Natural 20s and 1s giving automatic success on skill checks and more

[Hirax]

A new group I'm playing with insists that it says "somewhere" that natural 20s and 1s mean automatic success or failure on skill checks and generally anything for which there is binary success or failure. The DM recently prompted me to roll a jump check on something trivial 'just in case I roll a 1 and something stupid happens.' I offered to pay for food every session for the campaign if they could point to this "somewhere." I'm safe right, there's not something that contradicts what it says here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm)? They think this is true for things like bull rush checks, grapple checks, and basically anything. It's only automatic success or failure on attack rolls and saves, and few other miscellaneous things like accidentally poisoning yourself. Right?

[Gavinfoxx]

You are right, 20 is not automatic success, 1s are not automatic failure in skill checks.

Further, try Taking 10 every time you are not in combat. Look in the Rules Compendium, it talks about this stuff.

[olentu]

Oh they are very wrong. If you want proof just use page 63 of the PHB which says the following.

"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."

[Shadowleaf]

You are absolutely correct. If they still won't believe you, bust out Epic Skills. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm) Don't worry - you'll succeed 5% of the time.

Really, most groups are willing to listen to at least some logic. With a 20 being an auto success, any Commoner can swim up a waterfall 5% of the time. With 1's being auto-failure, an epic level Ranger will not be able to track three Colossal creatures moving through fresh snow in clear daylight 5% of the time.

[Voyager_I]

I've had this argument too.

You are correct.


It's annoying.

[Rubik]

You are right, 20 is not automatic success, 1s are not automatic failure in skill checks.

Further, try Taking 10 every time you are not in combat. Look in the Rules Compendium, it talks about this stuff.
Oh they are very wrong. If you want proof just use page 63 of the PHB which says the following.

"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."Listen to them, for they are filled with much wisdom.

[Seerow]

Just start randomly attempting DC10000 jump checks to jump a mile or more, or to balance on air, or something along those lines. Either at that point they'll agree it's silly, or you get to have a lot of fun in exchange for the occasional fumble.

[Hirax]

Thanks all. I knew I was right, but money is on the line, so I figured I'd be belt and suspenders sure. Feeding 8 people for an entire RHOD campaign is money I'd rather spend elsewhere. :smallbiggrin:

[Rubik]

Just start randomly attempting DC10000 jump checks to jump a mile or more, or to balance on air, or something along those lines. Either at that point they'll agree it's silly, or you get to have a lot of fun in exchange for the occasional fumble."I attempt a Craft: Alchemy check to create ambrosia, the route to instant godhood!"

One Take Twenty later and you're now a deity.

[STsinderman]

Not to mention that whenever an enemy goes invisible simply roll your spot, typically requiring a score of 50 as i recall.

As others have pointed out just abuse how they misuse the system until they can see why it is ridiculous.

[Coidzor]

I believe that might be a skill rule variant in unearthed arcana with auto-successes and auto-fails for skill checks. :smallconfused:

[Jeraa]

Nope - none of the skill system variant rules in Unearthed Arcana have natural 20s as auto-successes or natural 1s as auto-failures.

[pwykersotz]

Everyone posting above me is absolutely correct. By RAW, there is no misunderstanding, only attacks and saves are subject to critical success and failure.

That being said, quite a few tables tend to use house rules that put it into effect in some way. Usually one that the table can agree is reasonable. For the other posters above me arguing the slippery slope of "just craft ambrosia" or "jump a mile", this is strictly houserule territory, so you can apply more nuance than "golly, I'll set the DC to whatever I want and just win!".

Reasonable examples are:
Taking 20 is not the same as rolling 20
Not allowing auto-success/failure, but add 5 on a Nat 20, subtract 5 on a Nat 1
Let the character not need to roll if his ranks + modifier are higher than the DC

Anyway, collect your side of the bet with glee, but give the skill crits a chance before you completely toss them out. The more neutral and chaotic among us (while still being good aligned) can implement them in a fair and fun way. It spices things up, adds some real weight to certain die rolls, and can all around be fun. Of course, if it's not your style, you can just request the GM exempt you from both the benefits and the detriments. Most will go with that.

