PDA

View Full Version : Retrying Conundrum



Talakeal
2014-10-29, 08:34 AM
I am sure everyone has seen a similar situation in a game:

A boulder blocks the path. The barbarian says "Let me move it!" and rolls a 2 on their strength check, no effect. Then the puny wizard says, "Here, let me try!" and rolls a nat 20, hurling aside the obstacle the barbarian cannot.

This doesn't seem realistic. Likewise, if a doctor or a mechanic tells you there is nothing they can do and your car / mother is beyond saving, you might get a second opinion or go to a more expensive expert. You would not, however, have everyone in town line up to give it a shot. But in most RPG rules this is the most sensible course of action.

Can anyone think of a way to fix this?

Segev
2014-10-29, 08:39 AM
Generally, this is "fixed" by setting the DC at a point where only those who have the appropriate stats or skills CAN succeed. Assuming d20 system, that means setting the DC above 20, within reach of whatever bonus you feel is appropriate.

The Str 8 wizard is never going to move that DC 20 boulder without some sort of magical assistance. The Str 18 barbarian, on the other hand, will move that DC 20 boulder on a 16+ on the d20.

You allow the barbarian to take 20 to move it. You can let the wizard do the same, but the wizard's "take 20" result is 19 (again, assuming he doesn't magically assist himself with some sort of Bull's Strength spell or a summoned monster or just a hireling who also takes 20).

A Str 10 wizard could move the DC 20 boulder if he took 20. If you want Str 10 to be insufficient, make it DC 21+.

For things like medicine, you can't even attempt certain skill checks without being trained. So a combination of requiring at least one rank in the skill before you can even attempt it and setting the DC higher than 21 will ensure that only those with talent or skill beyond the minimum are worth lining up to "give it a try."

Red Fel
2014-10-29, 08:49 AM
Another option is to offer a more reasonable explanation. That is, ask the player to do so. If he can, he can attempt it. Let me give an example.


Barbarian: I want to move the rock.
DM: Roll them bones.
Barb: ... 2.
DM: That's one freaking heavy rock. Nothing.
Wizard: I want to try!
DM: ... Seriously? The big terrifying mountain-man failed. How do you plan to do it?
Wizard: Hmm... I'm going to examine the rock for a moment, see if I can find a point to get some leverage, and try to roll it that way.
DM: ... Alright, that seems fair. Go ahead.
Wizard: Natural 20, baby! Brains over brawn, any day!

I also agree with Segev that setting a DC where a non-proficient PC can't succeed on taking 20 is reasonable, if you really intend something to be an obstacle.

JeenLeen
2014-10-29, 08:51 AM
I am sure everyone has seen a similar situation in a game:

A boulder blocks the path. The barbarian says "Let me move it!" and rolls a 2 on their strength check, no effect. Then the puny wizard says, "Here, let me try!" and rolls a nat 20, hurling aside the obstacle the barbarian cannot.

This doesn't seem realistic. Likewise, if a doctor or a mechanic tells you there is nothing they can do and your car / mother is beyond saving, you might get a second opinion or go to a more expensive expert. You would not, however, have everyone in town line up to give it a shot. But in most RPG rules this is the most sensible course of action.

Can anyone think of a way to fix this?

To me, this seems a problem with the d20 system; it's less serious in others, but can come into play for them, too, I suppose. I'm going to answer this in a round-about way, starting with skill checks.

To me, skill checks are the biggest offender. I'm (at level 1) an expert in my field, with max skill ranks and decent ability scores. But it's definitely more random chance than my ranks that determine if I make a check or not, since most DCs for anything difficult are at least 15. Until I get at least a +10, the d20 result will matter more than my actual skill level.*
A solution that came up in a homebrew game was to start players with an extra *10 skill points at char-gen for 1st level. For example, if at level one you get 4 + Int skill points, you instead get (4+Int)*10. (We were based off Pathfinder, so no multiplier already there like in D&D 3.5, but I think it would still work fine to add *10 to the base multiplier.)

This way, whatever you are skilled in, you can easily start with 10 ranks. The DM might need to adjust some DCs to make them higher, but now the actual ranks matter even at low level.

