I am one of the GM's in my group. We had a recent discussion about what nat 20's can and can not accomplish. One of the members felt nat 20's were the end all.I feel they don't open every lock, make all perception checks, etc...what are your thoughts and why?
They do not auto succeed on skill rolls.
It doesn't automatically succeed on concentration check, or ability checks. It does not negate miss chance.
All it does do is allow you to automatically succeed on save throws and attack rolls.
for what I can tell a nat 20 is an auto success for, attacking and skill saves.
According to RAW skill checks are not subject to a auto success or auto failure of a 20 or 1. Although some GM's will house rule this on a case by case basis or make a 20 give a +5 while a 1 give a -5.
as it's houseruling anyway just use rule of cool. If it doesn't break the story let it be as amazing as it can be.
Like the first level rogue perceiving the master assassin with invisibility could be cool if it's just a random event and pointing the assassin out would screw his attempt to kill the king and change world history. But if the assassin would kill the rogue, it's not an auto succeed.
I had a player once roll a 1 on a knowledge check in which he had only 1 rank, after that he believed that white mice forced elephants to help them take over the world. Of course my campaigns are often a bit silly, and for more serious campaigns you shouldn't houserule nat. 20 on skillchecks. They are just a 20 on which you add ranks etc.
There might be other things nat 20's auto-succeed on, but I can't think of any.
On the other hand, I believe if you roll a Nat 1 on the die while trying Use Magic Device, you "auto-fail" and can't use the item for 24 hours.
|
Auto successes and failures on skill checks is a very bad thing to houserule. This will create ridiculous and frustrating situations.Like when I can't find my keys in the morning. I wish God would turn off that stupid houserule, I hate it. I also don't know why I'm not allowed to take a 10.
I suppose you also fail every action 5% of the time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Auto successes and failures on skill checks is a very bad thing to houserule. This will create ridiculous and frustrating situations.Like when I can't find my keys in the morning. I wish God would turn off that stupid houserule, I hate it. I also don't know why I'm not allowed to take a 10.
Because your being threatened by being late (assuming you need to leave somewhere).
@blackbloodtroll, I believe that is why the OP is asking what (if you houserule autosuccess) a nat 20 or 1 does not do. Not seeing yourself in a mirror should not be something that a nat 1 does. But if the setting isn't too serious you could confuse a pony and a dog even if you stand in front of it.
A 20 on an acrobatics check could result in a double backflip while keeping your balance on the tip of a single toe, but it should not let you jump to the moon. That's how I houserule it, and my players love the crazy sh*t that happens on a 20, and are amused by sh*itstorm that follows a nat 1.
One of the reasons are for example diplomacy checks that people love to just ask for if they know that even a natural 1 won't hurt them much.
Also in desperate situation, when the natural 20 comes up, it's just the will of their god shining trough.
So, if I look in the mirror, 5% of the time I won't see myself?
Scary.
That's correct.
I can't tell you HOW many times I've left and realized later that I forgot to comb my hair after that last shower....
And there are mirrors all over the house ;)
seeing does not always mean 'noticing' ;)
|
|
@blackbloodtroll, I believe that is why the OP is asking what (if you houserule autosuccess) a nat 20 or 1 does not do. Not seeing yourself in a mirror should not be something that a nat 1 does. But if the setting isn't too serious you could confuse a pony and a dog even if you stand in front of it.
A 20 on an acrobatics check could result in a double backflip while keeping your balance on the tip of a single toe, but it should not let you jump to the moon. That's how I houserule it, and my players love the crazy sh*t that happens on a 20, and are amused by sh*itstorm that follows a nat 1.
One of the reasons are for example diplomacy checks that people love to just ask for if they know that even a natural 1 won't hurt them much.
Also in desperate situation, when the natural 20 comes up, it's just the will of their god shining trough.
My DM ran something like this once, but he required a conformation roll. This made it a bit more balanced, while keeping the zany feeling. It really isn't for most campaigns.
We used to use an addative reroll in 3.5, but tbh there are just some things skill checks should not accomplish.
I do house rule that concentration and SR checks are auto pass on a 20 though, since they are very similar to attack rolls.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Also, houseruling in special effects for natural 20s on skill checks either makes taking 20 too powerful (you can get the special effect very often), or defeats the purpose of taking 20 in the first place(the rule exists so that players won't roll over and over to try and get a 20). Which depends on whether the GM allows the special effect from taking 20 (many don't, making rolling a zillion times and holding up the game the better option).
I suppose you also fail every action 5% of the time?Auto successes and failures on skill checks is a very bad thing to houserule. This will create ridiculous and frustrating situations.Like when I can't find my keys in the morning. I wish God would turn off that stupid houserule, I hate it. I also don't know why I'm not allowed to take a 10.
You should check out my book "How to succeed at amateur surgery (5% of the time)".
Hint: Don't take 20.
Skill checks do not autosucceed or autofail by RAW. House rules which allow this behavior run the very real risk of creating bizarre impossibilities, such as succeeding on a jump to the moon.
The game is fine with the skill checks as written. I don't find a need to houserule all sorts of exceptions, extensions or other things to allow crazy things to happen because "wouldn't that be totally AWESOME?"
The game is full of awesome already. Adding the potential ability to leap over a 250 foot gap doesn't add enough awesome to overcome the silliness it engenders.
I know that it's not the rule, but if I attempt something that even a nat. 20 won't succeed, I feel like my GM should just tell me that my character cannot currently succeed. Otherwise, why am I rolling?
Because your character doesn't know the absolute exact limits of his own abilities? Because your character may have underestimated the difficulty of the challenge? Because the situation may appear to be easier than it is?
Because your character doesn't know his actions are ruled by rolling multi-colored solid polyhedrals?
And because something can be implausible without being impossible..
like diving off a balcony to catch a chandelier and swing across the room to kick the bad guy in the chest (so that he lands on his arse) and then land without injuring yourself.
I'd 10x rather be told "roll. but the chances aren't great" than "sorry its impossible".
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And because something can be implausible without being impossible..
like diving off a balcony to catch a chandelier and swing across the room to kick the bad guy in the chest (so that he lands on his arse) and then land without injuring yourself.
I'd 10x rather be told "roll. but the chances aren't great" than "sorry its impossible".
-S
Selgard, something like this, I probably wouldn't even set a DC. I'd see what the character rolled, and if he rolled a 20, I'd probably do my best to make it work.
But I do have my limits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats an acrobatics check followed by a bullrush or trip attack with a +2 bonus for attacking from higher ground. I doubt it would be more than difficult for a lightly armoured first level rogue with a decent dex score, probably about dc20 then bbeg's cmd.
Reminds me of a player who failed to read the rules in NWoD Vampire and assumed that since it said on his bloodline ability that if he succeeded on this check earlier that he got an auto-success later and assumed that meant that any thing he tried would be full proof.
It actually said that anything were one success was needed was treated as if he got one success one the roll and that for anything that was based on the number of success he got 3 free success. Which foiled his plan of throwing an armfull of stakes into the air and them magiclly stacking a room full of enemy vamps.
Rule zero anyone?
If a player at our table is being an annoying jerk by trying moronic skill checks (e.g., jumping to the moon) the GM is either going to ask him to stop or punish the character in an appropriate manner (say getting hauled off to an insane asylum and denying the player access to the guacamole for the rest of the session*).
If a player is instead trying something crazy difficult but creative and cinematic the GM might let him roll to determine how badly he fails. Or maybe he rolls at natural 20 and the GM, feeling a rare moment of what other people might describe as compassion, figures out a way to let him Forrest Gump it out.
* Perhaps restoring guacamole privileges sooner for good behavior and/or problems with an excess of guacamole.
Well, it depends. Do you mean RAW (already covered by previous posters) or in YOUR game? You can house-rule whatever you want. Maybe if you roll a natural 20 for an unskilled skill check you can roll AGAIN with just your ability modifier. Maybe you can do...well...whatever you want your players to be able to do. Just remember, 5% is, if checked often, sort of easy to hit. Make sure that you don't make it a "God number." In house rules it's good to let a nat 20 "allow" something not normally possible, rather than make it happen.
My group used a houserule for skill checks that a natural 20 got to the check +10 (effectively making a roll of 20 to 30), while a natural 1 got -10 to the skill check.
It helps giving a slight chance to succede at those otherwise impossible things without making it possible to ridiculous stuff.