PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Critical success/fail on skill checks?



Apetka
2018-06-12, 06:26 AM
Good day,
I had a discussion about "critical fumble/success on nat1/20 for skills" for 3e+ (actually, for anything between 3e-5e). Which is a terrible idea in my opinion, but a few guys were protecting this one quite fiercely. They were so persistent, constantly telling me that a lot of good DMs use it... that in the end I started to question my knowledge and intuition.
So rule is "nat20/1 skill rolls should succeed/fail with increased magnitude (what exactly happens is defined by DM). If it is impossible for skill to fail/succeed with its current level, no roll is done at all - DM simply declares fail/success".
It sounds somewhat more reasonable than simple automatic success on nat20. At least, "now I try to jump to the moon" stuff is not possible. But I still feel major flaws in this home rule.

So question is: "How many of you play with this rule, if any?"

KarlMarx
2018-06-12, 09:29 AM
I usually play with it, and I find it works out well.

I add the caveat, however, that taking 20 does not count as a nat 20.

It throws a bit of risk into an otherwise mundane roll, and makes the players likelier to weigh their safest options. In other words, it provides an incentive to go around the cliff, rather than climb it, because while before you could always climb it, now there's enough of a risk to make players probably want to avoid it. I need to adjucate a bit more heavily that I might otherwise, but it adds a lot more immersion to the game.

MoleMage
2018-06-12, 09:35 AM
We played with this for a while before settling on a variant.

If you attempt a skill check (not taking a 20, but actually attempting it) and roll a natural 20 or a natural 1, you modify your total. A nat 20 gives +10 to your skill check, and a nat 1 gives -10.

I found that this allowed for extreme successes without falling into "you always succeed on a natural 20". Someone who is very good at the opposing skill can still overcome a nat 20 if you aren't particularly good at your skill (if you have +3 Hide and they have +16 Spot, they still have reasonable odds of detecting you), and you can still get a moderate result with a nat 1 if you are excellent at a skill (halfling rogue with maxed out hide? You're still getting in the teens with a nat 1 in the middle levels).

Derpaligtr
2018-06-12, 10:07 AM
Good day,
I had a discussion about "critical fumble/success on nat1/20 for skills" for 3e+ (actually, for anything between 3e-5e). Which is a terrible idea in my opinion, but a few guys were protecting this one quite fiercely. They were so persistent, constantly telling me that a lot of good DMs use it... that in the end I started to question my knowledge and intuition.
So rule is "nat20/1 skill rolls should succeed/fail with increased magnitude (what exactly happens is defined by DM). If it is impossible for skill to fail/succeed with its current level, no roll is done at all - DM simply declares fail/success".
It sounds somewhat more reasonable than simple automatic success on nat20. At least, "now I try to jump to the moon" stuff is not possible. But I still feel major flaws in this home rule.

So question is: "How many of you play with this rule, if any?"

I would only use the critical failure, for anything, if you "fail forward". Don't have hard walls when players fail, just make things harder or more annoying but not to the degree of punishment players. You want to punish the characters, not the players.

So change some things when a roll of 1 happens, but don't grind the game to a halt.

Some things can be impossible, but it should never be impossible to keep the story going in some way.