To apply this to ability checks, I have two ideas:
1) make or use a skill for checks. Exalted (d10 system, but using for example) has abilities called Integrity and Resistance, which seem to me like they could be things like (to put in D&D terms) Will and Constitution rolls instead of independent abilities. Add this to D&D, and use the fix above, and the ranks matter more than the dice roll. Some of the existent skills could easily be used for Dexterity checks, maybe something like your highest Lore is used for Intelligence checks, and so on.
2) give each class a static +5 or +10 (I'm not great at the math for this) something to certain ability checks. Or, maybe better, let the character choose 2 abilities they are good at and get a static +x to those checks.** Someone might want to make a beefy wizard for some reason, for example, and could be stronger than a dex-based barbarian.

*math might be incorrect, but I think the concept still holds
**Unsure if this should apply to something like a Strength check to break out of the Web spell. Spell DCs are set assuming you don't have this bonus.

Earthwalker
2014-10-29, 09:05 AM
Yep I think take 20 is your friend here.

In both cases it would solve the problem. The Barbarian may take 20 rounds to clear the bolder but he knows he is the best person for the job.

The mechanic is going to spnend 20 minuets (or 20 lots of 30 mins what ever he time scale is) looking at your car. Not just having a quick rash judgment.
If he cant fix it then you will need to find a better mechanic.

Talakeal
2014-10-29, 09:55 AM
Yep I think take 20 is your friend here.

In both cases it would solve the problem. The Barbarian may take 20 rounds to clear the bolder but he knows he is the best person for the job.

The mechanic is going to spnend 20 minuets (or 20 lots of 30 mins what ever he time scale is) looking at your car. Not just having a quick rash judgment.
If he cant fix it then you will need to find a better mechanic.

The problem with taking 20 and high DCs is that you make situations where it is literally impossible for a skilled person to fail where an untrained person can succeed, which just doesn't seem to be the case in real life, luck usually does play a significant role in most endeavors.

Red Fel
2014-10-29, 10:13 AM
The problem with taking 20 and high DCs is that you make situations where it is literally impossible for a skilled person to fail where an untrained person can succeed, which just doesn't seem to be the case in real life, luck usually does play a significant role in most endeavors.

Then a compromise: Make them impossible on a 10.

For example, a DC 15 Strength check will be impossible for your 8 Str Wizard to succeed at if he takes 10. But anybody who takes 20 - basically meaning he has preparation, tools, and so forth - can succeed at it. Similarly, even though your Wizard has a penalty to his Str modifier, there's still a chance he could roll high and get lucky.

... Which brings us back to the issue you raised in the OP: Namely, how an 8 Str Wizard could out-Str a man-mountain Barbarian. You seem to be conflicting with yourself, and here's how: In the OP, you say that it "doesn't seem realistic" that, thanks to a lucky roll, a weakling Wizard can out-Str a man-mountain Barbarian. In the above post, however, you say "luck does play a significant role in most endeavors." As in, it is realistic for the Wizard to get lucky, and the Barbarian unlucky, and the Wizard to succeed at the roll.
It's a decision you have to make. Do you want realism in terms of luck being a factor, or do you want realism in terms of the puny weakling being unable to succeed if the mighty manbeast couldn't? Once you introduce that element of luck, you have to accept the possibility that the weakling will get lucky.

Segev
2014-10-29, 10:13 AM
The problem with taking 20 and high DCs is that you make situations where it is literally impossible for a skilled person to fail where an untrained person can succeed, which just doesn't seem to be the case in real life, luck usually does play a significant role in most endeavors.

If you want that situation, then create it. The DC of the boulder is 18. The barbarian can fail on a 13 or lower; the wizard succeeds on a 19 or 20.

But you can't have it both ways: Your first post complains that a barbarian can fail with a bad roll but the wizard succeeds with a good one; now you're asking for exactly that to be possible.

Either it's possible or it isn't; you can't complain that a system does it and then complain when shown it does not.

And I'm not trying to rain on you, personally, here, Talakeal; I'm just trying to point out that you seem to be asking for contradictory situations here.

Talakeal
2014-10-29, 10:25 AM
Yeah, it is a bit hard to describe.

I guess it comes down how you view failure. I have always seen it as sort of a quantum thing; maybe you mess up, or maybe the task is just really hard.

For example, you have a guy attempting to fix a car. The difficulty to perform the task is 15. You take it to the best mechanic in town with a +13 bonus. He rolls a 1 and fails.

You could describe it as the guy being an idiot, or maybe there is some confounding circumstance. Maybe the frame is bent, or the necessary part isn't available, or the damage is more severe than it looks and repairing it would cost more than the total value of the car.

Sith_Happens
2014-10-29, 10:53 AM
"Lift with the legs, Rogar, not with the back."

lytokk
2014-10-29, 11:04 AM
Does moving the boulder even require a d20 roll? Shouldn't the push/drag part of the carrying capacity rule apply here?

Talakeal
2014-10-29, 11:07 AM
Does moving the boulder even require a d20 roll? Shouldn't the push/drag part of the carrying capacity rule apply here?

Depends on the system / scenario.

Replace it with breaking down a door if you prefer.

lytokk
2014-10-29, 11:08 AM
Oh, then the barbarian loosened it for the wizard.

Red Fel
2014-10-29, 11:14 AM
"Lift with the legs, Rogar, not with the back."


Oh, then the barbarian loosened it for the wizard.

These. Also, laughter.

Basically, that's one option for explanation. It's not that the Barbarian wasn't strong enough, and the Wizard was. It could be that the rock was wedged, and the Barbarian managed to dislodge it. It could be that the Barbarian was doing something wrong, or miscalculated the angle or force needed. It could be that the Wizard happened to hit on the right angle. There are a number of ways to tackle it that don't entail "Barbarian failed, Wizard succeeded, ergo Wizard is stronger than Barbarian."

And the humor helps. It always helps.

Cazero
2014-10-29, 11:14 AM
IMO, the "take 10/20" rule is designed specifically to correct that point. Barring specifics exceptions, PCs should not be allowed to roll in a situation when they could take 20.
A lucky roll can be explained by all sort of factors like luck, stress or adrenaline. Such factors quickly make less sense in a not stressful situation when you have all the time you want to take 10 or 20.

Sith_Happens
2014-10-29, 11:15 AM
Oh, then the barbarian loosened it for the wizard.

That's what they always say.:smalltongue:

The_Werebear
2014-10-29, 01:34 PM
Yeah, it is a bit hard to describe.

I guess it comes down how you view failure. I have always seen it as sort of a quantum thing; maybe you mess up, or maybe the task is just really hard.

For example, you have a guy attempting to fix a car. The difficulty to perform the task is 15. You take it to the best mechanic in town with a +13 bonus. He rolls a 1 and fails.

You could describe it as the guy being an idiot, or maybe there is some confounding circumstance. Maybe the frame is bent, or the necessary part isn't available, or the damage is more severe than it looks and repairing it would cost more than the total value of the car.

In this case, it's more of a situation where the best mechanic in town had an off day and missed something simple. Since said mechanic didn't fail by 5 or more, there wouldn't be wasted materials or a risk of making it worse. What probably happened was that he or she misdiagnosed what the customer listed as the symptoms, popped the hood, didn't see what they were expecting, and were briefly confused.

At this point, they call an assistant over and reroll with an assist (for the +2), meaning they can't fail. Or, they take 10, do a more thorough examination, and figure out what they did wrong.

Talakeal
2014-10-29, 01:54 PM
In this case, it's more of a situation where the best mechanic in town had an off day and missed something simple. Since said mechanic didn't fail by 5 or more, there wouldn't be wasted materials or a risk of making it worse. What probably happened was that he or she misdiagnosed what the customer listed as the symptoms, popped the hood, didn't see what they were expecting, and were briefly confused.

At this point, they call an assistant over and reroll with an assist (for the +2), meaning they can't fail. Or, they take 10, do a more thorough examination, and figure out what they did wrong.

Which would mean that the best solution to ANY problem would be to invite everyone in town over to give it a shot, as someone is sure to roll a nat 20.

Also, if you put every test with such a high difficulty that normal people can't succeed on a 20 that also means that your average professional can't reliably succeed without taking a 20.

The only way to fix this that I could see would be too multiply every number by two or three, so a standard test wouldn't be DC 15, it would be DC 50, and an average mechanic wouldn't have a +10, he would have a +35.

Galen
2014-10-29, 01:55 PM
Yeah, it is a bit hard to describe.

I guess it comes down how you view failure.
The narrative of failure should depend on the specifics.

- Failed to break down a door?
Option 1: you can't break it even on a 20. DM says: "you throw yourself against the door, but it won't budge" - player should figure out at the this time he's just not strong enough.
Option 2: you could break it, if you only rolled higher. DM says: "you feel the door shake, but it somehow holds" - player can figure out he can keep trying. Heck, even if a weaker character succeeds in breaking the door now, it can easily be explained away with "he loosened it for me".

- Failed a Knowledge check?
There's no retry either way, but in case the player didn't even have chance on a 20, the narrative is about the character being completely clueless, while if there was a chance of success (which did not materialize), the narrative is about the character missing out on that particular lesson during his studies.

I guess what I'm getting at is: in building a narrative, the DM should look forward - can this check be retried or not?

The narrative of a failed check that can be retried should include some kind of hope for future success. The door shakes on its hinges. You managed to twist something inside the lock, but it does not quite pop open. There is hope. On the other hand, a narrative of a failed check that cannot be repeated is just failure. Failed a knowledge check? You haven't heard of that particular monster. Ever.

Talakeal
2014-10-29, 02:00 PM
The narrative of failure should depend on the specifics.

- Failed to break down a door?
Option 1: you can't break it even on a 20. DM says: "you throw yourself against the door, but it won't budge" - player should figure out at the this time he's just not strong enough.
Option 2: you could break it, if you only rolled higher. DM says: "you feel the door shake, but it somehow holds" - player can figure out he can keep trying. Heck, even if a weaker character succeeds in breaking the door now, it can easily be explained away with "he loosened it for me".

- Failed a Knowledge check?
There's no retry either way, but in case the player didn't even have chance on a 20, the narrative is about the character being completely clueless, while if there was a chance of success (which did not materialize), the narrative is about the character missing out on that particular lesson during his studies.

I guess what I'm getting at is: in building a narrative, the DM should look forward - can this check be retried or not?

The narrative of a failed check that can be retried should include some kind of hope for future success. The door shakes on its hinges. You managed to twist something inside the lock, but it does not quite pop open. There is hope. On the other hand, a narrative of a failed check that cannot be repeated is just failure. Failed a knowledge check? You haven't heard of that particular monster. Ever.


Hmm. Actually hold on, let me take a step back and change my assumptions.

In D&D can a character retry a failed task under normal circumstances? How about his party members?

Galen
2014-10-29, 02:07 PM
Hmm. Actually hold on, let me take a step back and change my assumptions.

In D&D can a character retry a failed task under normal circumstances? How about his party members?Some checks can be retried, some cannot. Refer to the rules when in doubt.

Something like breaking a door can always be retried, throwing yourself at the door again and again. Knowledge checks cannot (you either know something or don't).

Different party members can always retry. Just because character A has never seen a Glabrezu and knows nothing about them, doesn't mean character B did not.

The_Werebear
2014-10-29, 02:17 PM
Which would mean that the best solution to ANY problem would be to invite everyone in town over to give it a shot, as someone is sure to roll a nat 20.

Also, if you put every test with such a high difficulty that normal people can't succeed on a 20 that also means that your average professional can't reliably succeed without taking a 20.

The only way to fix this that I could see would be too multiply every number by two or three, so a standard test wouldn't be DC 15, it would be DC 50, and an average mechanic wouldn't have a +10, he would have a +35.

That would be the best solution for the consumer to figure out what was wrong with the car. It would not be the best solution in terms of cost, ease, or efficiency. Nor would the mechanic want to encourage everyone in the world to come over and take a look, as if he doesn't find it on the first try, he looses business.

What 90% of his jobs are is taking 10, which gives him a 23. That is enough, if we go by comparable knowledge rules, to answer easy (10), basic (15), and the lower tier of really tough without even trying. Taking 10 allows you to escape the tyranny of the d20, ie, the 5% flat failure chance on even the most trivial tasks

When the mechanic has to roll at all, it's on the more complex or unusual mechanical challenges (what sounds like a bad belt from the description is actually bees nesting in the transmission, which, while easy to spot, is uncommon enough that he has to actually roll to notice) or when he is pressured and not able to take his time (he's got a 5 car backlog and it's 4:45 on a Friday, thus causing him to rush the diagnosis and miss an easy (DC15) fix.

Stubbazubba
2014-10-29, 02:46 PM
In D&D can a character retry a failed task under normal circumstances? How about his party members?

I feel like I just post this anywhere I go, but The Angry DM (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/)got it right.*

You have to dig out the simulation aspects of the skill system to get it to work in a satisfying fashion. The goal is not to model individual attempts without context, but rather to determine if the characters avoid or create imminent consequences by use of skills. That seems a lot narrower than what we're used to, but what it actually means is that you don't need to roll for the vast majority of tasks, so the game speeds up considerably. It can't get bogged down in failure-ception because imminent consequences hit you, and the game remains dynamic. Table time is spent on consequential matters, not modeling every task for modeling's sake. It means if there are no imminent consequences to failing to push the boulder and you are capable of doing so, then you don't need to roll, you just push it over and the game continues. I know that sounds like heresy, but do yourself a favor and read the article (and the others in the How to Run a Game (http://angrydm.com/category/articles/run-a-game) series). It's an entertaining read that imparts great wisdom and insight into why we run encounters that suck and how to run ones that don't suck. The choice is yours.

*People have told me that they were offended by the Angry DM, but you must understand that he creates a persona for entertainment purposes; the cranky, full-of-himself, spiteful persona is meant to be a humorous diversion, so don't confuse the joke with the actual substantive points he makes.

JaminDM
2014-10-29, 03:22 PM
This may not fix it, but to add a bit more realism is to take away automatic hits and misses and make 20 equal 30 and 1 equal -10

Talakeal
2014-10-29, 03:29 PM
This may not fix it, but to add a bit more realism is to take away automatic hits and misses and make 20 equal 30 and 1 equal -10

I do similar in that 1s and 20s "explode". It doesn't help much as the DCs are normally such that a 20 will still succeed for most people and if you are already in a situation where people need a nat 20 to succeed they are already more likely to fumble than get a success, which is a natural detractor in these situations.

What I don't like is a situation where you have an expert make a test and rolls poorly. For example:

Your ranger returns from the foraging empty ended and replies "I am sorry, but the winter is bad. The herds have moved on, and the leaves are all dormant. Even the rocks are bare of fungus. There is simply no food to be had."

Or the party healer claims "I am sorry, his injuries are simply too severe for mortal medicine. He is in the god's hands now, and if they are willing he will survive the night."

Your reaction should not be "All right, well let's have the rogue give it a try. He isn't as good, but maybe he will roll better. And if he fails then lets give the fighter a crack, he is dumb as a rock but even so he can still succeed is he rolls a 20."

Galen
2014-10-29, 03:51 PM
Actually, it's a standard trope. A doctor says "he's dead" and is about to pull a sheet over the eyes of the gunned-down cop, but the cop's partner of twenty years refuses to give up. "Damn it, Bob, live!" he says, as he administers what can only be described as very erratic CPR. "Live! Don't you dare die on me, Bob!". Against all hope, Bob's body lurches, he gasps ...

Bob lives

Talakeal, I feel you're focusing your energy in the wrong direction. You're trying very hard to "prove" there's something "wrong" with the mechanics. If you were spending the same energy on just accepting the mechanics and building a narrative to match, you and your game would be better off.

Talakeal
2014-10-29, 03:57 PM
Actually, it's a standard trope. A doctor says "he's dead" and is about to pull a sheet over the eyes of the gunned-down cop, but the cop's partner of twenty years refuses to give up. "Damn it, Bob, live!" he says, as he administers what can only be described as very erratic CPR. "Live! Don't you dare die on me, Bob!". Against all hope, Bob's body lurches, he gasps ...

Bob lives

Talakeal, I feel you're focusing your energy in the wrong direction. You're trying very hard to "prove" there's something "wrong" with the mechanics. If you were spending the same energy on just accepting the mechanics and building a narrative to match, you and your game would be better off.

Actually I have no problem with that scenario. Heck, I have specific mechanics in play to allow it in my system.

What I don't like is it being standard operating procedure. For example, if a medic has a 75% chance to treat a wound an a normal Joe has a 25% chance than you would have the medic failing and an untrained ally stepping in to set him right about 1/6, assuming a four person party (and correct math). It also means that in a 6 or person party the odds of performing ANY task are significantly better because you can throw more bodies at an attempt, and if you have a mob of random townsfolk following you around trying to help you really don't need an expert for routine tasks, just shove enough bodies at it and it is virtually guaranteed to succeed.

1337 b4k4
2014-10-29, 04:00 PM
Which would mean that the best solution to ANY problem would be to invite everyone in town over to give it a shot, as someone is sure to roll a nat 20.

This assumes there are no costs for failure. As a guy who works on his own car from time to time, this is not true at all. Failure has it's costs. If I try to fix something and botch it up, I'm out the cost of materials I purchased, any tools I purchased, gas I spent acquiring parts and tools and if I'm really unlucky, parts that weren't previously broken. In one instance, a lucky glance when I was stuck and working on something saved me hours of work and having to pull other parts and pieces because I wasn't paying attention and was about to cut something, permanently destroying it but at the time not having any other solution. Of course, had I also seen something else, it would have been even less work. And I was lucky that time, I eventually succeeded. Had I still failed, I then would have had the costs of towing the car to a mechanic and then paying the mechanic and would have been without the car for even longer.

