Greetings all,
As a dungeon master, I have been struggling with a certain aspect of game mechanics ever since 3rd Edition came out.
The main problem I have with the D20 system is the rule that "1" is ALWAYS a miss or failure and that "20" is ALWAYS a hit or success.
To me that just seems nonsensical (did I spell that right?). Mathematically it means no matter how outrageous the situation, on average 1 out of 20 will succeed. Images it brings to mind:
20 pixies attacking a Terrasque, one will hit it each round?
20 humans try and swim UP a waterfall, one will succeed???
On the other end of the spectrum:
A great Wyrm Red Dragon rolling a "1" cannot hit a stable just sitting there?
The Rogue has plus 38 to his hide check and the 20 guards he is sneaking past have spot at zero. If any of them get a "20" then they spot him no matter what he rolls? or if he was to roll a "1" then ALL of them will spot him??
Etc... As you can see this rule puzzled me greatly.
On the other hand, should you dismiss that rule entirely, then you create other problems:
1) I HATE and refuse to ever say to a player you cannot do that, its not in the rules, or you have no chance of succedding at that (the DC is too high). I like to think there is ALWAYS a chance no matter how slim that something will work (obviously NOT a 1 in 20 chance though that's WAY too high).
2) Mathematically there becomes no point in trying to hit something that has more Ac than 20 plus your modifier, or even more troubling if you have plus 1 to hit, then effectively Ac 22 and Ac 48 are the same for you (not reachable).
So the question becomes how to address this minor inconvenience in an otherwise great system, without having to revamp the whole system.
This is what i've come up with so far:
No automatic anythings. You roll and add modifires and compare to target number. In the case of "20"s, you reroll and add that number to the 20 and then modifiers. As long as you keep rolling "20"s, you keep adding and rerolling. This gives a chance (however slim) that a pixie CAN hit a terrasque (but NOT 1 in 20). And also for a Pc with plus 1 to hit, there is a Difference between Ac 22 and 48 (the chances of rolling the latter are far less than the former, eventhough you have a chance for both (i'm no statistician but i know the chances of keeping rolling "20"s gets slimmer and eventual with enough consecutive "20"s then we're talking miniscule).
Same system for the "1"s. You reroll and SUBTRACT the new mumber from 1 and your modifier and compare to target number. To use above example, Rogues with plus 38 hide rolls a "1", rerolls and gets "12" (his new number is 38-1-12= 25). So now the guards with zero spot still have to roll and get a "20" AND get a 5 on their next roll to spot him (hey plus 38 hide is pretty exceptional).
This sytem adds an extra layer of complexity (and math) but I think enable you to still mathematically be able to do almost anything, Without the 1 in 20 rule.
I was just wondering what you all thought. I would really appreciate some feedback or comments, maybe even suggestions or criticisms. More importantly, how does everyone else out there deal with this issue? or is it even an issue for anyone other than myself?(am I too anal retentive?)LOL.
Please post and let me know.
Thanks and have a great day all.
|
Well, to my knowledge, a "20" or "1" on a skill check does not equal an automatic failure or success (Use Magic Device & 1s being the exception to the rule).
Personally, I turn "1s" into -10 on a base roll, but this is due to my exposure to Epic play where failing a Fort 15 massive damage save on a 1 is a bit much for the 23rd level character with a Con of 31. As for 20s, I find that even if the commoner/pixie/toad can hit the tarrasque/titan/space cow, they won't really have any effect on it, due to DR, fast healing, enormous hp, etc.
All told, I have begun experimenting with fumbles on double natural 1s (end turn immediately, draw AoO from opponent you were attacking & flat-footed till your next turn), critical misses on saves being a result of a second roll against the DC (make the roll, you only fail; fail it twice, big trouble... v. nice in my Vit/Wd games- my house rules are floating about somwhere, prob. in archives), and bell curve (3d6) rolls for skills (less luck, more favor for those who have had training).
Thus, while I might not agree with all of your concepts, I support your right to experiment w/ the system to fit your style. Good luck!
Well, I agree with the 1's and 20's rule. And yes, I would allow someone with a Hide of +38 to get spotted by someone with a +0 Spot who rolls a 20.
