(3.5/Any) Truly "Critical" Houserules

[AtwasAwamps]

Since I’ve begun DMing for my group, there’s been a considerable amount of confusion going back and forth about what rules are being used where. Players have had to memorize essentially two sets of rules for D&D 3.5 because the long-time DM had introduced a number of house-rules which I simply refused to use because they take a bit of enjoyment out of the game.

One of the rules I tossed out the window was that on skill checks, 20 = guaranteed success and 1 = absolute failure. I am taking some flack from a few players on this, but won’t budge. I refuse to let the rogue, who has leveled himself to be the trap monkey and done an excellent job at protecting the party by being so, get himself killed saving their collective butts when he rolls a 1 (and note that the rogue is TOTALLY not arguing for the reinstatement of this rule, having stated that the “Fail on a 1” rule is the reason he stopped playing skill-based characters).

Last session, I got in a semi-heated argument about it, in which one of the players (who has never played a skill monkey) stated I was removing the randomness of the dice from the game. I countered by stating I was doing no such thing…a 1 is still a low roll and likely to fail at most tasks. What I was doing (via what the system provides) is creating a situation in which someone who has trained themselves to expert levels at a given task has a greater chance of completing that task NO MATTER WHAT in comparison to a dabbler in the art. EG – Something resembling a modicum of vague reality, in my opinion (which I KNOW is a challenge since this is a game where ‘reality’ is routinely re-shaped).

Here’s my question for you folks…of the lot of you, who uses rules for critical failures/successes outside of combat? And if you do, why? Or, if you don’t, why not?

[Reynard]

Rolling a 1 on a skill roll isn't an auto-fail.

This is not a houserule.

[AtwasAwamps]

Rolling a 1 on a skill roll isn't an auto-fail.

This is not a houserule.

I...know this. That was what I said?

To summarize: I go by the book. My group is used to a house rule. Argument was had in favor of house rule. I'm checking to see if anyone else uses similar autofail/autosuccess houserules and why they do/don't.

Because I don't.

[Thinker]

Rolling a 1 on a skill roll isn't an auto-fail.

This is not a houserule.

He never said it was. He was saying that the old house rule was to auto-fail on 1's and that he abolished it when he took over the role of DM.

To the OP: I dislike auto-fails or auto-succeeds for the reasons you listed. I don't even particularly care for critical hits in combat, but since weapons, abilities, and some other rules are designed with them in mind, I don't change them.

[Optimystik]

I...know this. That was what I said?

Your wording was a little confusing. You said you "tossed that rule out the window" when what you meant to say was that you tossed that houserule out the window.

As for "why/why not," the simplest answer is that it's against the rules. You don't need to explain any further to your players than that.

[Earthwalker]

I am sure I have seen a house rule on these boards along the lines of

20 = +30
1 = -5

This adds risk into the game but is better then the 1 = auto fail.

Personally I just run with things how they are.

One explanation for the group is when a black smith is making swords does he really throw away one in twenty swords as thats his autofail ?

[Furnok]

God (DM/you) rains down fire and brimstone down on their charcters till they stop bitching. They will soon get the idea not to bitch about rules.

[AtwasAwamps]

Your wording was a little confusing. You said you "tossed that rule out the window" when what you meant to say was that you tossed that houserule out the window.

As for "why/why not," the simplest answer is that it's against the rules. You don't need to explain any further to your players than that.

Ah, for which I apologize. I had thought it was clear enough.

Oh, I'm not looking for reasons to explain myself to the players. I've recently gotten our resident rules lawyer to stop reaching for the book if I give him a stern look. I'm really just curious as to how many people do that.

Earthwalker: I do something similar. A Nat 20 isn't a guaranteed success, but rolling it will get you a bonus of SOME kind. Similarly, even if a Nat 1 succeeds, it's going to be kind of an embarassing success.

FOr example, I made the rogue, who cracking a lock and rolled a 1 (still making the DC), spend a long time doing complicated things to the lock, getting frustrated, and then calling the lock a string of angry curse words. At which point the door swung open.

