|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm playin in a group where the DM rule that whatever the roll is for 20 always succed and 1 always fail!
That's a fact for "to hit" and "save" roll but what about skill check, spell resistance (SR) roll?
I have seen nothing about these so far so am i wrong or the DM is clearly house ruling the whole thing?
i'm playin in a group where the DM rule that whatever the roll is for 20 always succed and 1 always fail!
That's a fact for "to hit" and "save" roll but what about skill check, spell resistance (SR) roll?
I have seen nothing about these so far so am i wrong or the DM is clearly house ruling the whole thing?
Your GM is houserulling it for skills at the very least. I'm not so sure about spell resistance.
Skill checks and SR can still succeed on a nat 1 or fail on a nat 20.
Attacks and saves have the auto-succeed/fail feature for natural 1s and 20s.
attack rolls and saving throws are the only d20 rolls with special auto succeed/fail rule.
even UMD if you read carefully does not have that rule, and that's the closest thing i can think of that comes close.
but remember if its the DM ruling, that's the way he likes to run his game its his prerogative to do so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this houserule is really grinding your gears, remember it could come in very handy! For example, the party is stuck in Tian Xia, and badly need to get to Absalom. Make ~20 acrobatics checks, and Voila!
(be sure to have Feather Fall prepared before trying this!)
Totally a house rule for skills & SR. Mind you, some saves and CON checks it's not so untrue.
It's not an uncommon house rule though. Lots of dms & players love the "power" of 1's & 20's; hence decks just for crit fumbles and crit successes.
I remember in a Saga edition game, a GM had a house rule where on skill checks where, since the numbers were so inflated anyways, on a 1 you took a negative -10 on the check(effectively a -9) and a +10 on 20s(effectively + 30).
Made piloting a dangerous task lol.
It is a very common Houserule.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally hate 1=autofail, 20=autosucceed on skill checks at it leads to many ridiculous situations. A trained expert with years of experience should not fail the simplest of tasks 5% of the time. An olympic swimmer shouldn't fail to stay afloat in calm water 1/20 of the time. On a 50 question test(knowledge skill) even the teacher would consistently get 2-3 questions wrong every time.
20=autosucceed is even sillier. 1/20 chance to jump to the moon? 1/20 chance to eavesdrop on someone 200 miles away? It also defeats the entire purpose of the Take 20 rule, which is to discourage rolling over and over until you get the best result. (most GMs who use 20=special on skill checks don't let you take 20 for the special result).
As a house rule on Spell Resistance it's okay though. Makes those rolls a little more like a magical attack roll.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Friend explained to me why I should not house rule skill checks as auto succeed and fail. For one, taking 20 will hurt a because of how many skills give failure penalty and for a second a level 1 character should never be able to jump to the moon because they rolled a nat 20.
Edit: Ninja'd to hell.
1/20 chance to jump to the moon?
Make sure you have Life Bubble up before attempting this check!
My current DM uses "nat 20 on first try is treated as 30 instead". I think she might also be using "nat 1 on first try is treated as -10 instead" but she's not pointed it out so I'm not sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one of my GMs (And I have adopted it) use a house rule adding +10 to any natural 20 skill checks, but no auto fails on a 1. I like it as it gives the players a chance to really do amazing things they just aren't normally capable of... but only occasionally.
I do something similiar for my table. +10 for natural 20's on skill checks, but -10 for natural 1's.
For SR I'd still go with the natural 20's as auto successes and 1's as auto failures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one of my GMs (And I have adopted it) use a house rule adding +10 to any natural 20 skill checks, but no auto fails on a 1. I like it as it gives the players a chance to really do amazing things they just aren't normally capable of... but only occasionally.
I will give natural 20s a bonus on certain skill checks, depending on the skill being used, the DC, and other circumstances. Frex, if nobody else made the DC to spot a hidden door, but the fighter rolls a natural 20 on his perception (which didn't meet the DC since he had a low perception) then I'll still give it to him.