Same thing with attempting to lift a boulder. Just because it's physically possible for you to lift something doesn't mean you can't hurt yourself doing it. If I need to, I can lift and move my washer and dryer, and in an emergency I would, that doesn't mean I'm going to if I don't have to.

Remember that just because the mechanic for resolving a skill check is a binary pass fail mechanic doesn't mean you have to ignore the fiction of the world you've set up. Time passes, things go wrong, bodies tire and people get frustrated. Account for that. And as a final note, try not to make people roll for tasks that don't matter. If the boulder blocks the entrance to the dungeon, and it's the only way into the dungeon and everything stops until they move that bolder, that's a bad thing to make your players roll for. If the boulder is there to add time pressure, that's a bit better, but even better would be to skip the skill rolls entirely, describe it's massiveness beyond even the strength of the barbarian and make your players get creative.

Mr Beer
2014-10-29, 06:49 PM
d20 is inherently problematic in this regard, the probability bell curves from multiple dice are better for this exact reason. For this particular task I would probably hand wave it so the barbarian can automatically do it or the wizard can only do it on a 20 or some such approach.

Jay R
2014-10-29, 07:44 PM
This is why the d20 skill check system is inappropriate for most skills. It implies the difference between the STR 18's best serious lift attempt and worst serious lift is twice as much as the difference between his average lift and an STR 9's average lift, which is simply untrue. The solution is to reduce the random effect to a reasonable amount. For a simple lift, use a d4, and give it a different challenge level. For a leverage strength roll, use a d6 or a d8.

This comes from the absurd notion that all actions can be simulated with the same method - which is the underlying basis of 3E and above.

Vitruviansquid
2014-10-29, 08:36 PM
The easiest fix for this would be to play a system in which it isn't a problem.

The more I play D20 systems, the more I realize it breaks down in a lot of situations.

Selkirk
2014-10-29, 08:50 PM
The easiest fix for this would be to play a system in which it isn't a problem.

The more I play D20 systems, the more I realize it breaks down in a lot of situations.

gotta agree...the nature of d20 with the skill checks is almost a game breaker for me. i would rather just have dc's for tasks (or better yet just dm rulings/roleplay)..if you have a 16 charisma and dc is 15 you pass. could roll if dc was higher than charisma but for most skill based tasks the number should just pass or fail. none of this rolling a 3 or 4 when trying to get important information from npc's or monsters. d20 almost defeats the purpose of investing in skills/abilities...when a high number really only gives you marginally better chances than a character with no investment.

our fighter was trying to break down a door last nite (i know...i know the doors again ^^;..:D)...failed twice on rolls of 5 and 9. meanwhile we are all just standing there twiddling thumbs. finally on third try it works. kills the drama/momentum for me.

XionUnborn01
2014-10-30, 12:09 AM
What I don't like is a situation where you have an expert make a test and rolls poorly. For example:

Your ranger returns from the foraging empty ended and replies "I am sorry, but the winter is bad. The herds have moved on, and the leaves are all dormant. Even the rocks are bare of fungus. There is simply no food to be had."

Or the party healer claims "I am sorry, his injuries are simply too severe for mortal medicine. He is in the god's hands now, and if they are willing he will survive the night."

Your reaction should not be "All right, well let's have the rogue give it a try. He isn't as good, but maybe he will roll better. And if he fails then lets give the fighter a crack, he is dumb as a rock but even so he can still succeed is he rolls a 20."

For the ranger example, the get along check is only DC10 and includes you moving at half speed while foraging and this is supposed to be an all day activity. If he goes out for 10 minutes and comes back empty handed, it's very possible for the rogue to go out in a different direction and find berries or a rabbit. The ranger's statement should only be said if the DM told him this exactly and if that's the case then no one should find anything. If the DM says that he can't locate anything of substance, the ranger should simply say that he didn't find anything, meaning the rogue has every right to spend some time looking around.

Similarly, the healer should never say that his wounds are too severe for medicine unless he knows it for a fact. Most doctors know when thy're out of their league. Maybe the rogue saw or received a similar wound in the past and knows know to treat it. Maybe the fighter knows HOW to inflict that kind of wound and knows what can slow the bleeding. It's a matter of applying character knowledge to the situation, just because the fighter is dumb doesn't mean he hasn't picked up a trick of the trade or two. Remember, the characters existed before the story started, so little things like a rogue closing a nasty looking wound because they happened to have stabbed someone and left that same kind of wound isn't all that unusual.