[Optimystik]

Oh, I'm not looking for reasons to explain myself to the players. I've recently gotten our resident rules lawyer to stop reaching for the book if I give him a stern look. I'm really just curious as to how many people do that.

The thing is, in this case you want him to reach for the book, as that will shut him up faster than anything else you could say on the matter.

[Telonius]

I use standard rules for skills. It just gets silly otherwise. Suppose you're trying to do a standing jump. Are you really going to fall flat one in twenty times, and set a world record one in twenty times? It gets even sillier when you get an untrained person next to a trained master. It just doesn't make sense. I suppose it does add a bit of excitement and randomness, but at such a cost of verisimilitude that it's not worth it.

[AtwasAwamps]

The thing is, in this case you want him to reach for the book, as that will shut him up faster than anything else you could say on the matter.

Oh, that already happened. With the following situations:

"You can't take a full move and make a basic attack!"
"He can't move more than five feet while casting!"
"He took damage since last round, he should have to make a concentration check!"

There's five more I'm leaving off, but even when I'm right, it just takes too much damn time.

[Thinker]

God (DM/you) rains down fire and brimstone down on their charcters till they stop bitching. They will soon get the idea not to bitch about rules.

This method does not seem to be very conducive to a fun game. Players should have a say in the rules and compromises should be regular. You are not ruling over them, you are adjudicating the rules. Sometimes, for the sake of efficiency, this means just going with what the GM says, but for house rules and long-term interpretations of the rules, discussion, argument, and compromise are the way to go.

[AtwasAwamps]

This method does not seem to be very conducive to a fun game. Players should have a say in the rules and compromises should be regular. You are not ruling over them, you are adjudicating the rules. Sometimes, for the sake of efficiency, this means just going with what the GM says, but for house rules and long-term interpretations of the rules, discussion, argument, and compromise are the way to go.

Which can all happen AFTER the session, because I don't feel like bogging down dramatic encounters with 45 minute discussions of what 'adjacent' means.

[Thinker]

Oh, that already happened. With the following situations:

"You can't take a full move and make a basic attack!"
"He can't move more than five feet while casting!"
"He took damage since last round, he should have to make a concentration check!"

There's five more I'm leaving off, but even when I'm right, it just takes too much damn time.

Have you considered printing off a "cheat sheet" as it were for various situations that are taken right from the rulebook? It could include actions in a round, rules for spell-casting, rules for movement, etc. This way he can quickly refer to it when he's not sure about the rules without bogging down the game to do so.

[Thinker]

Which can all happen AFTER the session, because I don't feel like bogging down dramatic encounters with 45 minute discussions of what 'adjacent' means.

Yes. Of course. You don't want to slow down the game anymore than necessary.

[AtwasAwamps]

Have you considered printing off a "cheat sheet" as it were for various situations that are taken right from the rulebook? It could include actions in a round, rules for spell-casting, rules for movement, etc. This way he can quickly refer to it when he's not sure about the rules without bogging down the game to do so.

He would get incredibly offended. He considers himself a master of the rules. Unfortunately, so does everyone else. Great guy, headache player.

EDIT: SERIOUSLY. ADJACENT. STAB HIM IN THE FACE.

[Orzel]

Just how the skills are. That's pretty much how I do it for skills. If your current bonuses + 20 is not higher than the DC, you just can't do it. If your current bonuses + 1 is higher than the DC, you can't fail.

[DragoonWraith]

Adjacent's pretty clearly defined. What definition did he want to use?

Anyway, Critical Failures on skills are obnoxious, but Critical Successes are just ridiculous. Utterly absurd things can happen. Besides, what about skills like Jump, where you don't really set a DC so much as go as far as you roll? I mean, if you say, "I'm going to jump to the moon!" and keep rolling the die until you get a 20, does that mean you can jump to the moon?