First of all, there always has to be a chance for failure or for success. Just because your character has a +38 at anything doesn't mean you're a God and can never fail or never be spotted by a lucky guard...it just means it's not likely to happen.
High level characters are hard enough to challenge. If you take away the automatic hit at 20, there goes one of the last things that a DM has to level the odds so to speak.
Frankly, I wouldn't want to run a game that way. It's metagame thinking to the extreme for a player to be able to sneak past 20 guards with a spot of 0 just because he "knows" that his PC has a +38 and the guards only have a +0 (and he knows that his DM doesn't allow a natural 20 to automatically succeed)
I would much rather the players think "hmmm....my character is really good at hiding, but there are 20 guards and even though I could probably sneak past a few of them undetected, I'm not likely to make it past all of them..."
Plus, there's something fun about rolling a natural 20 and knowing something good just happened....or dreading that natural 1. If you take that away, your game is losing something in my opinion.
Maybe the dragon did hit the barn even though he rolled a 1....but he just didn't do any damage or have any effect for whatever reason.
Well, I agree with the 1's and 20's rule. And yes, I would allow someone with a Hide of +38 to get spotted by someone with a +0 Spot who rolls a 20.
First of all, there always has to be a chance for failure or for success. Just because your character has a +38 at anything doesn't mean you're a God and can never fail or never be spotted by a lucky guard...it just means it's not likely to happen.
High level characters are hard enough to challenge. If you take away the automatic hit at 20, there goes one of the last things that a DM has to level the odds so to speak.
Frankly, I wouldn't want to run a game that way. It's metagame thinking to the extreme for a player to be able to sneak past 20 guards with a spot of 0 just because he "knows" that his PC has a +38 and the guards only have a +0 (and he knows that his DM doesn't allow a natural 20 to automatically succeed)
I would much rather the players think "hmmm....my character is really good at hiding, but there are 20 guards and even though I could probably sneak past a few of them undetected, I'm not likely to make it past all of them..."
Plus, there's something fun about rolling a natural 20 and knowing something good just happened....or dreading that natural 1. If you take that away, your game is losing something in my opinion.
Maybe the dragon did hit the barn even though he rolled a 1....but he just didn't do any damage or have any effect for whatever reason.
I too try and limit metagame thinking (he will not automatically make it past them just because he has a good Hide skill), nor would I say they Cannot spot him ( in the above i cited the rogue rolled badly, but didn't automatically fail, though some might spot him if they roll high). I just don't like that with a "1" he AUTOMATICALLY fails, or that mathematically speaking ONE of the twenty guards will roll a "20" and AUTOMATICALLY spot him (I try and allow for the possibility without making it automatic). Hope that helps clarify a few things, but I want to thank you guys for your input...keep 'em coming please.
I understand what you're saying (I think) about automatic hits/misses. I don't think they should be thrown out completely and in the examples you gave I guess the prudent thing to do would be to roll out all 20 attacks by the pixies and all 20 spot checks for the guards. Mathematically, it's likely at least one will roll a 20 but it isn't neccessarily "guarenteed". In the example of the dragon and the barn - I'd go ahead and say automatic, since the stable is unlikely to catch a lucky break and dodge out of the way of the coming blow. I hear what you're saying about the 1 in 20, or 5%, chance seeming to be unfairly too high. Your "improved" system seems logical and well-conceived to me. That said, I don't neccessarily think there's anything wrong or broken about the "20 always hits" and "1 always misses" system. As Farewell2kings said, it adds excitement and heroic possibilities to the game. Secondly, it's not as "unrealistic" as may be initially assumed. As was pointed out in the pixie example, even though one pixie out of twenty might actually get in a lucky shot on the tarresque, the tarresque isn't out anything since no real damage was sustained from the futile attack. And no matter how talented, nobody is perfect. Sometimes the underdog catches a break and the uberhero takes a shot. That's what makes the game fun and exciting (and FANTASY - real physics don't always apply).
I think of my son's Tae Kwon Do class. He's four years old and has about a dozen other little kids out on the mat practicing martial arts. I could go out there and flatten them all in about ten seconds if I had some bizarre motivation to do so. I'm a hundred times more powerful and agile than they are so my victory is guarenteed. But in the time it takes me to wipe out the preschoolers is it outrageous to assume that at least ONE of them might actually land on shot on me? And, especially given their height, there's a small chance (but still arguably within the 5% range) that one of them might actually hurt me (relatively speaking).
Outmatched attackers still have a chance with the 1 in 20 system of proving to be at least a distraction to their superpowered opponent, with the glimmer of hope of actually harming that opponent as an additional motivation. Even gnats annoy elephants!
Otherwise the game is reduced to the occassionally hopeless scenario. The thing that makes it exciting is the knowledge that any attack, no matter how futile, might succeed and any attempt at any action, no matter how skilled, might still fail.
As far as I can recall, the only time automatic success and failure ('20' & '1') happen, is on attack rolls and saving throws. (With noted exceptions like '1' on Use Magic Devise, as noted above.)
This rule does not extend to skills and ability checks. A '1' is not an automatic failure, nor is a '20' an automatic success.
On another note, I like the idea that a '1' is merely -10 on your save for Epic characters. Would you call that an "Epic Rule?"
As for critical fumbles, the other primary DM and I for our group has come up with a table, that includes, melee attacks, ranged attacks, thrown weapons (including splash), and IIRC, ranged touch and touch as well (though these were either dropped or not as harsh). If anyone is interested, I can dig up the text file and paste them here.
-c
I too try and limit metagame thinking (he will not automatically make it past them just because he has a good Hide skill), nor would I say they Cannot spot him ( in the above i cited the rogue rolled badly, but didn't automatically fail, though some might spot him if they roll high). I just don't like that with a "1" he AUTOMATICALLY fails, or that mathematically speaking ONE of the twenty guards will roll a "20" and AUTOMATICALLY spot him (I try and allow for the possibility without making it automatic). Hope that helps clarify a few things,...Well, I agree with the 1's and 20's rule. And yes, I would allow someone with a Hide of +38 to get spotted by someone with a +0 Spot who rolls a 20.
First of all, there always has to be a chance for failure or for success. Just because your character has a +38 at anything doesn't mean you're a God and can never fail or never be spotted by a lucky guard...it just means it's not likely to happen.
High level characters are hard enough to challenge. If you take away the automatic hit at 20, there goes one of the last things that a DM has to level the odds so to speak.
Frankly, I wouldn't want to run a game that way. It's metagame thinking to the extreme for a player to be able to sneak past 20 guards with a spot of 0 just because he "knows" that his PC has a +38 and the guards only have a +0 (and he knows that his DM doesn't allow a natural 20 to automatically succeed)
I would much rather the players think "hmmm....my character is really good at hiding, but there are 20 guards and even though I could probably sneak past a few of them undetected, I'm not likely to make it past all of them..."
Plus, there's something fun about rolling a natural 20 and knowing something good just happened....or dreading that natural 1. If you take that away, your game is losing something in my opinion.
Maybe the dragon did hit the barn even though he rolled a 1....but he just didn't do any damage or have any effect for whatever reason.
Yes, I know that I'm using a house rule as far as skill checks are concerned, but it's one of the house rules I use in order to keep the power level in check a little bit.
Greetings all,
As a dungeon master, I have been struggling with a certain aspect of game mechanics ever since 3rd Edition came out.
The main problem I have with the D20 system is the rule that "1" is ALWAYS a miss or failure and that "20" is ALWAYS a hit or success.To me that just seems nonsensical (did I spell that right?). Mathematically it means no matter how outrageous the situation, on average 1 out of 20 will succeed. Images it brings to mind:
20 pixies attacking a Terrasque, one will hit it each round?
Actually, if I have done my math right, one will hit only roughly 76% of the time. Of course sometimes more then one will hit in a round as well.
IMC, a 1 on any d20 roll is equal to a -10 (plus modifiers, of course) and a 20 is equal to a 30. I'm edgy on whether or not to extend this rule to taking 20, but I usually do (otherwise the frustrated player will just sit there rolling again and again if it's something he can take 20 on)
Greetings all,
As a dungeon master, I have been struggling with a certain aspect of game mechanics ever since 3rd Edition came out.
