i assigned a DC5 climb skill to it and as a circumstance due to some of the remaining stair features being able to crumble out of the wall and the darkness they were climbing in I added that as long as they did not roll a 1 they could make it all the way to the top with one roll..
If you wanted it to be a risky climb, you probably should have given it a DC higher than 5 (unless that's a typo).
It sounds like your players are against the house rule of rolling a 1 on a skill check always causing some kind of penalty. There's no point in forcing the issue, because there is a way you can get around this.
If you think that there was a small but unavoidable chance of crumbling footholds or other mishaps on an otherwise routine climb, force each climber to make a Reflex Save. If you are making a saving throw, then a 1 does always fail.
It's a bit wormy in a way, but perfectly reasonable. Look at the rules for things like Avalanches, Normal Fire damage, poison, rotting food, etc. There are many non-magical things that can force a saving throw, and a 1 always fails.
So remember, if you think a situation is "dicey" enough to mean a 1 will auto-fail, state the risk in terms of a saving throw instead of a skill check. It doesn't have to be a super high DC, but if it's a saving throw, the risk of failure always exists.
The other thing you can do is say that if the climber rolls a 1, some part of the structure crumbles away and the DC goes up by some amount (2-5). The climber still doesn't fall provided a 1 is enough to succeed at the old DC, but it just got harder for everyone involved. Then it's not an auto-failure, it's a story mechanic.
I have replied to post without checking the date before. I felt silly every time I did it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my own houserule (which I need to add to my houserule docs, since we're playing it this way).
If you can make the DC taking 0, then there is no roll, and no penalty for failure if you do roll (for example, if you want to look really good at acrobatics) and roll a 1.
If you can't make the DC taking 0, then a 1 is an auto failure, because you are not an expert at it yet.
What this generally means is that if you put resources into being good at something (For example, I had a character with a +18 perception at level 5) then you pretty much don't fail. But, if you only put 1 rank into something, even with natural talent, you could still fail an easy check because you put the bare amount of effort into it to learn it. On the perception example, if you put one rank into perception, and had +3 from training and a +0 WIS, then that's a +4 total. You couldn't take 0 and pass a DC 5 check, so if you roll a 1 (even if you had circumstance bonuses, etc on the check) then you'd still flub it up, because you're fallible in that skill.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can make the DC taking 0, then there is no roll, and no penalty for failure if you do roll (for example, if you want to look really good at acrobatics) and roll a 1.
If you can't make the DC taking 0, then a 1 is an auto failure, because you are not an expert at it yet.
Suppose DC 15.
If my mod is +15, I can make it by "taking 0" and don't need to roll. Or if I want to be awesome, I can roll anyway.
If my mod is +14, then I can't make it by taking 0, so I have to roll. Rolling a 1 would make the DC, but it's an auto-fail. Rolling 2 or higher makes it.
If my mod is +13 or lower, then a 1 wouldn't make it anyway, so the auto-fail is irrelevant.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you've created a house-rule that only affects you if your modifier is EXACTLY one less than the DC?
Is that even worth having a rule for?
Natural 1 on a skill check does not auto fail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you've created a house-rule that only affects you if your modifier is EXACTLY one less than the DC?Is that even worth having a rule for?
You're not understanding me correctly, so it's fine.
The problem is you're lumping everything in together to get your +12. I only count ranks, ability, training, and feats. I don't count magic items, circumstance bonuses, temporary buffs, or other pluses.
So in your example, if your +15 was 5 ranks, 4 attribute bonus, 3 trained, +2 from an item and +1 circumstance bonus, I'd only count it as the +13, which means you need to roll (no auto success) and you still fail on a 1, even though a 1 is 16 which beats the DC of 15 normally.
Does that help?
I admit it's a corner case, and it doesn't come up very often, but I feel it rewards those people who actually expend resources on their character rather than just buying some equipment or relying on potions or scrolls.
So in your example, if your +15 was 5 ranks, 4 attribute bonus, 3 trained, +2 from an item and +1 circumstance bonus, I'd only count it as the +13, which means you need to roll (no auto success) and you still fail on a 1, even though a 1 is 16 which beats the DC of 15 normally.Does that help?