Nevermind the problems that happen with UMD for this. "Huh, artifact of absurd power, that we need to find someone specific to use because none of us is powerful enough. I think I'll just sit here and tinker with it until I get a 20."

[Optimystik]

There's five more I'm leaving off, but even when I'm right, it just takes too much damn time.

Big quote incoming, but I feel all of it is relevant here (though I've bolded the standout portions.) From the stickied "So You Wanna Be a DM" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474) guide:



Don’t Argue About the Rules: This is quite possibly the largest mid-game time waster and bad blood generator. Unfortunately, it is also the easiest to succumb to. In a game with as many Core rules and additional source books as D&D it is inevitable that there will be disagreements about one rule or another. Frequently the disagreement will come up when the player wants to take an action, cast a spell, or use an ability and you disagree about what the effect of their action is going to be or, in some cases, if they can take the action at all. Don’t just dismiss your player out of hand but don’t get into a debate about the rules either.

Give your player 30 seconds or so to tell you why you are wrong. If they manage to change your mind in that time, rule their way. If they don’t simply say that you don’t want to get bogged down in a rules debate and that for the remainder of that day’s session the rule will work under your interpretation. There will be ample time between the end of this session and the next session for you, the player, or both to look up the right answer or if it’s particularly tricky, ask someone who you can both agree is an authority on the rules (The Simple Q&A (By RAW) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66326)thread on these boards is a good place for that). It is better to work under an incorrect interpretation of a particular rule than get bogged down arguing about it for an entire gaming session and believe me; it is possible to spend an entire session arguing about rules.

If it turns out you were right, don’t rub it in. In fact, other than to explain to your player why you were correct, don’t mention it at all. Probably everyone else in your gaming group will have forgotten about the dispute anyway. In fact, the player with whom you had the dispute may even have forgotten about it since you didn’t get into an argument over it and just moved on.
If you were wrong, fess up. Tell your group that you misinterpreted that particular rule and from now on it will work the other way. It’s just one of those cases where you screwed up, like that time you forgot that the elf automatically gets a search check for secret doors. No big deal.

[Thinker]

He would get incredibly offended. He considers himself a master of the rules. Unfortunately, so does everyone else. Great guy, headache player.

EDIT: SERIOUSLY. ADJACENT. STAB HIM IN THE FACE.

Be diplomatic. Don't tell them it's because you know that they're not as smart as they think they are. Tell them that you made it for yourself and that you made copies for them.

[W3bDragon]

An auto success with a 20 on a skill is pretty ridiculous. For example, someone no ranks in swim can roll a 20 and succeed on a DC 80 swim check to swim UP a waterfall. Or someone with no ranks in balance can roll a 20 and succeed on a DC 120 balance check to walk on a CLOUD!

I personally use no critical fails or successes on skill checks. You could use the optional rule in the book, which suggests that a natural 20 adds +10 and a natural 1 reduces -10 from the check.

[AtwasAwamps]

Big quote incoming, but I feel all of it is relevant here (though I've bolded the standout portions.) From the stickied "So You Wanna Be a DM" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474) guide:

All quite relevant of course, but for my own reasons I don't adhere to the "Give 30 Seconds" rule. It wouldn't work out like that in my group at all. While I value and do like the advice given in that thread and post (and have it bookmarked on my DM 'laptop', which doubles as my screen), different strokes for different folks.

Even though yes, shoulder-height usually does suffice ;)

[Optimystik]

All quite relevant of course, but for my own reasons I don't adhere to the "Give 30 Seconds" rule.

It seems to me that getting into a "semi-heated argument" over rules is nonetheless something to be avoided. What, then, do you do?

[AtwasAwamps]

It seems to me that getting into a "semi-heated argument" over rules is nonetheless something to be avoided. What, then, do you do?

Ah, I suppose I should have said more than just "X happened".