The main problem I have with the D20 system is the rule that "1" is ALWAYS a miss or failure and that "20" is ALWAYS a hit or success.To me that just seems nonsensical (did I spell that right?). Mathematically it means no matter how outrageous the situation, on average 1 out of 20 will succeed. Images it brings to mind:
20 pixies attacking a Terrasque, one will hit it each round?
20 humans try and swim UP a waterfall, one will succeed???
On the other end of the spectrum:
A great Wyrm Red Dragon rolling a "1" cannot hit a stable just sitting there?
The Rogue has plus 38 to his hide check and the 20 guards he is sneaking past have spot at zero. If any of them get a "20" then they spot him no matter what he rolls? or if he was to roll a "1" then ALL of them will spot him??
Etc... As you can see this rule puzzled me greatly.On the other hand, should you dismiss that rule entirely, then you create other problems:
1) I HATE and refuse to ever say to a player you cannot do that, its not in the rules, or you have no chance of succedding at that (the DC is too high). I like to think there is ALWAYS a chance no matter how slim that something will work (obviously NOT a 1 in 20 chance though that's WAY too high).
2) Mathematically there becomes no point in trying to hit something that has more Ac than 20 plus your modifier, or even more troubling if you have plus 1 to hit, then effectively Ac 22 and Ac 48 are the same for you (not reachable).So the question becomes how to address this minor inconvenience in an otherwise great system, without having to revamp the whole system.
This is what i've come up with so far:No automatic anythings. You roll and add modifires and compare to target number. In the case of "20"s, you reroll and add that number to the 20 and then modifiers. As long as you keep rolling "20"s, you keep adding and rerolling. This gives a chance...
My thoughts... I don't think that guards with +0 spot skills will be much of a threat for your rogue with a +38 bonus in his hide skill. And that 1 pixie in 20 that hits a Tarrasque will surely have to deal with the damage reduction also.
Your 15th level fighter misses an attack on a poor kobold because of a 1?... I'm pretty sure that the fighter's next three attacks that round will finish him off.
See where I'm going with this? I'm saying that if a one or twenty is the only way to hit or miss in a fight, it means that one side is grossely outclasses and that it most probably won't change the outcome, save a few extra hits or misses.
The natural 1s represent the element of danger that lurke in every fight, and the natural 20s (to me) represent that glimmer of hope when everything seems doomed.
Believe me, there's nothing like getting a natural 20 (even if it represents just a regular hit) at the end of a big fight when everything seemed lost.
As for the skill checks, I also use the +10 or -10 on natural 20s and 1s. It's a good epic rule that can be used at 1st level. What's neat about it is that you don't even need to take account of it before mid-levels due to the relatively low DC of the challenges.
Ultradan
I like the way the rules are written. There will always be parts of the rules we find unrealistic.
Hit points in particular. If we're going to start imposing realistic rules on the game, shouldn't we start there?
I think many (if not most) rules changes tend to degrade the 'heroic' quality of the game. Of course, as long as we're having fun, who cares what we change?
Just my two cents,
Jack
I like the way the rules are written. There will always be parts of the rules we find unrealistic.
Hit points in particular. If we're going to start imposing realistic rules on the game, shouldn't we start there?
I think many (if not most) rules changes tend to degrade the 'heroic' quality of the game. Of course, as long as we're having fun, who cares what we change?
Just my two cents,
Jack
I totally agree with that. We could even play with a "Heads or Tails" system and I'd like it anyway, as long as the story is good and everyone's having fun.
Ultradan
Hmm... I think as Grey pointed out I may have missread the 1 and 20 rule with regards to skills. But then the issue is raised about DCs that are too high...even with the +10 from a natural 20....should a PC with a modifier of 2 never even attempt a DC 33 check?
I Also see your point Ultradan about the inconsequential outcomes when the mismatch is THAT great. Good Point.
Overall...thanks for all your input guys this is really helpful...and if anyone has more to add...please feel free.
... start imposing realistic rules on the game, shouldn't we start there? ...
Hey! Keep your reality out of my fantasy. Kay? Kay. Good. ;)
In all seriousness, the suggestions offered so far have a lot of merit.
A couple things said stuck out though, and I'd like to comment.