Natural 1s don't get punished, aside from an occasional comedic exception for non-critical checks.
Natural 1s don't get punished, aside from an occasional comedic exception for non-critical checks.
I don't usually give bonus or penalties on natural 1's or natural 20's on skill checks.
Natural 1's that fail are subject to horrendous role-playing descriptions. "You try to leap heroically on to the tavern table. You instead trip and land face first into some unappetizing left-over rhubarb pie."
Natural 20's get the opposite treatment. "You leap heroically on to the tavern table and alight with the grace and fluidity of an elvish ballet dancer."
I use this regularly. It's fun and leads to fun situations. The 5% chance to do ANYTHING!!!!! complaint/critique usually falls falls apart in the face of regular rolls - - jumping straight to the moon is completely impossible - - you wouldn't you would have to succeed on several checks to jump any considerable distance, though starting off with a 20 would be an impressive start. Automatic failure? Yeah, things go wrong sometimes - - i think we've all corrected a teacher or some other authority figure at one point or another in life. Champion athletes end up on blooper reels sometimes, otherwise sports would not be nearly so fun to watch. Experts are often able to recover from failure quite well, which is what separates them from others.
I use this regularly. It's fun and leads to fun situations. The 5% chance to do ANYTHING!!!!! complaint/critique usually falls falls apart in the face of regular rolls - - jumping straight to the moon is completely impossible - - you wouldn't you would have to succeed on several checks to jump any considerable distance, though starting off with a 20 would be an impressive start. Automatic failure? Yeah, things go wrong sometimes - - i think we've all corrected a teacher or some other authority figure at one point or another in life. Champion athletes end up on blooper reels sometimes, otherwise sports would not be nearly so fun to watch. Experts are often able to recover from failure quite well, which is what separates them from others.
Its not that professionals utterly fail sometimes. They do. But not as often as 1 in 20 times. If a teacher needs to be corrected as often as once every 20 classes, something is wrong. Champion athletes don't end up on blooper reals every 20 games/practices.
The problem is that rolling a 1 has the same chance to happen as rolling a 10 or a 20. Success should not be a linear chance. If the d20 roll was switched for a 3d6 roll, and a natural 3 failed, then using it for skills may be acceptable. But as it is, failing on a natural 1 on a d20 roll is far too often.
Add to that, it's not just "I try to jump to the moon" that's an auto success, but also incidental things. Like "what do I know about this monster?" Well, if you roll a 20, everything.
And what if it's a basic thing like swimming in calm water during combat (no taking ten), and you have a +9 to Swim. If you roll a 20 you get no gain other than success, but roll a 1 and you start drowning. That doesn't sound fair.
Actually, wit respect to classes, one in twenty sounds about right. Just because accidents happen and things go wrong doesn't mean the people around them catch it. I recently found out I was wrong about something a my job and I've been at that job for ten years. I'm sure you at also quite wrong about something you encounter on a regular basis. Not sure about athletes though, but as a regular cyclist I see things go wrong about ten percent of the time (probably more). I'm able to recover from most of those failings, although sometimes I'm well an truly screwed.
I use this regularly. It's fun and leads to fun situations. The 5% chance to do ANYTHING!!!!! complaint/critique usually falls falls apart in the face of regular rolls - - jumping straight to the moon is completely impossible - - you wouldn't you would have to succeed on several checks to jump any considerable distance, though starting off with a 20 would be an impressive start. Automatic failure? Yeah, things go wrong sometimes - - i think we've all corrected a teacher or some other authority figure at one point or another in life. Champion athletes end up on blooper reels sometimes, otherwise sports would not be nearly so fun to watch. Experts are often able to recover from failure quite well, which is what separates them from others.Its not that professionals utterly fail sometimes. They do. But not as often as 1 in 20 times. If a teacher needs to be corrected as often as once every 20 classes, something is wrong. Champion athletes don't end up on blooper reals every 20 games/practices.
The problem is that rolling a 1 has the same chance to happen as rolling a 10 or a 20. Success should not be a linear chance. If the d20 roll was switched for a 3d6 roll, and a natural 3 failed, then using it for skills may be acceptable. But as it is, failing on a natural 1 on a d20 roll is far too often.
Add to that, it's not just "I try to jump to the moon" that's an auto success, but also incidental things. Like "what do I know about this monster?" Well, if you roll a 20, everything.
And what if it's a basic thing like swimming in calm water during combat (no taking ten), and you have a +9 to Swim. If you roll a 20 you get no gain other than success, but roll a 1 and you start drowning. That doesn't sound fair.
It would be unfair if you died automatically or couldn't take ten out of combat. You *begin* to drown - you have several opportunities to save yourself after that initial failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of houserules such as a natural 1 is always a failure and a natural 20 is always a success (on skills) you could instead use this as a houserule:
On a natural 1 roll a d20. Subtract that value from your check.
On a natural 20 roll a d20. Add that value to your check.
If you want you can make it continuous. yes, a DC 100 would be possible if you get a string of 20's that are long enough. But the odds decrease from 5% to rediculously unlikely.
Chances of a natural 20: 5% (or 1/20)
Chances of 2 consecutive natural 20s: 0.25% (or 1/400)
Chances of 3 consecutive natural 20s: 0.0125% (or 1/8000)
Chances of 4 consecutive natural 20s: 0.000625% (or 1/160,000)
In order to hit that DC 100 with a +20bonus you would need 4 consecutive 20s. Is it possible? Yup. Is it likely? Nope.
Note: I think 1 reroll added or subtracted would be fine to represent those 'duh' moments.
- Gauss
Contributor
|
Regarding the subject of jumping to the moon... sorry to be a party-pooper, but even if nat 20 is an auto-success, this limitation prevents you from jumping to the moon:
Pathfinder SRD: "No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round."
So the best most people can manage is a 60-ft. high jump.
But you could still do a lot of things such as make Geb and Nex close allies with a few lucky Diplomacy checks, reveal all the secrets of the universe with Knowledge checks, and so on.
Instead of houserules such as a natural 1 is always a failure and a natural 20 is always a success (on skills) you could instead use this as a houserule:
On a natural 1 roll a d20. Subtract that value from your check.
On a natural 20 roll a d20. Add that value to your check.
..
- Gauss
I use this houserule and it works very well. I dont see any problems with critical fails for skill checks as long as the rules are for PCs and NPCs. The riding halfing god who falls from his riding dog is one thing i remember even it is a few years ago .. same for the BBEG who fails a acrobatics/balance check and falls from a bridge. In both cases it was a natural 1 followed by something like 15+.
I have long played with a house rule that on a nat 20, you add 1d6-1 to the roll. If this d6 shows a 6, (for a +5), roll another d6-1. Continue this procedure until you fail to roll a 6.
Ditto for a nat 1, only that you subtract consecutive d6-1.
Regarding the subject of jumping to the moon... sorry to be a party-pooper, but even if nat 20 is an auto-success, this limitation prevents you from jumping to the moon:
Pathfinder SRD: "No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round."
So the best most people can manage is a 60-ft. high jump.
But you could still do a lot of things such as make Geb and Nex close allies with a few lucky Diplomacy checks, reveal all the secrets of the universe with Knowledge checks, and so on.
Exactly. People who seem to hate die rolling forget this.
I use this houserule and it works very well. I dont see any problems with critical fails for skill checks as long as the rules are for PCs and NPCs. The riding halfing god who falls from his riding dog is one thing i remember even it is a few years ago .. same for the BBEG who fails a acrobatics/balance check and falls from a bridge. In both cases it was a natural 1 followed by something like 15+.Instead of houserules such as a natural 1 is always a failure and a natural 20 is always a success (on skills) you could instead use this as a houserule:
On a natural 1 roll a d20. Subtract that value from your check.
On a natural 20 roll a d20. Add that value to your check.
..
- Gauss
Not a bad idea actually. Hm.
I hate the "I rolled a 20" or "I rolled a 1" yelp when someone rolls a skill check.
Just say the damn total.
I also hate weird natural 1 and 20 skill roll houserules.
I would walk away until I can take 10 every time.
Do you hate rolling overall? Because I've played with people who make their characters with the idea of never having to touch their dice at all, and were ready to flip tables when it was even suggested they make a check.
I skip 19 times, and then fall?
Oh, silly houserules.
I'd love to see someone roll 19 successes on anything in a row. Things go wrong sometimes. That's what taking ten is for. As well as taking 20.
I also hate those that roll dice all the time, even when not asked by the DM.
That constant "I rolled a 12, what happens?" when nobody was prompted to roll anything.
Better to constantly interrupt the narrative with "I try to identify the spell", "I try to tell if he's lying", "Do I know anything about the monster"? Better IMO to just roll spellcraft, sense motive, or knowledge and let the GM know the total if it has a chance of succeeding.
It's easy to roll 19 successes in a row. Say that you're a master climber with 15 ranks, 22 str and skill focus (climb) trying to escape some hobgoblins shooting at you by climbing a rope attached to a wall. Your modifier is +30. The DC is 5. Yet every two minutes or so, you're going to fail.
Or say you're a master spellcaster, who's crafted and used thousands of magical items and spells over the years - with a +30 use magic device. You wanna heal up a few people? Better bring many wands, because even though you could use the most powerful magics in existance without issue, you're gonna clog a wand of CLW every 100 hp or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
skills are already considered quite "underpowered" compared to spells. Don't make it worse.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the limit on Jump checks doesn't limit your maximum total distance, just how far you can move in a round, at least according to one reading. There is some debate on how that would work in terms of combat(floating in midair when not your turn? IDK).
Still (setting that argument aside), jumping 120 feet straight up (quad move) without a running start is normally a DC 960 check. You're really ok with that happening 1 in 20 tries? Listening to a conversation in a closed room 30 miles away is a DC 15000 or so - 1/20 chance to make it!
Anything you can succeed at while rolling a 1 is so easy that it should be an automatic success for your level of skill. You shouldn't even have to roll, let alone be punished for rolling a 1 on a task that trivial. You didn't see 1 in 20 swimmers at the Olympics fail to make any progress for 3-6 seconds during a race as they couldn't make a DC 5 swim check to stay afloat in calm water. Or 1 in 20 jumpers fail to make any distance at all.
I don't have as much problem with 1=-5, 20=25, or roll extra dice to add/subtract, and so forth. But auto success/failure? No thank you. It's just absurd.
I would argue that these aren't combat situations, so taking ten would apply, but using your later argument regarding automatic success - - how would you explain lougainis cracking his skull during his diving attempt or accidents at nascar? I don't doubt that these are all highly skilled people in tense situations, but by your argument, tha would be the big DM in the sky just fiating the hell out of the situation. Things go wrong in life sometimes, even for experts. How do you adjucate that happening in game without accusations of railroading?
And I would argue that you shouldn't discount the importance of debating how this would work in a combat situation - - a lot of this sounds silly, but combat is when silly things tend to happen, am there are several things that are listed as completely impossible under certain skills, no matter how skilled one is.
Actually, the limit on Jump checks doesn't limit your maximum total distance, just how far you can move in a round, at least according to one reading. There is some debate on how that would work in terms of combat(floating in midair when not your turn? IDK).
Still (setting that argument aside), jumping 120 feet straight up (quad move) without a running start is normally a DC 960 check. You're really ok with that happening 1 in 20 tries? Listening to a conversation in a closed room 30 miles away is a DC 15000 or so - 1/20 chance to make it!
Anything you can succeed at while rolling a 1 is so easy that it should be an automatic success for your level of skill. You shouldn't even have to roll, let alone be punished for rolling a 1 on a task that trivial. You didn't see 1 in 20 swimmers at the Olympics fail to make any progress for 3-6 seconds during a race as they couldn't make a DC 5 swim check to stay afloat in calm water. Or 1 in 20 jumpers fail to make any distance at all.
I don't have as much problem with 1=-5, 20=25, or roll extra dice to add/subtract, and so forth. But auto success/failure? No thank you. It's just absurd.
You can never take 10 on UMD. And why would you take 10 on listening in on someone 30 miles away when you can only succeed if you roll?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I would argue that these aren't combat situations, so taking ten would apply, but using your later argument regarding automatic success - - how would you explain lougainis cracking his skull during his diving attempt or accidents at nascar? I don't doubt that these are all highly skilled people in tense situations, but by your argument, tha would be the big DM in the sky just fiating the hell out of the situation. Things go wrong in life sometimes, even for experts. How do you adjucate that happening in game without accusations of railroading?
And I would argue that you shouldn't discount the importance of debating how this would work in a combat situation - - a lot of this sounds silly, but combat is when silly things tend to happen, am there are several things that are listed as completely impossible under certain skills, no matter how skilled one is.
I would doubt that most competetions would consist of people taking 10, as they would want to do their best and taking 10 represents a somewhat lackluster, routine effort.
Those disastrous situations do not happen with anywhere near a 5% frequency. We are running up against the granularity of the die roll. When the danger level does get up into the 5% range, I would argue that the DC has gotten so high that a 1 no longer succeeds because the skill bonus is insufficient.
From a realism POV, there should be something like a 1/100 or 1/10000 chance of failure for some routine tasks, but that's not worth representing in the game system, especially not by inflating the chance to 5%. Fiat it for NPCs if the plot needs it and let PCs not worry about looking like idiots at the things they're supposed to be good at.
Guess that crazy train is just gonna keep on rolling.
For a character with speed 30, the maximum movement in a round is four times the speed, which is 120 feet. So the character would move 120 feet up in the first round, finishing the round's movement in mid-air. Next round, he continues to move another 120 feet towards the destination.
It may take a while to reach the moon....
Only (on average) 10,509,620 rounds at 120ft/round. Only about 2 years. Hope you can hold your breath that long...
Regarding the subject of jumping to the moon... sorry to be a party-pooper, but even if nat 20 is an auto-success, this limitation prevents you from jumping to the moon:
Pathfinder SRD: "No jump can allow you to exceed your maximum movement for the round."
So the best most people can manage is a 60-ft. high jump.
No, it doesn't work like that. You can't move more then your maximum speed in any given round. If your maximum speed is 120 feet, then you can't run 120 feet, and then jump to get more distance. You can jump farther then that, it just takes multiple rounds to cover the distance.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can take 10 and roll a one.....I would think that you still get the 10.....hop, skip an a jump.....
Or for all A such that A is less than 10, then A = 10
For all A such that A=10, then A = 10
For all A such that A is greater than 10, then all A=A
You don't roll at all if you take 10 - letting take 10 be a "floor" on a rolled die is an interesting houserule, but it drastically powers up the option by allowing the better rolls.
Oxylepy, taking 20 is exactly like failing 19 times then rolling a 20. That's the entire mindset behind take 20 and why it can't be done if there is a consequence of failure. If you reward a "natural" 20 but don't give the same when taking 20 you defeat the entire point of take 20, which is to cut out the "I roll again and again until I get a 20" issue.
Also, holy thread necro, Batman!
The thing that I hate about this is that it's once again a house rule that penalizes characters for spending a lot of resources to be able to do something without magic. Either your investment is a waste because anyone can do it with a few tries or your investment is a waste because no matter how good you are, you're going to fall off that ladder once every 20 times you climb it.