How many of you use nat 1's as auto-fail with skills? [Archive]

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 07:05 AM

'Ey guys. Question is as the title states:

How many of you count natural 1's on the D20 as auto-fail for skills, as well as attacks? What about natural 20's being auto-success, except when the skill is innately impossible to do?

The reason I ask is I had a player get a bit angry at me on Roll20 about it. I honestly believed it was a standard practice. My real-life group's been using it for years, and on many occasions when I've been a player on roll20, its been the same. Not just for attacks, but for skills.

The rest of my players thought the same. They had assumed that he failed on that roll as well.

He was 55 feet up and this was his last check to climb to the Crows Nest of a ship (it was a race). He fell and took 11 damage. (From 5d6 I think he got lucky)

He was not aware I was using the this rule and got angry at me because I did not retcon it. I did apologize to him about it, but told him the rule was final.

Gigas Breaker

2012-12-31, 07:09 AM

My group doesn't. We tend to follow the rules as is for the most part.

ahenobarbi

2012-12-31, 07:11 AM

My group does the automatic failure on 1, automatic success on 20. Makes me take 10 whenever possible.

Norin

2012-12-31, 07:14 AM

We tend to use it when it seems fun.

Example:

My Rogue tried to use the appraise skill to do a quick rough estimate of the value of a chest full of gold coins.

Rolled 1 on the d20. We laughed and agreed that my char was more or less convinced this chest held the accumulated value of the world's gold reserve in it. (Well not exactly, but alot anyways)

The situation we where in and the timing was funny and the adventure spiraled into some good laughs because of my rogue's desire to keep this inavluable chest of gold with him.

If it's a situation where your life depends on it, i would not use 1 as fumble on skill checks i think.

Fyermind

2012-12-31, 07:17 AM

Vizzerdrix

2012-12-31, 07:19 AM

It's a house rule and a bad one at that.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 07:35 AM

Well my usual group uses it especially when its a life or death thing. Theres always that bit of chance when doing something mundane (even in real life) that you'll **** up badly.

My group does the automatic failure on 1, automatic success on 20. Makes me take 10 whenever possible.

It makes my group do the same. In this case though, there was a penalty for failing badly - falling, plus the fact that they were considered distracted due to various npcs yelling at them, cracking whips, and the fact they were on a moving ship. The guy who fell from 55 feet survived, and unlike the person who fell from 30 feet (Not a nat 1), he took less damage and did not go unconcious.

Plus, my usual group can find hilarity in both of them. This is honestly my first time DMing for my non-usual group, so I guess its my fault on that. I just was not aware it wasn't standard.

Most likely I'll let them know I won't be using that rule. Can't retcon the muckups it did now, but at least we can avoid it in the future. My friends and I will continue to use it, because thats how we enjoy it and have been doing so for years, but I can understand that people would dislike it.

Also, question: Does the natural 1/20 rule apply to saves?

Lonely Tylenol

2012-12-31, 07:45 AM

ahenobarbi

2012-12-31, 07:53 AM

Also, question: Does the natural 1/20 rule apply to saves?

Yes, it does.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 08:34 AM

As a player and a DM in long-term games, I tend to discourage their use. In fact, whenever I am performing a skill check I know I will be able to successfully do, even while rushed or threatened (thus requiring a roll), I describe it as "taking 1", meaning there is no usual circumstance where I can fail, and the DM should only make me roll if there's something I as a character am not aware of. In general, it means less dice rolled, with the added security that if I have built a character to do a certain thing right, they'll do it. (None of this "5% chance of falling down a bottomless pit on a DC10 Jump check across a narrow chasm as a Thri-Kreen" nonsense.)

There is -always- a circumstance in which something could fail despite being easy and mundane, in my opinion. Theres always the chance for accident. Thats how my main group and I feel, and we enjoy it despite the consequences. **** happens. Even the best athlete in the world might trip, might muck up. Yes its unlikely they'll do so - but it might happen.

And yes, in my group, if you rolled a nat 1 while jumping across a 10 ft bottomless chasm.. well, it was nice knowing your character. I do believe you are entitled to a reflex save in that situation, though. In such a situation where you fail something horribly, despite it being easy, my group DM at the time usually describes in the most epic way how you failed. We get a good kick out of it. Same goes for natural 20's.

Of course, we're not the most hardcore of roleplayers. We play with shenanigans, and we're more of a combat-oriented group usually. Tis not to say we don't enjoy roleplaying, but we don't get insanely serious about it. I can't think of one time where anyone got mad over something that happened. Usually we laugh about how bad they ****ed up and move on.

We're still very rule-oriented though. I'm not sure where this nat1/nat20 thing with skills came from, I just know it was what was used when I first started playing with them and its become habit for us. I wouldn't call it nonsense. It just adds risk anytime you're not taking 10. And you can't always be taking 10. Characters die.. they get maimed.. and the more epic they fail, the better. Even then, it doesn't happen much to us.

Fortuna

2012-12-31, 08:37 AM

There is always a chance of failure... but it's not as large as one in twenty, that's for sure. The system's quite granular, and beyond a certain point it doesn't account for that very well. And really, it's not very thematically appropriate if the epic-level rogue slips off the wall he's scaling one time in twenty.

Piggy Knowles

2012-12-31, 08:42 AM

My current group uses natural 1 as a failure for ANYTHING, and natural 20 as always a success. (They also use a random deck for both critting and fumbling.) It's a fairly casual and rules-lite game, but I still don't like it...

JellyPooga

2012-12-31, 08:59 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-31, 09:02 AM

There is -always- a circumstance in which something could fail despite being easy and mundane, in my opinion. Theres always the chance for accident. Thats how my main group and I feel, and we enjoy it despite the consequences. **** happens. Even the best athlete in the world might trip, might muck up. Yes its unlikely they'll do so - but it might happen.

And yes, in my group, if you rolled a nat 1 while jumping across a 10 ft bottomless chasm.. well, it was nice knowing your character. I do believe you are entitled to a reflex save in that situation, though. In such a situation where you fail something horribly, despite it being easy, my group DM at the time usually describes in the most epic way how you failed. We get a good kick out of it. Same goes for natural 20's.

Of course, we're not the most hardcore of roleplayers. We play with shenanigans, and we're more of a combat-oriented group usually. Tis not to say we don't enjoy roleplaying, but we don't get insanely serious about it. I can't think of one time where anyone got mad over something that happened. Usually we laugh about how bad they ****ed up and move on.

We're still very rule-oriented though. I'm not sure where this nat1/nat20 thing with skills came from, I just know it was what was used when I first started playing with them and its become habit for us. I wouldn't call it nonsense. It just adds risk anytime you're not taking 10. And you can't always be taking 10. Characters die.. they get maimed.. and the more epic they fail, the better. Even then, it doesn't happen much to us.

I won't deny that there is a chance of failure no matter how good you are at a thing. However, I cannot agree with the absurd idea that the chance of failure is never less than 5%.

LT's thri-kreen is only going to fall into that chasm if something truly extraordinary happens. The ledge crumbles from beneath his foot just as a sudden gust of wind from the other side of the chasm blows through and a treebranch falls from the tree leaning across the chasm from the opposite side right onto his head.

If something like that happened then -maybe- he doesn't make it accross, but the odds of all those circumstances conspiring against him are significantly less than 5%. Realistically they should be represented by circumstance modifiers to the roll, not by a fixed figure on the die.

I'd be willing to consider the idea that a natural one forced an immediate re-roll with a circumstance penalty (not necessarily -10) but simply autofailing on 5% of the time is ridiculous.

In answer to the original question though, No. I do not apply any natural 1/ natural 20 rule to skill checks by default.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 09:21 AM

Well, to each his/her own. I wasn't aware it wasn't standard, and now I do. I won't be using it in the future unless I confirm with everyone that they're alright with it.

My normal group will continue to use it, as we always have, and we'll enjoy the shenanigans it brings.

Crake

2012-12-31, 09:26 AM

Auto fail on a 1 is actually a painful nerf to UMD, since rolling a 1 AND failing results in the inability to use the item for 24 hours. Thus its not quite fair if you've gotten your UMD above 20, rolling a 1 and being both unable to use that wand you were trying to use, but also not being able to use it for 24 hours. Conversely, rolling a 20 on UMD typically would result in a success anyway unless you haven't really put many ranks into it.

Curmudgeon

2012-12-31, 09:46 AM

It's a house rule and a bad one at that.
Couldn't agree more.

... In fact, whenever I am performing a skill check I know I will be able to successfully do, even while rushed or threatened (thus requiring a roll), I describe it as "taking 1", meaning there is no usual circumstance where I can fail
I do the same. As an aficionado of Rogues, I expect dedicated training in what the class does best will yield reliable performance. An unarmored Wizard's spells don't arbitrarily fail 5% of the time, and a Barbarian doesn't fail to go into a rage 5% of the time. There is absolutely no reason for someone trained to climb up mountains falling once every minute (2 move actions per round x 10 rounds): that's not even remotely plausible.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 09:54 AM

I understand your thinking and it makes perfect sense. Its just how my group has done it for years. Granted we focus more on combat rather than on skill checks. If things end up mucking up too much with this adventure path I'm running with them, we may stop doing it ourselves. That, or we'll just laugh as someone fails horribly, as we usually do.

I don't just use it for the PC's - we use it for NPCs as well. This has, on occasion, created some very unrealistic - but very hilarious- situations.

For Example:
The Players are attacking an underground stronghold. One guard raises the alarm by yelling "INTRUDERS!". One of the PCs yells in return, "NO WE'RE NOT!" and makes a bluff check, getting a high score, but not a nat20. The guard who was supposed to be listening for the alarm rolls a nat 1 on his sense motive check, and believes the latter group. We laugh our asses off and proceed to murder them.

Is it realistic? Naw. Is it hilarious? Can be. Usually we describe it in a way to make it interesting, comical or something of the sort.

I have no plan on using it outside of that group from here on out, though, as unless the group is alright with it as a whole, I'm not going to make anyone go through it if they don't want to. Wouldn't be fun for them, and them complaining about a rule that they don't like (thats a houserule at least), makes it less fun for the rest of us.

falloutimperial

2012-12-31, 10:05 AM

When I DM, I recognize that someone should have a possibility of failure. If a character has invested a great deal of resources in a skill, or is doing a very simple skill, it is only fair that they should have to confirm the critical failure. If they have a ridicules amount of resources invested in a fairly reasonable task, they should have to confirm the critical fumble twice.

Andezzar

2012-12-31, 10:45 AM

I do the same. As an aficionado of Rogues, I expect dedicated training in what the class does best will yield reliable performance. An unarmored Wizard's spells don't arbitrarily fail 5% of the time, and a Barbarian doesn't fail to go into a rage 5% of the time. There is absolutely no reason for someone trained to climb up mountains falling once every minute (2 move actions per round x 10 rounds): that's not even remotely plausible.It gets even more ridiculous with the jump skill for example. Everyone (since jump can be used untrained) can jump to infinite height/distance (DC infinity) every 20th jump.

You may have guessed it, I do not use that house rule.

Altair_the_Vexed

2012-12-31, 10:56 AM

I try not to introduce more entropy than the game already has in it. In fact, I propose treating a natural 1 as a -10 and a nature 20 as a 30 instead of auto- success/failure for attack rolls and saves when I DM.

I do exactly that in my games.

I've also retained (but very slightly modified) the maximum height and distance rules for jumping from d20 3.0 - so there's no infinite jumping in my game.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 10:58 AM

Me nor my group allows nat 20's to work on noticeably impossible attempts. If its a check they could potentially succeed on, then they can auto-succeed on a nat 20. If the DC is a bit higher than they can normally do on a normal (non crit) nat 20, then I allow it on a nat 20. We limit this by relative realism. Usually.

You can't jump across the ocean 5% of the time, for example. You can't jump 50 feet in the air 5% of the time. You can't climb a smooth wall 5% of the time.

We don't allow hard-succeeds like that, if its noticably impossible. Perhaps we're just trying to make a challenge for ourselves, as the 5% auto-failure on ANY check is certainly more of a penalty than a 5% auto-failure on a reasonable action.

Though we did have a dwarf rogue run while stealthing due to a nat 20 on his stealth check. Not like it mattered, as there wasn't anyone around but his allies. We basically described him as disappearing from behind them to appearing ahead of them a ways, as they weren't running and were in fact moving at half speed. Just shinanegans like that. We play for fun, not for contest.

Plus, jumping, no matter your skill, is still limited by your speed. By that virtue alone, jumping to infinity (And beyond!) is impossible.

Andezzar

2012-12-31, 11:08 AM

Plus, jumping, no matter your skill, is still limited by your speed. By that virtue alone, jumping to infinity (And beyond!) is impossible.Is there a rule for that? What prevents you from continuing the longer jump in the next round?

Cranthis

2012-12-31, 11:20 AM

My group uses a rule, better than auto fail/ auto success but still bad, that a 1 counts as a -10, and a 20 counts as a 30. Its to ensure that there is still a chance at failure, but not an absolute.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 11:20 AM

From the Pathfinder SRD:

Faster Base Movement: Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed above 30 feet. Creatures with a base land speed below 30 feet receive a –4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed below 30 feet. No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round.

I could be interpreting it wrong, but by this I'm assuming that you are only able to jump a maximum distance equal to your speed (Including run speed, although that is highly unlikely). If someone is willing to risk a 95% chance that they'll fail their 120 ft (assuming 30 ft movespeed and no Run Feat) jump, I'm going to give them the jump if they make the nat 20. Again, just for shenanigans.

We don't usually use multi-turn jumps for that reason. In order to get a proper jump going, you generally need to take a running start, which is a full round action to run. Therefore, your entire turn is focused on jumping. Now, if you're jumping without a running start, for whatever reason (Say you have the Raging Leaper Rage Power), even then you'll still only be able to move your move speed.

Say you have a 40 ft move speed as that raging barbarian with said power. You take a single move action to move/jump, then you wish to attack. This means you can only move and jump a total 40 feet, then you can attack. By making a charging leap (Which I believe should be possible), you can move double your distance, part or most of which could be the jump, then attack as a normal charge.

If, during one of those acrobatics checks to jump, you roll a nat 20, you can jump the exact distance you were aiming to jump. If as that barbarian you wished to move 5 feet, jump 70 feet across a chasm, move another 5 feet after landing, then smash someone on the other side, you'd have to either roll a DC 70 Acrobatics check, which is all but impossible without magical aid or being a high level (But is easily possible with either), or pray for a 5% chance that you'll succeed and not plummet to a likely death at the bottom of the chasm.

As a general rule, npcs and common folk do not attempt such shenanigans and so the whole "Any 1st-level commoner can jump 120 feet 5% of the time" argument is invalid, unless that commoner is a PC and is insane. Only players are insane enough to hope for such luck. By the rules, they are not 'jumping to infinity', and they are still within their plausable limits to jump that distance, if they are able to get a acrobatics check high enough. Considering the Jump spell (a 1st level spell) grants a +30 to your acrobatics check for jumping at only level 9, then with the Expeditious Retreat spell granting another +12, any number of other skill bonuses could easily allow this sort of a jump. Therefore, even without magic, someone risking their lives to do this sort of risk is allowed to succeed on the rare chance they make that natural 20, in my opinion.

I did fail to mention in earlier posts that I am speaking of Pathfinder primarily, although we've been using these rules for nat1's and nat20's since 3.0.

RaefgarRockfist

2012-12-31, 11:42 AM

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 11:46 AM

The groups I run have use a modified version of the auto hit auto miss rules, but only for attack rolls and the like, not for skill checks. I have a fun little table I wrote up for extra critical hits (I've had players roll consecutive 20's as well as 1's). This can make for some fun times both for the PC's and NPC's. Had a fighter type roll a pair of ones on his attack roll, and launch his greathammer into the woods out of sight. Forced him to whip out his remaining weapon (a lonely silver, non-magical dagger) and face down the group of foes he was with, all the time yelling at the gnome cleric (who was keeping him alive) to run and get his hammer (which weighed about as much as said gnome) and bring it back to him.
Later in the campaign, his dice liked him a little better, and he rolled up a pair of 20's, and got a spectacular cleave of destruction to finish off a couple of foes and manage to scare off the BBEG for the time being. :smallbiggrin:

We've begun using the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble Decks for attacks, which is similar in design. Its been hilarious to see some of the things happen because of that.

Had a guy smash someone's trachea with a piece of garbage.. while also doing 0 damage to the guy, as the garbage wasn't supposed to do damage. Same session, the same guy who smashed that guy's trachea also broke another guy's nose with garbage. This one happened to have been a player..

--------------

Edit: Also, as to the jumping shenanigans, I just did some quick numbers and a level 18 monk (Martial Artist)/2 Barbarian with 14 strength (Raging) and a Jump spell cast on him can jump over 100 feet while taking a 10. Without a running jump. Tell me how is that in anyway realistic? Because he's a Monk? A magical monk? In a world of magic, an insane commoner jumping 120 feet I think is perfectly fine, as 95% of the time he's not going to live to try again. If he's simply just jumping over solid ground, he's not going any further or faster than another commoner simply running. He's just moving that distance in style.

hymer

2012-12-31, 11:50 AM

We stick to the rules on this.

Gnomish Wanderer

2012-12-31, 11:50 AM

I've been toying with the idea of introducing Auto-Fail/Success for Skill Checks. My player group gets so excited when they roll a twenty and distraught when they roll a 1, that I sometimes feel guilty when I tell them that they've failed or succeeded (respectively) despite it.

I'd have it work somewhat like the combat Crit system though; roll a natural 20 and you have to "confirm the crit", roll a natural 1 and you have to do similar (i.e. roll the check again; if it's a failure again, it's a crit fail, otherwise just a fail). In either case, a second natural 1 or 20 would count an an auto-fail/success (i.e. if you're not good enough to succeed on a natural 20, you have a 1/400 chance of success and vice versa for failure).

I do this as well, the crit. success/fail adds an element to my games I find appealing.

In regards to an autosuccess/fail, however, it's very situationally specific. I generally rule that using a skill regularly doesn't apply the auto-success/fail (though it can still be subject to the crit. success/fail), but 'jury-rigging' the skill to do something different than ordinary or mundane uses does.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 12:03 PM

I don't like it, and I don't even like the variant version of -10 +10 my group uses. It really makes it hard to be a skill user if you do, and frankly, it does not make sense to me. A 1 is a bad enough punishment, and skill should be rewarded.

Doughnut Master

2012-12-31, 12:08 PM

In my group, we play a nat 20 as a 30 and a nat 1 as a -9. Keeps things lively without being crippling.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 12:24 PM

In my group, we play a nat 20 as a 30 and a nat 1 as a -9. Keeps things lively without being crippling.
That is still pretty crippling at low-mid levels and devastating at even higher levels for contested checks.

Ignis6669

2012-12-31, 12:26 PM

We use it at my table. My players seem to like it. It has definitely caused a couple of groan worthy moments, but that's just how it goes I guess.

As a player I like it myself. I rationalize it as "Sometimes bad things happen. And sometimes good things happen. That's life."

But maybe that's just my experience.

molten_dragon

2012-12-31, 12:27 PM

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 12:31 PM

And, just as often, completely lackwit fail at the stupidest, most mundane things.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 12:36 PM

Both ideas of which are hilarious, and thats why we use 'em :P

I personally think Cayden Cailean rolled some kind of a nat 20 while taking the Test of the Starstone.. so I can imagine it happening in the worlds we play in.

Douglas

2012-12-31, 12:41 PM

I would only ever use it in a game that is intentionally silly.

In my more usual serious style, it is a bad house rule that would significantly detract from the game.

The same statement apply to fumble rules too, btw.

Deophaun

2012-12-31, 12:47 PM

There is -always- a circumstance in which something could fail despite being easy and mundane, in my opinion.
This is also always a circumstance in which an asteroid could strike the planet and kill off all life. I wouldn't use a d20 to determine the likelihood of that.

I could be interpreting it wrong, but by this I'm assuming that you are only able to jump a maximum distance equal to your speed (Including run speed, although that is highly unlikely).
That would be a wrong interpretation. You can jump however far your jump checks says you can jump. It just might take multiple rounds for you to actually complete it. From the SRD (Pathfinder itself is silent on this):

If you run out of movement mid-jump, your next action (either on this turn or, if necessary, on your next turn) must be a move action to complete the jump.

molten_dragon

2012-12-31, 12:49 PM

And, just as often, completely lackwit fail at the stupidest, most mundane things.

I'm pretty sure that rule is already in affect. It's called reality.

navar100

2012-12-31, 12:56 PM

I Spot and roll a 1. Opponent Hides and rolled a 1.
How can we both fail?

I Spot and roll a 20. Opponent Hides and rolled a 20.
How can we both succeed?

awa

2012-12-31, 12:56 PM

i don't house rule this. in fact in my game on attacks and saves 1 is -5 and 20 is 25. partial because i hate that if you take 20 drunk untrained level 1 commoners firing exotic ranged weapons at maximum range they will be just as accurate as 20 specialized archer firing at maximum range at a hard to hit target.

It ties into fumbles while failure is technically possible 5% percent chance is vastly to high.

JellyPooga

2012-12-31, 01:01 PM

I Spot and roll a 1. Opponent Hides and rolled a 1.
How can we both fail?

I Spot and roll a 20. Opponent Hides and rolled a 20.
How can we both succeed?

In fringe cases, you can argue that the more active participant wins. E.g. if someone is hiding from a passing guard, then the hider wins because the guard is making a passive Spot check. If both participants are "active" then the one who has the higher result (i.e. skill ranks + ability score + circumstantials and miscellaneous modifiers). Or the other way around would work, I suppose. If it's still a tie then the universe implodes or something.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 01:02 PM

This is also always a circumstance in which an asteroid could strike the planet and kill off all life. I wouldn't use a d20 to determine the likelihood of that.

Nor would I. Thats just bad gaming right there.

That would be a wrong interpretation. You can jump however far your jump checks says you can jump. It just might take multiple rounds for you to actually complete it. From the SRD (Pathfinder itself is silent on this):

Makes sense, but in most cases, you should be able to move your entire jump-distance in one round, unless you do not have a running start. In such a case, then it is possible you may end up having to finish your jump the next round, but I cannot see it going past your first move action of the next round.

In no circumstance can you jump 'to infinity'. Generally, you have a target jump. If you're aiming for that, thats what you want to roll. If you roll higher, its an over-jump. If its lower, you don't jump far enough.

If you're just jumping over a chasm, over jumping is usually fine.

In this case, a natural 20 would mean you jump exactly where you want to jump. If you were just jumping over a chasm, you'd either jump the Natural 20+Your acrobatics bonus, or the distance you were aiming, whichever would be greater. If you were jumping 120 feet, its very likely that the natural 20 would be the further of the two, unless you're the Barbarian/Monk I mentioned earlier.

I would only ever use it in a game that is intentionally silly.

In my more usual serious style, it is a bad house rule that would significantly detract from the game.

The same statement apply to fumble rules too, btw.

My group is both intentionally silly and serious. We don't play a seriously dark game, but we get deeply into the game while still laughing at the most silly of **** that happens. Its what we do, and we wouldn't have it any other way.

For the online group I'm running, things will be different, and I will attempt to adjust where possible. Though the majority of them seem light-hearted as well, and they had no issue with the rule. It was just one guy, who was not only being a back-seat DM, but had also already read the entire adventure path and was pointing out things to me in whispers. Things he shouldn't know as a player. Its one thing to have read things ahead of time (not knowing you were going to run it) because its an interesting story, its another thing entirely to do so during gameplay.

If we end up dropping that particular guy, I'll speak to the remaining players (And the back-up player who's been spectating) if they're interested in using the rule if not. I'm going to let them decide entirely, as while its a habit for me to use it, I'm not going to use it if its going to cause drama.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 01:09 PM

I Spot and roll a 1. Opponent Hides and rolled a 1.
How can we both fail?

I Spot and roll a 20. Opponent Hides and rolled a 20.
How can we both succeed?

Heh these situations are where we 'jury-rig' the rules depending on the situation. The simplest solutions would be either to reroll both checks or to have the person with the higher modifier succeed.

Or in the case of one instance where I was playing two characters, I rolled a natural 1 on my stealth check to sneak up on my other character, who rolled a natural 1 on his perception check. The rogue was noticed by my Cleric's Pet (Who the DM was controlling), who took mental control of my Cleric (Who was wearing nothing but a loincloth and his holy symbol), and proceeded to have my cleric kill my rogue with channel energy. So basically, I played with myself and failed. Turned out later that pet was a devil in disguise trying to sow discontent amongst the party.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 01:10 PM

OK, and if you are *trying* to jump to the moon?
Hey, players have done stupider things.

Deophaun

2012-12-31, 01:12 PM

Makes sense, but in most cases, you should be able to move your entire jump-distance in one round, unless you do not have a running start.
From a character design perspective, if I'm ever making a character where I've sunk enough ranks into jump that this is a possibility, I have eliminated the necessity for a running start.

And while normally I'd be against doing something to "infinity," an infinite jump is really no different than flying with no maneuverability. If jump was the target of infinite cheese, and it was just to get from point A to B (no jumplomancy), I'd be hard pressed to ban it.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 01:16 PM

OK, and if you are *trying* to jump to the moon?
Hey, players have done stupider things.

We'd call shenanigans on that player. Unless he can make a valid explaination of how he's going to jump to the moon. Then we'd allow it, because he took the time and effort to think the shenanigans through.

He'd of course die once he got there. Or before got there. Thus it would be far more likely we'd just call shenanigans and hit his character with a sap from the rogue.

From a character design perspective, if I'm ever making a character where I've sunk enough ranks into jump that this is a possibility, I have eliminated the necessity for a running start.

And while normally I'd be against doing something to "infinity," an infinite jump is really no different than flying with no maneuverability. If jump was the target of infinite cheese, and it was just to get from point A to B (no jumplomancy), I'd be hard pressed to ban it.

Tell me then, how exactly are you going to jump from Point A to Point B, when you're aiming for infinite cheese? Give me a good enough answer, and I'll allow it if you roll a natural 20. If you don't roll a nat20, you're likely going to have something happen to you thats worse than death, as you're aiming for infinite cheese.

Edit: Unless you meant infinite cheese like I use infinite shenanigans, not actual cheese (The food) that happens to be infinite.. I may have slightly misread your comment. lol

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 01:34 PM

OK, so that's hyperbole, but there is still things player want to do that are frankly impossible.
Conversely, and much more likely to come up, there are things that, past a certain level, should be absolutely old hat to them. A character who has made the investment should be able to do some things on a walk.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 01:50 PM

In such a case we may simply allow them to take 10. Honestly my group's never gotten high enough for that to be an issue, and we never really focus enough on skills for it to be an issue either.

This campaign they're doing right now is the first time where failing at a skill has had enough consequences to get someone nearly killed. Our rogue got knocked unconcious from failing a climb check. This wasn't even a case of a natural 1, and if it was, he wouldn't have reacted any differently.

This is also the first time we're seriously doing a premade adventure path, as well, as we've always done homebrew campaigns.

I can't see my usual group taking advantage of the rule, as they never 'try' and do anything they have a 95% chance of failure at, unless they don't know they have a 95% chance of failure.

Dragvandil

2012-12-31, 01:57 PM

For my groups we dont autofail skills for a 1, or auto win on a 20. We see the crit/fail thing a combat situation not a skill situation.

So if you got the skills to make it work with a 1 on the die. grats. If you dont have the skill to make it work with a 20, you probably need to stop being a douche bag.

I know that on occasion myself an other DMs have bent this occasionally (for example I had a character who kept trying to "Blow up the sun with my mind." he rolled a 1, and I was tired of it, so I gave him an aneurism. He had to talk funny (until he got it healed) lost all of his cha mod, and lost his will defense bonuses. (Sometimes you gotta cut the bull****.)

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 02:08 PM

I know that on occasion myself an other DMs have bent this occasionally (for example I had a character who kept trying to "Blow up the sun with my mind." he rolled a 1, and I was tired of it, so I gave him an aneurism. He had to talk funny (until he got it healed) lost all of his cha mod, and lost his will defense bonuses. (Sometimes you gotta cut the bull****.)

Yeah see, my main group doesn't pull that. Usually. We only once had a person with Craft (Apocalypse), and she was waiting to use it until she had a better skill check with it.

The group knows their own limits and don't try and blow up the sun, jump to infinity, etc. They do crazy stunts for sure, but nothing totally unrealistic.

LTwerewolf

2012-12-31, 02:14 PM

It's only fair if you make casters do a concentration check every time they cast, else they're even more out of wack.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 02:15 PM

Take 10 is there already, but can't always be done. Often, you can't even take 10 in combat.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 02:19 PM

Well considering that this is a heavily aquatic campaign, many times our casters WILL be taking concentration checks. This group is low on casters though, and we've never been a group who focuses on spellcasting, preferring instead to beat things to death mercilessly. Even if its inefficient.

So not having spellcasters to make concentration checks has never been an issue as far as balance goes.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 02:29 PM

Um, edge issues. Seriously, in almost any campaign, a caster will be making concentration checks pretty darn rarely.

Crustypeanut

2012-12-31, 02:40 PM

I'm aware of this. I usually play one myself, and I usually try to avoid having to make a concentration check, as when we use concentration checks, the nat1/nat20 rules apply.

Likely the reason we've never made casters make concentration checks for no reason is because they have other things they have to worry about - reflex/will/fort saves, attack rolls, etc, when casting their spells. Not all spells, of course, but most. Most of the time, we either never get high enough for a wizard to truly show his power, or we never have someone playing a caster that knows how to break one.

Its a bit harder to break them in Pathfinder anyways. Still quite possible, of course, though.

Draz74

2012-12-31, 03:04 PM

Chalk me up as another player who does not use any special rules for 1's and 20's on skill checks ... and who would have gotten mad if a Roll20 DM had made me fall off a mast because of this house rule without announcing it in advance (especially if the character had any Climbing skill worth mentioning).

LTwerewolf

2012-12-31, 03:11 PM

I'm aware of this. I usually play one myself, and I usually try to avoid having to make a concentration check, as when we use concentration checks, the nat1/nat20 rules apply.

Likely the reason we've never made casters make concentration checks for no reason is because they have other things they have to worry about - reflex/will/fort saves, attack rolls, etc, when casting their spells. Not all spells, of course, but most. Most of the time, we either never get high enough for a wizard to truly show his power, or we never have someone playing a caster that knows how to break one.

It's pretty easy to hit with spells. Attack rolls are always touch except for a few specific spells, many spells are save or suck, and there are several which are no save, just suck.

Eldariel

2012-12-31, 03:34 PM

No, we've never used nat. 1s on skills.

Characters with high enough modifier in skill to succeed it on 1 basically have that action as easy as walking is for me. While I might fall while walking, it happens less than once a year and only when it's exceptionally slippery and I'm not paying attention or if something really unlikely happens (a really sudden and bad leg cramp could possibly cause it, though unlikely).

Now, I walk maybe ~ten million steps a year and fail less than once a year so my chances of falling whenever taking a step are about one in million (and I only ever have trouble with circumstances that grant massive penalties to walking). I'd have to roll ~5 natural 1s in a row to be near that probability, which is just not enough to bother with.

Then again, I use "20s as 30" and "1 as -10" rule too; if some people are actually that good, they shouldn't be ****ed over every 20th attempt.

Phelix-Mu

2012-12-31, 03:49 PM

I guess I'd say that if someone wants to use the auto fail/auto success system for skill checks, then go right ahead.

Personally, it doesn't seem to make much sense, especially when it comes to 5% chance of auto success on opposed checks. The outcome seems ill-defined, and the rules pretty much say that skill checks aren't supposed to work this way. So I just go with the rules.

How about for ability checks, though? Any difference in opinion for ability checks (like Int-check to see if a character remembers something...this might be problematic to extend into combat, a la trip checks...)? Just curious.

JaronK

2012-12-31, 04:01 PM

I hate the natural 1s auto fail rule, but my current DM likes it, so c'est la vie. So I'm playing with it now, but normally I don't.

JaronK

Rubik

2012-12-31, 04:24 PM

I would be doing everything I could to either A.) never make d20 rolls (see: spellcasting and taking 10), or B.) obviate the failures (such as with the diamond mind save maneuvers, which explicitly say they don't fail on a 1).

Note that most of these are good ideas anyways.

awa

2012-12-31, 04:31 PM

personally i feel the less rolls the game has the faster it runs (which is good)
so adding a failure chance to stuff that is so trivial things just slows the game down maybe not by much but every little bit adds up

icefractal

2012-12-31, 04:45 PM

While unexpected circumstances do happen, they don't happen 5% of the time - that's actually crazy frequently. It's the same reason I don't use critical fumbles - sure, people do sometimes cut themselves. But a squad of soldiers stabbing themselves a dozen times in a single battle is flat-out stupid for anything except a comedy campaign.

If you want the "anything could possibly happen" combined with some probabilities that actually make any sense, you could use exploding 1 and 20. So on a 1, roll again and subtract 20. Keep doing that as long as you keep rolling '1'. On a 20, roll again and add 20. Keep doing that as long as you keep rolling '20'. So it is possible for someone to screw up unexpectedly, or succeed at the seemingly impossible, but it doesn't happen every couple minutes.

Edit: Bonus reason why autofail is dumb: Nobody, no matter how skilled, can reliably climb a 1200' ladder. Even under ideal conditions, with rest breaks, they're likely to fall off, especially if they have to climb back down afterward. But yet, people do this, IRL.

Darius Kane

2012-12-31, 06:24 PM

Jumping to the moon with a natural 20 in Jump is too silly for me. So no, we don't use natural 1s/20s on skills. Actually we don't use Critical Failures/Successes at all, instead a natural 1 is threated as -10 and a natural 20 is threated as 30. It's used for skills, but also for attacks and saves.

Deophaun

2012-12-31, 06:57 PM

Edit: Unless you meant infinite cheese like I use infinite shenanigans, not actual cheese (The food) that happens to be infinite.. I may have slightly misread your comment. lol
Suddenly I have a desire for a Decanter of Endless Cheez Whiz.

Wonder if you could achieve lift-off with the geyser setting...

Ravens_cry

2012-12-31, 07:05 PM

Suddenly I have a desire for a Decanter of Endless Cheez Whiz.

Wonder if you could achieve lift-off with the geyser setting...
Probably not. . . but multiples? Well, the Water Accelerated extraTerrestrial Exploration Reserve has made great leaps in that area.

NotScaryBats

2012-12-31, 07:13 PM

Y'know, I've always used that rule, but after reading so many negative responses, I am reconsidering my stance.

I guess it is kind of silly to auto fail on a 1, but since you don't roll for trivial things, you aren't 'failing 5% of the time whenever you try to do something' but you can fail on non-routine tasks even if you are good at them.

Hmm...

NichG

2012-12-31, 07:39 PM

A rule like this really makes very little difference to me. It's such a marginal case that simply auto-success or auto-failure every so often doesn't really matter or change the tenor of the game (since generally someone trying to pull crap like 'I try the impossible 20 times till I auto-succeed' is just told 'no' in any game I run or play in).

I've played in games with this rule, and games without it, and it really doesn't matter much. That said, its amusing if its combined with '1s are botches, 20s are exceptional successes' that go above and beyond simple failure/success, though there it takes a GM who is more about making the game interesting than punishing bad luck.

ericgrau

2012-12-31, 07:54 PM

I've said it before but skills don't need nerfing. Too often they get pounded deep into the ground until anyone who uses them is hurting. Then they realize they're better off not bothering with them so they abandon skills and use direct, more boring and less tricky plans <yawn>. As minor as a 5% failure chance may seem skills are tasks that need to be reliable. They have a much greater penalty for failure than there is benefit to success. That's why this house rule is more like a critical fumbles rule than like a simple miss. Besides that this rule removes the option to take a 20 which is important to many skills.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-01, 12:56 AM

Basically, in our group, any time you roll a d20, theres a 5% chance of failure. Thats how we play, and we enjoy it.

I understand how people may not like it - makes perfect sense, I've just basically 'grown up' on D&D using it. Even before I started playing with an actual group, I had owned a number of the books and played by myself (See: Forever Alone Guy), and assumed since because attack rolls used it, skill checks and everything that uses a d20 used it.

I guess I just like the idea of having the most expert of someone fail at something, and the most simple buffoon succeed at being awesome.

Though it might be more reasonable to roll a nat 1/20, then roll again to see if you 'critical fail or critical succeed' on another nat 1/20. We've had that happen enough times for it to be hilarious.

I've also talked to the one player in my group who disliked it, and we've come to a friendly agreement that I won't be using it anymore because both of us would rather play the game and not cause drama.

He also knows if he keeps being a back-seat DM, a seagull will be swooping down and ****ting on his head every time. Even if he's in a dungeon. Or underwater.

Sewercop

2013-01-01, 10:50 AM

I dont like it, but i understand why some people do. I had a gamemaster that played with the rule, you roll a 1, you lose the rest of the round. Thats was messed up. Not to mention he loved fumble tables... sigh

The answer, spellcasters and take 10, and whatever source you could get to reroll. Then the gamemaster threw a fit when the group were all circumwenting his ****.

dont mind the horrible usage of , and wtong sentences, im hungover :)

Happy new year people

Serpentine

2013-01-01, 11:02 AM

I try not to introduce more entropy than the game already has in it. In fact, I propose treating a natural 1 as a -10 and a nature 20 as a 30 instead of auto- success/failure for attack rolls and saves when I DM.That's what I officially do, but honestly, my players in the past have liked failing, they find it fun and entertaining. A lot of the time I'll let them decide what the natural 1 meant, and they'll be far harsher on themselves than I would've been. Funnier, too.
A player that hates failure probably wouldn't be a very good match for my games. A player that gets as much joy out of screwing up as doing something perfectly, on the other hand, will get along great.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-01, 12:06 PM

That's what I officially do, but honestly, my players in the past have liked failing, they find it fun and entertaining. A lot of the time I'll let them decide what the natural 1 meant, and they'll be far harsher on themselves than I would've been. Funnier, too.
A player that hates failure probably wouldn't be a very good match for my games. A player that gets as much joy out of screwing up as doing something perfectly, on the other hand, will get along great.

Thats basically how my group is. We enjoy messing up, and find ways to make it fun and interesting.

We're the kind of guys who enjoy Dwarf Fortress, as well. In that game, Losing is FUN. I mean, you can ONLY lose in that game. You can't win. Ever. Theres only death. You will lose eventually. Its just about how epic you lose. The more epic the failure, the better the game.

Damnit now I want to play Dwarf Fortress..

Lonely Tylenol

2013-01-01, 12:16 PM

Thats basically how my group is. We enjoy messing up, and find ways to make it fun and interesting.

We're the kind of guys who enjoy Dwarf Fortress, as well. In that game, Losing is FUN. I mean, you can ONLY lose in that game. You can't win. Ever. Theres only death. You will lose eventually. Its just about how epic you lose. The more epic the failure, the better the game.

Damnit now I want to play Dwarf Fortress..

This is late in coming, but since it has been a recurring theme since I first posted, I should clarify my post from earlier.

In a game where the point of the game is more the social element, or the game world is in some way intentionally silly or lighthearted, failure can be fun. In fact, failure can often be more fun than success. It can drive the narrative in new and interesting ways, and it can lead to strange, unexpected twists. If nothing else, the "epic fail" has as much memetic value as the "epic win," and it can give people something to talk about.

The long-running games that I referred to (and I can only infer the others have referred to) are generally more serious games. Players have invested in their characters, both emotionally and physically (in time and effort--the "blood, sweat and tears" of the tabletop world), and, well, to quote every mobster ever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShameIfSomethingHappened), "it'd be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."

TL;DR in Kobolds Ate My Baby, Munchkin, and "casual" or "lighthearted" tabletop games (of any system), random failure and spontaneous risk can be fun. In a "serious" tabletop, however (EDIT: "serious" as in the tone, not in any condescending sense), it constantly wears thinner the more the players are invested in their characters or in the story (death or dismemberment in the party often breaks the flow of narrative as new characters are often awkwardly introduced).

Serpentine

2013-01-01, 12:30 PM

The main players I was referring to were in a game that lasted years. It's not grimdark by any stretch of the imagination and there's plenty of silliness, but it's certainly not casual nor explicitly deliberately "lighthearted". We just all love our characters for their flaws just as much as their strengths, and often even find them the more interesting part of them, drive drama and generate stories. One of my characters, who had maxed out Survival, constantly critically failed checks to avoid getting lost. It almost ended up killing another character - and drove that character's development in some interesting ways - and is one of the most memorable parts of her.
Now, it might be worth pointing out that a failed skill check will basically never be Instant Death. There will always be at least a second chance: to use the commonly cited example, someone gets a natural 1 on a check to jump over a fairly narrow chasm. They get a reflex save to catch the edge. If that fails, the other characters get a check to try to catch them. If that fails... Well, maybe they'll get lucky and land on a jutting ledge a few dozen metres below with several broken bones and a new challenge in getting up again.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-01, 01:39 PM

This is late in coming, but since it has been a recurring theme since I first posted, I should clarify my post from earlier.

In a game where the point of the game is more the social element, or the game world is in some way intentionally silly or lighthearted, failure can be fun. In fact, failure can often be more fun than success. It can drive the narrative in new and interesting ways, and it can lead to strange, unexpected twists. If nothing else, the "epic fail" has as much memetic value as the "epic win," and it can give people something to talk about.

The long-running games that I referred to (and I can only infer the others have referred to) are generally more serious games. Players have invested in their characters, both emotionally and physically (in time and effort--the "blood, sweat and tears" of the tabletop world), and, well, to quote every mobster ever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShameIfSomethingHappened), "it'd be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."

TL;DR in Kobolds Ate My Baby, Munchkin, and "casual" or "lighthearted" tabletop games (of any system), random failure and spontaneous risk can be fun. In a "serious" tabletop, however (EDIT: "serious" as in the tone, not in any condescending sense), it constantly wears thinner the more the players are invested in their characters or in the story (death or dismemberment in the party often breaks the flow of narrative as new characters are often awkwardly introduced).

Our group's games can be quite serious from time to time too. You have to remember, we have a very wierd sense of humor, thanks to Dwarf Fortress. We make things that should be serious be light-hearted, while still playing them as serious.

Right now we're playing the Skulls and Shackles Pathfinder Adventure path, and despite the fact they're almost to the point of mutiny against the cruel and sadistic captain and his first mate, one of which has his dirty eyes on a friendly NPC female and wishes to have his way with her, we still make things seem light-hearted. Its just mixed in there with the seriousness. They hate the captain and first mate and wish them dead in the most cruel of ways. The player's group is for the most part lead by a LE Hobgoblin Gunslinger Cowboy who has ripped the ears off of two still-living female crewmembers, and also causing one of those to eventually drown in filthy bilge-water, just to show the rest of the crew he and his group is not to be messed with. Thats the kind of seriousness we have next to our sillyness.

Right next to that, we have things like the Flirty Spanish Halfling Cleric and Peg-legged Dwarf Witch with a self-aware 10-ft long beard and octopus-in-a-bucket familiar. He punches with his beard. Quite effectively, too.

We're a very wierd group.

Edit: Also, while our players love their characters, we're not so attached to them that we get angry or sad when one ****s up to the point of death. In fact, we try to make their eventual demise as epic as possible, so we can remember their epicness. The more epic their failures, the more memorable the character. Mostly we remember our characters for their failures than their successes.. as killing things and succeeding comes easy. Epic failures that are remembered for ages? Those are what stand out.

For us, at least. Each group and each person is different, and as long as the group's having fun, theres no wrong way to do it.

Edit 2: I agree whole-heartedly with Serpentine's comment.

killem2

2013-01-01, 01:44 PM

Only if a player takes the Unlucky flaw form 3rd Edition - Cryptosnark Games - Supplement - The Book of Distinctions & Drawbacks

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

navar100

2013-01-01, 07:03 PM

Heh these situations are where we 'jury-rig' the rules depending on the situation. The simplest solutions would be either to reroll both checks or to have the person with the higher modifier succeed.

Or in the case of one instance where I was playing two characters, I rolled a natural 1 on my stealth check to sneak up on my other character, who rolled a natural 1 on his perception check. The rogue was noticed by my Cleric's Pet (Who the DM was controlling), who took mental control of my Cleric (Who was wearing nothing but a loincloth and his holy symbol), and proceeded to have my cleric kill my rogue with channel energy. So basically, I played with myself and failed. Turned out later that pet was a devil in disguise trying to sow discontent amongst the party.

In other words, the house rule forces complexity where none existed since without the house rule the higher total would win and if a tie, Spot wins because Hide sets the DC for Spot. A house rule that causes more problems than it aims to fix is a failed house rule, and in this case, there was nothing broken to be fixed in the first place.

In addition, if you auto-declare you cannot Jump to the moon on a Natural 20, then you accept that some things are impossible to do regardless of one's skill. Why would you then hypocritically refuse to accept that there are some things people with enough skill can't fail to do because they are just that good?

NichG

2013-01-01, 07:31 PM

In other words, the house rule forces complexity where none existed since without the house rule the higher total would win and if a tie, Spot wins because Hide sets the DC for Spot. A house rule that causes more problems than it aims to fix is a failed house rule, and in this case, there was nothing broken to be fixed in the first place.

In addition, if you auto-declare you cannot Jump to the moon on a Natural 20, then you accept that some things are impossible to do regardless of one's skill. Why would you then hypocritically refuse to accept that there are some things people with enough skill can't fail to do because they are just that good?

Well generally because the point of the rule isn't to attempt some sort of greater realism. Its to inject uncertainty, chaos, and the occasional freak happenstance into the game. Furthermore botches on skill checks are usually both less directly lethal and have more variety and entertainment than bothces on saves or attack rolls.

From a player-friendly point of view I'd actually suggest making it so that skills have the botch/crit mechanic, but saves do not (and attacks probably should not either, but they're less dangerous to botch on). Botching a save or die ends your character. Botching a Sense Motive check leads to an amusing error in judgement. And there are also many more interesting ways to botch a Sense Motive, Appraise, Spot, etc check than there are to botch a save (what exactly did you sense instead of the real answer, and that kind of thing).

nyjastul69

2013-01-01, 09:58 PM

Well generally because the point of the rule isn't to attempt some sort of greater realism. Its to inject uncertainty, chaos, and the occasional freak happenstance into the game. Furthermore botches on skill checks are usually both less directly lethal and have more variety and entertainment than bothces on saves or attack rolls.

From a player-friendly point of view I'd actually suggest making it so that skills have the botch/crit mechanic, but saves do not (and attacks probably should not either, but they're less dangerous to botch on). Botching a save or die ends your character. Botching a Sense Motive check leads to an amusing error in judgement. And there are also many more interesting ways to botch a Sense Motive, Appraise, Spot, etc check than there are to botch a save (what exactly did you sense instead of the real answer, and that kind of thing).

I'm not sure what you mean by 'botch'. If you mean a critical failure, D&D doesn't have them. Rolling a 1 on a saving throw isn't any different, mechanically, than any other roll that fails. A failure with a 1 on a SoD is no different than failing with any other number. The same is true with attack rolls.

@ Crustypeanut: I don't use the auto-fail house rule on skill checks for at least two reasons. I tend not to use many house rules because I find they often spawn other house rules: opposed rolls, taking 20, rolling a 1 on UMD all have to be modified to account for the house rule. Every one of these affects certain classes, some moreso than others of course. I also don't like to punish players more than the system allows for simply because they rolled low. From a DM perspective it's easy enough to punish players, house rules aren't needed.

That being said, I think people should modify the game to their own tastes. (I don't advocate eating games)

Edit: Anything that adds entropy to the system favors the PC's opponents, it doesn't favor the PC's. If you play in a game where the monsters defeat the PC's as much, or more often, than the PC's defeat the their opponents, then the entropy will help the PC's.

navar100

2013-01-01, 11:16 PM

Well generally because the point of the rule isn't to attempt some sort of greater realism. Its to inject uncertainty, chaos, and the occasional freak happenstance into the game. Furthermore botches on skill checks are usually both less directly lethal and have more variety and entertainment than bothces on saves or attack rolls.

From a player-friendly point of view I'd actually suggest making it so that skills have the botch/crit mechanic, but saves do not (and attacks probably should not either, but they're less dangerous to botch on). Botching a save or die ends your character. Botching a Sense Motive check leads to an amusing error in judgement. And there are also many more interesting ways to botch a Sense Motive, Appraise, Spot, etc check than there are to botch a save (what exactly did you sense instead of the real answer, and that kind of thing).

Then you run into the same problem with critical fumbles where 20th level fighters kill themselves. A 20th level skill monkey attempting to climb a wall should not fall 5% of the time and go splat. Trying to climb a smooth wall covered in grease with tiny magical spikes that ooze green slime while a marith fires three composite bows using arrows of slaying at the same time at you, sure, that's when a natural 1 is not auto success but only because the DC is so high, not the fact that a 1 was rolled. You're just that good allowing you the roll for a possible success where as Joe Commoner couldn't succeed on a natural 20. If it's just a normal wall, even a 100 ft cliff on a beautiful sunny day with but a gentle breeze, no avalanches, and no enemies, 20th level Climber Extraordinaire should not fall and die 5% of the time.

NichG

2013-01-02, 12:07 AM

What I meant by botch was the auto-failure, actually.

Then you run into the same problem with critical fumbles where 20th level fighters kill themselves. A 20th level skill monkey attempting to climb a wall should not fall 5% of the time and go splat. Trying to climb a smooth wall covered in grease with tiny magical spikes that ooze green slime while a marith fires three composite bows using arrows of slaying at the same time at you, sure, that's when a natural 1 is not auto success but only because the DC is so high, not the fact that a 1 was rolled. You're just that good allowing you the roll for a possible success where as Joe Commoner couldn't succeed on a natural 20. If it's just a normal wall, even a 100 ft cliff on a beautiful sunny day with but a gentle breeze, no avalanches, and no enemies, 20th level Climber Extraordinaire should not fall and die 5% of the time.

Actually the 20th level fighter problem is because they make more attacks per round due to being high level. The 20th level skill monkey is still making the same number of checks as they were at Lv1, and furthermore they're far less likely to die from the falling damage. Unless you're a 20th level wizard, on average your hitpoints from HD at 20th level are enough to survive the furthest possible fall half the time. Add any sort of Con mod and a fall just isn't a death risk.

ko_sct

2013-01-02, 12:31 AM

For everyone talking about jumping to the moon, I know it's an hyperbole and that this house-rule would technically allow it, but the solution is just to say: Dude, no. If the case come up.

I know, I know, that's not a real solution, but it's pretty much what's making D&D 3.5 playable, it's the same raison you can't split a ladder into 2 pole and sell for a profit, or any of the other infinite money tricks. Or the raison if a paladin first words are: Pazuzu ! Pazuzu ! Pazuzu ! Nothing happen and people just stare at the weird dude instend of infinite power.

Personnaly I don't use this house-rule, used to, when we though it was actually a real rule. But then we realised it wasn't and it was kind of meh...

Some people like it cause it add an unpredictable element (even if kind of silly).

nyjastul69

2013-01-02, 12:48 AM

What I meant by botch was the auto-failure, actually.

Actually the 20th level fighter problem is because they make more attacks per round due to being high level. The 20th level skill monkey is still making the same number of checks as they were at Lv1, and furthermore they're far less likely to die from the falling damage. Unless you're a 20th level wizard, on average your hitpoints from HD at 20th level are enough to survive the furthest possible fall half the time. Add any sort of Con mod and a fall just isn't a death risk.

I apologize for my above post (#81). I used the 'jump to new post' icon and forgot you defined your usage of the term (post #69). It'd been a coupla days. Sorry 'bout dat. :smallredface: That post still seems to read as though a 1 or 20 is a greater than normal failure/success, rather than a simple failure.

Edit: Just because the fall itself doesn't kill the PC doesn't mean the resulting situation won't. Climbing away from or towards a threat needs to be considered with this sort of ruling.

Acanous

2013-01-02, 01:00 AM

I don't use it, it's kind of a stupid optional rule IMO.
I mean, think of it like this: You have ranks in say, Craft: Pottery.
This does not mean you've been dabbling with pottery as a recreational hobby. This means you've been professionally trained at it, and are *Capable* of producing masterwork quality (Even one rank means you can beat that DC 20) and, with the proper studio and equiptment, it's really quite easy to make a pot.

Let's say for argument that it's DC 10 to make a common pot. Amy the Potter is a lv 1 commoner with 10's in everything and took Skill focus: Craft (Pottery).

This reprisents a professional. Someone who, in the real world, studied under a master potter, probably for years, before going on to open her own shop.

That said, Amy has +7 to Craft (Pottery), plus she's got masterwork tools.

Amy can make a standard pot on a natural 1.

Now, if she had a particularly bad day, like by not getting enough rest the night before, she may take an exhaustion penalty, which would make her unable to pass on a 1. She might make a mistake and not spot it before putting the pot into the kiln. Not on a regular day, though- and being that she can not fail by 5 or more she can still break that crummy pot into useful materials for making a new pot.

The "Natural one" rule is supposed to account for X factors, things which surprise you or otherwise invalidate your skill. That sort of thing doesn't happen if you're making a pot, or a bow, or trying to remember how many teeth the yellow tailed snark has.

Remember, +7 is the kind of bonus someone schooled in and focusing on a skill is rocking. +11 is probably the highest bonus anyone has ever thought of, naturally (Capable of producing masterwork quality, all the time)

So your PC shouldn't be failing on a 1, unless they would fail on the end result naturally.

As a DM, if a player begins taking a skill-action, and I know they've got more ranks in the skill than the DC is high, I tell them to not bother rolling.

Darius Kane

2013-01-02, 01:07 AM

Serpentine

2013-01-02, 06:27 AM

Then why the houserule if you're just going to say no?Why would your first response to having that houserule in the game be to try it?
Anyway, it's a "critical failure/success", not an "automatic failure/success at whatever ridiculous thing you were trying" - an exceptional effort/screw up, not one of supernatural perfection. You might not be able to jump to the moon on a natural 20 if that's what you were trying to do, but you might be able to jump far, far further than you normally would be able to - maybe even over a building in a single bound!
That sort of thing is pretty moot with the -10/+30 houserule I use anyway (although my other houserule that a skill check more than 40 or 50 may emulate a spell or special ability is somewhat related), but I thought that might be a semantic detail that's worth mentioning.

Andezzar

2013-01-02, 07:22 AM

Why would your first response to having that houserule in the game be to try it?No, it would not be the first thing to try, but one of the first things to point out why that houserule does not produce the desired results. The other thing would be that even the most accomplished performer would botch every 20th performance.

Anyway, it's a "critical failure/success", not an "automatic failure/success at whatever ridiculous thing you were trying" - an exceptional effort/screw up, not one of supernatural perfection.Actually the OP's question was about auto-fail/success.

The -x/+y houserules also have a problem. they make failures much more devastating for certain skills. Some skills have different consequences of failing to meet the DC by -1 to -4 and by -5 and more. The latter is much more likely to occur with that houserule.

Darius Kane

2013-01-02, 07:49 AM

Why would your first response to having that houserule in the game be to try it?
It wouldn't. Who gave you that idea? :smallconfused: But if it's added to the game then I expect it to be used. And sooner or later a natural 20 will come up. If all natural 1s are automatic failures, but a beneficial outcome is based purely on GM fiat then I don't see the point of the houserule at all. Unless the DM make houserules only to screw his players over. I don't.

The -x/+y houserules also have a problem. they make failures much more devastating for certain skills. Some skills have different consequences of failing to meet the DC by -1 to -4 and by -5 and more. The latter is much more likely to occur with that houserule.
That's why I also use the Bell Curve (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/bellCurveRolls.htm) alternative rule.

Deophaun

2013-01-02, 08:10 AM

Now, if she had a particularly bad day, like by not getting enough rest the night before, she may take an exhaustion penalty, which would make her unable to pass on a 1. She might make a mistake and not spot it before putting the pot into the kiln. Not on a regular day, though- and being that she can not fail by 5 or more she can still break that crummy pot into useful materials for making a new pot.
Let me preface this by saying that I do agree with 1 not being an automatic failure.

But, in this example, on a regular day, Amy would be taking 10.

She would roll for those times when she is trying to create a masterwork pot. In those cases, catastrophic failure is an option (though, as you stated; failure by 5 or more).

This is the real reason why your professional climbers won't fall to their death while scaling a wall even with critical fumble rules: because they just take 10 the whole way. It's the epic, super-human climber that can scale the sheer walls of Fort Doom while dodging arrow fire because, even though he can't (maybe) take 10, his worst fumble is better than a professional's best maneuver.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-02, 09:32 AM

Let me preface this by saying that I do agree with 1 not being an automatic failure.

But, in this example, on a regular day, Amy would be taking 10.

She would roll for those times when she is trying to create a masterwork pot. In those cases, catastrophic failure is an option (though, as you stated; failure by 5 or more).

This is the real reason why your professional climbers won't fall to their death while scaling a wall even with critical fumble rules: because they just take 10 the whole way. It's the epic, super-human climber that can scale the sheer walls of Fort Doom while dodging arrow fire because, even though he can't (maybe) take 10, his worst fumble is better than a professional's best maneuver.

This.

In such a case as people are complaining about someone falling while climbing every 2 minutes, this isn't the case, as if they are not in any danger, they can take a 10 and not have to worry about falling every once in a while.

Its during the dangerous situations - climbing on a ship's mast when not only is a mean sucker yelling and cracking his whip, but you're also racing to get to the top first, when you can't take a 10. Not to mention, most of my players didn't have Profession (Sailor), so technically they aren't used to the pitch and yaw of the ship, adding another element of distraction.

If they are used to the ship's movement, and are not being rushed or yelled at, I let them take a 10. Such is the case during their day to day tasks onboard the ship. Most of the time they're not being yelled at or are in any rush. Every single one of my players took one rank in Profession (Sailor) at level 2. Most took a rank in climb if they didn't have it already, just in case they get called in the rigging during a storm again.

During such a storm, I didn't allow them to take 10's. We didn't have any catastrophic failures luckily, but it had the potential to happen. That and I didn't make the people who were horrible at climbing have to do jobs high up in the rigging. I made them do the rigging jobs that allowed them to stay firmly on deck.

So, back on subject, if they're doing a mundane task with noone trying to kill them or distract them, they may take 10. If they're trying to jump to the other ship during boarding, or climb a rope to the other ship, then they can't take 10. The only exception to this in this group is the Undine Rogue, who has a swim speed, so he can take 10 on swim even if distracted. This allowed him to swim in rough seas and save a halfling who fell overboard.

If it was one of the other guys who tried that, even if they had a very high swim skill, they could've potentially failed. You can't simply have no risk involved when swimming in a rough ocean without a natural swim speed, no matter how good of a swimmer. I find it utterly ridiculous that it could be the case if a natural 1 isn't a failure.

For another thing - lets go back to jumping over a hole or span. If they are not in combat, not in any rush, and have a high enough acrobatics skill bonus to jump that chasm on a 10, then I allow it. If they're in combat, then they must roll, unless they have some ability that allows them to take 10.

We've never had any issues of complexity with "Oh, they rolled a natural 20 on their perception check to notice someone who rolled a natural 20 on their stealth check." Except in that case when I was sneaking up on my own character. If it happens with a PC and an NPC, I'll simply have them both reroll. Its quick, its painless, and we like rolling anyways. Our group just likes the suspense on seeing what their roll is, especially, ESPECIALLY since they know theres at least a 5% chance at failure.

Its fun for us. My group loves it. I will say again that I don't think anyone else's preference is wrong. We do not find it needlessly complex, because everyone in my group basically treats it as a standard rule. We even have a new guy who's never played D&D before, who joined us and hasn't complained about the issue. He laughs like the rest of us when someone fails epicly.

Damnit I went off and typed too much again.. sorry for the wall of text lol.

Trebloc

2013-01-02, 12:01 PM

Do you trip and fall every 20 steps you take? Or do you wreck your car after 20 "drive" rolls? Conversely, if you happen to pick up 20 blank sheets, can you write a masterful concert? Pick up 20 blank notebooks and write an epic book?

We don't use this rule because of these reasons.

navar100

2013-01-02, 01:24 PM

Doctors cannot Take 10 doing surgery. If 5% of their patients die due to their failure, they would not be doctors anymore. Heck, even one patient dieing due to their error can lead to a massive malpractice suit. It happens. Doctors cannot save everyone, but it's much lower than a flat 5% failure of the Heal check. The check failure happens because the DC was high (massive injuries, disease, etc.) or they had circumstance penalties (poor equipment, triage rushing through many patients, etc.). Sometimes the doctor just doesn't have enough experience (skill ranks).

hymer

2013-01-02, 02:02 PM

Doctors cannot Take 10 doing surgery.

Why not? S/he's not being threatened or distracted (or I'd hope not, anyway).

Curmudgeon

2013-01-02, 02:26 PM

Why not? S/he's not being threatened or distracted (or I'd hope not, anyway).
You think cutting into a live person is free of distractions? Doing surgery on a cadaver isn't distracting. Having to deal with a patient bleeding faster than expected, or their blood pressure rising/falling unexpectedly, or anesthesia wearing off early -- these are all things that make a surgeon need to have their faces mopped to keep the sweat out of their eyes.

ko_sct

2013-01-02, 02:41 PM

In the case of the surgeon, I do agree that this house rule doesnt really work, though I guess you could represent an operation as some kind of skill challenge requiring multiple rolls. Like, roll 7 times, you must get at least 4 success (random numbers). Failled rolls would mean it would take more time, while critical fumble would detract a success. Now, no matter how good the surgeon is, he will never be 100% sure of being succesfull.

(Note that it's just a random idea, I do agree that this house-rule can cause complications in some cases)

EDIT: The rolls could also represent an 45min of operation each, a perfect operation taking 3h, a critical success giving a success and an extra roll. Meanning that an operation could take more time than usual. Ajust number of rolls required and given as well as the time it take according to the difficulty of the operation.

Do you trip and fall every 20 steps you take? Or do you wreck your car after 20 "drive" rolls? Conversely, if you happen to pick up 20 blank sheets, can you write a masterful concert? Pick up 20 blank notebooks and write an epic book?

Well, do you normally roll for every steps you take ? Do you make a drive roll every time you turn a corner ?

The critical fumble/succes rules are for a roll can actually matter. When there's no chance of success, you don't roll, simple as that. A raging orc barbarian with 22 str doesnt roll when trying to arm wrestle a 4 str gnome, you just assume he win, even though the gnome could roll a 19 and the orc a 2

EDIT 2: One argument against the rule I can easely see is, say a caracter as an extra-ordinarly high bonus in a skill, like +35 in perform. When he does a perform check there's now 2 options. 95% of the time he give an extraordinary performance, able to draw attention accros plane. And 5% of the time he fail and nobody give him even a single copper piece.

Now, i know some people like the fact that he can still fail, but here there's no gradient of success, it's either inter-planar quality or not worth a copper piece, with an explosive dice système, he could still fail, but he could also get a memorable performance, or just an ok performance, it's not binary total faillure/inter-planar success.

NichG

2013-01-02, 07:02 PM

There are a number of types of surgeries which I'd expect a surgeon could take 10 on. A surgeon is probably doing multiple of these kinds of things each day, every day of the week (though I guess you could argue that an adventurer following DMG encounter guides is having about as many battles).

Even if disallow taking 10 for routine surgery, a reasonable model would be something like:

- Surgeon makes a Heal check to attempt to hit the necessary DC. A failure prolongs the surgery and forces the patient to make a Fort save based on the particular surgery being performed and how long the surgery has gone on, or their condition worsens (in the form of appropriate ability drain). The patient dies when their Con hits zero, and the surgery is complete when the Surgeon has successfully hit the DC. There may well be 5% of surgeries where the patient, though cured of the main problem, never fully recovers to peak condition or does so only due to followup surgeries or extensive physical therapy.

So, knee surgery might have Dex drain whereas open heart surgery (or anything involving the possibility of massive blood loss) has Con drain, and brain surgery has Int/Wis/Cha drain.

This is all an aside, however. The point of a nat 1 botch/auto-fail rule isn't realism, its that it has the possibility of introducing interesting entropy to the game. And the palatability of such a rule depends on what your DM does with that entropy.

Andezzar

2013-01-02, 07:05 PM

That are a lot of additional houserules to make the initial one plausible.

hymer

2013-01-02, 07:18 PM

@ Curmudgeon: Climbing a wall can be distracting too, if it's sufficiently fraught with difficulty, and the stakes are high in both cases. But you can still take 10 doing it if you're not threatened or distracted. If the DM decides that there's a complication during surgery, then the character must roll, like if a piece of the wall you're climbing suddenly crumbles at an inopportune moment. But these are DM calls that turn a routine task into a problem, not the general rule.

Acanous

2013-01-02, 07:48 PM

Indeed. If there's an unusual circumstance, like a weak wall section or an unknown preexisting condition in a patient, that's something the DM should know about and use to modify the DC of a task- not something that the dice randomly generate 5% of the time.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-02, 09:21 PM

That are a lot of additional houserules to make the initial one plausible.

To my group, none of these are house rules. We've been using them standard for years. Which is why I was initially confused at the situation with my Online group. I wasn't aware it was a house rule, it was so ingrained in how I play this game.

@ Curmudgeon: Climbing a wall can be distracting too, if it's sufficiently fraught with difficulty, and the stakes are high in both cases. But you can still take 10 doing it if you're not threatened or distracted. If the DM decides that there's a complication during surgery, then the character must roll, like if a piece of the wall you're climbing suddenly crumbles at an inopportune moment. But these are DM calls that turn a routine task into a problem, not the general rule.

Exactly. I allow my players to take 10 on things if they're not in combat. The climbing a mast bit? It had a feel of combat to it, so that was a time they were not allowed to take 10.

That doctor in surgery? Allowed to take 10 except on the most extreme of cases, such as if someone's in critical condition. I'm sure a 5% failure rate when they're literally dying on him isn't an extreme failure rate. Normal surgery? Excluding any complications that might arise, they can take 10.

The same goes for any mundane task thats not being done in combat or in the presence of a major distraction.

My players and I (And often I'm a player too, as we have a couple of us who generally GM throughout the year) -like- the idea that we can muck up. Succeeding 100% of the time is boring. Same goes for failing 100% of the time if an npc has a high enough opposite skill check. Certainty is boring. Chance is fun. We like the idea that when we roll, theres -always- a chance for muck-up.

Its certainly not for everyone. Some people will certainly prefer safety. We don't. And its just the norm for us.

Deophaun

2013-01-02, 09:34 PM

You think cutting into a live person is free of distractions? Doing surgery on a cadaver isn't distracting. Having to deal with a patient bleeding faster than expected, or their blood pressure rising/falling unexpectedly, or anesthesia wearing off early -- these are all things that make a surgeon need to have their faces mopped to keep the sweat out of their eyes.
You aren't describing distractions. You are describing aspects of the task that the skill is supposed to allow you to deal with.

Taking 10 is not about being easy going. It's about being deliberate. A surgeon can certainly take a 10 if he's in an operating room, because the surgery is the only thing happening in that room. Unknown complications may then emerge that boost the DC above the doctor's level of competence, and then he will have to roll or call in specialists to continue taking 10s. But these complications aren't distractions, either. They're just penalties.

awa

2013-01-03, 09:31 AM

while i don't like auto fail on a 1 i do agree with the whole taking 10 part surgery is not a distraction getting shot at during surgery is a distraction

Darius Kane

2013-01-03, 09:41 AM

while i don't like auto fail on a 1 i do agree with the whole taking 10 part surgery is not a distraction getting shot at during surgery is a distraction
Unless you're Gregory House.

awa

2013-01-03, 09:48 AM

I don't get that reference

rockdeworld

2013-01-03, 10:08 AM

My group doesn't, and I fully support that.

It's the same deal with "negligible probability" that cryptography deals with. Yes, there is a chance that someone can randomly guess the 1 password in 2^80 that unlocks your bank account. There's also a chance that a meteor could strike the earth and wipe all electronic records from existence. The latter isn't very likely, and neither is the former (to put it in perspective, if a 16 GHZ computer, which is faster than anything available today, made 1 guess with every flop - smallest possible unit - for a year, it would have a 1/2395924 chance of getting it right).

I don't think 5% appropriately describes that.

In any case, I think it just comes down to how you want to play the game.

Edit: Wow, Deophaun and I used basically the same example without my even seeing it.

And I forgot to mention: My players really liked it when I told them "you guys don't have to roll for this one, you automatically succeed."

And @awa: In at least 1 episode of House, the patient has a gun trained on him.

Trebloc

2013-01-03, 11:24 AM

Well, do you normally roll for every steps you take ? Do you make a drive roll every time you turn a corner ?

The critical fumble/succes rules are for a roll can actually matter. When there's no chance of success, you don't roll, simple as that. A raging orc barbarian with 22 str doesnt roll when trying to arm wrestle a 4 str gnome, you just assume he win, even though the gnome could roll a 19 and the orc a 2

Why wouldn't you roll the STR check? You know what they say about people who assume. The gnome doesn't have that bad of a chance to win the arm wrestling.

Anyway, I think you're missing the entire point. You're saying a master blacksmith has a 1 in 20 chance to fail at something extremely simple (making nails?). You're saying a master acrobat has a 5% chance to fall on their face with ever flip they make. A master musician has a 5% chance to play the wrong note. These guys are experts in their trade & skills. That halfling rogue is an expert tumbler such they they are able to dive between a dragon's legs 100% of the time, not 95% of the time.

awa

2013-01-03, 12:06 PM

that just highlights a silliness in dnd that a toddler has a fair chance to beat a line backer in a str check even taking size penalties into consideration just because the d20 is so large a variable

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 01:10 PM

Why would a toddler be wrestling a linebacker? In what stupid world would that happen?

Seriously. We don't pull stupid **** like that in our campaigns. We keep them realistic, so no one's jumping to the moon, jumping to infinity, or having a toddler arm-wrestle a linebacker.

Well, do you normally roll for every steps you take ? Do you make a drive roll every time you turn a corner ?

The critical fumble/succes rules are for a roll can actually matter. When there's no chance of success, you don't roll, simple as that. A raging orc barbarian with 22 str doesnt roll when trying to arm wrestle a 4 str gnome, you just assume he win, even though the gnome could roll a 19 and the orc a 2

1: No. You don't roll for every step you take. That is so ingrained in everyone that anyone can take a 10 on it, even when distracted. Anything that might cause you to trip is detailed under acrobatics, and only when something comes up must you roll to balance.

2: A Gnome with 4 strength has a -3 to his strength roll. An Orc with 22 strength has a +6. In no way is that a certain win, and the guy who's strength is at 4 due to poison will get pissed if you don't allow him that roll. I mean sure its a long shot, but its easily more than 5%. If you don't allow players to roll because of that kind of crap, then I certainly wouldn't want to play in your games, as you probably disallow anything with a margin of error. Wheres the fun in that? None.

In my campaigns, and my groups' campaigns in general, of course we'd allow that gnome to roll an opposed strength check vs the orc. If the gnome wins? Well, the little bastard's win can be described as a burst of unholy gnomish strength that he conjured up from the depths of his little gnomish body to beat the odds. Because **** it, he's a gnome. They're crazy anyways.

Anyway, I think you're missing the entire point. You're saying a master blacksmith has a 1 in 20 chance to fail at something extremely simple (making nails?). You're saying a master acrobat has a 5% chance to fall on their face with ever flip they make. A master musician has a 5% chance to play the wrong note. These guys are experts in their trade & skills. That halfling rogue is an expert tumbler such they they are able to dive between a dragon's legs 100% of the time, not 95% of the time.

The Master Blacksmith can take 10 in making those nails. He's not being distracted, is he? The acrobat isn't being distracted, is he? If he isn't, he can take a 10. Same for the master musician. If the Musician is being threatened on pain of death to play his music for an angry, bloodthirsty noble that will behead him if he misses that note? Then he must roll. That halfling rogue, who's an expert tumbler? Diving between a Dragon's legs is not a 100% sure chance, no matter how good you are. You can't fully predict 100% of the time if that dragon won't move his legs, or tail, and cause you to fail.

The goal, in my opinion, in getting skills as high as possible is to minimize that risk to the minimum of 5% during when it matters. When it doesn't matter? You can usually take a 10 and be done with it. But you can't predict how high a DC in combat may be, and if you are, then I would consider that relative meta-gaming. Your character won't always know the DC's of a check, unless its routine, and then it doesn't matter. Making a skill as high as possible is to make sure those random skill checks, where you don't know their DC, have a small of chance as possible to fail - but there should always be that chance.

I mean seriously, whats the fun without a chance of failure? Maybe I'm a sadistic bastard who enjoys hurting myself for enjoyment. Maybe I just like a challenge. Maybe both. Probably. But without a chance of failure, the game would get old. Fast.

Eldariel

2013-01-03, 01:18 PM

Why would a toddler be wrestling a linebacker? In what stupid world would that happen?

*shrug* Equivalent situation can easily happen in D&D; two sacks of meat grapple, one gets PAO'd into a kid or something, grapple continues. Then the kid wins 'cause it rolled 20 while the sack of meat barbarian rolled 1.

navar100

2013-01-03, 01:23 PM

I mean seriously, whats the fun without a chance of failure? Maybe I'm a sadistic bastard who enjoys hurting myself for enjoyment. Maybe I just like a challenge. Maybe both. Probably. But without a chance of failure, the game would get old. Fast.

The fun is that after all that hard work earning XP, leveling, and investing the ranks, I'm just that good that I can't fail anymore in the particular thing I worked on to be the expert. I get to enjoy the spoils.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 01:25 PM

*shrug* Equivalent situation can easily happen in D&D; two sacks of meat grapple, one gets PAO'd into a kid or something, grapple continues. Then the kid wins 'cause it rolled 20 while the sack of meat barbarian rolled 1.

PAO'd? Not sure what that is short for.

Anyways, if I'm correct in assuming the kid, for some reason, joined the grapple, and rolled a 20 while the sack of meat rolled a 1, then we can assume something caused the barbarian to fumble and the kid to succeed. Usually we assume some hilarious. Like with the gnome I mentioned earlier. That kid is pissed off. Maybe he's channeling Gorum or the God of Strength from whatever world he's in. Maybe he's let out his inner hulk.

Either way, that kid is very unlikely to win any more rolls unless he gets lucky, or the meat sack gets unlucky. The chances are slim. When they happen, we make something funny out of it. We're not so serious that we can't have fun with the game in those kinds of ways.

The fun is that after all that hard work earning XP, leveling, and investing the ranks, I'm just that good that I can't fail anymore in the particular thing I worked on to be the expert. I get to enjoy the spoils.

For my group, the fun is doing that - and knowing we didn't roll bad. The luck of the dice is a skill you can't invest in, and succeeding despite all of the odds allows us to enjoy the spoils that much more. We just add more odds against ourselves. I can understand why some people won't like that. I can understand it perfectly. I can understand why you wouldn't want a chance of failure. Its just not for my group.

Eldariel

2013-01-03, 01:29 PM

PAO'd? Not sure what that is short for.

Polymorph Any Object or the "Do Anything"-spell.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 01:38 PM

Polymorph Any Object or the "Do Anything"-spell.

Oh, gotcha. Well, in such a case, the gm would probably describe how this meat-sack-child is so pissed off he succeeded. We've seen things just as wierd. Would be hilarious to see him succeed. Thats what we'd be. Laughing our asses off at such a random chance, rather than contemplating why it shouldn't happen.

Yes it breaks immersion. Damn straight it does. But honestly we've never been the greatly-immersed type. We still roleplay, but not to that much of a point.

Nizaris

2013-01-03, 01:52 PM

I always use the 2d10 replacement when possible when a player and when DM'img i only use d20 for disposable monsters. That way, for important NPC's and PC's, there's not a 1-in-20 chance of mucking up a simple check. 1-in-100 is a more acceptable number to allow auto-success and failures

awa

2013-01-03, 02:03 PM

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 02:14 PM

It makes about as much sense as a human taking, and surviving, a bite from a 50-ft tall dragon with a mouth big enough to swallow him hole.

Makes about as much sense as a monk who can jump 100ft without taking a running start. Or jumping that much period.

Makes about a much sense as a dragon flying. Their wings would do more damage than their bite, if those wings had enough strength to lift off sucha large creature.

Makes about as much sense as anything in D&D. Which is not much. Still, thats why we love the game. Doesn't have to make sense to be fun. If you don't like toddlers making skill checks against brawlers, then don't allow it.

Also, in Pathfinder, I'm pretty sure CMB rolls succeed on a natural 20 much like attacks. They don't have opposing rolls for grapple. Therefore, a strength-4 gnome could grapple a 22 strength orc on a natural 20.

Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat
maneuver is always a success (except when attempting
to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always
a failure.

Yup, there it is. So that gnome could grapple, trip, BULLRUSH, or overrun that orc if he rolled a natural 20. Say he's a level 1 orc barbarian with a 22 strength and.. 14 dex. His CMD would be 19. The gnome who rolled a natural 20, despite having at least a -4 modifier to his CMB, would still have pushed him back 5 feet. Or grappled him. Or ran over him.

Make sense? Naw.

Also pretty sure that 3.5 rules for grappling also take into account nat 1's and 20's, though I'm not 100% positive on this, and I don't have the book near me to check... though I can given a few minutes.

--------

Edit: Ok it doesn't specifically say it does, but it does say:

A grapple check is like a melee attack roll.

Page 156. Therefore, by that phrase alone, I'd consider it was the same.

Zeful

2013-01-03, 02:49 PM

the toddler was a slightly more extreme example then the gnome although mechanical their is very little difference between 1 str and 4 at least in regards to a pure strength check.

my point is it's a bit of silliness within the dnd system that a 40 pound weakling has a non negligible chance to win at arm wrestling against a 300 pound muscle bound juggernaut everything else being equal

Because if you don't, then the 300 pound muscle-bound juggernaut shouldn't be allowed a chance to resist the 30,000 pound purple worm trying to eat him.

Parity in the rules, by definition, goes both ways.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 02:54 PM

Because if you don't, then the 300 pound muscle-bound juggernaut shouldn't be allowed a chance to resist the 30,000 pound purple worm trying to eat him.

Parity in the rules, by definition, goes both ways.

Truth. Thar be truth in this. I never thought of that.. but its the same thing.

White_Drake

2013-01-03, 04:52 PM

I'm just going to go down the list of things I want to reply to.

To my group, none of these are house rules. We've been using them standard for years. Which is why I was initially confused at the situation with my Online group. I wasn't aware it was a house rule, it was so ingrained in how I play this game.

How does this differentiate it from a house rule? Did your group get WotC to send you a special edition of the Player's Handbook with those rules in it?

You aren't describing distractions. You are describing aspects of the task that the skill is supposed to allow you to deal with.

Taking 10 is not about being easy going. It's about being deliberate. A surgeon can certainly take a 10 if he's in an operating room, because the surgery is the only thing happening in that room. Unknown complications may then emerge that boost the DC above the doctor's level of competence, and then he will have to roll or call in specialists to continue taking 10s. But these complications aren't distractions, either. They're just penalties.

By this logic, shouldn't a 20th level fighter be able to take ten on attack rolls when fighting a single bog standard kobold? After all, the fighter is trained for killing, and could dispatch the kobold while blindfolded with both hands tied behind his back.

Why would a toddler be wrestling a linebacker? In what stupid world would that happen?

Seriously. We don't pull stupid **** like that in our campaigns. We keep them realistic, so no one's jumping to the moon, jumping to infinity, or having a toddler arm-wrestle a linebacker.

A Gnome with 4 strength has a -3 to his strength roll. An Orc with 22 strength has a +6. In no way is that a certain win, and the guy who's strength is at 4 due to poison will get pissed if you don't allow him that roll. I mean sure its a long shot, but its easily more than 5%. If you don't allow players to roll because of that kind of crap, then I certainly wouldn't want to play in your games, as you probably disallow anything with a margin of error. Wheres the fun in that? None.

"Works for me" ≠ Good rule. Also, calling your opponent's argument stupid does not invalidate it.

On the arm wrestlers, take it into perspective. the gnome is less than half as strong as the average human. The Orc is over twice as strong as the average human. It would be like your granny winning against the strongest man that ever lived.

It makes about as much sense as a human taking, and surviving, a bite from a 50-ft tall dragon with a mouth big enough to swallow him hole.

Makes about as much sense as a monk who can jump 100ft without taking a running start. Or jumping that much period.

Makes about a much sense as a dragon flying. Their wings would do more damage than their bite, if those wings had enough strength to lift off sucha large creature.

Makes about as much sense as anything in D&D. Which is not much. Still, thats why we love the game. Doesn't have to make sense to be fun. If you don't like toddlers making skill checks against brawlers, then don't allow it.

Breaks realism ≠ Breaks verisimilitude. Also, fairly certain that "If you don't like toddlers making skill checks against brawlers, then don't allow it." is a permutation of the Oberoni Fallacy.

If I want wacky hijinks I watch looney tunes. For me, watching my near deific rogue plunge into a vat of acid, despite being able to succeed with even the worst possible luck (on a natural one) is not fun.

Deophaun

2013-01-03, 05:28 PM

By this logic, shouldn't a 20th level fighter be able to take ten on attack rolls when fighting a single bog standard kobold? After all, the fighter is trained for killing, and could dispatch the kobold while blindfolded with both hands tied behind his back.
There comes a point when the bog standard kobold isn't a threat, and rolling is a waste of time. If the fighter wants to kill it, he kills it. I have no problem with characters "taking 10" on outclassed opponents.

But, in game terms, the kobold actually threatens the fighter, so you can't take 10. A ruptured spleen threatens the patient, not the surgeon, so the surgeon can take 10 (if someone's holding a gun to him, maybe not so much). A sheer drop doesn't threaten anything, it's just there, so a climber or a jumper can take 10.

hymer

2013-01-03, 05:56 PM

@ White_Drake: You can't take 10 on attack rolls anyhow.

Because if you don't, then the 300 pound muscle-bound juggernaut shouldn't be allowed a chance to resist the 30,000 pound purple worm trying to eat him.

Parity in the rules, by definition, goes both ways.

I get that. But I've picked up toddlers, so I know from experience how that goes. I've never been picked up by a purple worm, so my experience doesn't get much in the way of believing the story that the barbarian wrestled himself from the maw of the worm.

awa

2013-01-03, 06:52 PM

actually i consider the purple worm to be a bad example
i see arm wrestling as a str check possible modified for size.
trying to avoid being eaten is a grapple check where a skilled warrior will make use of tricks and techniques to mitigate the difference in size.

second a purple worm has a cr of 12 and a grapple mod of 40

that means if a size medium barbarian with no magic has any chance of success he needs to be insanely skilled. Does it break my suspension of disbelief for a toddler to pin a linebacker? yes. does it break my suspension of disbelief when the scourge of the north killer of a thousand men whose name is used to frighten hatching dragons into obedience breaks his way out of the wurms grasp? no.

By the time you are powerful enough to have a chance to hit a dc 41 grapple check as a size medium creature you are skilled enough that you make the greatest warrior who has ever lived look like an amateur you deserve that victory.

its unfortunately part of the problem with an rpg it does not represent things well when they get to weak or to strong.

P.s. i entirely forget my point with this post so whatever

demigodus

2013-01-03, 07:42 PM

Generally I dislike auto-fails on skills, because I find them unrealistic enough to break my suspension of disbelief. Although for me things take the cake when people try justifying it how there is always a small chance of failure. Maybe. But if you think that that small chance is closer to 5% then 0% in every conceivable case, you have a very poor understanding of probability. If you are climbing a ladder while people are yelling down below, the ladder doesn't break once a minute. Yes, there is an odd of a brand new masterwork ladder of unbreakableness breaking, and you falling off. There is a chance that slime magically teleported on there, that you happen to grab it, and fall off. There is a much higher odd of lightning stroking you. Literally, at that point, "lightning strikes you if you roll a 1" is MORE realistic.

Also, for those arguing that you can't jump to the moon because that is unrealistic, I would argue that having tasks you can't fail because you are that good, but you fail them anyway, is also unrealistic.

Deadline

2013-01-03, 08:08 PM

'Ey guys. Question is as the title states:

How many of you count natural 1's on the D20 as auto-fail for skills, as well as attacks? What about natural 20's being auto-success, except when the skill is innately impossible to do?

No. Auto fail/success on nat1/nat20 are, by the rules, only applied to attack rolls and saves.

I'm not even sure how your suggestion would work. Nat 1 always fails a skill check, no matter how implausible, but Nat 20 only succeeds "when you feel like it"? Does this rule ever cause arguments at your table?

You pretty much have to have every member in your group in full agreement with "what is plausible" to be able to pull that off, otherwise your houserule will wind up causing strife. Also, why even bother letting the player roll a skill check if you have already deemed the outcome isn't plausible? It's a pointless roll as the character cannot possibly succeed.

Your argument for realism is shattered by the fact that the skill roll doesn't break failure out into anything less than a 5% chance, meaning the frequency of failure is patently ridiculous, and unrealistic.

Out of curiosity, do you see many characters in your group with high skill ranks? Skills are largely minor in power, and this rule just seems like a needless one-sided nerf (the poster mentioning a lack of autofail chance for Barbarian rage and spell failure hit this nail on the head).

I think it's great that your group enjoys it, and I'm not about to tell you that you are having badwrongfun, I just think you'll be hard pressed to find other people that would enjoy that kind of rule.

I have played in games that used crit hit/fumble rules, and they can be hilarious so long as they are infrequent. Having them happen 1 in 20 times on average though? That would get old quickly for me.

I'd recommend your group that enjoys the auto fail on skills rule try out Rolemaster. It's a bit more complicated, but the detail of failure and criticals are fantastic and hilarious. You'll probably be hard pressed to have a character survive relatively unscathed for long, as criticals happen quite often in that system, and many of them are horribly disfiguring or deadly. It's a game mostly built around a crit fail/hit system, now that I think of it... :smallsmile:

Andezzar

2013-01-03, 08:31 PM

I'd recommend your group that enjoys the auto fail on skills rule try out Rolemaster. It's a bit more complicated, but the detail of failure and criticals are fantastic and hilarious. You'll probably be hard pressed to have a character survive relatively unscathed for long, as criticals happen quite often in that system, and many of them are horribly disfiguring or deadly. It's a game mostly built around a crit fail/hit system, now that I think of it... :smallsmile:Umm, I don't remember auto fails/successes in Rolemaster. Attacks though were all about the criticals. IIRC nobody ever died form hit point loss at our table, it was always something along the lines of: "Strike to side of head. Foe is knocked out for 6 hours. +10 hits. If foe has no helm, you kill him."

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 09:10 PM

No. Auto fail/success on nat1/nat20 are, by the rules, only applied to attack rolls and saves.

I'm not even sure how your suggestion would work. Nat 1 always fails a skill check, no matter how implausible, but Nat 20 only succeeds "when you feel like it"? Does this rule ever cause arguments at your table?

Hasn't yet. Only on my online game, and i've already decided we won't be using that rule, even though 5/6 of my players also thought we were using it, and had no issue with it.

You pretty much have to have every member in your group in full agreement with "what is plausible" to be able to pull that off, otherwise your houserule will wind up causing strife. Also, why even bother letting the player roll a skill check if you have already deemed the outcome isn't plausible? It's a pointless roll as the character cannot possibly succeed.

We are in full agreement, usually. Or we talk about how it should be alright to do if it seems implausable. My group is quite good at explaining how **** should work. One of my characters, whom I spoke to about jumping to infinity, told me how its possible. You just need enough of a boost to get you started, then you can enter a low-earth orbit where you're still alive and breathing. Provided they can get the momentum at a start (Maybe have a Tarrasque give 'em a boost?), then they could jump to infinity. And quite possibly roll a new character, as that one might be stuck in an infnite loop.

Your argument for realism is shattered by the fact that the skill roll doesn't break failure out into anything less than a 5% chance, meaning the frequency of failure is patently ridiculous, and unrealistic.

We're fine with the minimum chance of failure being 5%. We like the apparently large chance at failure. Its not that large for us.

Out of curiosity, do you see many characters in your group with high skill ranks? Skills are largely minor in power, and this rule just seems like a needless one-sided nerf (the poster mentioning a lack of autofail chance for Barbarian rage and spell failure hit this nail on the head).

We have a rogue at level 2 with at least a +13 or so to his swim skill.. not to mention a cleric with a +10 or more diplomacy skill. We love our skills just as much as every else. Also, that cleric has garnered the group the most Exp out of anything so far, as a very large portion of this early was diplomatic.

And climbing. Lots of climbing. They didn't realize that soon enough and we almost lost a character to it. He didn't roll a nat 1. Still fell, and went unconcious.

I think it's great that your group enjoys it, and I'm not about to tell you that you are having badwrongfun, I just think you'll be hard pressed to find other people that would enjoy that kind of rule.

Every person I've known irl whom I've played with, which would be at least 4-5 other people beyond this main group, have used this rule, and most of my players on my online group figured it was the same. So, besides it seems the majority of people on this forums, almost everyone I've met uses it. I guess its just that I know less casual-gaming people who like their safety, and prefer more difficulty in their gaming.

I have played in games that used crit hit/fumble rules, and they can be hilarious so long as they are infrequent. Having them happen 1 in 20 times on average though? That would get old quickly for me.

Rolling the dice does not guarantee 1 in 20 times that its a nat 1. We've seen 3 or 4 nat 1's or 20's in a roll, then none for hours. And no, it doesn't get old for us. Especially since someone broke someone's trachea with a piece of garbage, broke someone' nose with garbage a few rounds later, and later that evening saw an NPC throw his weapon overboard due to a critical fumble.