I admit it's a corner case, and it doesn't come up very often, but I feel it rewards those people who actually expend resources on their character rather than just buying some equipment or relying on potions or scrolls.
Isn't equipment part of the characters resources?
If you only count ranks, abilities, training, and feats, does that mean you always apply the -2 for not using tools, which is competence I believe?
So in your example, if your +15 was 5 ranks, 4 attribute bonus, 3 trained, +2 from an item and +1 circumstance bonus, I'd only count it as the +13, which means you need to roll (no auto success) and you still fail on a 1, even though a 1 is 16 which beats the DC of 15 normally.Does that help?
I admit it's a corner case, and it doesn't come up very often, but I feel it rewards those people who actually expend resources on their character rather than just buying some equipment or relying on potions or scrolls.
Isn't equipment part of the characters resources?
If you only count ranks, abilities, training, and feats, does that mean you always apply the -2 for not using tools, which is competence I believe?
I think he is saying that if you roll a 1 the equipment does not count not count, but if you don't roll a 1 then everything counts.
RAW, you don't automatically fail on natural 1 and you don't succeed on a natural 20.
I understand that this is the RAW, however, I take issue with this fact that eventually you will be unable to fail. IMO, characters should fail on a 1. This is because after a certain point some skil checks cannot be failed *at all*.
Skill checks that cannot be failed might as well not exist, there becomes no point to rolling for the skill. Even an expert has a small chance for error when they perform a task.
Ok, so... You get a natural one. Roll again. If you get a natural 1,you fail. Small chance that is non-zero!
RAW, you don't automatically fail on natural 1 and you don't succeed on a natural 20.
I understand that this is the RAW, however, I take issue with this fact that eventually you will be unable to fail. IMO, characters should fail on a 1. This is because after a certain point some skil checks cannot be failed *at all*.
Skill checks that cannot be failed might as well not exist, there becomes no point to rolling for the skill. Even an expert has a small chance for error when they perform a task.
I think after you get so good at something that chances of you jacking it up depending on modifiers is astronomically small, and on the other end a 20 should not autopass because sometimes your best just is not good enough.
A 1 on the dice will have 5% of the time, but the chances of a good basketball player missing a layup is extremely small. Now we see it happen, but they make hundred before they miss one.
As for the nat 20 not succeeding hacking into the DoD and getting back out of the system without being traced is not something an amateur(novice) hacker can do even on his best day. That 5% just never happens.
It actually doesn't make sense to fail 5% of the time on a skill check. Experts fail when circumstances apply penalties to their check or the DCs are increased.
Example, someone asks Indiana Jones a question about how to translate pictographs on Aztec tombs while he's teaching the class about Aztec tombs. This is something he is well versed in and is able to answer the question quickly. A week later, he is traveling through some Aztec tombs and ends up being chased by Belloq and some locals who are armed and he has been poisoned. He approaches a wall with pictographs and needs to translate it quickly to make sure he doesn't set off any traps. Being under pressure, he has a penalty to his Linguistics check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you've created a house-rule that only affects you if your modifier is EXACTLY one less than the DC?Is that even worth having a rule for?
You're not understanding me correctly, so it's fine.
The problem is you're lumping everything in together to get your +12. I only count ranks, ability, training, and feats. I don't count magic items, circumstance bonuses, temporary buffs, or other pluses.
So in your example, if your +15 was 5 ranks, 4 attribute bonus, 3 trained, +2 from an item and +1 circumstance bonus, I'd only count it as the +13, which means you need to roll (no auto success) and you still fail on a 1, even though a 1 is 16 which beats the DC of 15 normally.
Does that help?
I admit it's a corner case, and it doesn't come up very often, but I feel it rewards those people who actually expend resources on their character rather than just buying some equipment or relying on potions or scrolls.
So your saying you punish a character for succeeding a roll?
Lets say i need a DC 15 Acrobatics to walk a tightrope and i have 10 ranks no dex boots of elven kind (+5) a MW balancing pole (+2) and a bard inspireing me for another (+3)
Guy B has only 5 ranks +5 dex skill focus(+3) and the acrobatic feat(+2)
We both roll a one and i fail even though i have a 5 better check than you? Do you do this for all skills?
Ok, so... You get a natural one. Roll again. If you get a natural 1,you fail. Small chance that is non-zero!
Yeah for more dice rolling! Yay for wasting a player's investment in skill ranks!
What is it with this persistent horrible idea that we should force people to fail at random?
If it should be a hard check for some reason (the dude is crossing a burning bridge that's broken while under fire with the princess hanging at the other end and wild pigmies riding on his back) then assess a penalty for that situation -- otherwise don't sweat it.
After all what do you want? Roll playing or role playing? More dice and failure doesn't equal a better game.
|
Ok, so... You get a natural one. Roll again. If you get a natural 1,you fail. Small chance that is non-zero!Yeah for more dice rolling! Yay for wasting a player's investment in skill ranks!
What is it with this persistent horrible idea that we should force people to fail at random?
If it should be a hard check for some reason (the dude is crossing a burning bridge that's broken while under fire with the princess hanging at the other end and wild pigmies riding on his back) then assess a penalty for that situation -- otherwise don't sweat it.
After all what do you want? Roll playing or role playing? More dice and failure doesn't equal a better game.
+1
Forger, using an expensive monocle (masterwork tool), under Bardic Inspire Competence, using original materials (identical materials to what the item being forged would actually go on), quality pens/brushes/inks (again masterwork tools), would auto fail on his forgery skill check when someone with a -2 Perception check rolls a 2, and he rolls a 1 on his Forgery skill check?
No way, no how.
Amd, if you do auto-fails on skill checks, you must do auto-success as well, otherwise it is unbalanced, so I will keep trying to jump up that 2,000' cliff with my 7 Dex and no skill ranks in Acrobatics until I get a nat 20 and suddenly appear at the top of said cliff. Riiiiiight.
Ok, so... You get a natural one. Roll again. If you get a natural 1, you fail. Small chance that is non-zero!That's not bad. I'm not saying it's optimal but it's a thought. Sort of like confirming a crit, but in reverse. Alternately, maybe subtract 1d20 when a natural 1 comes up. It means more die-rolling, but... hm...
Here's my question -- what does it actually bring to the game?
Will your players enjoy it more when the roll a 1 and then roll again and subtract the new number?
Will they enjoy knowing that .0025% of the time they are going to fail?
Does the .0025% chance give enough justification to actually require re-rolling 5% of all skill checks rolled?
@Callerack you know your right I never realized what that would mean on opposed checks.
I have found that keeping with a natural 1 results in failure continues to keep the aspect of rolling a die, even at high levels of game play, a necessary and risky venture. Granted the rogue with a stratospheric dexterity, maxed out ranks in stealth, and 4 different stacking stealth-enhancing magical items and spell effects should be able to sneak past everyone. However, that 5% chance of failure promotes good roleplay and hones quick decision making. I am very happy with most of Pathfinder's rulings, but I prefer nat 1's as failures. Sometimes, despite excellent character builds, great gear, and the best strategy, the dice decide to tell a tale all their own. I don't ever want to see that change.
I have found that keeping with a natural 1 results in failure continues to keep the aspect of rolling a die, even at high levels of game play, a necessary and risky venture. Granted the rogue with a stratospheric dexterity, maxed out ranks in stealth, and 4 different stacking stealth-enhancing magical items and spell effects should be able to sneak past everyone. However, that 5% chance of failure promotes good roleplay and hones quick decision making. I am very happy with most of Pathfinder's rulings, but I prefer nat 1's as failures. Sometimes, despite excellent character builds, great gear, and the best strategy, the dice decide to tell a tale all their own. I don't ever want to see that change.
Nice and all, but no reason to resurrect a thread from 6 years ago.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've joked with a GM that I should be allowed to take 20 on a climb check because the only penalty I faced for failure was taking more time because of permanent feather fall. He did agree that I would eventually make it up to the top and to save time we let it go at that. If we hadn't, I'd be rolling the dice until I got I think it was 3 successes in a row on a DC I needed 15+ on the dice for.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoa, old thread.
Ah, 2011, when this thread seemed old, but had actually been around for no more than a year. How young it was! How young we all were! But did we appreciate it? We did not. Time makes fools of us all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and Fools make time for the mall.
I've joked with a GM that I should be allowed to take 20 on a climb check because the only penalty I faced for failure was taking more time because of permanent feather fall. He did agree that I would eventually make it up to the top and to save time we let it go at that. If we hadn't, I'd be rolling the dice until I got I think it was 3 successes in a row on a DC I needed 15+ on the dice for.
Hmmmmmmm.......
Given that Take-20 means that you roll a 1, deal with consequences, try again and roll a 2, deal with consequences, try again and roll a 3, deal with consequences, etc., you would never actually succeed. It would go like this:
First 9 tries (1-9): you fail and fall on the first climb check, but you're OK with Feather Fall, you just need to keep trying.
Next 5 tries(10-14): you fail but don't fall, you just need to keep trying.
15th try: you succeed and make progress up the cliff. That Take-20 has ended because you succeeded. Now try the second part of the climb and Take-20 which results in a fail and fall (as if you rolled a 1). You're OK with Feather Fall but now you're back on the ground and need to begin again: try the first climb check with a new Take-20.
Next 9 tries (16-24): you fail and fall on the first climb check, but you're OK with Feather Fall, you just need to keep trying.
Next 5 tries (25-29): you fail but don't fall, you just need to keep trying.
30th try: you succeed and make progress up the cliff. That Take-20 has ended because you succeeded. Now try the second part of the climb and Take-20 which results in a fail and fall (as if you rolled a 1). You're OK with Feather Fall but now you're back on the ground and need to begin again: try the first climb check with a new Take-20.
Etc.
Basically, every 15 tries you make it past the first check but fall to the ground on the second check and have to start the whole thing from scratch with a new 15 tries with the same result. Forever. You never actually succeed on the second check and never even get to try the third one.
That's a 0% chance of success.
You're much better off rolling. Actually rolling the dice gives you a 2.7% chance of getting three consecutive rolls of 15 or higher. If you're lucky, it might not even take long, but if you're unlucky, you'll still eventually succeed after only about 4-5 minutes.
4-5 minutes until you succeed is much better than never succeeding at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've joked with a GM that I should be allowed to take 20 on a climb check because the only penalty I faced for failure was taking more time because of permanent feather fall. He did agree that I would eventually make it up to the top and to save time we let it go at that. If we hadn't, I'd be rolling the dice until I got I think it was 3 successes in a row on a DC I needed 15+ on the dice for.Hmmmmmmm.......
Given that Take-20 means that you roll a 1, deal with consequences, try again and roll a 2, deal with consequences, try again and roll a 3, deal with consequences, etc., you would never actually succeed.
The idea that T20 is sequential is your own idea, not something that's actually anywhere in the T20 rules.
The idea that T20 is sequential is your own idea, not something that's actually anywhere in the T20 rules.I've joked with a GM that I should be allowed to take 20 on a climb check because the only penalty I faced for failure was taking more time because of permanent feather fall. He did agree that I would eventually make it up to the top and to save time we let it go at that. If we hadn't, I'd be rolling the dice until I got I think it was 3 successes in a row on a DC I needed 15+ on the dice for.Hmmmmmmm.......
Given that Take-20 means that you roll a 1, deal with consequences, try again and roll a 2, deal with consequences, try again and roll a 3, deal with consequences, etc., you would never actually succeed.
Maybe.
But it says this:
Taking 20
When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Note the bolded parts.
When you Take-20, you keep trying until you get it right which requires 20x the time during which you fail many times before you succeed and suffer the consequences for each of those failures.
How else can you read that without assuming you start with a 1, then a 2, then a 3, etc., until you get it right? Why does it take exactly 20 times as long if it's not 20 attempts? Why are there consequences for failure if you're not making failed attempts? What does "trying until you get it right" mean if that doesn't mean you're making (failed) attempts?
So, obviously, you're making 20 attempts (because it takes 20x longer) with many failures (low rolls with consequences for failing) before you finally get it right (roll a 20).