[ericgrau]

Next time make 20 attempts to jump over an ocean until you roll a 20. Don't forget your ring of sustenance because you still only move at normal speed.

More seriously, ya if you stay reasonable on the limitations you can allow nat 20s and 1s. I wouldn't do nat 1s at least though because part of becoming good at a skill is reaching the point of auto-success. Often if there's a chance of failure then it will bone you so hard: alert a hundred enemies to your presence, fall off of cliff, get knocked out by an attack, drown, fall in a deep pit, etc. Then it's not worth attempting to use skills or investing in skills in the first place. Then you say "screw that, someone in the party will roll a 1 on the jump who brought spider climb scrolls and potions? Sweet. What's that, we don't have to be afraid to roll a 1 on potions? Funny how that's different."

Eventually adventurers get the hint and they bash down every door and charge in instead of playing with the silly rolls that will only get them killed no matter how much they invest into them.

And that's why skill checks shouldn't have nat 1s... or boosted DCs or etc., etc. Skills really don't need to be nerfed or more chance based, yet people keep doing it.

[Voyager_I]

Next time make 20 attempts to jump over an ocean until you roll a 20. Don't forget your ring of sustenance because you still only move at normal speed.

I'm just imagining the joys of auto-success 20's on in-combat skill checks.

"The Dragon circles back around to finish you off."
"I jump to the moon to escape."
*20*

[NOhara24]

Not allowing auto-success/failure, but add 5 on a Nat 20, subtract 5 on a Nat 1

Let the character not need to roll if his ranks + modifier are higher than the DC



My DM told me it was a UA rule that added +10 to a nat 20 and -10 to a nat 1. I swore I read that too, not sure.

But the not needing to roll bit, we use that. One thing that rapidly sees itself out of the game is Massive Damage (For those that have good fort saves at least.) I haven't had to roll a massive damage save...since level 13 I believe. Could have been earlier if I hadn't gone into RKV at level 7.

[mikau013]

Better be prepared to pay up.

You said that they claimed it was written down somewhere, so as long as they have access to a pen or pencil :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, the DMG has a variant rule for critical success' or failures which also apply to skill checks

[olentu]

Better be prepared to pay up.

You said that they claimed it was written down somewhere, so as long as they have access to a pen or pencil :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, the DMG has a variant rule for critical success' or failures which also apply to skill checks

True there is that variant but so far as I can tell it does not actually grant automatic success on a 20 or automatic failure on a 1.

[pwykersotz]

Huh...I just found that. Yeah, it's more like critting, you have to confirm the skill check. But it's on page 34 of the DMG.

[Greenish]

Let the character not need to roll if his ranks + modifier are higher than the DCThe only reason to roll on a check that you'll autosucceed is if you have houseruled nat 1 an automatic failure. Don't add poor houserules, and you don't need other houserules to fix them.

[pwykersotz]

Don't add poor houserules, and you don't need other houserules to fix them.

Come on. Don't do that. People have fun in different ways. The houserule is widely used for a reason. Some people like it a lot.

To the other aspect of your point though, yes. Every one of my modifiers was put in because (as I stated) if you allow an auto success or failure with no modifiers, slippery slopes can start. They aren't separate rules though, but clarifications on the single rule.

[Zeta Kai]

BTW, even the SRD backs up the majority "opinion" here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#skillChecks), so your DM & fellow players can read the truth for themselves, with or without the PHB. Check the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Skill Checks section:


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.

QED

[ericgrau]

Come on. Don't do that. People have fun in different ways. The houserule is widely used for a reason. Some people like it a lot.
Poor houserules are poor. Good houserules are good.

Nat 1s on skills screw over something that really doesn't need screwing over. Nat 20s usually aren't any different than rolling a 19 because RAW DCs tend to be low, so they usually don't help except in silly examples. They also discourage the DM from allowing retry where RAW would allow it but he's afraid someone will retry until they get a nat 20. Again, see above on needless screwing.

