|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point isn't to kill the PCs, but it is to introduce a little challenge! And just failing a stealth roll won't kill you at all. But, being mortal will.You know who fails and dies with these silly rules?
The PCs. The Heroes.
Not the enemy.
They do it whilst doing mundane crap.
You create a slew of unheroic failures and deaths.
If that tickles your fancy, then have fun.
And...how do I get past the challenge of a random roll?
Let's make it even more fun - I'm climbing a 1000' cliff...what are my odds of failing (1 in 20) from over 500' up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a GM use this houserule once. I made him a deal instead I would take -10 and if I still beat the DC he would drop the auto fail on a one for skill checks. I beat the DC by 10 after taking -10 and we moved on with play.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I am also against adding autofail/success to skill checks. A character with a +20 skill sees a DC15 task to be as easy as an unskilled character sees a DC -5 task. While realistically they may have a freak chance of failure, that chance should be way way less than 5% and isn't really modeled well using a d20. Honestly, if the character can succeed on a 1, the check has become routine for them and they shouldn't even have to roll it. And if they can't succeed on a 1, then autofail hardly matters. My group has a bit of a facetious houserule we call "taking 0" we use to indicate that the skill check can't be failed so why roll it, just succeed and move on.
One of these days I'm going to play in a game where 20 on a skill check is autosuccess. Such a world is crazy beyond the pall of reason. I'd like to listen in on the BBEG's planning with his minions please. DC, taking into account distance and walls, is about 80,000. Hey! nat 20! What's he saying? Also if you use nat 20 = autosuccess, but don't have take 20 = autosuccess, you completely neutralize the entire point of take 20, which is to prevent "I roll over and over until I roll a 20."
I would only dislike this houserule in the case of UMD. I regularly make characters who get their UMD to +19 so they auto make any UMD roll to use any wand without having to roll. Otherwise I don't think it would be much of an issue. (But I also think it shouldn't override the ability to take 10)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 20th level baker will fail sometimes, but his failure will be very different than the one for a 1st level baker.
A 20th level baker is used to make bread that is so tasty that any "normal" bread will taste poor after that.
By "failing", it will bake a bread which is ultra delicious, but for its own perspective, it will have failed because it is not as perfect as it used to be.
Let's compare with Formula One.
When a commoner drive a formula One, he will not be able to deal with the speed, and will be likely to have an accident. If he does not take risks, and drive it the best he can without having an accident, he will finish a tour in 8'40", and will be happy. With luck (20 nat), he will have a wonderful tour, and make it 6'40, his personal record, and with a lot of luck.
A expert formula One driver will be able to drive such a car with ease, and will NEVER have an accident except if it takes risks (=> have the DC raise by driving with more speed AND choose not to take 10), and failing will mean make the tour 3'10" while he is used to make it 2'24", which is a "failure" to him.
However, compared to the time the commoner scored, it is still very impressive.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A better example is the Climb skill. Look up the real world rock climber named Alex Honnold. Or Michael Reardon (RIP). Reardon climbed thousands upon thousands of routes unroped before his death (which was due to a large wave sweeping him out to sea while he was standing on shore).
Both of them have climbed routes that fewer than 5 other people worldwide have been able to successfully climb. And they did so without ropes. Their Climb skill is easily +30. Yet this house rule would have them fail to climb a ladder 5% of the time.
Skilled masters do not autofail 5% of the time. It just isn't so.
I think this is all going to come down to a point of view issue.
For real-world people to state definitively what is possible by superhumans is flawed. For them to makes mistakes is possible, and for them not to make mistakes is possible. But as for which one is right? It's all just conjecture, even my position.
A lot of my motivation stems from the fact that auto-successes and failures on skill checks aren't fun for me. Further, even if superhumans were capable of making mistakes, I don't think they'd make them 5% of the time. Even if you're trying to champion the position of realism, I think you're looking for something like a dice-pool for this sort of event, not a single d20 roll.
The other posters have the jumping-to-the-moon point covered.
To me, some days shit just goes wrong. I love the earlier posts on how experts in their fields never get anything wrong and neophytes never get anything right. Entire civilizations have risen and fallen in ways that prove that wrong. But its the usual suspects playing each particular refrain, myself included. I have no problem with automatic success or failure, as in my games that's how it works and noone has ever complained. This is likely because of the funky paizo card decks i use along with the importance of REPEATED success in my games, but whatever. I've had nothing but fun with unexpected failure/success. If you have fun with people in your games never failing or never succeeding, that's fine too.
|
|
To me, some days s#@! just goes wrong. I love the earlier posts on how experts in their fields never get anything wrong and neophytes never get anything right. Entire civilizations have risen and fallen in ways that prove that wrong. But its the usual suspects playing each particular refrain, myself included. I have no problem with automatic success or failure, as in my games that's how it works and noone has ever complained. This is likely because of the funky paizo card decks i use along with the importance of REPEATED success in my games, but whatever. I've had nothing but fun with unexpected failure/success. If you have fun with people in your games never failin
Advice: Never climb mountains.
To me, some days s#@! just goes wrong. I love the earlier posts on how experts in their fields never get anything wrong and neophytes never get anything right. Entire civilizations have risen and fallen in ways that prove that wrong. But its the usual suspects playing each particular refrain, myself included. I have no problem with automatic success or failure, as in my games that's how it works and noone has ever complained. This is likely because of the funky paizo card decks i use along with the importance of REPEATED success in my games, but whatever. I've had nothing but fun with unexpected failure/success. If you have fun with people in your games never failinAdvice: Never climb mountains.
And my advice to you is to try something new. You never know where that unexpected success will take you. To the moon, perhaps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 = critical fail, 20 = critical success for skill checks is NOT a bad idea... unless you're a TERRIBLE DM. It doesn't have to take away from taking 10 or taking 20, nor should it always be autowin/autofail.
I implement it in my games, and it's always worked swimmingly. If someone wants to take 20 tying someone up with a rope, then they take the time to tie that victim up as best as they possibly can with that rope. If someone wants to take 10 to balance across a narrow ledge they're crossing with no nearby danger, then they can by all means do so. BUT when a check is called for, such as being under pressure or UMD, 1 = critical fail and something bad happens (similarly to the default UMD rules), and 20 USUALLY means auto success, and possibly an added benefit / boon. For example, if it would normally take you several rounds to use Escape Artist to get out of some ropes but you roll a 20, it may instead only take you 1 or 2 rounds to get out. Or if you get a 20 on a Stealth check, as a boon for getting a 20 you may be able to keep that roll for the next 1 or 2 Stealth checks you would be required to make (in the next few moments). On the other hand, if someone rolls a 1 on their Stealth check (and the enemy does not roll a 1), the enemy automatically finds you, regardless of the math. Or if you roll a 1 on that Escape Artist check, it may take you even LONGER now to get out, since you just made it even worse.
By the way... if anyone tried to "jump to the moon" or something ridiculous to exploit the system, I would smack them in the head with the core rulebook. It's about making the game more exciting, not exploiting the system. It's a houserule to begin with... and you're afraid of someone trying to exploit a houserule??? Come on now.
"On a side note, you cannot "Take 20" while "tying someone up". See Grapple, Tie Up. And Escape Artist attempts take 10 rounds, minimum. The skill does not describe grades of success, although defining those wouldn't be a terrible house rule (e.g. time to escape cut in half if exceed DC by 5).
Where does that ruling come from? I've never seen that before and would love to have a source for that. It makes tying people up useful. Previously when tried I've seen people just say, okay I use escape artist and slip my bonds and now I'm running away. If it takes 10 rounds someone will notice if they're present and they will smack the $%^& out of you with non-lethal damage until you fall unconcious.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"On a side note, you cannot "Take 20" while "tying someone up". See Grapple, Tie Up. And Escape Artist attempts take 10 rounds, minimum. The skill does not describe grades of success, although defining those wouldn't be a terrible house rule (e.g. time to escape cut in half if exceed DC by 5).Where does that ruling come from?
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only Pathfinder player in the world whose first instinct upon encountering an unfamiliar claim is to check the most obvious part of the Core Rulebook that I can think of and see what it actually says.
Action: Making an Escape Artist check to escape from rope bindings, manacles, or other restraints (except a grappler) requires 1 minute of work.
"On a side note, you cannot "Take 20" while "tying someone up". See Grapple, Tie Up. And Escape Artist attempts take 10 rounds, minimum. The skill does not describe grades of success, although defining those wouldn't be a terrible house rule (e.g. time to escape cut in half if exceed DC by 5).Where does that ruling come from?Sometimes I feel like I'm the only Pathfinder player in the world whose first instinct upon encountering an unfamiliar claim is to check the most obvious part of the Core Rulebook that I can think of and see what it actually says.
Action: Making an Escape Artist check to escape from rope bindings, manacles, or other restraints (except a grappler) requires 1 minute of work.
I'm not going to lie to you, I went to the Escape Artist section and saw the DCs, read a bit of text, but completely just missed that bit. Believe me, I normally look to the PRD to try to find things, but sometimes you just overlook things.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I know, I overlook things too. Just gets tiring when you encounter enough rules questions and start to realize how many of them are the result of someone having not bothered to look in the most obvious place in the rules. And don't even get me started on the folks who debate a topic for days without anyone involved ever looking it up, then when they're finally shown the rule explicitly stating the opposite of their position, they've so thoroughly entrenched themselves that suddenly it's all about "RAI" and "rules lawyering" and "obvious intent" and "poorly worded" and blah blah blah just so they don't have to admit that they spent the last two days calling people names because they couldn't be bothered to read one sentence of actual rules text and—
Er, sorry, what were we talking about again?
@Jiggy : I agree with you totally.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And my advice to you is to try something new. You never know where that unexpected success will take you. To the moon, perhaps.
Ah, yes, I am reminded of Wikipedia's List of Non-Experts who Happened to Stumble Upon a Way to Reach the Moon through Luck:
[no data found]
Yeah, I know, I overlook things too. Just gets tiring when you encounter enough rules questions and start to realize how many of them are the result of someone having not bothered to look in the most obvious place in the rules. And don't even get me started on the folks who debate a topic for days without anyone involved ever looking it up, then when they're finally shown the rule explicitly stating the opposite of their position, they've so thoroughly entrenched themselves that suddenly it's all about "RAI" and "rules lawyering" and "obvious intent" and "poorly worded" and blah blah blah just so they don't have to admit that they spent the last two days calling people names because they couldn't be bothered to read one sentence of actual rules text and—
Er, sorry, what were we talking about again?
I'm pretty sure we were talking about how caster level checks to overcome spell resistance autopass on a 20 and autofail on a 1 because come on spell resistance is sort of like armor class and attack rolls are rolled against armor class and attack rolls autopass on a 20 so by the transitive property of six degrees of Kevin Bacon we can see that caster level checks to overcome spell resistance autopass on a 20.
Similarly, you make attack rolls against CMD for combat maneuvers, but you also make skill checks against CMD to tumble, therefore all skill checks autopass on a 20. QED
And my advice to you is to try something new. You never know where that unexpected success will take you. To the moon, perhaps.Ah, yes, I am reminded of Wikipedia's List of Non-Experts who Happened to Stumble Upon a Way to Reach the Moon through Luck:
[no data found]
"Unexpected success" is not "luck". Your data search was doomed before you made it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe it took me 2 darn minutes to jump to the moon and 2 more to jump back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah NASA was pretty shocked when they landed on the moon, all they'd been trying to do was build a slightly more efficient washing machine.
So, Turin, care to explain how one picks up a new hobby and in doing so unexpectedly succeeds at landing on the moon?
SPACEMONKEYS
First, I'd like to point out that a lot of these comments about how horrible a house rule this would be is based on failing at very mundane things - but that many of the examples given are based on forcing rolls in situations where the supermajority of DMs would never make the players roll anyway. Riding your horse down a smooth track? Walking - even running - down the stairs? Cooking an egg? At 99.9% of tables - even the ones that use a fumble house rule on skill checks, there would be no roll necessary.
A reductio ad absurdum argument only works when the ridiculous situation is actually going to occur frequently - and frankly, if you're in a game where, autofail\autosuccess rules notiwthstanding, your DM is making you roll to ride your horse down a completely smooth trail, then the problem isn't the house rules - it's your DM.
That all out of the way: Botch\fumble rules on skill checks don't tend to work well in the d20 system because of the single-die mechanic on the roll. As others point out, it means that you wind up failing on a check 5% of the time, no matter your actual competence in the skill.
The first system I ever played, Storyteller (by White Wolf) recognized that their original botch rules (rolling more 1s than successes on your d10 pool) were too penalizing, and eventually changed it (so that you only botched if you rolled no successes and at least a single 1).
If I were to look at some sort of botch mechanics for a skill check, because of the single-die nature of the d20 I would probably base it not on rolling a 1, but on failing the skill check by a certain amount.
Example: The skill check is DC 20; you have 5 ranks in the skill, and roll a 1; you rolled a 1 and failed the check by more than 10, therefore you fumbled.
Ok, so I always assumed that, with most skills, rolling a natural 1 is an automatic failure. For example, if you were trying to stealth through a cave and you roll a natural 1, you end up kicking a rock that echoes throughout the cavern. What is the general opinion on that?
i still use the D&D 3.5 DMG sugestion:
skill check natural 1 (-10 to the result)skill check natural 20 (+10 to the result)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, here's a more practical example: consider a sneaking rogue. If you're a level 20 rogue with max ranks in stealth (and maybe you've even imbibed a potion of invisibility!), and you need to sneak past 14 separate first-level guards, you have less than a 50% chance of success. No matter how stealthy you are or how poor the senses of those you're sneaking past are, stealth very quickly becomes effectively unusable.
The legendary master thief shouldn't have that much difficulty with a dozen rent-a-guards.
Many skills already have "fumble" rules -- e.g. fail a Climb check by 5+, fail a Swim Check by 5+, irrespective of the d20 roll. You don't feel drowning, or entering free-fall, is enough of a penalty?
This would be for skills that do not have those built-in penalties.
The auto-success\auto-failure rules - even for combat - are an attempt to replicate a complex system with limited variables. Rolling a 20 on an attack roll against a foe with an AC so high that you couldn't normally hit him is the equivalent of firing proton torpedoes into a 2-meter exhaust port. They're for dramatic purposes. For more realistic, 'gritty' games I would probably discard them, but that's not generally the type of game I run.
@Xaratherus : There is no such thing as fumbling in Pathfinder. A "1" is simply a failure, not a critical one (you don't take additionnal effects with a "1" in a save, and you don't throw your sword with a "1" on an attack roll).
It is either you fail, or you succeed [or for attacks, you crit].
For skills, it could be both a problem for bad rolls AND good rolls to apply the autosuccess/autofailure on a 1 and a 20.
First : For most skills, characters with a high modifier (+20 or more) is normally able to do very high DC skill checks by routine. By instauring the "1"=autofailure, the character will fail with very easy tasks. For example, for a character with +20 in knowledge nature, a DC 21 means the same thing as a DC 1 for an untrained commoner, it is as easy.
Most people don't manage to see how fantastic such a guy is. He knows effectively EVERY SINGLE common and exotic plants in existence. Maybe will he fail to know the rarest and most exotic plant which have been created 2 months ago from time to time, but for the rest, it is as easy for him that recognizing the difference between a fruit and a tree for a commoner (a DC 0 knowledge nature, or even less). He doesn't need to make a roll, because it is obvious for such character.
That's why there isn't skill DC for skills that are -5 or less, it is because it's meant to be automatic, even in combat (where you can't decide to take 10).
Second : For most skills, even the best roll won't help to succeed. A commoner with a single rank in spellcraft can't identify a 9th level spell as it is being cast. Not even if it has several attempts to do so. The same goes for every single knowledge, or for linguistics.
It won't be able to intimidate a adult dragon, even on a nat 20. It can't escape manacles, or domesticate a dinosaure.
That's why there is no "1"/"20" mechanic for skills. It's because the character have such skill that no matter the roll, it will succeed or fail simply by trying.
And if you wan't to make things easier/harder for a character, there are circonstancial modifiers : you try to climb with a used rope ? -2. You try to identify a flower in the jungle while you have never left your desert ? -4. You want to escape your manacles while you have a needle to help you ? +2.
That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
@Xaratherus : There is no such thing as fumbling in Pathfinder. A "1" is simply a failure, not a critical one (you don't take additionnal effects with a "1" in a save, and you don't throw your sword with a "1" on an attack roll).
Which is why in my original post on the topic I noted that the discussion in general involved what would be house rule.
And it's not completely true, by the by. Paizo has official (if optional) fumble and critical decks available that offer an option for exactly what you describe. They've added a lot of enjoyment (and sometimes frustration, but enjoyable frustration) to our current Skull and Shackles game.
With that all out of the way, going to step out of the thread, since further discussion would be going over house rules. :)
We've basically house-ruled out 1's causing instant failures unless the difficulty is really high. If you roll a one on attack or saves, etc. You roll again and if you fail that roll, you really did blunder. I think the D20 deal with 1= always big failure is stupid. It suggests 5% of the time you try to do anything you will not just not succeed but do something incredibly bad. That's totally unrealistic unless you are very bad at it.
5% of the time a basketball player shoots a free throw, does he fall or injure himself? 5% of the time a marksmen shoots a target or a hunter attacks an animal, does his weapon go flying off or he trips and hits his head? It's stupid, and even more unlikely the better you get at things - not impossible - but extremely unlikely.
I think the D20 deal with 1= always big failure is stupid.
As I said earlier, there is no "big failure" in D&D/pathfinder, at least from the 3.0 version of the game.
A natural "1" is only a failure, not a critical one, not a super failure, only a failure. And only for attacks/saves.
My GM insists on this natural 1 skill check failure, and I hate it.
Our cleric is a member of a sect that studies and guards powerful magic items and artifacts. But because she rolled a natural 1 on her Spellcraft, she can't identify the major magic item we have been looking for. So we're sitting there looking at a huge plot point and don't know it, because her 1 is autofail rather than the 15/16 it should have been.
Run a game with this rule it you want, but I bet your players would love to get rid of it.
You know that you can take 10 on the spellcraft check to identify, right ?
It is particularly useful for GM that do houserules about skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, here's a more practical example: consider a sneaking rogue. If you're a level 20 rogue with max ranks in stealth (and maybe you've even imbibed a potion of invisibility!), and you need to sneak past 14 separate first-level guards, you have less than a 50% chance of success. No matter how stealthy you are or how poor the senses of those you're sneaking past are, stealth very quickly becomes effectively unusable.
The legendary master thief shouldn't have that much difficulty with a dozen rent-a-guards.
And them warriors, with nary a single point in perception...drunk and half asleep on the job...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonsense, anyone can unexpectedly fail anything no matter how skilled they are. Anyhow, as I was saying, I cast Haste and
|
Exactly. Or else, a commoner lvl 1 with 10 INT and 1 single rank in knowledge arcana know 5% of the greatest secrets of Magic and its mysteries.
That's why there is no autosuccess/autofailure with skill checks, ability checks and every other rolls (all rolls excepts Save and Attack).
"Out of the mouths of babes ands fools wisdom often falls"
|
|
And them warriors, with nary a single point in perception...drunk and half asleep on the job...Alright, here's a more practical example: consider a sneaking rogue. If you're a level 20 rogue with max ranks in stealth (and maybe you've even imbibed a potion of invisibility!), and you need to sneak past 14 separate first-level guards, you have less than a 50% chance of success. No matter how stealthy you are or how poor the senses of those you're sneaking past are, stealth very quickly becomes effectively unusable.
The legendary master thief shouldn't have that much difficulty with a dozen rent-a-guards.
Are you suggesting first level characters should be a concern to level 20 characters? If that was a level 20 Wizard doing the "sneaking", skill checks wouldn't even be a part of the conversation. We'd have time stopped, or simply wished them away.
Auto-success/auto-failure and +/-10 only serves to trivialize skill point investment. First, casters don't need more ways to make non-casters insignificant, and second, it is an affront to anyone who has specialized training. These house rules trivialize the hard work that individuals put in to accomplish difficult tasks -- the poorly trained don't achieve unexpected success, and the highly trained don't unexpectedly fail. If you want those things to happen in your game, come up with some believable (or magical) explanations, and get "dumb luck" out of it.
Just my opinion, of course :)
I may be confused, but you seem to be making my point. I don't see why the master thief should have a worry in the world. Nobody should even have a chance to know she's there...until she stumbles across the master of the tower.
|
|
"Out of the mouths of babes ands fools wisdom often falls"Exactly. Or else, a commoner lvl 1 with 10 INT and 1 single rank in knowledge arcana know 5% of the greatest secrets of Magic and its mysteries.
That's why there is no autosuccess/autofailure with skill checks, ability checks and every other rolls (all rolls excepts Save and Attack).
Yeah, and enough monkeys with enough typewriters will outdo Shakespeare, eventually...but NOT 1 time in 20. More like once in a thousand years.
|
|
Look people, the die rolls are just hooks to hang your story on. A die roll without a story is like a joke without a punchline.
So you roll you your critical fumble or your critical success at "whatever" and weave it into the story line. If your story is about going to the moon, maybe a nat 20 WILL get you there.
Example: You're Neil Armstrong, about to land on the moon. Make a INT roll to estimate your fuel usage and a DEX roll to handle the joystick for precision manuevering. DO you land safely and take that "small step for man", or do you crash and burn and set the space program back 10 years?
If Baron Munchausen can get to the Moon, why can't you?
You can go to the moon in Everquest.
You can go the Forest Moon of Endor.
A freaking COW jumped over the Moon.
This is what legends are made of.
So go forth, and make such legends as ye may, and remember that nobody will remember when you got a 30 on a roll of 19, or a 15 on a nat 20, unless you have a good story to hang on it.
Ask me and I'll tell you how a critical success on a Perception check can lead to ..."Look! A puma".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 in 20 Kobolds will escape from Adamantine Manacles.
1 in 20 Kobolds will single-handily break through an iron portcullis.
1 in 20 Kobolds will convince a Rod of Dwarven Might, that it is a Dwarf.
1 in 20 Sleeping Kobolds will notice the invisible creature 100ft. away.