Edit: Disclaimer for sensitive readers: These questions I posted here are MY questions. I'm asking them because I'm hoping a reader with a different viewpoint than mine might answer them so I can learn his or her viewpoint. I did not intend to imply that anyone has said these things. They are not quotations, citations, or assumptions of anyone's beliefs.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When you Take-20, you keep trying until you get it right which requires 20x the time during which you fail many times before you succeed and suffer the consequences for each of those failures.
This is correct.
Why does it take exactly 20 times as long if it's not 20 attempts?
I don't recall saying it wasn't 20 attempts. Please indicate what I said that gave you a different impression.
Why are there consequences for failure if you're not making failed attempts? What does "trying until you get it right" mean if that doesn't mean you're making (failed) attempts?
"If you're not making failed attempts"? I don't recall saying that. Please indicate what I said that gave you a different impression.
So, obviously, you're making 20 attempts (because it takes 20x longer) with many failures (low rolls with consequences for failing) before you finally get it right (roll a 20).
I don't recall contesting this. Please indicate what I said that gave you a different impression.
How else can you read that without assuming you start with a 1, then a 2, then a 3, etc., until you get it right?
I'm interested in answering, but my faith that my words will be read, considered, and earnestly replied to has been rather shaken. If I see the beginnings of a true dialog in your next post, then I'll join in. Or if not, that's fine too; I'll just spend my time elsewhere. :)
Jiggy, I never quoted you saying any of that, don't assume that I did. I'm just asking questions. Why do you assume that when I ask a question that I must be secretly quoting you or implying that you said those things?
My point was, if you're making 20 attempts, many of which fail and have consequences before you finally succeed, what other interpretation is there?
You roll, fail, roll again, fail, roll again, fail, until you have rolled 20 times with the final roll being a 20. Sure, it doesn't explicitly state that the previous rolls were 1 through 19 in order, but that's a pretty natural assumption from everything else that the rule does explicitly state. More natural than, say, you rolled 19 straight 7's followed by a 20, or than assuming you tried 19 times without rolling then tried once and rolled a 20, or any other interpretation I can come up with.
I edited my previous post to add a disclaimer to make this more clear...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, I never quoted you saying any of that, don't assume that I did. I'm just asking questions. Why do you assume that when I ask a question that I must be secretly quoting you or implying that you said those things?
I'm honestly not sure whether this is an honest attempt at communication or not (especially considering the belittling nature of your edited disclaimer), but I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt here and give you an answer:
That's how those "if" clauses in your questions work. When you make a direct reply to someone's claim by saying "Then why is X the case, if Y is true?", you are calling for the other person to reconcile their belief in Y with the existence of X (or to abandon their belief in Y, if that reconciliation cannot be made).
So (for example), when you ask "Why does it take exactly 20 times as long if it's not 20 attempts?", you are calling for me to either reconcile "takes 20 times as long" with "it's not 20 attempts", or else to abandon the belief that "it's not 20 attempts" if I can't make that reconciliation.
So what was the point of putting all those not-in-dispute ideas into those "if" clauses, if you weren't meaning what that kind of sentence means? What did you mean by postulating things like "if it's not 20 attempts" in your questions? What were you trying to communicate by connecting things I didn't contest to things I didn't say? Give me some clear reason to think you're being earnest here, and I'll go back to discussing T20 with you. Otherwise, the only remaining conclusion I can think of is that you got careless (either in your reading of the rules, in your reading of my post, or both), realized you goofed, then tried to save face by painting me as sensitive and assumptive. Which I suppose is your own prerogative, I just won't be joining you in discussion in that case.
Happy gaming. :)
Nope.
I was just asking questions. Generic questions. I looked at a sentence in the RAW ("Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take") and asked myself "Why does it take exactly 20 times as long if it's not 20 attempts?" Then I answered myself "Of course it means it's 20 attempts". Then I posed the same question to the forum to see if anyone else would answer differently.
Sure, I posted that right after your post since you already said my interpretation was my own (implying that you had a different interpretation) and yes, I was hoping you would provide that interpretation by answering my questions.
None of which in any way implies that YOU said it's not 20 attempts.
Of course I want you to reconcile my question with the rules. If you do, I think you'll agree with my interpretation, but if you don't, I'd like to hear what other interpretation you have.
It was never about you, or more specifically, never about quoting you or implying you said anything at all.
So, obviously, you're making 20 attempts (because it takes 20x longer) with many failures (low rolls with consequences for failing) before you finally get it right (roll a 20).
This could actually be fluffed several ways.
For example, I'm doing carpentry.
1) I cut a board, but err on the side of cutting it too long, so if it is to long I go back and cut it again. Repeat till I get the right length.
2) I measure twice, or thrice, or more. Then make a single cut.
3) Some combination of 1 and 2.
Either way I've taken more time, but in the second I certainly did not take 20 tries to do it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was just asking questions. Generic questions. I looked at a sentence in the RAW ("Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take") and asked myself "Why does it take exactly 20 times as long if it's not 20 attempts?" Then I answered myself "Of course it means it's 20 attempts". Then I posed the same question to the forum to see if anyone else would answer differently.
Huh? Is this how you communicate in person, too?
I'm imagining you and a friend hitting up a fast food joint and ordering burgers. You then look at your friend and say "Why would you order a burger if you're a vegetarian?"
Your friend, puzzled, says "I'm not a vegetarian," then he tries to think back to other times you've eaten together and adds, "When did I give you the impression I was a vegetarian?"
You reply, "I wasn't claiming you said you were a vegetarian; don't make assumptions about what I'm saying."
Friend: "What? You asked me to reconcile my ordering of a burger with my being a vegetarian. That's what you said."
You: "Fine, let me add a disclaimer to what I said. For sensitive listeners: this question is not meant to imply anything about you."
Friend: "Your rudeness aside, what were you trying to communicate by asking me that question, if not to get me to explain why I would order a burger as a vegetarian?"
You: "It was just a question. When I looked at the menu, I asked myself, 'Why would you order a burger if you're a vegetarian?'. When I answered that question for myself—I'm not a vegetarian—I was able to decide what to order. Then I posed the question to you to see if you had any different thoughts."
--------------------
That is basically what happened in this conversation up to now. You asked me a question directly—a question which very pointedly asserted things about myself—and when I responded to what you said, you called me "sensitive", said I was making assumptions, and then claimed that you weren't really asking me the question you asked me so much as you were presenting an element of your prior thought process to see if I had any comments on it.
I'm not sure we can have a fruitful dialog if your meaning can be that far from what you actually said. Sorry to take up so much of your (and everyone else's) time.
Jiggy: It's obvious that you don't want to discuss this. Fine.
Bbangerter. Thanks for an answer. I see your point. I might argue that Take-20 isn't allowed in Carpentry since, normally, the roll is made at the end of a week - hopefully you have done more than cut one board that week - and there are significant penalties for failure (loss of materials and having to get new materials to try again) which invalidates the skill as a candidate for Take-20.
Still, I get your point that one way to read it might be "you are very careful, taking lots of extra time to make sure you get it exactly right" which seems to be what you're saying about cutting the board. Applied to the climb scenario, that would mean taking a very long time, searching for perfect hand and foot holds, and making sure you get it right.
I might accept that, except it says "you fail many times before you succeed".
Maybe if the definition of fail is "a minor setback but not a fail of the entire skill check" then I could accept it. For example, if "fail" for a climb check means "this particular hand-hold is not good enough, find another one" then Take-20 on a Climb check might mean you found 19 bad hand-holds before you find a good one.
I personally think that's a stretch, but I can see it as a friendlier interpretation for the sake of making it possible.
Still, I get your point that one way to read it might be "you are very careful, taking lots of extra time to make sure you get it exactly right" which seems to be what you're saying about cutting the board.
Yes this. The carpentry example was simply a good way for me to illustrate the concept.
Applied to the climb scenario, that would mean taking a very long time, searching for perfect hand and foot holds, and making sure you get it right.I might accept that, except it says "you fail many times before you succeed".
Maybe if the definition of fail is "a minor setback but not a fail of the entire skill check" then I could accept it. For example, if "fail" for a climb check means "this particular hand-hold is not good enough, find another one" then Take-20 on a Climb check might mean you found 19 bad hand-holds before you find a good one.
I personally think that's a stretch, but I can see it as a friendlier interpretation for the sake of making it possible.
I might be extra careful, taking extra time, failing 9 times then succeeding on the 10th. That would still qualify for the failing many times part of the text, while not, necessarily, implying that you try exactly 20 times on a take 20. e.g, a combination of 1 & 2 from my original example.
That the assumed attempts of Take 20 happen IN SEQUENCE is not supported in any way by the rules. They can be assumed to happen, so that you are treated as if you rolled the dice over and over until you got a 20. But assuming it happens in sequence makes no sense.
If a character has a +0 on climb but at-will featherfall (a 1st level witch with the Flight hex, perhaps) it can be assumed that they reach the top of a cliff after trying many times and randomly rolling high enough multiple times in a row to make progress without rolling low enough to fall off in between. It's a complicated probability problem so I don't have the time or inclination to write out the equation here, but assuming random rolls and no penalties for falling, due to featherfall, it will happen.
I might be extra careful, taking extra time, failing 9 times then succeeding on the 10th. That would still qualify for the failing many times part of the text, while not, necessarily, implying that you try exactly 20 times on a take 20. e.g, a combination of 1 & 2 from my original example.
Perhaps. This seems to disregard the "takes 20x as long" part. There is no justification for 9 failures + 1 success = 20x as long as a single failure or a single success. Put another way, one climb attempt takes a move action regardless of whether it succeeds or fails. One Take-20 climb attempt takes 20 move actions, so why would it only include 9 fails (9 move actions) plus one success (1 move action) - what are we doing with those remaining 10 unused move actions?
While we could just handwaive that, I think the 20 attempts with increasing success from 1 to 20 explains it without handwaiving anything.
A continuation of my previous post:
Although the situation doesn't conform precisely to the take 20 rules, it is the type of situation the take 20 rules were intended to address. A situation where there are no penalties for failure, that would otherwise require repeated, endless, boring die rolls to resolve, with no sense of suspense or excitement.
If there is a time limit, this wouldn't work, because the loss of time would entail a expenditure of a limited resource.
I might be extra careful, taking extra time, failing 9 times then succeeding on the 10th. That would still qualify for the failing many times part of the text, while not, necessarily, implying that you try exactly 20 times on a take 20. e.g, a combination of 1 & 2 from my original example.Perhaps. This seems to disregard the "takes 20x as long" part. There is no justification for 9 failures + 1 success = 20x as long as a single failure or a single success. Put another way, one climb attempt takes a move action regardless of whether it succeeds or fails. One Take-20 climb attempt takes 20 move actions, so why would it only include 9 fails (9 move actions) plus one success (1 move action) - what are we doing with those remaining 10 unused move actions?
While we could just handwaive that, I think the 20 attempts with increasing success from 1 to 20 explains it without handwaiving anything.
There is no justification for any other interpretation either. Its all fluff. We don't know that take 20 on a climb check involves 20 distinct move actions. All we know is that take 20 takes 20x as long, with no explanation as to why. We can extrapolate different reasons why it takes that long. Your interpretation of 20 actual attempts is simply one possibility. I think it is fine as a possibility, but it is not in any way exclusive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that keeping with a natural 1 results in failure continues to keep the aspect of rolling a die, even at high levels of game play, a necessary and risky venture. Granted the rogue with a stratospheric dexterity, maxed out ranks in stealth, and 4 different stacking stealth-enhancing magical items and spell effects should be able to sneak past everyone. However, that 5% chance of failure promotes good roleplay and hones quick decision making. I am very happy with most of Pathfinder's rulings, but I prefer nat 1's as failures. Sometimes, despite excellent character builds, great gear, and the best strategy, the dice decide to tell a tale all their own. I don't ever want to see that change.
So, people fail to tie their shoes 5% of the time in your games.
If you like that level of incompetence I suggest that Paranoia is the game for you.