Is taking 20 the same as rolling a 20 - i.e. does it incur an automatic success? For instance, if the DC of a lock is 30, and someone's DD modifier is +7, would taking 20 allow them to succeed? Seems a bit dubious to me, but I'm uncertain.
Many thanks.
No. A 20 is not an automatic success and a 1 is not an automatic failure for skill checks.
The Lizard is correct.
Is taking 20 the same as rolling a 20 - i.e. does it incur an automatic success? For instance, if the DC of a lock is 30, and someone's DD modifier is +7, would taking 20 allow them to succeed? Seems a bit dubious to me, but I'm uncertain.
Taking 20 is effectively making twenty attempts, one at each result of the die. That's why you can't take 20 if there is the potential for Bad Things(tm) to happen; as examples: missing the DC of a roll by more than 5 results in catastrophic consequences, like during a crafting roll, or failing the roll means you cannot try again for 24 hours if at all. This is also why it takes 20 times longer than a standard check. Taking 20 on that perception check to find the trap is all well and good, but it means you're taking 2 minutes studying that 5' x 5' square. The rest of the party can take a nap while the rogue works a 10' x 50' hall.
If you don't have the required skill mod for a +20 to succeed, it doesn't matter if you take 20. You still fail (as noted above)
--JD
I was under the impression that skill checks were not an auto-success on a 20 anyway.
Correct. Auto-Pass/Fail is specific to only a few rolls which are explicitly called out. In the Core rule books only Attack rolls (and by extent combat Manuvers) and Savings throws follow this rule. Skill Checks, Caster Level Checks, and any other Core d20 roll you care to name is not auto-pass/fail.
This ranks up there as one of the most common mistakes players( and GMs) make, so don't feel bad Qik.
I say Core because there are some rules else where in print, such as Kingmaker or the Camp rules that also have auto-pass/fail. But again these are called out as having that.
I was under the impression that skill checks were not an auto-success on a 20 anyway.Correct. Auto-Pass/Fail is specific to only a few rolls which are explicitly called out. In the Core rule books only Attack rolls (and by extent combat Manuvers) and Savings throws follow this rule. Skill Checks, Caster Level Checks, and any other Core d20 roll you care to name is not auto-pass/fail.
This ranks up there as one of the most common mistakes players( and GMs) make, so don't feel bad Qik.
I appreciate that; the concept of taking 20 makes a lot more sense to me now that I know that. Thanks for the help, All.
Auto-Pass/Fail is specific to only a few rolls which are explicitly called out. In the Core rule books only Attack rolls (and by extent combat Manuvers) and Savings throws follow this rule. Skill Checks, Caster Level Checks, and any other Core d20 roll you care to name is not auto-pass/fail.
Natural 20 is also auto-successs for the Constitution check to become stable when dying.
Natural 1 is auto-fail for the Caster Level check to use a scroll with a higher CL than yours.
As long as we're collecting exceptions:
A combat maneuver check to escape from being tied up doesn't automatically succeed on a natural 20.
I do it for flavor, personally, and don't so much see it as a mistake.
This ranks up there as one of the most common mistakes players( and GMs) make, so don't feel bad Qik.
While you're perfectly free to run a game however you choose, I'm curious how you handle a natural 20 on "I want to jump this 500' chasm / over a mountain / to the moon!" or similar situations?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I do it for flavor, personally, and don't so much see it as a mistake.
You let skill checks auto-succeed on a nat 20? My players would destroy the world with that kind of power.
"I'd like to listen in on the BBEG briefing his minions. Let's see, 100 miles away, through 7 solid walls, that's a Perception DC of about 100,000. Nat 20! What's he saying?" /hyperbole.
I assume you mean within reason.
(Not a fan of nat 1/nat 20 skills houserules).
While you're perfectly free to run a game however you choose, I'm curious how you handle a natural 20 on "I want to jump this 500' chasm / over a mountain / to the moon!" or similar situations?I do it for flavor, personally, and don't so much see it as a mistake.
This ranks up there as one of the most common mistakes players( and GMs) make, so don't feel bad Qik.
Yeah, there obviously needs to be some reasonable limit. I can't remember when I read it first but I have seen house rules to treat a natural 20 as a roll of 30 (and natural 1 as -10) for skill checks.
|
Reasonable limits, yes. Difficulty isn't the only determining factor in skill checks. It isn't as if there is any attainable level of skill that can leap such a chasm or hear something from that far away.
At my table, a Nat 1 is a botch. Nat 1 on a knowledge check means that you're wrong and you're SURE you're right! (Who hasn't been there?)
Nat 20 is a critical success. You leap with almost flight-like grace, landing in the perfect spot.
Attempting something outside the understood limits of the situation means you don't get to roll and I suggest a different course of action instead. Convincing me that it is possible is step 1.
|
|
While there isn't any reasonable amount of skill that could let you jump a 500 foot chasm, a spell that gave you +550 to your Acrobatics skills when making long jumps WOULD, in fact, let you do that. The skills system is supposed to be extensible logically (in most cases), and a nat-20 rule would break this.
Fortunately for me I already said that I'd never allow uses of the skill that only work at +550. That's not Acrobatics, that's Fly.
On the subject of natural 1s and 20s (for skill checks or otherwise), one possible house rule is to treat a 1 as a -10 and a 20 as a 30, so checks that would be unreasonable to fail or pass still do.
An 18th level monk with Fleet and Expedious Retreat cast on him could jump 500 ft with a high enough acrobatics check (good luck reaching DC 500 without houserules), but that's about it.
The monk's movement bonus and the bonus from Exp Retreat are both enhancement so they would not stack. The monk could always take Fleet twice and the Run feat if he really wanted that 500' movement though.
EDIT: Thinking about it, there's no way the movement cap on jumping was meant to include the distance you could run.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
One problem with trying to judge "reasonable" is that the skill system already sets very achievable DCs for improbable things. The DC to track an ant that crossed a stone floor a week ago is only in the mid 30s, easily done by a mid level druid or ranger.
Is jumping a 70 foot chasm OK for the 7 Dex guy in full plate just because he rolled a 20? A mid level monk can easily achieve a +50 on Acrobatics checks.
The real problem in my mind about special nat 20s on skill checks is that it breaks the take 20 system as indicated by the OP. Either you allow the special result wih take 20, which ups the power of that option, or you don't allow the special result, which removes the entire point of the take 20 rule. Take 20 is intended to remove the motivation for the player to sit there and try over and over until they get the perfect roll. It's supposed to save time so you can get on with the game. But if actually rolling the 20 is better, players are certain to retry a bunch in crunch situations (Is the door trapped? or I really need to break into the royal vault!)
Now some GMs do despise taking 20 for whatever reason and don't allow it anyway, so I guess they would not have these issues.
|
While there isn't any reasonable amount of skill that could let you jump a 500 foot chasm, a spell that gave you +550 to your Acrobatics skills when making long jumps WOULD, in fact, let you do that. The skills system is supposed to be extensible logically (in most cases), and a nat-20 rule would break this.
Actually, no, you couldn't. While jumping, you normally cannot exceed your movement speed, so how far you can leap is actually limited by how far you can normally move. If you could, while running (which is X4 movement) reach a speed of 500 ft (which would require your base speed to reach 125 feet), then you potentiall could. However, such high velocities are quite difficult to reach for PCs.
An 18th level monk with Fleet and Expedious Retreat cast on him could jump 500 ft with a high enough acrobatics check (good luck reaching DC 500 without houserules), but that's about it.
Sorry, just got me thinking.
A level 14 Monk of the 4 winds (tiger aspect)/6 Duelist.
Acrobatic Charge + 10x normal land speed (700' at that point) with an acrobatic leap in the middle to clear the chasm and pounce at the end! Hmm, I feel that I have a spec to play with.....
(sorry Back to your normal chat)
|
|
One problem with trying to judge "reasonable" is that the skill system already sets very achievable DCs for improbable things. The DC to track an ant that crossed a stone floor a week ago is only in the mid 30s, easily done by a mid level druid or ranger.
Is jumping a 70 foot chasm OK for the 7 Dex guy in full plate just because he rolled a 20? A mid level monk can easily achieve a +50 on Acrobatics checks.
It's totally fine if this isn't something you like. My players trust my judgement, though, at least partially since I've been doing this since I was nine.
It does work, though. And the problems you're anticipating just don't occur at my table.
Again, it isn't RAW. Nobody is saying you need to change a thing.
The real problem in my mind about special nat 20s on skill checks is that it breaks the take 20 system as indicated by the OP. Either you allow the special result wih take 20, which ups the power of that option, or you don't allow the special result, which removes the entire point of the take 20 rule. Take 20 is intended to remove the motivation for the player to sit there and try over and over until they get the perfect roll. It's supposed to save time so you can get on with the game. But if actually rolling the 20 is better, players are certain to retry a bunch in crunch situations (Is the door trapped? or I really need to break into the royal vault!)
Again over the last 11 years of playing with this option on this same skill system, the problem you're describing has yet to happen. (DnD 3 was in 2000 IIRC)
Now some GMs do despise taking 20 for whatever reason and don't allow it anyway, so I guess they would not have these issues.
And other GMs, like myself don't see them as dependant on each other. Correlated, sure, but that's about it.
Auto-succeed/fail on natural 20s and 1s is a horrible house rule imo. I'm certainly not wrong 1/20 of the time when I talk about something within my area of expertise. I don't fail to play a tune on the piano 1/20 of the time after I've learned it. I don't fail 1/20 of my exams. And I don't succeed in things I'm bad at 1/20 of the time either.
The real problem in my mind about special nat 20s on skill checks is that it breaks the take 20 system as indicated by the OP. Either you allow the special result wih take 20, which ups the power of that option, or you don't allow the special result, which removes the entire point of the take 20 rule.
These were really my concerns, both from a flavor perspective and a mechanical perspective. If a 20 were to provide a special bonus to a skill check, that could lead to what I feel would be an excessive advantage given conditions which allow one to take 20. Taking 20 should represent having enough time to do your best at a skill; it shouldn't give you access to results you shouldn't reasonably be capable of achieving.