I'd recommend your group that enjoys the auto fail on skills rule try out Rolemaster. It's a bit more complicated, but the detail of failure and criticals are fantastic and hilarious. You'll probably be hard pressed to have a character survive relatively unscathed for long, as criticals happen quite often in that system, and many of them are horribly disfiguring or deadly. It's a game mostly built around a crit fail/hit system, now that I think of it... :smallsmile:

I'll give it a look.

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-03, 09:25 PM

I guess its just that I know less casual-gaming people who like their safety, and prefer more difficulty in their gaming.

Yeah, this is totally what's going on. lol :ROLLEYES:

Tvtyrant

2013-01-03, 09:28 PM

Yes, but they have to confirm the failure. A Thri-kreen who can jump a chasm 99% of the time still fail once in a while, so if you role two 1s then you fail.

awa

2013-01-03, 09:28 PM

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 09:33 PM

Yeah, this is totally what's going on. lol :ROLLEYES:

Tell me then, why do you guys not enjoy adding the difficulty of chance? Because its unrealistic? Because you're playing a dark game where you can succeed 100% of the time?

My group adds things to make it more difficult on ourselves, while being light-hearted and silly in our roleplaying. We do things obviously stupid for us as players.

And we enjoy it. I've already found out that most of the people on the forums don't like this rule. I see that. I don't really plan on trying to convince people to like the rule. Nor will anyone be able to move me on my stance that its a good rule, as it creates fun for me and my players. Yes there are some issues, but we work around that so quickly in our games it doesn't detract from gaming. If anything in our group detracts from gaming, its the distraction of pizza. And personally I find that a good distraction. Especially when covered in bacon.

roguemetal

2013-01-03, 09:37 PM

I roll with 1s as crit failures only when the situation seems to accept a total failure or obvious fluke, and i treat nat 20s as exploding dice, meaning roll another 1d10 and add 'em up, if 10, roll another 1d10, etc. I have seen players roll in the 40s, but it's impractically rare. I also never allow these for time-based checks, e.g. crafting, profession, diplomacy, disable device...

Crustypeanut

2013-01-03, 09:40 PM

"Every person I've known irl whom I've played with, which would be at least 4-5 other people beyond this main group, have used this rule, and most of my players on my online group figured it was the same. So, besides it seems the majority of people on this forums, almost everyone I've met uses it. I guess its just that I know less casual-gaming people who like their safety, and prefer more difficulty in their gaming."

Playing by the actual rules does not mean they are more casual gamers who want a safety net. The primary cited reason is realism not difficulty.

I could say just as easily you must be a casual gamer who doesn't like hardship becuase you don't use a house rule that failing to talk in rhyme causes spontaneous combustion and instant death but saying that would be insulting every one who does not use my house rule even though its both illogical and a house rule. Maybe you didn't mean to insult people who happen to play differently then you and if so i apologize but your comment came out fairly condescending.

If your group uses a houserule where your character spontaneously combusts when failing to speak in rhyme, then I salute you, as I can only think of one person I've played with who could succeed on that.

And I didn't mean to insult anyone, despite the fact that my group was called casual for liking such a rule earlier in this thread, "because it detracts from realism", and I was simply stating that our games are not casual, if for the fact we make them purposefully harder on ourselves for fun. Usually, that is considered anything but casual.

I've already stated many times that I understand why people don't use the rule, nor will I try and get them to try it or say its a good rule. My first focus of this thread was to find out opinions, and now I've found I need to defend why my group likes our rule.

I would like to state that *I* did not even come up with the rule. Its been standard issue for my group since before I even joined them. We've never really even bothered to discuss the rule. Sure it has its flaws. What doesn't, in this game?

Story

2013-01-03, 09:44 PM

Edit: Nevermind

javijuji

2013-01-03, 10:09 PM

Appart from attacks my group also considers 1s and 20s on opposed checks. A 20 on an opposed grapple check is an auto success.

navar100

2013-01-04, 12:15 AM

Appart from attacks my group also considers 1s and 20s on opposed checks. A 20 on an opposed grapple check is an auto success.

What happens when both grapplers roll 20? Someone's auto-success has to be fiated into a failure, breaking the purpose. You need a house rule for the house rule when the original rule would have no issues.

awa

2013-01-04, 12:38 AM

i think defender wins ties so it would actually not need a new house rule just an application of an old rule

Noctani

2013-01-04, 12:57 AM

I don't use auto-failers or auto-succeeds.

1 roll out of 20 doesn't help players feel like they have control.

I think it discourages game play.

I use a variant. A natural 1 is a possible critical fumble. Criticals have to be confirmed, roll again to see if you automatically fail the check or not.

If you make the check on the second roll you take the first roll and add it to your check. If you fail the second roll its a critical fumble and the negative affects of the spell, skill, or check are intensified.

Wrathof42

2013-01-04, 02:08 AM

I don't use it in the games that I run and dislike it when DM's house rule it that way under the guise of "realism". You know it might be realistic to say that there's a CHANCE of you messing up even if it's like a dc 10 jump check and you're a level 20 -read: for the sake of "realism" a virtual demigod- but as many have said a 5% is much too much of one. As far as those claiming that they like having it for the sake of "challenge" then by all means, invent house rules to your hearts content! Live in a world where soldiers die regularly when attacking practice dummies, bakers burn down their store every other week, and acrobats make a living falling once out of every twenty jumps. I for one like my DnD RAW, RAI, and realistically unrealistic.

demigodus

2013-01-04, 03:36 AM

Tell me then, why do you guys not enjoy adding the difficulty of chance? Because its unrealistic? Because you're playing a dark game where you can succeed 100% of the time?

My group adds things to make it more difficult on ourselves, while being light-hearted and silly in our roleplaying. We do things obviously stupid for us as players.

I think we might be operating under different definitions of difficult here. Difficult, to me, means requiring more skill to succeed. Either more skill in building your character to improve your odds of success, or more skill in coming up with the appropriate tactics.

"Not rolling a 1" is NOT a skill. Therefore, "rolling a 1 is always a failure" does not make things more difficult. It instead makes your success based on CHANCE, which takes the game further away from the easy to difficult scale.

My groups don't have problems challenging the party without resulting to house rules.

That said, why do I not like this? Because it breaks my suspension of disbelief. I'm not sure if "realistic" is the appropriate term to use when describing 3.5 dnd. However, given the abilities of characters that we play (after all, level 5 PCs are supposed to be equivalent to the best human being that ever lived...), these auto-failures at those odds are EXTREMELY unrealistic. It just doesn't mesh with my expectation of the setting when the guy who is supposed to be on par with he-who-tells-physics-to-shut-up-and-go-sit-in-the-corner through his mastery of various skills, can't pull off the most trivial task 100% of the time under the slightest of pressures.

Augmental

2013-01-04, 05:35 AM

Live in a world where soldiers die regularly when attacking practice dummies,

The OP never mentioned using a critical fumble chart.

bakers burn down their store every other week, and acrobats make a living falling once out of every twenty jumps.

You can't fumble a Take 10.

Killer Angel

2013-01-04, 06:32 AM

It is not realistic (a minor fault), it is not plausible (a major fault) and penalizes some kind of characters more than others (a big flaw).
You can find someone that has fun with it, but the first points are objective facts.

KhaineGB

2013-01-04, 06:40 AM

In my Pathfinder group, we don't tend to count 1 and 20 as auto-fail/pass for skills.

We do, however, use Rule of Funny if it DOES turn out to be a fail, and something hilarious could happen with no serious consequences to the characters. Both me and my players like to try and keep the gaming session somewhat light hearted. :)

PersonMan

2013-01-04, 06:42 AM

"Not rolling a 1" is NOT a skill. Therefore, "rolling a 1 is always a failure" does not make things more difficult. It instead makes your success based on CHANCE, which takes the game further away from the easy to difficult scale.

Well, technically, "not rolling a 1" could be a skill if you always cheat with your die rolls, but that's just semantics.

You can't fumble a Take 10.

I'm pretty sure you can't take 10 if the result of failure is of consequence. Falling, potentially injuring yourself, can be of consequence, hence you can't take 10.

One could argue allowing take 10 for similar situations, but acrobats generally don't thoroughly prepare themselves, checking distances, etc. just before every jump in front of a crowd.

Killer Angel

2013-01-04, 06:44 AM

What happens when both grapplers roll 20? Someone's auto-success has to be fiated into a failure, breaking the purpose. You need a house rule for the house rule when the original rule would have no issues.

Well, the grapple check is considered a melee attack roll, so a 20 should be an auto win. If both roll a 20, the success (i believe) will go to the one with the highest bonus.

Andezzar

2013-01-04, 06:49 AM

I'm pretty sure you can't take 10 if the result of failure is of consequence. Falling, potentially injuring yourself, can be of consequence, hence you can't take 10.You are confusing take 10 with take 20. Only the latter can't be used, if failure has irrevocable consequences.

One could argue allowing take 10 for similar situations, but acrobats generally don't thoroughly prepare themselves, checking distances, etc. just before every jump in front of a crowd.Adding consequences not mentioned by the rules just forces the players to modify their characters to roll as few times as possible, unless the additional consequences are so minor that the players won't bother. At that point you would not have needed that house rule in the first place.

Eldariel

2013-01-04, 07:04 AM

What doesn't, in this game?

That's no reason to add more flawed things to anything. Would be more productive to instead try to fix the problems. That said, if you find it fun that's cool! Nothing wrong with a lighthearted game, or if it works for you in more serious game that's cool too; there's no wrong way to play! Surely you can see why it's not that popular a houserule though?

Basically, it boils down to this:
- You already can fail most of the time. 1 is a small number even if it isn't an automatic fail. Your level 5 character isn't going to automake any skill checks with 1 outside the trivial ones (staying in the saddle, jumping 5', staying afloat in calm water; things I was able to do in elementary school).
- The things where you succeed with a 1 are so ridiculously easy there's no reason you should be able to fail them without circumstances that give you penalties (which are accounted for in said penalties from said circumstances, not the d20 roll).
- There are always harder things to do; no character short of Punpun ever autosucceeds in everything. It's just the supersimple floor actions that are autosuccesses.

Andezzar

2013-01-04, 07:37 AM

Basically, it boils down to this:
- You already can fail most of the time. 1 is a small number even if it isn't an automatic fail. Your level 5 character isn't going to automake any skill checks with 1 outside the trivial ones (staying in the saddle, jumping 5', staying afloat in calm water; things I was able to do in elementary school).
- The things where you succeed with a 1 are so ridiculously easy there's no reason you should be able to fail them without circumstances that give you penalties (which are accounted for in said penalties from said circumstances, not the d20 roll).
- There are always harder things to do; no character short of Punpun ever autosucceeds in everything. It's just the supersimple floor actions that are autosuccesses.That pretty much depends on the skill in question and the level of the involved characters. The DCs for most skill checks (besides opposed checks) don't go beyond 25-30. Depending on the level of investment (skill points, attributes, bonuses) you can autosucceed on a lot more than ridiculously easy tests eventually. A single character won't be able to do this on all skills, but still.

I think that is the problem some people have with the RAW of skill use.

NichG

2013-01-04, 08:06 AM

That pretty much depends on the skill in question and the level of the involved characters. The DCs for most skill checks (besides opposed checks) don't go beyond 25-30. Depending on the level of investment (skill points, attributes, bonuses) you can autosucceed on a lot more than ridiculously easy tests eventually. A single character won't be able to do this on all skills, but still.

I think that is the problem some people have with the RAW of skill use.

Well the real problem with RAW skill use is that magic can either totally replace skill use, or make someone with no ranks in it much better than someone without the magic but maximum investment. This does just happen to include the tendency for skill checks to either be completely trivial or basically impossible, depending almost entirely on the optimization level of the party (and having less by the book leeway to scale the difficulty the way you would with combat encounters). They also tend to suffer from late game obsolescence - much more important at low levels than high levels.

Then again, you can also get some things that scale in screwy ways with skills. Someone who pumps Hide and Move Silently pretty much can't be detected, magic or no, by any number of observers. This probably does lead to some taste for the crit fail/succeed rules - it means the souped-up rogue can't go up in front of a crowd, assassinate someone at a podium at close range, and vanish away without anyone noticing that someone has been killed (because amidst the hundreds of eyes in the crowd there'll be a few 20s). Whether or not this dynamic is actually good or bad is of course purely a matter of taste - in some settings that ability would make perfect sense for a character of sufficient level or ability, and in other settings it'd totally tear down the setting. I will say that when the DM pulls that on the party, its usually considered pretty foul play since there's pretty much nothing the party can do to counter or survive it if they haven't already prepared the right counters.

Andezzar

2013-01-04, 08:14 AM

Then again, you can also get some things that scale in screwy ways with skills. Someone who pumps Hide and Move Silently pretty much can't be detected, magic or no, by any number of observers. This probably does lead to some taste for the crit fail/succeed rules - it means the souped-up rogue can't go up in front of a crowd, assassinate someone at a podium at close range, and vanish away without anyone noticing that someone has been killed (because amidst the hundreds of eyes in the crowd there'll be a few 20s). Hiding is never possible, while being observed or without concealment. So without magical or supernatural aid, a rogue could not pull this off, no matter the bonus to the check.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-04, 08:39 AM

Hiding is never possible, while being observed or without concealment. So without magical or supernatural aid, a rogue could not pull this off, no matter the bonus to the check.

There are a few ways (Shadowdancer, Assasin) to get Hide in Plain Sight that allows you to do just that :smallsmile:

Andezzar

2013-01-04, 08:44 AM

There are a few ways (Shadowdancer, Assasin) to get Hide in Plain Sight that allows you to do just that :smallsmile:1. NichG spoke about a rogue, not a rogue/shadowdancer or rogue/assassin.
2. that's why I said "without magical or supernatural aid". Both forms of Hide in Plain Sight are Supernatural. Using (greater) invisibility from the assassin's spell list is obviously magical aid.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-04, 08:53 AM

1. NichG spoke about a rogue, not a rogue/shadowdancer or rogue/assassin.
2. that's why I said "without magical or supernatural aid". Both forms of Hide in Plain Sight are Supernatural. Using (greater) invisibility from the assassin's spell list is obviously magical aid.

Usually when people write about "Rogue" they mean "Rogue-based' character, not "pure-classed Rogue character". I think. At least that's how I interpreted the post. And using your own ability isn't "help".

Anyways pure-classed Rogue can do it (without magics and the like):

Then just use Tower Shield to get total concealment, hide (you can because of the concealment) :smallwink:

Or kill your target keeping your distance

Sniping
If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

Eldariel

2013-01-04, 09:00 AM

Andezzar

2013-01-04, 09:06 AM

And using your own ability isn't "help".It is not outside help, but those abilities do help, in fact enable, the rogue to use the hide skill in that situation.

Then just use Tower Shield to get total concealment, hide (you can because of the concealment) :smallwink:When you have total concealment you can't hide either.

Or kill your target keeping your distanceTrue, but that is different from the scenario put forth by NichG.

Eventually, yeah, but we're talking level 10+ characters (or characters with a lot of magical aid). At which point, is it really that implausible or even problematic?Not to me at least. I just imagined what problems some people might have with autosucceeding. Autosucceeding on meaningless tasks will raise less eyebrows than not being able to fail on critical ones.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-04, 09:28 AM

True, but that is different from the scenario put forth by NichG.

No it's not

This probably does lead to some taste for the crit fail/succeed rules - it means the souped-up rogue can't go up in front of a crowd, assassinate someone at a podium at close range, and vanish away without anyone noticing that someone has been killed

Hide, go to the podium assassinate with single attack from 10ft, hide, walk away. Hmm people probably will notice that the assasinee is dead.

Not to me at least. I just imagined what problems some people might have with autosucceeding. Autosucceeding on meaningless tasks will raise less eyebrows than not being able to fail on critical ones.

Auto succeeding is a good thing imo.

Cawalski

2013-01-04, 09:33 AM

Re-Railing this thread a bit... While not RAW, auto-fails can add flavor to an appropriate game. I think its very dependent on the type of campaign you are running.

In a "hero" ideology, auto-fail on 1's doesn't fit. However in a survival horror concept, it makes fantastic sense.

Depending on the immersion you are looking for into a survival horror, I have even ran campaigns where 1's auto-fail, but 20's do not auto succeed. (you may simply be not good enough, and luck doesn't favor survivors in a horror-filled wasteland). Extending to a base 10 system makes this kind of failure system even more painful.

The catch to all this, and the conundrum of the OP, is that each scenario has to be identified before starting the campaign.

Andezzar

2013-01-04, 09:46 AM

No it's notYou are right. I doubt though that this procedure was intended by NichG.

Auto succeeding is a good thing imo.I agree.

Trebloc

2013-01-04, 11:10 AM

That halfling rogue, who's an expert tumbler? Diving between a Dragon's legs is not a 100% sure chance, no matter how good you are. You can't fully predict 100% of the time if that dragon won't move his legs, or tail, and cause you to fail.

The goal, in my opinion, in getting skills as high as possible is to minimize that risk to the minimum of 5% during when it matters. When it doesn't matter? You can usually take a 10 and be done with it. But you can't predict how high a DC in combat may be, and if you are, then I would consider that relative meta-gaming. Your character won't always know the DC's of a check, unless its routine, and then it doesn't matter. Making a skill as high as possible is to make sure those random skill checks, where you don't know their DC, have a small of chance as possible to fail - but there should always be that chance.

I mean seriously, whats the fun without a chance of failure? Maybe I'm a sadistic bastard who enjoys hurting myself for enjoyment. Maybe I just like a challenge. Maybe both. Probably. But without a chance of failure, the game would get old. Fast.

So if I understand you correctly:

A rogue with a +30 to Tumble has a 5% chance to fail tumbling through a dragon

A rogue with a +300 to Tumble has a 5% chance to fail tumbling through a dragon.

A rogue with a +3000 to Tumble has a 5% chance to fail tumbling through a dragon.

What exactly is the point to putting ranks and have experience levels if you always have a 5% failure rate? Granted, you're using a houserule anyway, but to be fair, isn't it easy enough to say that the rogues experience (shown by their level and number of ranks they have in a skill) would determine that they actually are able to predict where the dragon's legs are going to be? But honestly, the vast difference between that rogue with +30 and the one with 3000 is that a simple commoner will trip them up 5% of the time. That doesn't fly with me.

Crustypeanut

2013-01-04, 11:38 AM

So if I understand you correctly:

A rogue with a +30 to Tumble has a 5% chance to fail tumbling through a dragon

A rogue with a +300 to Tumble has a 5% chance to fail tumbling through a dragon.

A rogue with a +3000 to Tumble has a 5% chance to fail tumbling through a dragon.

What exactly is the point to putting ranks and have experience levels if you always have a 5% failure rate? Granted, you're using a houserule anyway, but to be fair, isn't it easy enough to say that the rogues experience (shown by their level and number of ranks they have in a skill) would determine that they actually are able to predict where the dragon's legs are going to be? But honestly, the vast difference between that rogue with +30 and the one with 3000 is that a simple commoner will trip them up 5% of the time. That doesn't fly with me.

Because you want to have a 5% failure rate rather than 10%, 20%, or more. Minimizing the risk as much as possible, but we still like to have a risk in there.

If you have a roguey character with +3000 to tumble, then you've wasted a lot of resources with an overkill skill bonus, and thats your fault.

Pathfinder in general allows players an easier time to spread their skill ranks around rather than focus entirely on a few skills. With this rule, getting a +300 to a skill (not that its possible) is a waste of resources, when you could have 10 skills with a +30, if that +300 is from skill ranks primarily. If its not, and you crafted a ring of it, then it was a waste of money, and thats your fault.

While I will probably get flak for saying this, the entire rule is similar to the idea of a minimum 5% miss chance from an MMO, except that we also include it to skills. A high level character in say, WoW, wants to minimize his miss chance as much as possible - getting your hit high enough so you'll only miss that base 5% of the time, instead of say, 10% or 20%.

As for failing mundane tasks, we take 10 whenever possible. Can't always do so, but for the most part the 5% failing a mundane, routine task isn't an issue for that reason alone.

Also, for taking a 20 - As you're aware, normally you can't take a 20 if theres a chance at catastrophic failure (Such as falling, breaking something, etc). If their skill is high enough to not critically fail on a 1, then we allow it. Its only during those rolls - when you aren't taking 20, or taking 10 - when that 5% shows up. However, it is extremely rare my players ever take 20's, so this isn't an issue. The only time they ever take a 20 is when the rogue is slowly moving forward, taking is his sweet time looking for traps, and examining everything extremely thoroughly. And its during those times my players spend numerous in-game hours slowly crawling through a sewer looking at every inch of the place for traps.

Then they fail at disabling it and get hit in the face with acid, only to find a chest with a flask of acid in it.. hehe.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-04, 01:01 PM

Minimizing the risk as much as possible, but we still like to have a risk in there.

I actually like the way some other systems do it (Burning Wheel, [Old] World of Darkness). There always is a possibility of failure, but as you get better probability of failure gets smaller.

I find flat 5% failure probability... suitable for some games. It was a lot of fun for me when I begun playing but now it's annoying for me (mostly because I play in different style now).

With this rule, getting a +300 to a skill (not that its possible) is a waste of resources

You know +300 bonus to a skill is possible (see Omnificier, Pun-Pun, jumplomancer). In most cases you don't need more than +100 though. Which can be easy... Rogue 20 with 23 ranks in hide, Dex 34 (+17), item giving circumstance bonus (+2, they are in Complete Adventurer), invisible (+40) and magic item giving competence bonus (+18) for example (yeah, easy no spells, no item familiar, competence item not maxed, no familiar bonus, no race bonus, no size bonus...).

Crustypeanut

2013-01-04, 01:14 PM

I actually like the way some other systems do it (Burning Wheel, [Old] World of Darkness). There always is a possibility of failure, but as you get better probability of failure gets smaller.

I find flat 5% failure probability... suitable for some games. It was a lot of fun for me when I begun playing but now it's annoying for me (mostly because I play in different style now).

You know +300 bonus to a skill is possible (see Omnificier, Pun-Pun, jumplomancer). In most cases you don't need more than +100 though. Which can be easy... Rogue 20 with 23 ranks in hide, Dex 34 (+17), item giving circumstance bonus (+2, they are in Complete Adventurer), invisible (+40) and magic item giving competence bonus (+18) for example (yeah, easy no spells, no item familiar, competence item not maxed, no familiar bonus, no race bonus, no size bonus...).

Ah well, its less possible in Pathfinder :P But yeah.. its overkill. And yes, it is suitable for some games, less so for others. Our group finds it suitable, as we always have.

Deophaun

2013-01-04, 02:58 PM

If you have a roguey character with +3000 to tumble, then you've wasted a lot of resources with an overkill skill bonus, and thats your fault.
Somewhat correct:

If you have a roguey character with +3000 to tumble, then you should have been a wizard because mundane classes don't deserve nice things, and that's your fault.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-04, 03:10 PM

Somewhat correct:

If you have a roguey character with +3000 to tumble, then you should have been a wizard because mundane classes don't deserve nice things, and that's your fault.

Hmm good point. Wizards can do this without risk of failing starting level 1.

Lord Il Palazzo

2013-01-04, 03:31 PM

I actually asked my players about this about a month back and (to my irritation) they preferred to have nat 1s auto-fail and nat 20s auto-succeed "when it's reasonable", a phrase that never got a clear enough definition to mean anything at all. According to them, giving every roll a chance to fail helps keep things tense.

I personally don't like the idea that a wizard can spend decades studying magic and can still have a 5% chance of being clueless when it comes to deciphering a new level 1 spell or that a stealthy assassin will somehow manage to fall on his face or stick his foot in a bucket or something 5% of the time when he tries to sneak quietly past guards.

demigodus

2013-01-04, 03:47 PM

Andezzar

2013-01-04, 04:02 PM

The assassin thing is ridiculous, yes.Especially when that includes every 20th deaf sleeping guard, concerning Move Silently, not Hide.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-04, 05:58 PM

Especially when that includes every 20th deaf sleeping guard, concerning Move Silently, not Hide.

And the fact you are supposed to roll every round. So you will fail (on average) once in two minutes...

EDIT: The even the best human assassin can move (on average) 19*(1/2)*30 = 285 ft = 85.5 m without screwing up horribly.

demigodus

2013-01-04, 06:13 PM

And the fact you are supposed to roll every round. So you will fail (on average) once in two minutes...

EDIT: The even the best human assassin can move (on average) 19*(1/2)*30 = 285 ft = 85.5 m without screwing up horribly.

At least guards are assumed to be taking 10's.

Else, that distance would be halved, assuming there was only one guard. Assuming there are 2 guards, there is a 14% chance per round of him being caught. And on average, the best assassin in the world only lasts 7 rounds.

awa

2013-01-04, 09:49 PM

sneaking is actually much harder then that because their are 4 checks involved the guards spot and listen and assassin hide and move silent 2 opportunities to roll a 1 and two to roll a 20

HunterOfJello

2013-01-04, 09:56 PM

I don't provide auto-fails with natural 1's on skill checks (though I have done funny things with 1s on UMD checks). The one thing I do actually do is enfore unfortuante penalties for getting a total of 0 or less on a skill check. Roll a 2 while having a -2 to spot from your low wisdom score? You look around and spot something you think is important for everyone to see. "What did I find?" You found a shoe... Your shoe... On your own foot.

Gavinfoxx

2013-01-04, 10:09 PM

I'm pretty sure you can't take 10 if the result of failure is of consequence. Falling, potentially injuring yourself, can be of consequence, hence you can't take 10..

Incorrect. You can take 10 if there are huge consequences for failing (like falling to your death). You just can't take 10 while distracted by things like combat or high winds and stuff like that.

Curmudgeon

2013-01-04, 10:28 PM

Acanous

2013-01-04, 10:31 PM

There was a comment earlier about skills over 100 being an unneccesary expense or waste of resourse allocation.

I do not agree with this.

When you have +30 to a skill, only the very, very best of mundane measures are going to be able to compete with you. A roomfull of scientists can match your knowledge check with refference materials handy and a blackboard.

An entire orchestra can match your performance with a competant conductor and well-crafted instruments, as well as sheet music.

If you have a check above 100? They can't. Flat up, you need something truly astounding, unnatural, magical. The scientists would need a worldwide knowledge base with instant communication and tools which would help them data-mine resources to match your knowledge check. The orchestra would need sound technicians, harmonizing software, sound-editing tools and a masterful operator, as well as a recording studio. Both would need hours or days to accomplish what you did in a few minutes.

If your skill is over 300? Literal gods would have to come down to challenge your knowledge of the physical universe. The music of the cosmos, from the motions of each atom, to that of planets gyrating around stars which orbit galaxies which in turn dance to a tune too grand and imperceptable to human comprehension, finding a way to express this on an instrument you can play is the only thing which challenges your deft and nimble fingers.

If someone has +300 to a skill, they are not failing that skill, ever, to anything you can imagine existing on this world right now, with all our modern technology. You need to ramp up the challenges.

If your rogue has a huge Tumble bonus, you don't just give him "A dragon". No, it's Garnash the sickle-scaled, who'se lair is made of the finest cut glass, which he polishes with Oil of Sliperiness, then freezes with his frosty breath weapon, so that he can make intricate and beautiful patterns to decorate his demnence.

NOW your rogue MIGHT be able to fail that check. Sheer surface, plus icy, plus the +20 from the oil, plus the Dragon's sickle-scaled feat (Homebrew, adds a mbonus to Tumble DCs against the dragon) means he could, conseavably, fail.
He does not have a challenge tumbling past a Kobold.

If your bard is up against the grand virtuoso of court of the stars, an angellic being who has practiced for millenia, studied the arts of sound and motion with a lustful vigour encroaching upon madness, who has literal angels as backup players to his performance, and plays a pipe organ crafted by the finest technicians of Mechanicus, THEN your bard might have a challenge. He does not have a challenge playing for room and board at an inn.

Does this all make sense? If you want there to be a 5% chance that your player fails at his incredible skill check, Give him an incredible challenge.

navar100

2013-01-04, 10:41 PM

Does this all make sense? If you want there to be a 5% chance that your player fails at his incredible skill check, Give him an incredible challenge.

Exactly! We're not saying a character should never fail, ever. We're objecting to the automatic failure no matter how skillful the character is. We're perfectly fine with a roll of 1 indicating a failed check because the total does not meet the DC or an opposed roll total was higher.

drack

2013-01-05, 08:38 AM

Nah, skills are plan old how well you do at it. you do 25, your boss doesn't if it was an epicly amazing work day for you, or an epic fail one in terms of productivity, you still did a DC25 worth of work :smalltongue:

Augmental

2013-01-06, 04:04 AM

Exactly! We're not saying a character should never fail, ever. We're objecting to the automatic failure no matter how skillful the character is.

If your character would pass a skill check on a 1 if it isn't an automatic failure, why can't they just, you know, Take 10?

Darius Kane

2013-01-06, 04:37 AM

Because maybe he's distracted or threatened and can't?

TheifofZ

2013-01-06, 05:10 AM

As much as I'm a fan of watching my players fail horribly, I can't honestly say I like the idea of Nat 1/20s always being fails/successes with skills.
Some things are just flat out impossible to succeed at. The muscle-bound fighter in full plate and a tower shield with 1 rank in tumble and 0 Dex modifier should -not- be able to tumble through a dragon, no matter how lucky he is.
On the other hand, with a natural 1 being an auto-fail...
A life time of training, hard work, and effort to improve your ability to do something should mean that you won't fail 5% of the time.
yes, failure is possible. But in only the direst of circumstances should a level 10 rogue with +50 to Open Lock fail to open the DC 5 Old, Rusted Padlock on the gateway to the manor so he can escape the guards. Not a 1 in 20 "Whoops. I fumbled somehow. I wonder what I did wrong"
Maybe if he's already down to 1 HP, covered in blood, it's raining, pitch black out, and he's fighting the guards off with one hand while he unlocks it.
Yes. Then I might say that on top of the circumstance penalties, he has a chance of screwing up that badly regardless. But otherwise, it seems ridiculous and unreasonable to assume that no matter how skilled you are, 5% of the time you **** up anyway.

So... DM's Discretion (Most Extreme Circumstances Only) on the natural 1= automatic failure, but I never use Automatic Successes with skills.