[Chronos]

Reasonable examples are:
Taking 20 is not the same as rolling 20
Not allowing auto-success/failure, but add 5 on a Nat 20, subtract 5 on a Nat 1
Let the character not need to roll if his ranks + modifier are higher than the DC
The first one makes no practical difference, since in any situation where you can take 20, you can also just keep on rolling until you get a natural. In fact, that's the whole point of taking 20: If you didn't have that rule, then people would reroll skills until they got a 20, in some situations, and it's a lot less annoying to just say "OK, we get the point, you're going to get that 20 eventually anyway".

And the third rule would have the effect of removing the "natural 1 auto-fails" rule, since if you don't have that many ranks, then the 1 would fail anyway.

[Myth]

Taking 20

When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20 on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks

The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks.

[Acanous]

My group is playing with the 20's and 1's house-rule. I dislike it greatly, but upon pointing out that's not how ability checks, skill checks, and caster level checks work, I was told they know that and are playing with crits anyhow.

That makes me a sad panda. I take 10 or avoid rolling whenever I can.

[Eisirt]

In the PHB I have found only one skill that has an exception:

Use Magical Device

On a natural 1, you can not reroll Use Magical Device for this item untill you have leveled up.

[Tyndmyr]

A new group I'm playing with insists that it says "somewhere" that natural 20s and 1s mean automatic success or failure on skill checks and generally anything for which there is binary success or failure

They are simply wrong.

Additionally, it is pretty ludicrous that you'd have to roll a climb check for say, going up a ladder or stairs. Real world people do not hilariously fail 5% of their attempts to climb stairs.

[Namfuak]

They are simply wrong.

Additionally, it is pretty ludicrous that you'd have to roll a climb check for say, going up a ladder or stairs. Real world people do not hilariously fail 5% of their attempts to climb stairs.

Speak for yourself.

Also, nat1/nat20 crits on skill checks does make some sense - if you figure that someone is really good at jumping, that doesn't mean that they won't slip on a loose stone while running up to the jump every so often. And for nat20, maybe someone who is not usually very good at balancing is able to get across the chasm easily once, simply because the stars happened to align that day for them.

[Tyndmyr]

Speak for yourself.

Also, nat1/nat20 crits on skill checks does make some sense - if you figure that someone is really good at jumping, that doesn't mean that they won't slip on a loose stone while running up to the jump every so often. And for nat20, maybe someone who is not usually very good at balancing is able to get across the chasm easily once, simply because the stars happened to align that day for them.

Oh god...do we have to roll balance checks constantly? Do people just constantly, everywhere, fall down?

This world seems crazy.

[Studoku]

In the PHB I have found only one skill that has an exception:

Use Magical Device

On a natural 1, you can not reroll Use Magical Device for this item untill you have leveled up.
Where are you getting "Until you have leveled up" from? The SRD says:

Try Again
Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can’t try to activate that item again for 24 hours.
Which, in a roundabout way, proves that a natural 1 isn't an auto-fail. Otherwise, "and you fail" would be unnecessary.

[Namfuak]

Oh god...do we have to roll balance checks constantly? Do people just constantly, everywhere, fall down?

This world seems crazy.

There is a slight difference between trying to balance across a thin plank or maybe a shaky bridge going over a chasm and walking around normally. But if you feel more comfortable fighting strawmen, then go right ahead.

[prufock]

Oh god...do we have to roll balance checks constantly? Do people just constantly, everywhere, fall down?

This world seems crazy.

Spot checks to see... anything at all!
Listen checks to not go deaf for one round!
Open lock checks - with a key!
Survival check to know not to eat rocks!
Swim checks in the bathtub!
Use rope checks to tie your shoes!


Where are you getting "Until you have leveled up" from? The SRD says:

Which, in a roundabout way, proves that a natural 1 isn't an auto-fail. Otherwise, "and you fail" would be unnecessary.
Possibly confusing it with the Spellcraft use for copying spells from a scroll or spellbook? But that's not just a natural 1, that's on any failure. You can't attempt to copy that spell again until you gain another rank in Spellcraft.