First, as DM you should always keep in mind the capabilities of your group. First, don't forget they can always use the "Aid Another" action instead of trying to bash the baddy themselves. Each person who actually strikes AC 10 adds a +2 to the roll of the one they're aiding, which can help the party's bruiser take down the bad guy.
If, however, there's /still/ no way they're going to hit the uber high AC even with all kinds of modifiers added in, then the party should either be considering another tactic (like magic, etc), or just flat running away. And the DM should have a fair reason for introducing the party to that opponent (maybe they just picked on the wrong person, or maybe it's a bad guy they have to build up to, or whatever).
As for skills and whatnot, instead of house ruling that a 1 always fails, instead try applying circumstance penalties during appropriate situations and beefing the DC slightly for those critical rolls, and don't sweat the noncritical stuff. This rewards players who want to master their skills, while applying challenge to those tough situations when you don't necessarily want them breezing through - further allowing skill masters to shine. And, it adds value to abilities and feats that allow someone to take 10 on various skill checks.
Hmm... I think as Grey pointed out I may have missread the 1 and 20 rule with regards to skills. But then the issue is raised about DCs that are too high...even with the +10 from a natural 20....should a PC with a modifier of 2 never even attempt a DC 33 check?
I Also see your point Ultradan about the inconsequential outcomes when the mismatch is THAT great. Good Point.
Overall...thanks for all your input guys this is really helpful...and if anyone has more to add...please feel free.
Don't forget the rules for helping (+2/helper), circumstance bonuses....and maybe some things cannot be made by everyone.
As far as I can recall, the only time automatic success and failure ('20' & '1') happen, is on attack rolls and saving throws. (With noted exceptions like '1' on Use Magic Devise, as noted above.)
A natural 1 is not an automatic failure on Use Magic Device checks, either. The special rule in that case is if you roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.
Thus, if a natural 1 still results in a successful UMD check, you don't fail to activate the item, and you are not barred from trying to activate it again for 24 hours.
I'll chime in here. Why not?
A couple things to keep in mind... The official rule is that a 1 and 20 on your d20 roll is always failure or success, respectively, with regards to attack rolls and saving throws only.
Now for skill checks. The average DC for most skill checks falls between 10 and 25. The skill system is designed for flexibility. There are all kinds of modifiers that can help or hinder a player character succeed on his/her check. The aid another action, favorable or unfavorable conditions, the right tool for the job (such as a battering ram for those really tough to open doors), spell effects that grant circumstance bonuses to skills, feats like Nimble Fingers and Negotiator, and I'm sure a few others that I'm forgetting.
Take a 5th-level player character with max ranks in a skill, add synergy bonuses since many have them and we'll assume this player has been smart enough to get a few. Let's say the skill is Bluff just as an example and the character has a Charisma of 15.
By himself this character has a +12 modifier on Diplomacy. If the PC also took the Persuasive feat, it goes up to +14.
Now let's say that he's getting some help from two other members of his party trying to Bluff a city guard into believing they've been given "special permission" to enter a restricted area and that the 2 aiders made their DC 10 checks. This 5th-level character now has a +18 modifier to his Bluff check.
As the DM, maybe you give a favorable circumstance bonus of anywhere from +2 to +5 since the PCs know certain important official names to throw around and are waving around what looks like an official document and the PC now has a +20 to +23 depending on the bonus.
On an average roll of 10, my friends, this lowly 5th-level character with some of the perks that the skill system provides can get a 30 to 33. A 40 to 43 if he rolls a twenty. At 5th-level!!!
The point about skills is that there are a ton of ways to come up with bonuses to succeed on even what may appear to be impossible DCs to reach unlike attack rolls and saving throws, which are much more limited. The game is built to accomodate resourceful and prepared players when it comes to skills. I totally disagree with rewarding a -10 or +10 for a roll of 1 or 20, respectively, when it comes to skills. It seems to contradict the spirit of the skill system and caters to unresourceful, lazy players. OK, that last part may be a little harsh, but the point is that all of the bonuses are there for the taking if you just do a little work without "freebies" from the DM.
That's a good point and it's well put, Steve. I never looked at it that way. I think I'll still allow the natural 1 or 20 to mean something when making skill checks, but it might just be "progress" towards sucess if the roll is still not high enough to achieve total success.
I'm going to have to mull this one over....