The argument occurred outside of the session, while we were clearing up, thus taking up no game time. The rule itself is well-established in my games and generally not objected to. The reason it was brought up was because we were playing the other DM's game at the time, in which 1s fail. The Skill-Monkey player failed to unlock a number of crappy jail cell locks and my character ended up kicking those doors down on his way into battle. Frustrated, the Skill Monkey player asked why we couldn't use my "variation" (IE, the book rules) in this game. Which set off a few players, and dragged me into contention with one player who was an advocate of the nat1/nat20 crit rule because it was "more chancey". The discussion ended quite peacefully, but led me to wonder whether others used this thread.

In essence, I'm not really looking for help with my situation. I'm just curious about others. I'm doing just fine, though I certainly thank you for the help!

EDIT: As for what I do, the following occurs:

If I'm sure about a rule, I simply say "We'll check afterwards". Then we check afterwards and if I'm right, I'm right, and if I'm not, I apologize. If its a character life/death situation, I allow checking right away.

If I'm not sure at all, I ask a third party (Not me and not the player involved) to check the relevant sourcebook, as well as pulling up the SRD if its neccessary. If the rule can't be found within a minute or two, I judge on the fly and we roll with that, following step 1 after the session.

In general, this works quite well. The reason my "stern look" is employed is because said rules lawyer will take a great deal of time searching for rules, is a terrible reader and thus skimmer, and insists on looking for everything himself. It prompts more fights between him and his girlfriend than between him and I.

[Psyx]

I'm with the rules. 1 should never autofail on a skill. I can't believe they're whining about chance...d20's d20 skill system is a complete crap-shoot that -at lower levels- relies totally on luck over skill. Stat checks are even worse.

[Optimystik]

Ah, I understand now.

To answer your question then, I stick with the rules when they make sense - and in this case, they do. DragoonWraith's post does a good job of explaining why.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Early in the history of my group (in the distant past of... 2009) we started out using auto-fails/successes with skill checks. Until I DMed and realized how stupid I personally thought it was, and made nat-1 a -5 and nat 20 a 25.

Also, crit-fail on an attack roll provokes an AoO from threatening enemies. But you can still hit if you bonus is that high.

[Talon Sky]

I allow auto-successes on checks the character can feasibly make. You can't jump to the moon....but jumping that huge chasm? Roll a 20 and your character just makes it, his fingers gripping tight to the edge as he or she slams into the opposing wall like in the movies ;p

I don't think a 1 means an auto-fail, however, rolling a 1 usually means the character doesn't succeed anyways. So if you roll a 1 and fail naturally, not only do you fail....I get to describe the awesomeness of your failure ;p

That's what my players look forward to more then the successes or failures, is my descriptions of what happens. Fails are generally hilarious even for the failing player, and successes are usually talked about the rest of the night ^_^

[Ingus]

In my group of frequent players, we're stuck to 19 value as +19, 20 as +25; 2 as +2, 1 as -5.
So, to say, a 20th level wizard heavy optimizing concentration never fail a cast difensively check, but he's still prone to fail a consistent check for continual damage. On the other hand, the same wizard is quite likely to fail a use magic device check without heavy magical help.

The auto fail/success are usefun for to-hit and ST, 'cause noone likes the "you just can't hit him" or, worst "you're going to die, no matter what".
For skills they're not necessary. That's my two coppers

[drengnikrafe]

I do use the "auto success/failure" ruling on 1's and 20's for skill checks, but it's only because we all got used to such rolls working that way in a kick-in-the-door style and it's hard to break old habits.
If I were to change it, I rather like the "if a 1, reroll and subtract 20 from that roll to get your new roll; if a 20, reroll and add 20 to that roll to get your new roll" houserule. It can or cannot stack, depending on your preference. 30 and -5 does a lot of that work for you, though, I must admit.

On the other hand, my opinion may well be invalidated by the fact that my group never reaches the levels in which a natural 1 would still cause success if it meant skill ranks +1.

[cZak]

Also, crit-fail on an attack roll provokes an AoO from threatening enemies. But you can still hit if you bonus is that high.

I like.:smallcool: