PDA

View Full Version : Overachieving on Skill Checks?



Neftren
2008-11-16, 07:35 PM
So I was wondering... we can all try and try harder; but what if there is the possibility of trying too hard? So the idea is that you make a skill check but you perform so well on it that it just becomes too good to be true? Do such rules exist? I was thinking maybe along the lines of...

"You roll exceptionally high on a Bluff check and now the subject is not only completely trusting in your "lie", but he then proceeds to fabricate things in his mind subconsciously and thus begins to elaborate on the lie without realizing it." Sort of like how people will make up all sorts of things to justify a certain truth.

"You roll exceptionally high on your Use Rope check and accidentally cut off all circulation to the bound subject's hands. As a result, his hands fall off" or something like that. I can imagine a number of quirky things you can do with overachieving.

Or possibly even "you roll extremely high on your Spot check and then begin to imagine that you're seeing all sorts of things i.e. a Tarrasque instead of the Bear in front of you."

Are there mechanics regarding implementing this? If not, I'm gonna go post some ideas for the dice application of this in the Homebrew Forum.

Stupendous_Man
2008-11-16, 07:38 PM
You just achieve the desired result really, really well.

monty
2008-11-16, 07:39 PM
The bluff one I can see, but the others not so much. The skills do have epic applications, after all. And you have to love the Jumplomancer.

MeklorIlavator
2008-11-16, 07:40 PM
I think that what your talking about would be more appropriate for failing a check by a large margin, especially for the spot and use rope.

The Glyphstone
2008-11-16, 07:41 PM
Epic bluff should be able to replicate a Wish/Miracle - you're so convincing that you can successfully BS reality.

Alteran
2008-11-16, 07:42 PM
This seems a bit unnecessary and unrealistic to me. Rolling high on a check doesn't mean you're doing it harder or more intensely, just that you're doing it better. If you accidentally have someone make up further lies because of your bluff, it's likely you didn't do it well and they have to think about it too much just to believe it. If you manage to cut off someone's hands with rope, you're not using it very well if you didn't intend to do that. If you think a bear is a tarrasque, you sure as hell aren't very good at perceiving things.

I think that unusual failures like this could serve to irritate players. Make up funny consequences when they roll badly, not when they roll well.

Neftren
2008-11-16, 08:51 PM
This seems a bit unnecessary and unrealistic to me. Rolling high on a check doesn't mean you're doing it harder or more intensely, just that you're doing it better. If you accidentally have someone make up further lies because of your bluff, it's likely you didn't do it well and they have to think about it too much just to believe it. If you manage to cut off someone's hands with rope, you're not using it very well if you didn't intend to do that. If you think a bear is a tarrasque, you sure as hell aren't very good at perceiving things.

I think that unusual failures like this could serve to irritate players. Make up funny consequences when they roll badly, not when they roll well.

The idea is that you do it so well that you essentially overachieve. So for something like a Tumble Check, rather than failing and provoking the AoO, you tumble so well that XYZ happens as a consequence, perhaps you "accidentally" cut the target you're tumbling around (or through, or under).

It isn't quite the same as failing because you achieve the desired result, but you get an unexpected little bit of extra-ness, depending on varying degrees of amazingness on your roll. So if I rolled a 19 on a Diplomacy Check between two hated enemies (and I had a ludicrously high bonus of +20 for +39 total), they would not only resolve their differences but become say, best buddies for life.

Heliomance
2008-11-16, 08:54 PM
+20 is not ludicrously high, and can be achieved quite easily with a little twinking. I've got a character with +40 on Diplomacy. Now that's ludicrously high.

Neftren
2008-11-16, 08:56 PM
+20 is not ludicrously high, and can be achieved quite easily with a little twinking. I've got a character with +40 on Diplomacy. Now that's ludicrously high.

I was talking about characters of relatively moderate to low power scale, since this is essentially what happens when you get past level fifteen. The numbers are somewhat irrelevant to me right now. I'm just curious as to whether rules for this exist. If not, I'm so going to go write up a variant on it over in the Homebrew section.

SurlySeraph
2008-11-16, 08:57 PM
Penalizing players for success is always a bad idea. Unless they succeed because of ludicrous min-maxing. In that case... :smallamused:

Alteran
2008-11-16, 08:59 PM
The idea is that you do it so well that you essentially overachieve. So for something like a Tumble Check, rather than failing and provoking the AoO, you tumble so well that XYZ happens as a consequence, perhaps you "accidentally" cut the target you're tumbling around (or through, or under).

It isn't quite the same as failing because you achieve the desired result, but you get an unexpected little bit of extra-ness, depending on varying degrees of amazingness on your roll. So if I rolled a 19 on a Diplomacy Check between two hated enemies (and I had a ludicrously high bonus of +20 for +39 total), they would not only resolve their differences but become say, best buddies for life.

The example of the diplomacy check is closer to what I think is reasonable, but I still think that in most cases, especially in skill checks based on physical stats, a higher result should be closer to what you expected/wanted.

Shpadoinkle
2008-11-16, 09:03 PM
Yeah... this is a really, REALLY bad idea. If you punish players for doing poorly, they try harder. Punishing players for doing poorly, AND for doing well... well, that's just an incredibly ****ing dickish thing to do.

Yukitsu
2008-11-16, 09:07 PM
Or possibly even "you roll extremely high on your Spot check and then begin to imagine that you're seeing all sorts of things i.e. a Tarrasque instead of the Bear in front of you."

My one character sees through illusions without magic, and as such, doesn't recognize the pixies illusion that makes him look like a girl to everyone else. He hasn't quite figured it out yet.

I diplomacied a few people into fanatacism once, and now they won't go away.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-16, 09:09 PM
Epic bluff should be able to replicate a Wish/Miracle - you're so convincing that you can successfully BS reality.

You can successfully bluff the laws of the universe into making your statement true, if you succeed on a DC 100+(100*the spell level) bluff check then you can effectivily cast a spell with the minimum CL and casting stat. You can bluff the universe this way up to your character level worth of spell levels per day (a level 20 character, for example, can use any combination of spell effects who's levels total 20 or less).

At least that's a house rule I play with.

Heliomance
2008-11-16, 09:15 PM
Alternatively you can bluff the universe into doing what you want with a much lower truenaming check.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-16, 09:20 PM
Alternatively you can bluff the universe into doing what you want with a much lower truenaming check.

Nah, true naming sucks. The DC's aren't balanced right and you have limited effects that make no sense. None of the truenaming stuff should allow SR or a save. Why again do you get a save to resist the universe? Or do you get spell resistance to resist the universe?

Heliomance
2008-11-16, 09:21 PM
It's still easier than a DC 100+100*spell level check.

Icewalker
2008-11-16, 09:26 PM
I had a fun time on an epic failure where the party were fighting some smugglers. First level party, first hit in the fight dropped the enemy monk to 0 hp exactly, so he dropped and a few rounds later struggled to stand again. Unfortunately, someone had cast a grease spell in the area he was, so as he stood up again, he had to roll a balance check.

Rolled a 1.

He got half way up, slipped, smashed his already broken jaw into the ground and promptly lost consciousness.

Cathaidan
2008-11-16, 09:31 PM
We've always treated rolling excessively high on a skill check to mean that you have become "the Fonz."

i.e. Rolling too high on an Open Lock check means that you in fact just hit the door with you hand calling out "Aa" and the door pops open.

Zeful
2008-11-16, 09:40 PM
So I was wondering... we can all try and try harder; but what if there is the possibility of trying too hard? So the idea is that you make a skill check but you perform so well on it that it just becomes too good to be true? Do such rules exist? I was thinking maybe along the lines of...

"You roll exceptionally high on a Bluff check and now the subject is not only completely trusting in your "lie", but he then proceeds to fabricate things in his mind subconsciously and thus begins to elaborate on the lie without realizing it." Sort of like how people will make up all sorts of things to justify a certain truth.

"You roll exceptionally high on your Use Rope check and accidentally cut off all circulation to the bound subject's hands. As a result, his hands fall off" or something like that. I can imagine a number of quirky things you can do with overachieving.

Or possibly even "you roll extremely high on your Spot check and then begin to imagine that you're seeing all sorts of things i.e. a Tarrasque instead of the Bear in front of you."

Are there mechanics regarding implementing this? If not, I'm gonna go post some ideas for the dice application of this in the Homebrew Forum.

Yes there are. No they aren't that extreme. You generally roll 20 over the dc of something and something better happens.
Beat the bluff dc by 20 they won't question that lie unless directly presented with evidence that it's false.
Some like hide and spot. Don't have exceptional results.

Project_Mayhem
2008-11-16, 10:10 PM
We've always treated rolling excessively high on a skill check to mean that you have become "the Fonz."

i.e. Rolling too high on an Open Lock check means that you in fact just hit the door with you hand calling out "Aa" and the door pops open.

This I like.

KKL
2008-11-16, 10:15 PM
I once had a DM who described my disturbingly high Stealth check (Houserule of this, combined stealth + move silently. Among many houserules.) as "Being so damn quiet, the guards become paranoid."

'Course at that point he was just ******* around because it was hilarious.

Icewalker
2008-11-16, 10:18 PM
I once had a DM who described my disturbingly high Stealth check (Houserule of this, combined stealth + move silently. Among many houserules.) as "Being so damn quiet, the guards become paranoid."

'Course at that point he was just ******* around because it was hilarious.

Reminds me of Terry Pratchett (whose books I need to hurry up and read) in which I believe there is a thief who is so skilled at stealth that when he is hiding in a room it is more empty than if nobody was there.

Neftren
2008-11-16, 10:36 PM
Reminds me of Terry Pratchett (whose books I need to hurry up and read) in which I believe there is a thief who is so skilled at stealth that when he is hiding in a room it is more empty than if nobody was there.

You would be referring to the Patrician, Lord Vetinari. Of all people, he is quite fascinating.
That's for another thread.


Back on topic... this would never actually be used in a genuine campaign (I suppose I could work it into an actual game... hmm...). I was thinking more along the lines of a humor campaign.

Gralamin
2008-11-16, 10:41 PM
You would be referring to the Patrician, Lord Vetinari. Of all people, he is quite fascinating.
That's for another thread.


Back on topic... this would never actually be used in a genuine campaign (I suppose I could work it into an actual game... hmm...). I was thinking more along the lines of a humor campaign.

I'd imagine Lord Vetinari has quite a few epicly high skill usages that could be stolen.

Vinotaur
2008-11-16, 10:54 PM
Best Pratchett ever:

"He had asked that man why he was standing so still, and he had replied, 'I am practicing standing still. The human eye is attracted to movement. By remaining absolutely still, I will become unnoticeable.' He had laughed and walked off. The boy must have gotten bored and left though, because he didn't remember seeing him for the rest of the night."

Thurbane
2008-11-16, 11:34 PM
We use the variant rule on a skill check that natural roll of 1 = -10, and natural 20 = 30.

For instance, a characted with +18 on bluff would get 8 on a 1, or 48 on a 20.

Means that characters still have a small shot at really hard DC's, and can still flub things on a 1.

BobVosh
2008-11-17, 02:21 AM
We use the variant rule on a skill check that natural roll of 1 = -10, and natural 20 = 30.

For instance, a characted with +18 on bluff would get 8 on a 1, or 48 on a 20.

Means that characters still have a small shot at really hard DC's, and can still flub things on a 1.

I hate that rule. So much.

"Man, 1 time out of 20 I go crazy and make this nifty gadget! Although I make up for it and make a spork same amount of times out of 20"

Overachievement should always be describe in positive terms. In one exalted game I smelt green on the other side of the door with a massive perception + awareness. Funny but pointless.

The only time I ever feel like not doing this is with illusions, and the choosing to disbelieve option. Even then I bite my tounge and don't do it.

Serpentine
2008-11-17, 02:32 AM
Reminds me of Terry Pratchett (whose books I need to hurry up and read) in which I believe there is a thief who is so skilled at stealth that when he is hiding in a room it is more empty than if nobody was there.Isn't Vimes or someone able to tell when there's someone being too quiet?

With really massive rolls, I generally have them do it with extra flair. For example, a brilliant Tumble check would involve backflips and twirls. A brilliant Use Rope would either be "strong enough to hold a such-and-such" or they use especially pretty and/or useful knots. And so on.

Quietus
2008-11-17, 06:46 AM
Isn't Vimes or someone able to tell when there's someone being too quiet?

With really massive rolls, I generally have them do it with extra flair. For example, a brilliant Tumble check would involve backflips and twirls. A brilliant Use Rope would either be "strong enough to hold a such-and-such" or they use especially pretty and/or useful knots. And so on.

"Not only is the orc completely secured, but the end result also has a knot that clearly resembles a rose in bloom."

This is pretty much how we do things in my gaming circles. We also use 1 = -10, and 20 = 30, on all rolls... which I don't much care for, these days, but I'm the minority in our groups as far as that opinion goes. I'd remove that from Vethedar, but it's become ingrained, and the players seem to enjoy the results, so it's not doing any harm right now.

FMArthur
2008-11-17, 08:05 AM
Sorry, Thri-Kreen player, but we're using these variant rules. You jumped over the building to your death. Make a new character.

If this sounds even remotely fun to you, then I don't want any part of your games.

Demented
2008-11-17, 08:11 AM
Skill overachievements you don't want to hear:

Climb - "Look ma, no hands!"

Diplomacy - "Now that we have that settled, what are you doing on friday?"

Disguise - "Oh, don't mind me. I'm just a chair. Feel free to sit on me and everything."

Forgery - "Actually, I just happened to have a couple of real ones in my back pocket."

Gather Information - "The old man was kind enough to write me an encyclopedia..."

Heal - "There, good as new. Better, even -- I made some improvements."

Profession - "...And that's when someone asked me if I'd like to sell my business..."

Use Rope - "You tied it! You can't untie it!"

Zeful
2008-11-17, 11:46 AM
Skill overachievements you don't want to hear:

Climb - "Look ma, no hands!"

"I'm not going to fall as long as I keep walking." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#upTheWalls)

monty
2008-11-17, 11:48 AM
Tumble: you control your fall too well and miss the ground.

Thurbane
2008-11-18, 01:08 AM
I hate that rule. So much.

"Man, 1 time out of 20 I go crazy and make this nifty gadget! Although I make up for it and make a spork same amount of times out of 20"
One would assume that most skilled craftsmen take 10 on their crafting checks...

Yukitsu
2008-11-18, 01:48 AM
One would assume that most skilled craftsmen take 10 on their crafting checks...

Where's the science in that?

bosssmiley
2008-11-18, 05:16 AM
So I was wondering... we can all try and try harder; but what if there is the possibility of trying too hard? So the idea is that you make a skill check but you perform so well on it that it just becomes too good to be true? Do such rules exist? I was thinking maybe along the lines of...

"You roll exceptionally high on a Bluff check and now the subject is not only completely trusting in your "lie", but he then proceeds to fabricate things in his mind subconsciously and thus begins to elaborate on the lie without realizing it." Sort of like how people will make up all sorts of things to justify a certain truth.

"You roll exceptionally high on your Use Rope check and accidentally cut off all circulation to the bound subject's hands. As a result, his hands fall off" or something like that. I can imagine a number of quirky things you can do with overachieving.

Or possibly even "you roll extremely high on your Spot check and then begin to imagine that you're seeing all sorts of things i.e. a Tarrasque instead of the Bear in front of you."

Are there mechanics regarding implementing this? If not, I'm gonna go post some ideas for the dice application of this in the Homebrew Forum.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. Success doesn't loop around to fail like that. At the DM's option you can do the literally impossible if you get results ridiculously better than required though.

We used to say that beating a DC by 20 overclocked the laws of the D&Dverse and invoked cartoon physics for the result of that particular check. We used the "Tome of Gears" modifications to skill bonuses, so beating a DC by that sort of margin was a rare and noteworthy event. :smallamused:

On a related subject the Skill DCs for Epic skill uses are b0rked and should be cut in half. Punching through walls should be second nature to epic fighters, while balancing on a cloud is the sort of thing that should come naturally to even a low-epic rogue. Epic is hideously broken anyway; you might as well not even pretend the skills system makes sense by then. :smallbiggrin:


I hate that rule. So much.
"Man, 1 time out of 20 I go crazy and make this nifty gadget! Although I make up for it and make a spork same amount of times out of 20"

What, you don't play Dwarf Fortress? :smallbiggrin:

Thurbane
2008-11-21, 04:19 AM
Where's the science in that?
No science, just art baby! :smallbiggrin: