I have played at a table where rolling a 1 or 20 just added a penalty or bonus respectively, on top of you're roll. The result was that combat functioned as it should, and AC was actually valued.Expand on that, please.
So a 1 isn't an auto miss, and a 20 isn't an auto hit, right?
What kind of penalty/bonus? Does this create scenarios where a person can never miss or never be hit? For example, low level characters might be in a scenario where they need a 20 to get that auto hit in order to do damage, but if it's reduced to just a bonus and the bonus still isn't good enough, then that character will never be able to hit.
It was either +-5 or +-10, It has been a while. Anyway, It didn't start to become apparent in CR balanced encounters until higher levels or mid level fully buffed, and turned a couple of natural 1s into hits. I don't think that GM threw anything at the party that the fighters that couldn't hit on 19 anyway. That would vary from table to table though.
Obviously this has potential to create situations where it is impossible hit, miss or be hit, but if there is that much of a disparity something unusual is going on. Or a situation where hitting or missing should be practically written in stone anyway. Like a very high level anti-paladin making an example out of an outspoken peasant.
I'm really starting to like this idea. It can force players (or NPCs) to think of alternative ways to overcoming a challenge rather than just killing everything.
I'm imagining a scenario where an unusual new monster has way too much AC for the players to hit, but they can do other things, like net it and subdue it for capture. Or something... ideas are forming. :)
|
you could also implement the dual probability spiral.
each instance of 20 or 1, whether upon a regular roll or a 'confirmation' (deviation?) roll (or a double confirmation, triple confirmation, etc) warrants a reroll with a +/-10 to the final check result.
the spiral ends when you cease rolling 20s and 1s. then you total your check.
this can turn an initial 1 into a hit, an initial 20 into a miss - though it most likely does neither - it most likely behaves similarly to standard critical hit/fumble confirmations.
it could be a way to factor higher warrior skill back into the realm of 'natural peaks' (20s and 1s), and could allow for the standard 5% auto-hit/miss to shift up or down.
this may be what you are looking for.
i think the opportunity cost, however, would be time spent time spent rolling dice and doing math...
Okay, first let me forward with that I'm one of those kind of people who just roll a lot of 20's and 1's so my view may not be the norm, but I have absolutely no problem with a 5% chance to miss. There is always the factor of luck and I like that element in the game. Uncertainty is drama and all that.
Secondly I don't like crit fumble decks as much as the next guy. When I'm a player and I role them it feels like I'm being punished for having more attacks(Monks for one). If I'm a GM, it can make the limited window my players see my NPCs make them seem incompetent. I can promptly say I hate them.
On the other hand, especially from the GMing side, I like to play with what exactly a crit 1 does thematically. Most of my players come from a background where they've played with those kind of rules, but I don't want to play with them straight, so I've tried to invert them mostly. Most of the time just a miss is fine for me on a 1.
However, if I'm going to punish their crit fail it's going to be something thematic and hopefully in line with the character. Like a knight fighting in a confined space rolls a 1 and he knocks over an oil lamp which will eventually envelope the room in a fire. Or the Greatsword wielding barbarian rolls a 1 with his cleave... The attack still hits and kills his foe, but his sword gets stuck in his chest/armor of his felled foe, requiring a move to kick the sword free from the torso. Stuff like this my players love(or at least seem to lol) since it gives a bit of extra something to 1's, but doesn't turn them into horrible catastrophes.
So, long story short... I can see why people play with these rules and I suppose to an extent I do to.
Critical Successes and Fumbles penalize players more than it helps them.
Success: Bad guys are rolling dice more often than PCs.
Fumbles: PCs who fumble will care about it more often than NPCs who have a bad day and fumble.
Because of this, I don't use those rules. The other GM in my group has discussed using those rules only for bad guys and not players.
- Gauss