[pwykersotz]

Spot checks to see... anything at all!
Listen checks to not go deaf for one round!
Open lock checks - with a key!
Survival check to know not to eat rocks!
Swim checks in the bathtub!
Use rope checks to tie your shoes!


Actually, while it doesn't happen 5% of the time...

Have you ever not heard someone say something even though they're right next to you?
Have you ever broken a key off in a lock or locked yourself out of the house or car?
Have you ever read the children's book Stone Soup?
Have you ever read the many news articles of people drowning in their tubs?
Have you ever had your laces come undone at an inconvenient time?

All this stuff happens, just generally not 5% of the time. Well, okay, the shoelaces thing does with me. Either way though, real life is mostly about taking 10. How much more often would you fumble if your life were in jeopardy on a regular basis?

Question for the Dissenters in the Playground. Alternate to random success or failure based on the rolls of skill checks, how do you introduce small bits of fortune or misfortune into the game? Or do you do it at all? If you don't go crazy and kill a party off because of a critically failed Craft Basketweaving check, the whole thing adds a certain amount of verisimilitude. And to those of you who keep prophesying doom for a party who uses this houserule, why then does the game not suffer because of all the other things a GM could easily abuse?

[Tyndmyr]

There is a slight difference between trying to balance across a thin plank or maybe a shaky bridge going over a chasm and walking around normally. But if you feel more comfortable fighting strawmen, then go right ahead.

Oh, it's not a strawman. Walking on a "hewn stone floor", by raw, is a DC10 balance check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm). Note that this is a level floor. non-level is a separate difficulty. This is mostly irrelevant because people constantly take 10 on such things.

So, with a party of four people walking in a dungeon, even if all are expert athletes, this means they average one person tripping and falling every 30 seconds.


Actually, while it doesn't happen 5% of the time...

Have you ever not heard someone say something even though they're right next to you?

Yes. Usually there are complicating circumstances, though, like "aircraft taking off". Not just a normal standard conversation.


Have you ever broken a key off in a lock or locked yourself out of the house or car?

Pretty sure I've never done any of that. The amount of force needed to break a key off in a lock seems fairly notable. I've never even considered that it might be a serious concern.


Have you ever read the children's book Stone Soup?

Yes. This does not mean that people actually eat rocks. I have certainly not attempted to intentionally eat a rock.


Have you ever read the many news articles of people drowning in their tubs?

To the best of my knowledge, I have never been in danger of drowning in a tub. I'm aware that it does happen, but I understand it's a result of complications like having a stroke while in the tub. Not just normal bath time turning into drowning.


Have you ever had your laces come undone at an inconvenient time?

It happens. I do not plaster myself into the ground as a result, though. I just retie my laces when convenient.


All this stuff happens, just generally not 5% of the time. Well, okay, the shoelaces thing does with me. Either way though, real life is mostly about taking 10. How much more often would you fumble if your life were in jeopardy on a regular basis?

Er, I've lived that lifestyle, sir. I was heavily into extreme sports for a notable length of time, did a couple tours military, etc, etc. Just because you're worried about something else doesn't mean you forget how to walk.


Question for the Dissenters in the Playground. Alternate to random success or failure based on the rolls of skill checks, how do you introduce small bits of fortune or misfortune into the game? Or do you do it at all? If you don't go crazy and kill a party off because of a critically failed Craft Basketweaving check, the whole thing adds a certain amount of verisimilitude. And to those of you who keep prophesying doom for a party who uses this houserule, why then does the game not suffer because of all the other things a GM could easily abuse?

It adds verisimilitude only for those sorts of people who think that accidentally shooting yourself is a reasonable crit failure chance. When this last occurred, three weeks ago, I handed the DM a longbow and an arrow and asked him to demonstrate how this could possibly work.

[Doug Lampert]

Oh, it's not a strawman. Walking on a "hewn stone floor", by raw, is a DC10 balance check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm). Note that this is a level floor. non-level is a separate difficulty. This is mostly irrelevant because people constantly take 10 on such things.

So, with a party of four people walking in a dungeon, even if all are expert athletes, this means they average one person tripping and falling every 30 seconds.

Heh, that means that if you can't take 10 for some reason....

But in fact, the reason that you DON'T roll for totally routine actions is simply an artifact of the fact that you can't miss most such actions with a 5% precision resolution mechanic.

Auto-failure on a one means that you must start rolling for routine tasks, like DC 0 listen checks and DC 0 spot checks. Else you're not implementing your own rule.

Which means that there's a 5% chance that I can't see things in plain sight at point blank range.

Similarly auto succeed on a 20 means that I can attempt tasks that have DCs well over my skill bonus +20, like "jump to the moon" or "pursuade the overdiety to make me Pun Pun".

Saying "that's not reasonable" because that task is too hard defeats the whole POINT of saying that a 20 autosucceeds, whats the highest DC I can succeed at if a 20 autosucceeds?

Similarly saying "but you don't need to roll for stuff like that because its so easy" simply doesn't work if a 1 autofails. How much more skillful than "I would succceed on a 1 if it weren't for the houserule" do I need to be before the houserule cuts off?

You need to have some bounds on what you can fail at and what you automatically succeed at regardless of the roll. The rules provide a perfectly reasonable bound, 20 fails when a roll of 20 won't succeed, 1 succeeds when it meets the DC. Since any rule needs to have SOME point where it gets to autosucceed and autofail why not use the logical and obvious ones?

[Seerow]

Oh, it's not a strawman. Walking on a "hewn stone floor", by raw, is a DC10 balance check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/balance.htm). Note that this is a level floor. non-level is a separate difficulty. This is mostly irrelevant because people constantly take 10 on such things.

So, with a party of four people walking in a dungeon, even if all are expert athletes, this means they average one person tripping and falling every 30 seconds.

To be fair, that check has a specific note saying it only applies when running or charging. So you only fall over constantly when trying to run or charge on a hewn stone floor. Still really annoying for those melee guys with heavy armor and not too great dex who rely heavily on charging and probably don't have balance as a class skill...

[Tyndmyr]

To be fair, that check has a specific note saying it only applies when running or charging. So you only fall over constantly when trying to run or charge on a hewn stone floor. Still really annoying for those melee guys with heavy armor and not too great dex who rely heavily on charging and probably don't have balance as a class skill...

Granted, but that's still...remarkably common.

And if they don't have balance at all, then having to roll instead of taking ten means that falling becomes hilariously common. In most parties I've been in, the rogue is the only person you can count on to have balance to solid levels.

[pwykersotz]

Tyndmyr - You are assuming that a crit fail means you shoot yourself or something equally as horrible. I agree, that would be a bridge too far. The thing to remember though is that neither Autofailure nor Critical failure necessarily mean "rocks fall, everyone dies". You have heard other people/threads argue this, I'm sure. In fact, I think a lot of people here are arguing feelings from past threads. All that is being said, is that an additional system of rewards and penalties imposed on the game to increase chances equally of both a special success to treasure or a facepalming failure to laugh about later does can be fun for some tables.

Doug Lampert - Well reasoned, good points. I suppose, to answer your question directly, the underlying reason is the mindset of the D20. A lot of players come to the table the first time with little knowledge of D&D. What they do know, however, is the glory of the Natural 20. The jokes and shirts are everywhere. Thus they want that for themselves. Since it's a fairly easy addition to make for most d20 based rolls, it gets implemented. It's not that the system is flawed in any way without the rule, it's just a bit of gambler's mentality coming through. As long as it's not taken too far, it can be fun.

[Maphreal]

Tonight on Channel 10 Faerunian News

Little Johnny of Waterdeep has a jumping contest with friends, launches to his death into outer space. This makes the 4th space related death this week.

More on the issue at the bottom of the hour.

[Zeta Kai]

Tonight on Channel 10 Faerunian News

Little Johnny of Waterdeep has a jumping contest with friends, launches to his death into outer space. This makes the 4th space related death this week.

More on the issue at the bottom of the hour.

Film at 11!

[Tyndmyr]

Tyndmyr - You are assuming that a crit fail means you shoot yourself or something equally as horrible. I agree, that would be a bridge too far. The thing to remember though is that neither Autofailure nor Critical failure necessarily mean "rocks fall, everyone dies". You have heard other people/threads argue this, I'm sure. In fact, I think a lot of people here are arguing feelings from past threads. All that is being said, is that an additional system of rewards and penalties imposed on the game to increase chances equally of both a special success to treasure or a facepalming failure to laugh about later does can be fun for some tables.

The failure condition of falling down on a failed balance check is explicitly listed in the balance rules.

I never used "rocks fall, everyone dies" as part of my argument against it's ridiculousness.

[pwykersotz]

No offense meant on the "rocks fall" bit. I was using hyperbole. I realize in retrospect that the comment carries way too much other stuff to have been used. Sorry.

In regards to the balance, we use (what I believe to be) a simple system at my table. If you crit fail but you still make the check with 1 + relevant mods, something slightly bad happens, but you still stay standing. For example, while maintaining your balance, you kick a loose rock and it falls, causing a chain reaction of larger rocks falling, creating a thunderous racket below. Creatures/followers in the valley are now agitated, but there's not necessarily a direct bad effect on the party...and they'll know to be cautious if they go into that valley over the next half hour or so. It uses the crit fail, but doesn't overly penalize the player. Naturally, this is up to GM judgement call about what will actually potentially impact the party.

[silvadel]

You could always just make a natural 19 be 23. That way you get 15 16 17 18 20 23. Ditto you could make a natural 2 be -2 -- that gets you 5 4 3 1 -2

Assuming what you want is to have a softer but viable bonus/penalty on the extreme rolls.

[Hirax]

Question for the Dissenters in the Playground. Alternate to random success or failure based on the rolls of skill checks, how do you introduce small bits of fortune or misfortune into the game? Or do you do it at all? If you don't go crazy and kill a party off because of a critically failed Craft Basketweaving check, the whole thing adds a certain amount of verisimilitude. And to those of you who keep prophesying doom for a party who uses this houserule, why then does the game not suffer because of all the other things a GM could easily abuse?

If you want it, as pointed out the DMG has an optional rule where upon rolling a 1 or 20 for skill checks, you reroll, and if you fail or succeed respectively, you do so critically.

[gomanfox]

Of course that rule is written "somewhere," in many groups' collections of house rules! Nowhere official though. :P

My group plays with the 20-success/1-failure rule and I enjoy it, it's fun. The rule itself has the potential to be very fun... but misused I can see how it could be annoying and stupid. If you want to use the rule and focus on the negative side, sure you can start requiring rolls for everything and have people be blind, deaf, stumbling idiots... or you could just use the rule when it would actually be fun.

Here are some examples from how my group would do things. Lets say Jack is doing the first watch of camp during the night. He rolls a natural 20 on his Perception check, so not only does he notice anything that might be happening (wolves sneaking in to camp, bandits approaching, or maybe nothing) but he gets a little surprise from the DM, like finding a belt pouch filled with a few coins or gems. Later in the evening it's Bob's turn for watch. He rolls a natural 1 on his Perception check and ends up falling asleep. No one is woken for the last watch, but luckily, nothing robs the group blind in the middle of the night.

And natural 20s should be reasonable successes. No rolling a natural 20 on Spot and seeing the feather stuck on the back of your head, and no natural 20 Jump checks taking you to the moon. I think in cases with skills like that, a natural 20 should give whatever result 20 + ranks + modifiers would normally give, plus a little extra for being lucky enough to roll a 20.

I think it's fun, but I guess it doesn't work for everyone. I'm pretty easy-going though, if I had an acrobatic character that rolled a 1 on an Acrobatics/Balance check and fell to his death off a cliff he was balancing on, I'd be fine with it. Those sorts of things are entertaining to me, even if they suck.

