10 takes no extra time. If you can take ten (I.e. you're not in combat or in a howling blizzard or maintain your programmed illusion of Seinfeld) and it'll succeed, you should. It should probably be assumed that you will, negating any need to ask for a roll to begin with.

But if you have to roll in a situation where you otherwise wouldn't fail, I don't see a 5% chance of failure as being very outlandish. Assuming no modifiers, a knotted rope against a wall is DC 0. Given a distracting circumstance I can see an unskilled climber failing 5% of the time.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 09:37 PM
Taking 10 takes no extra time. If you can take ten (I.e. you're not in combat or in a howling blizzard or maintain your programmed illusion of Seinfeld) and it'll succeed, you should. It should probably be assumed that you will, negating any need to ask for a roll to begin with.

Well, barring the possibility of different levels of success, or the player not knowing the DC, and thus, not knowing to take 10.

In actual practice...players will do this most of the time, yes, but not every time.


But if you have to roll in a situation where you otherwise wouldn't fail, I don't see a 5% chance of failure as being very outlandish. Assuming no modifiers, a knotted rope against a wall is DC 0. Given a distracting circumstance I can see an unskilled climber failing 5% of the time.

But a skilled climber failing exactly the same amount of the time? While a 5% failure rate may be appropriate some of the time, it's not appropriate all of the time.

But if you use the standard rule of unfavorable circumstances providing a penalty, an untrained climber with a poor roll could still fail a DC 0 check.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 09:44 PM
If you say, whenever we roll on a 1, we roll on a crit fumble table...that's a rule. We can discuss if it's good or bad, but we can objectively discuss it. When you say "Sometimes, when someone rolls a 1, the DM makes stuff up"...yeah, we have no idea what that means.

If there is going to be a rule for every single instance, why have a DM in the first place? I don't know about you, but as DM, I like to have SOME power over the world. Really, at the point of a rule for every instance, not only have you strangled every element of creativity or freeform playing out, you've also got a gargantuan pile of houserules for every possible instance. The DM is then the person who tells you whether or not you win with what you rolled, and describes, based off a page, what happened.

D&D is, in part, about the freedom, and about the fun. Why have a rule for everything? If you need it to stop a rampant DM, that I could understand. The DM that says "You rolled a natural 1, please leave the game group". Yeah, that's wrong. But a lot of groups aren't like that.

If we're here to discuss strait RAW, as I posted once before, this discussion is moot. We're discussing a house rule as it is. There is no "objective right or wrong". There is fun, and there is possibly not fun. A good DM can take the freedom of a natural 1, and turn it into whatever he wants. A bad DM shouldn't be DMing in the first place.

Alternatively... make us a table. Actually, make us one table for every critical failure of a skill, and then we'll weigh the pros and cons of it. Why not? I mean, you seem so set in stone about needing rules for everything, why not share these rules with us?

Stormlock
2009-12-31, 09:45 PM
Well like I said, I don't autofail on a 1 (For skills or combat.) I reroll with -20. So a moderately skilled climber (Say +10?) on the same wall might fail to make progress 2.5% of the time, and actually fall 1.25% of the time.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 09:52 PM
If there is going to be a rule for every single instance, why have a DM in the first place? I don't know about you, but as DM, I like to have SOME power over the world. Really, at the point of a rule for every instance, not only have you strangled every element of creativity or freeform playing out, you've also got a gargantuan pile of houserules for every possible instance. The DM is then the person who tells you whether or not you win with what you rolled, and describes, based off a page, what happened.

The DM DOES have power over the world. He creates the world. He creates the adventure. He goes and picks mobs and such to fight. He controls the mobs and the tactics they use. That's a lot of power right there.

You don't need the power to randomly change or negate the existing rules. If the existing rules have a problem, use a house rule consistently. Life is happy. That's not fiat provided it's all done in advance, or the players all agree to it. Fiat is when you say "Man, skeletons should breath fire this time", so they do.

D&D is, in part, about the freedom, and about the fun. Why have a rule for everything? If you need it to stop a rampant DM, that I could understand. The DM that says "You rolled a natural 1, please leave the game group". Yeah, that's wrong. But a lot of groups aren't like that.


If we're here to discuss strait RAW, as I posted once before, this discussion is moot. We're discussing a house rule as it is. There is no "objective right or wrong". There is fun, and there is possibly not fun. A good DM can take the freedom of a natural 1, and turn it into whatever he wants. A bad DM shouldn't be DMing in the first place.

I never said it had to be straight RAW. There is a large gap between pure fiat and RAW, which we call house rules. I gave an example of one such critical failure rule that you apparently ignored.


Alternatively... make us a table. Actually, make us one table for every critical failure of a skill, and then we'll weigh the pros and cons of it. Why not? I mean, you seem so set in stone about needing rules for everything, why not share these rules with us?

If you have a table, we can certainly discuss the merits of that table. That's a rule. "The DM makes up appropriate stuff" is not a rule, and as such, is hard to discuss when you can't really define "appropriate stuff" and it doesn't happen every time.

I, personally, see no pressing need for a crit failure chart, so why would I bother making one?

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 09:59 PM
Tyndmyr, I believe you have established your point. You don't like critical failures. You are unlikely to be convinced that they have their merits. Why do you continue posting, making attacks on every statement in here?
We understand your point. You don't need to keep making it.
And the next time one of my PCs complain about the randomness of critical failures, I'll do something about it.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 10:24 PM
That's merely one point. The other point is that if you're going to discuss crit failure rules, they should be actual rules.

What's your point? DM fiat is fun? Ok...

It's not a poll. The important thing isn't who likes crit failures and who doesn't...it's why. If you're going to ignore all the details, I suspect you're missing the point.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 11:04 PM
That would require rolling, since it's competitive. And while I'm not sure how often this happens for swimmers, I know that Olympic runners are disqualified scarily often for leaving the blocks a millisecond too soon. What would you call that, if not a critical fumble?Uh, you haven't even hit the water yet, so you certainly haven't rolled Swim. And what about longer races? The penalty for failing a Swim check is making no progress, and how often do you see Olympic swimmers flounder in place for 6 seconds over the course of a race? 200 meter Freestyle lasts ~1:48, with 8 people swimming. 144 Swim checks, more than 7 crit failures. I defy you to tell me that anyone crit failed during the Beijing finals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA3UV7LQjCI)(2:40 on).

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 11:05 PM
The real question is not what's my point. My point is freedom is needed.

Nobody is willing to make 30-someot critical failure tables because that's not fun. The making of it isn't fun. The rolling on it isn't fun.

Every time we suggest something new, you shoot it down unless it makes a valid point, then you ignore it. Where is your evidence that 1/400 is bad? You ignored that point. What about the "Roll again with -20"? You seemed to ignore that one too.

I'd be a lot more okay with you shooting down all the bad points if you'd at least acknowledge the good ones.

Grommen
2009-12-31, 11:13 PM
Thx, just wondering where I'd find this.

My DM ruled that to skill checks and I could not find a reason in the books to counter this.

No big deal.

Thx anyways.

Their not auto what ever as you well know by now.

However rolling a "1" on a skill check....Is normally a bad thing. From a role playing stand point you probably botched the check so badly that something bad is about to happen to you.

The auto fail / succeed thing is a generally assumed concept of the D20 game, kinda like Free Parking on a Monopoly board. I've played that way for a good long time myself.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 11:13 PM
The real question is not what's my point. My point is freedom is needed.

Nobody is willing to make 30-someot critical failure tables because that's not fun. The making of it isn't fun. The rolling on it isn't fun.

I don't think such an option is fun. You don't think such an option is fun. Said charts have existed since at least 2nd ed. Googling for "D&D fumble chart" brings up ridiculous amounts of hits.

Perhaps what people this is fun is not universal?


Every time we suggest something new, you shoot it down unless it makes a valid point, then you ignore it. Where is your evidence that 1/400 is bad? You ignored that point.

Leads to more rolling. Combat is long enough as it is. This is less problematic than non-confirmed fumbles, though, from a balance perspective.


What about the "Roll again with -20"? You seemed to ignore that one too.

I'd be a lot more okay with you shooting down all the bad points if you'd at least acknowledge the good ones.

Sometimes I don't reply to every single point in a thread brought up by every single poster. Sometimes it's already adequately covered, sometimes I just don't care.

Roll again with -modifier strikes me as one of the least bad ones, if taken alone. It still adds additional rolls, and there's a marginal balance issue against those who need to roll skills often(ie, not casters) like in most of these systems, but the realism fail of high percentages of random autofails is generally avoided.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 11:19 PM
Allow me to establish your thinking in marginally different words. You do that with my thinking often enough.

Once someone has reached a sufficiently high number of ranks, they are capable of doing something with one hundred percent efficiency.
That is to say, any chump with 9 ranks in jump (or 4 ranks in jump, a strength of 14, and skill focus: Jump) will never, EVER fail at jumping more than 10 feet? They never trip. They never fall short. They're so trained, that they can not even begin to think about what they're doing, and they'll still succeed.

You are unwilling to add an extra roll 5% of the time, and instead just say that people who work enough at it, but don't bother focusing on doing things according to the book (which is what I've always considered 'taking 10'), will always succeed. And you're complaining about OUR level of realism?

Swordgleam
2009-12-31, 11:26 PM
Perhaps what people this is fun is not universal?

Blasphemy. If different people found different things fun, then how would we be able to tell that someone else was playing D&D wrong? How could we be sure that doing things our way would make their life infinitely better? Huh? Got an answer for that one?

(I weep for anyone who can't tell whether or not that's sarcasm.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-31, 11:28 PM
Allow me to establish your thinking in marginally different words. You do that with my thinking often enough.

Once someone has reached a sufficiently high number of ranks, they are capable of doing something with one hundred percent efficiency.
That is to say, any chump with 9 ranks in jump (or 4 ranks in jump, a strength of 14, and skill focus: Jump) will never, EVER fail at jumping more than 10 feet? They never trip. They never fall short. They're so trained, that they can not even begin to think about what they're doing, and they'll still succeed.

You are unwilling to add an extra roll 5% of the time, and instead just say that people who work enough at it, but don't bother focusing on doing things according to the book (which is what I've always considered 'taking 10'), will always succeed. And you're complaining about OUR level of realism?The problem isn't "Any Chump", it's Jumping Man, the greatest jumper the world has ever seen! He runs around town in tights and a cape, leaping tall buildings and long gaps, and landing on the heads of villains. For him, yes, he should be able to jump a gap of 10 feet every time, just like you should be able to walk. Even if it's a crowded mall and he's hungry and in a hurry to meet a hot date at the food court, he should not even risk falling when jumping over a 10' area of wet paint. D&D characters are superhuman and the skill system reflects that. When they no longer fail on a 1, they literally are too good to screw up at the task.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 11:34 PM
Allow me to establish your thinking in marginally different words. You do that with my thinking often enough.

Once someone has reached a sufficiently high number of ranks, they are capable of doing something with one hundred percent efficiency.
That is to say, any chump with 9 ranks in jump (or 4 ranks in jump, a strength of 14, and skill focus: Jump) will never, EVER fail at jumping more than 10 feet? They never trip. They never fall short. They're so trained, that they can not even begin to think about what they're doing, and they'll still succeed.

Jumping is an odd example, because the distances don't match up well with real life, but the principle is that yes, a very easy task will be completed 100% of the time by an expert unless there are unusual circumstances. Or at least, so ridiculously close to 100% of the time that it isn't worth rolling for.

Let's take the example of a simple knot. It's a DC 10 check. If I know how to tie a simple knot, I know how to tie a simple knot. If Im sufficiently expert with a rope to make very difficult checks, I can tie a simple knot every time.

If there is some unusual circumstance, like a raging hurricane, there are already existing DC modifiers to reflect the added difficulty of the task. Fumbles are not needed to represent this.


You are unwilling to add an extra roll 5% of the time, and instead just say that people who work enough at it, but don't bother focusing on doing things according to the book (which is what I've always considered 'taking 10'), will always succeed. And you're complaining about OUR level of realism?

Your interpretation of "taking 10" is not supported by RAW. Taking 10 is a tactical option that also happens to reduce skill rolls. As such, I like it. Rolling for every mundane thing that poses no risk is a waste of time.

Therefore, your realism based argument is based on nothing more than your house rules.

elonin
2009-12-31, 11:35 PM
I tend to not like critical success or failures on skill checks. If crit hits and fumbles must be used, I like an idea from role master game which was open ended rolls. So on the critical failures if the char rolls a 1 then roll again treating the result as a negative modifier to the skill check.

drengnikrafe
2009-12-31, 11:47 PM
Take me through a character taking 10. You're very insistant on the RP elements and fallacies, so what exactly constitutes "Taking 10" in game? Why does it provide an average result?

I like the sentiment of critical failures because they mean you don't become superhuman to the point of being infallable. Yes, it becomes silly when it's brought down to the insane point of failing checks with negative DCs, or other things that are generally succeeded at, but it's feasable to have an off day.
That is, if you're not careful, you CAN trip/forget/screw up.
No amount of logic that I don't agree with will change that.

I know people with good wisdoms and good intelligences that forget which hand is their right hand. What's the DC for remembering that, and why, almost without fail, when a room with upwards of 20 people, will the command "raise your right hand" produce at least one mistake, or hesitater who's forgotten.

It's possible to fail amazing tasks if you are amazing. It's possible to fail simple tasks if you're simple. Why is it so unlikely that, even with that extra roll, you can fail a simple task if you're amazing?

Stormlock
2010-01-01, 12:04 AM
But then you also exclude them from succeeding heroically at those same tasks while unskilled. (Except in combat.) I'd rather have a 1/400 chance Jumping Man stumbles because a bee flew into his face along with a 1/400 chance Wheelchair Man does a wicked flip over a shark tank he'll remember forever. The alternative is... they both do their stereotypical thing with no suspense at all.

It's the default for combat to be even more absurd and swingy than this (My housecat performs a Coup De Grace on the Ancient Red Wyrm as it sleeps, which rolls a 1 on it's save. All hail Skittles the Dragonslayer! Alternately, have the same dragon be attacked by a sufficient number of commoners with longbows at 1100ft range, and it'll die in one round. How the hell do they even land an arrow in the right square from that range?) why say it's unreasonable for skills?

Edit: This post was directed mostly at Sstoopidtallkid's post.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 12:08 AM
Take me through a character taking 10. You're very insistant on the RP elements and fallacies, so what exactly constitutes "Taking 10" in game? Why does it provide an average result?

RAW, there is no in game explanation whatsoever, merely an explanation why a player would want to use it.

Not every OOC choice has an in-game explanation, and for those that don't none of ours is really any better or more accurate than any other.


I like the sentiment of critical failures because they mean you don't become superhuman to the point of being infallable. Yes, it becomes silly when it's brought down to the insane point of failing checks with negative DCs, or other things that are generally succeeded at, but it's feasable to have an off day.
That is, if you're not careful, you CAN trip/forget/screw up.

If the system can be used to create ridiculous situations, then clearly, the system is flawed.


No amount of logic that I don't agree with will change that.

I love this line.


I know people with good wisdoms and good intelligences that forget which hand is their right hand. What's the DC for remembering that, and why, almost without fail, when a room with upwards of 20 people, will the command "raise your right hand" produce at least one mistake, or hesitater who's forgotten.

Don't know what the DC is offhand, but I don't seem to suffer from this problem. I don't get confused about which hand is my right hand 5% of the time. Hell, I don't get confused about it .25% of the time.

Ever seen military folks in formation saluting? How many of them forget and salute with their left hand?


It's possible to fail amazing tasks if you are amazing. It's possible to fail simple tasks if you're simple. Why is it so unlikely that, even with that extra roll, you can fail a simple task if you're amazing?

The first two lines make sense. If I'm a novice, I will screw up basic stuff sometimes. If I'm an expert, there are still situations that challenge me. But if I'm a world-class expert, I don't suddenly forget how to tie my shoes unless some major outside factor is involved.

See also, the example with Olympic swimmers.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-01, 12:21 AM
RAW, there is no in game explanation whatsoever, merely an explanation why a player would want to use it.

Not every OOC choice has an in-game explanation, and for those that don't none of ours is really any better or more accurate than any other.

This really is a very good point. However, the explaination that I have created for it makes sense. At least, in my mind. I see no faults with it working that way, and have never heard any alternative. I like roleplaying through stuff.



If the system can be used to create ridiculous situations, then clearly, the system is flawed.

Then stop playing D&D. Combat Criticals are rediculous too. As well as saving throw criticals. And epic anything. These are all rules.


I love this line.

Me too. That's why I included it.


Don't know what the DC is offhand, but I don't seem to suffer from this problem. I don't get confused about which hand is my right hand 5% of the time. Hell, I don't get confused about it .25% of the time.

Ever seen military folks in formation saluting? How many of them forget and salute with their left hand?

Your first example is a single example. My example took a mass of average people. Your example is personal, and, therefore, more baised. Yes, this logic is flawed, and I know it.

Your second example fails to take into account psychology. I always figured psychology at too much depth went along with proper physics in the "no-no" category. Why are beholders evil and solitary? Couldn't you figure that out, and then treat him for it, making him a docile pet? Given time, couldn't you do that to the entire beholder world?
Sure, good diplomacy checks.

Lapses in realism everywhere. Faulty system acting up again?


The first two lines make sense. If I'm a novice, I will screw up basic stuff sometimes. If I'm an expert, there are still situations that challenge me. But if I'm a world-class expert, I don't suddenly forget how to tie my shoes unless some major outside factor is involved.

See also, the example with Olympic swimmers.

Critical failures have the capability to take into account "major outside factors". That's part of why they make sense. It's not always user input error, it's sometimes an error in the world. You can fail a climb check because your hand froze because of a sudden gust of extremely cold wind. It's barely feasable, but it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

People who are experts in computer science can overlook the possibility that their computer was unplugged. Furthermore, that computer can unplug in the middle of an important project, forcing them to miss a deadline on an easy project. Why? Outside forces. How do you track random outside forces? You don't, not without a hundred thousand tables. That's where critical failures can show up and "save the day".

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 12:49 AM
Then stop playing D&D. Combat Criticals are rediculous too. As well as saving throw criticals. And epic anything. These are all rules.

There are responses to a flawed system other than "stop playing it". Finding a fix is reasonable.

But yeah, when things are ridiculously broken, sometimes, tossing a system and starting over is best. See also, epic spellcasting.


Yes, this logic is flawed, and I know it.

New favorite quote.


Your second example fails to take into account psychology. I always figured psychology at too much depth went along with proper physics in the "no-no" category. Why are beholders evil and solitary? Couldn't you figure that out, and then treat him for it, making him a docile pet? Given time, couldn't you do that to the entire beholder world?
Sure, good diplomacy checks.

Lapses in realism everywhere. Faulty system acting up again?

Please go read Eberron's info regarding Beholders, as well as Lords of Madness.

Then, realize your example had nothing to do with mine, while mine was directly related to yours. Saluting is a basic skill. If thousands and thousands of people can do it, in unison, without mistake, clearly, it's possible for training to get rid of stupid mistakes.


Critical failures have the capability to take into account "major outside factors". That's part of why they make sense. It's not always user input error, it's sometimes an error in the world. You can fail a climb check because your hand froze because of a sudden gust of extremely cold wind. It's barely feasable, but it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

This is not needed. It's already accounted for in the system. If you are climbing in such cold weather than your hand can freeze, it's not an easy climb check any more, now is it?


People who are experts in computer science can overlook the possibility that their computer was unplugged. Furthermore, that computer can unplug in the middle of an important project, forcing them to miss a deadline on an easy project. Why? Outside forces. How do you track random outside forces? You don't, not without a hundred thousand tables. That's where critical failures can show up and "save the day".

Briefly, yes. They will quickly realize that it has a lack of power, and discover the cause. This really isn't an error in judgement, people simply don't check the back of their computers before turning them on to see if they happened to unplug themselves.

Computers do not randomly unplug themselves. It doesn't "just happen". Someone could unplug it, sure. If you string your power cord across the room, someone could trip over it, but that's about as random as it gets.

This example is filled with fail.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-01, 01:03 AM
I grow weary of this arguement, and I have other things to do, since it is New Years Eve.

Your logic is sound, and I cannot poke holes in it. As far as it looks from an outsider, you have won. However, my mind is still my sanctuary. I will not change the way my game is played. I have never received a complaint from my PCs, even on prodding for one. I have no reason to change my playstyle, since it makes us happy.

In short: You win, now leave me alone.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-01, 01:07 AM
In short: You win, now leave me alone.I recommend sigging this.

Swordgleam
2010-01-01, 01:45 AM
I recommend sigging this.

I first read that as "singing." Which is my recommendation.