[Rubik]

I don't mind nat 1s and 20s giving a small extra bonus to the d20 skill roll (such as -5/+5), but auto-fails on skills (and worse, critical failures where you roll on charts to disarm/die/get royally screwed) mean that I would do everything I could think of to avoid rolling at all, to the point of absurdity.

I already strive to get rerolls, and that's just for pass/fails.

[Antonok]

Gather ye round, one and all! Let me spin ya a bardic tale...

Now there once was a rogue,
Of great renown.
His luck was godly,
and skill unbound.

His legend started,
with a simple trader.
Rescue his wares!
(And maybe his wife...)

The tracks he did follow,
to the orcish lair.
Guarded heavily it t'was,
by all manner of creature.

To sneak by was his plan,
Unseen and and unheard.
Our rogue picked up his dice,
and rolled it with fever.

Upon the face a 20 did land,
and silence fell on the table.
Our rogue walked right in,
while the rest rolled initiative.

Later, our tale now takes us;
To a land not so far away.
Our rogue beseeched again,
by a prince this time.

Thugs a plenty!
Scavenging the city.
To the hideout he heads,
to confront this challenge.

In does our rogue make it,
with little hindrance afoot.
To the leader guy he goes,
to do what, we don't know.*

After battle subsides,
the bandit guy dead,
our rogue is summoned by the King!
To everyone's dread.

In the throne room sits the King,
and all his armed guard.
Numbering at 200 they were,
and all very high level.

Now cocky has the rogue become,
Due to all his success.
He decides act upon a whim of his,
To the other's behest.

He picks up his die and tosses it,
a smirk upon his face.
It lands upon another 20,
and silence takes the place.

Stole the King's pants he did!
right in front of all!
No one saw anything,
anything at all.

The King wonder's how,
he suddenly became indecent.
Our lucky little rogue offers in,
Maybe you forgot to dress this morning?

A bluff check that did call for,
something the rogue could do.
He laughs and picks up the dice,
and rolls it without thought.

It spins and rolls for a while,
and then comes to a stop.
A 1 our rogue did roll,
and then a TPK ensued...


The above is why I dislike the auto success/failure on skills.

*IC, the rest of the party never found out. What really happened is he snuck up and SA'd the boss guy with a nat 20 and 1 shot him, thenwalked out while the rest of us were still fighting peons.

[Boci]

Question for the Dissenters in the Playground. Alternate to random success or failure based on the rolls of skill checks, how do you introduce small bits of fortune or misfortune into the game? Or do you do it at all? If you don't go crazy and kill a party off because of a critically failed Craft Basketweaving check, the whole thing adds a certain amount of verisimilitude.

I myself have always questioned the value of verisimilitude in the form of "Haha you screw up" (however minorly) in a game where my fighter can, without magic, recover from a stab wound to the kidney that more than half killed him in three days and a bit of bed rest. (5th level fighter, 42HP, takes 25 damage from a rogue backstabbing him, recovers 5 HP that day and then rests for two days to double the rate of healing).

[Flickerdart]

If you really want to make it possible for people to succeed or fail in a more epic fashion, then just let skill checks "explode" (on a 20, reroll the d20 and add the results) or conversely, "implode" (on a 1, reroll the d20 and subtract the new result from the old one). That way you can still have dudes that jump hella high once in a while, but you won't have people jumping to the moon every 20 times they try.

[Infernalbargain]

But but but, allowing nat 20's on skill checks allows the cow to jump over the moon 5% of the time.

[Antonok]

But but but, allowing nat 20's on skill checks allows the cow to jump over the moon 5% of the time.

My response (http://www.overthehillgamers.net/addons/autogallery/Gallery/131585348413.Epic_Face_Palm.jpg) when I read this.

[Flickerdart]

My response (http://www.overthehillgamers.net/addons/autogallery/Gallery/131585348413.Epic_Face_Palm.jpg) when I read this.
Someone rolled a 1 on their facepalm check.

[TuggyNE]

Someone rolled a 1 on their facepalm check.

Or would that be a 20? :smallamused: