A natural one on a skill check.


Rules Questions

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Sinatar wrote:

1 = critical fail, 20 = critical success for skill checks is NOT a bad idea... unless you're a TERRIBLE DM. It doesn't have to take away from taking 10 or taking 20, nor should it always be autowin/autofail.

I implement it in my games, and it's always worked swimmingly. If someone wants to take 20 tying someone up with a rope, then they take the time to tie that victim up as best as they possibly can with that rope. If someone wants to take 10 to balance across a narrow ledge they're crossing with no nearby danger, then they can by all means do so. BUT when a check is called for, such as being under pressure or UMD, 1 = critical fail and something bad happens (similarly to the default UMD rules), and 20 USUALLY means auto success, and possibly an added benefit / boon. For example, if it would normally take you several rounds to use Escape Artist to get out of some ropes but you roll a 20, it may instead only take you 1 or 2 rounds to get out. Or if you get a 20 on a Stealth check, as a boon for getting a 20 you may be able to keep that roll for the next 1 or 2 Stealth checks you would be required to make (in the next few moments). On the other hand, if someone rolls a 1 on their Stealth check (and the enemy does not roll a 1), the enemy automatically finds you, regardless of the math. Or if you roll a 1 on that Escape Artist check, it may take you even LONGER now to get out, since you just made it even worse.

By the way... if anyone tried to "jump to the moon" or something ridiculous to exploit the system, I would smack them in the head with the core rulebook. It's about making the game more exciting, not exploiting the system. It's a houserule to begin with... and you're afraid of someone trying to exploit a houserule??? Come on now.

At last! A sensible answer! :-)

Liberty's Edge

Jimbo Juggins wrote:

Look people, the die rolls are just hooks to hang your story on. A die roll without a story is like a joke without a punchline.

So you roll you your critical fumble or your critical success at "whatever" and weave it into the story line. If your story is about going to the moon, maybe a nat 20 WILL get you there.

Example: You're Neil Armstrong, about to land on the moon. Make a INT roll to estimate your fuel usage and a DEX roll to handle the joystick for precision manuevering. DO you land safely and take that "small step for man", or do you crash and burn and set the space program back 10 years?

If Baron Munchausen can get to the Moon, why can't you?

You can go to the moon in Everquest.

You can go the Forest Moon of Endor.

A freaking COW jumped over the Moon.

This is what legends are made of.

So go forth, and make such legends as ye may, and remember that nobody will remember when you got a 30 on a roll of 19, or a 15 on a nat 20, unless you have a good story to hang on it.

Ask me and I'll tell you how a critical success on a Perception check can lead to ..."Look! A puma".

If it happens 1 out of 20 times, it's not a legend. It's everyday crap.


Can't take 20 with that logic... Its the 5% chance of fail that hurts more than the 5% chance of auto success.

I'm rather against 1/20 auto succeed/fail. I feel like everyone has stated why so many times already however.


Using 20th level characters for examples of realism doesn't work. The common conception of the real world "master" of a subject as being 20th level was disproven here.

If you don't want to click on the link, it basically explains how everyone that's ever actually existed caps at 5th or 6th level. 20th level characters are a level of prowess that only exists in fiction, so applying real world logic to their scenarios doesn't work.

Liberty's Edge

MyTThor wrote:

Using 20th level characters for examples of realism doesn't work. The common conception of the real world "master" of a subject as being 20th level was disproven here.

If you don't want to click on the link, it basically explains how everyone that's ever actually existed caps at 5th or 6th level. 20th level characters are a level of prowess that only exists in fiction, so applying real world logic to their scenarios doesn't work.

Yes. They are like 3-4x as good, and incredibly less likely to fail than any real-world expert.


"Sure, real world masters don't screw up simple tasks 5% of the time, but 20th level characters are unimaginably better than real world masters, and therefore less likely to fai- er, I mean, and therefore you can't compare them so they fail 5% of the time, please don't question this."


It also means that if you want an information, one person out of 20 would be able to have that.

It means it takes only time (2 minutes actually) for an ant (a normal one) to break apart an adamantium door by sheer strength.

It means that if 20 commoner (lvl 1, untrained in intimidation, with charisma 7) are going to demoralize a Greater Wyrm dragon (CR 26 or so, and Colossal), they will be able to demoralize it. The same goes for 20 commoner who try to rear a Tyranosaurus.

It means that a commoner lvl 1 with a wisdom of 7, being drunk and unconscious, have 5% chance of detecting an invisible ant (a normal one), at 1000 ft.

Those are what it means to allow autofailure/autosuccess on skill/ability checks.

You think it is ridiculous ? That any good DM will not allow those to happen ? That is already in the rules : it is called no autofailure/autosuccess in skill checks and ability checks.


In essence it's a Marmite syndrome..(if you don't know what this is it's a rather nice tasting yeast product similar to aussie vegemite, and you either love it or hate it)

You either love an autofail/success or you hate it. Ethier way is good so long as everybody is happy with it. The probelm I think starts when one player out the group hates the idea.

Our group has been using the houserule for years, when they roll a 1 there is normally a groan, they are so used to it I almost never have to adjudicate, 9 times out of 10 they adapt the situation and let me know what they were probably doing (failed perception check, tying shoes or something). Auto success with a 20 you do have to be careful with though, sometimes this is not going to cut the mustard and needs looking at eg disable traps or any other very daramatic moment, its at this point I don't allow an auto success and use the normal skill rules.

I may be wrong but I think most of the game systems I have read have some kind of fumble system for any dice roll, shadowrun and Savage Worlds I think of off the top of my head and no doubt countless more. I think Pathfinder is one of the few games that don't have one, which is maybe why a lot of people like this kind of system and make theri own houserule for something that does not exist but they like.


I again preface with the fact that I am not for auto-fail/success. However, what I don't get about those that hate an auto-fail/success on skills, is why isn't the same amount of vitriol applied to attacks or saves?

A lvl 20 fighter has a 5% chance to miss the lvl 1 commoner

A lvl 1 (archer) fighter has a 5% chance to hit the CR 19 Ancient Red dragon at 1000' (AC 38, range penalty of -18, and DR is only vs magic so it's not like it's impossible to have a way to make the weapon +1).

A lvl 20 elven cleric has a 5% chance to fail against the 1st lvl wizard's charm person

A lvl 1 Fighter has a 5% chance to resist the lvl 20 Enchanter's Dominate Monster.

So, why is it that the 5% is reasonable in these situations, but not in the extreme examples given for skills (flying to the moon, or tying one's shoes, you know the checks that come up ALL the time)? Shouldn't you be rallying for these stupid rules that only hurt the players to not be used as much as you are about skills? Or is the only distinction between good rule and bad house rule determined solely by the designers opinion?


Well for attacks, sometimes there is some luck involved. Attack means so many factors that it means nothing to autofail/autosucceed.

There is absolutely no way for a lvl 1 whatever to beat a lvl 20 whatever when you deal with attacks, spells or whatever. They have a little chance of escaping ONE attack, with incredible luck 2 attacks. And then, he takes the third and he dies (without even rolling for damages). I mean, a lvl 20 fighter can beat the hell of a ogre while being naked and unarmed, just for fun.

For the lvl 1 fighter against dragon case : Okay, so a fighter can hit a dragon 5% of the time, out of the 1 attack a round he can do. The dragon have 6 attacks, spells, breath, ... (And the lvl 1 fighter won't be able to notice the dragon before shooting, so it is absolutely impossible for him to hit him).

And I can imagine huge armies of fighters (1 or 2 lvl) gathering to kill one dragon and fail (no magic weapons). Even with magic weapons, it takes dozens of fighters to even be a threat to a dragon (=> I mean, do something beyond doing low damage before being BBQed).

For saves : same reasonning as attack roll.

Conclusion : even if you have a chance to hit/fail to hit something, it does not mean you can win the encounter. It takes dozens of lvl 1 fighters to win a fight against an ancient dragon (without accounting for criticals and DR, it takes easily over a hundred actually). With the antimagic field, he can actually fight all day long without being hurt at all against that army.


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

I again preface with the fact that I am not for auto-fail/success. However, what I don't get about those that hate an auto-fail/success on skills, is why isn't the same amount of vitriol applied to attacks or saves?

A lvl 20 fighter has a 5% chance to miss the lvl 1 commoner

A lvl 1 (archer) fighter has a 5% chance to hit the CR 19 Ancient Red dragon at 1000' (AC 38, range penalty of -18, and DR is only vs magic so it's not like it's impossible to have a way to make the weapon +1).

A lvl 20 elven cleric has a 5% chance to fail against the 1st lvl wizard's charm person

A lvl 1 Fighter has a 5% chance to resist the lvl 20 Enchanter's Dominate Monster.

So, why is it that the 5% is reasonable in these situations, but not in the extreme examples given for skills (flying to the moon, or tying one's shoes, you know the checks that come up ALL the time)? Shouldn't you be rallying for these stupid rules that only hurt the players to not be used as much as you are about skills? Or is the only distinction between good rule and bad house rule determined solely by the designers opinion?

an excellent question.


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

I again preface with the fact that I am not for auto-fail/success. However, what I don't get about those that hate an auto-fail/success on skills, is why isn't the same amount of vitriol applied to attacks or saves?

A lvl 20 fighter has a 5% chance to miss the lvl 1 commoner

A lvl 1 (archer) fighter has a 5% chance to hit the CR 19 Ancient Red dragon at 1000' (AC 38, range penalty of -18, and DR is only vs magic so it's not like it's impossible to have a way to make the weapon +1).

A lvl 20 elven cleric has a 5% chance to fail against the 1st lvl wizard's charm person

A lvl 1 Fighter has a 5% chance to resist the lvl 20 Enchanter's Dominate Monster.

So, why is it that the 5% is reasonable in these situations, but not in the extreme examples given for skills (flying to the moon, or tying one's shoes, you know the checks that come up ALL the time)? Shouldn't you be rallying for these stupid rules that only hurt the players to not be used as much as you are about skills? Or is the only distinction between good rule and bad house rule determined solely by the designers opinion?

Single skill check rolls determine the resolution of a skill attempt [almost] all the time. A single auto-success Attack Roll rarely determines conflict resolution. Even when the L1 Commoner does roll the 20 to hit a <insert high level combatant here>, there are a number of mitigating factors at play:


  • High level combatants have more than single-digit, or low double-digit, hitpoints
  • A single 20 is just a normal hit, with a normal damage roll. It requires a second "hit" for more impressive results, and even then, probably a far cry from resolving the conflict.
  • As another has mentioned, many times high level combatants have DR, Fast Healing, Concealment, or other defensive/healing abilities

Additionally, I think there is quite a bit of complaint/discussion related to auto-fail Attack Rolls. L20 Fighters being more likely to fail than L1 Fighters almost always comes up when discussing Fumble house rules. And honestly, who really cares when we're talking about giants kicking babies? That's what a L20 Fighter is to a L1 Commoner -- the result of said conflict is a foregone conclusion. Such a conflict is as absurd as rolling to tie shoes -- so much so that I can't find an appropriate skill to roll to determine success/failure.

Finally, Save or Suck / Save or Die spells regularly determine conflict resolution in a single die roll. I would argue that there is equal outrage at SOS/SOD spells, if not more, than the same concern related to skill checks.

All that said, I'm not sure auto-success/auto-failure is a good mechanic anywhere. I'd certainly love to hear/read a D&D game designer's thoughts on the topic. It very well may be a hold-over, or sacred cow, from 1E. Or maybe there is a reasoned, rational argument for maintaining it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

1 in 20 Kobolds will escape from Adamantine Manacles.

1 in 20 Kobolds will single-handily break through an iron portcullis.

1 in 20 Kobolds will convince a Rod of Dwarven Might, that it is a Dwarf.

1 in 20 Sleeping Kobolds will notice the invisible creature 100ft. away.

So what you're saying is I need to have a group of 20 Kobolds around me at all times?

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

I again preface with the fact that I am not for auto-fail/success. However, what I don't get about those that hate an auto-fail/success on skills, is why isn't the same amount of vitriol applied to attacks or saves?

A lvl 20 fighter has a 5% chance to miss the lvl 1 commoner

A lvl 1 (archer) fighter has a 5% chance to hit the CR 19 Ancient Red dragon at 1000' (AC 38, range penalty of -18, and DR is only vs magic so it's not like it's impossible to have a way to make the weapon +1).

A lvl 20 elven cleric has a 5% chance to fail against the 1st lvl wizard's charm person

A lvl 1 Fighter has a 5% chance to resist the lvl 20 Enchanter's Dominate Monster.

So, why is it that the 5% is reasonable in these situations, but not in the extreme examples given for skills (flying to the moon, or tying one's shoes, you know the checks that come up ALL the time)? Shouldn't you be rallying for these stupid rules that only hurt the players to not be used as much as you are about skills? Or is the only distinction between good rule and bad house rule determined solely by the designers opinion?

I would actually be for house ruling the exact opposite of the intention of this thread and say that there are no autosuccess or autofailures at all, on anything. That opponent with an AC of 21 higher than your attack bonus? You can't hit him. That wizard's save DC is 21 higher than your save bonus? You're screwed. This makes more sense to me than anything else.


Avh wrote:
Conclusion : even if you have a chance to hit/fail to hit something, it does not mean you can win the encounter.

So, if those instances of attacks/saves are meaningless when given the 5% chance of success/failure, why is 5% in a skill so much more important. That one skill roll wins the encounter, where the attacks and saves do not? (I don't know about you, but having a lvl 20 cleric as my friend sounds like plenty of opportunity to win.)

If the life of the PC's hang in the balance due to a 5% chance of failing a single skill often enough to make so much of an issue, I think the game may be a bit over the top for my tastes. All the same, if all it takes is a single 5% on a skill to render the GM's game/story/plot broken, then I would be concerned that my GM was unable to think on his/her feet and we would end up on rails the majority of the time.

Even if single skill rolls resolve the attempt most of the time, it's rare that it is even as noteworthy a result as the SOD/SOS. Unlike saves or attacks, many skills you can just try again (with a little more time). Most just mean 'not a success', and sometimes may include danger. if you are climbing that high, at whatever level that would be a reasonable decision to make, you should have plenty of safeguards anyways (tied to one another, feather fall, the roll to catch a falling person, climbing gear like pitons and all).

@Claxon, I agree, but I'm willing to bet their would be a bigger uproar about removing those auto-fail/success than there is about the inclusion of the same for skills. Weird isn't it?


Gauss wrote:

Lets turn this around for a moment, why the heck are 1s and 20s automatic failures and successes anyhow? Why should some mook have a chance to hit the ubertank with an AC 20points higher than they can possibly hit? And yet, those are the rules. If anything, that is what should be removed. Not expanded upon.

- Gauss

I think it's because if you have like a hundred archers fireing upon you, you shouldn't be able to just ignore them completely.


If Pathfinder didn't use the d20 system but rather a 3d100 system, I'd be all for a roll of 1 or 300 being an autosuccess/failure. On the other hand, in that case I wouldn't bother with the game regardless so...


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
@Claxon, I agree, but I'm willing to bet their would be a bigger uproar about removing those auto-fail/success than there is about the inclusion of the same for skills. Weird isn't it?

Make the thread! :) And we could try it out ... I'm willing to bet removing auto-success/auto-failure won't change the result of a single attack roll in combat :) I bet auto-failure, at the very least, will change the result for many skill checks. In 3.X, it is very easy to jump (and fall off) the RNG for skills -- it is very difficult to do so for combat. 4E attempted to address the problem, and that resulted in Wooden Doors that the could stop L20 adventurers in their tracks without resorting to magic.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Avh wrote:
@Xaratherus : There is no such thing as fumbling in Pathfinder. A "1" is simply a failure, not a critical one (you don't take additionnal effects with a "1" in a save, and you don't throw your sword with a "1" on an attack roll).

I believe he was talking about fumbles as degrees of failures while you were talking about natural 1s.

Appraise , Climb, Disable Device ,Diplomacy ,Intimidate,Sense Motive,Swim ,Fly are all fail by 5 and something happens)

Appraise also has one if you are 1-4

Linguistics has a wisdom check if you fail

UMD has a fumble if you (fail and roll a 1) or if you fail by 10


I really like the MERP system with percentages and crit tables. You could theoretically slip walking and split your head open. It was statistically highly improbable, but not impossible. And their critical descriptions were just awesome. Unfortunately magic is nearly worthless.


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
@Claxon, I agree, but I'm willing to bet their would be a bigger uproar about removing those auto-fail/success than there is about the inclusion of the same for skills. Weird isn't it?

Maybe the next game I'm apart of I'll suggest it the GM (or if I'm the GM) that we run the game with no autosucess autofailure mechanism. I think as far as combat rolls go, I'd be really happy about it. I play full BAB classes 90% of the time, if I roll a 19 I'm going to hit the enemy, I don't need to roll a 20 to hit. However, what is disappointing is when I roll a 1 on my first attack, and even though it would probably hit with all the modifiers even with only adding a 1 to it, I still miss. And that to me is far worse than the good granted by all the autosuccess in the world. Usually with optimized characters autosuccess on a 20 isn't that useful because you would have made it on a roll of less than 20 anyways, sometimes though with a really optomized character and an inferior opponent you could even succeed on a roll of 1, if it weren't for the pesky autofail.


Claxon wrote:
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
@Claxon, I agree, but I'm willing to bet their would be a bigger uproar about removing those auto-fail/success than there is about the inclusion of the same for skills. Weird isn't it?
Maybe the next game I'm apart of I'll suggest it the GM (or if I'm the GM) that we run the game with no autosucess autofailure mechanism. I think as far as combat rolls go, I'd be really happy about it. I play full BAB classes 90% of the time, if I roll a 19 I'm going to hit the enemy, I don't need to roll a 20 to hit. However, what is disappointing is when I roll a 1 on my first attack, and even though it would probably hit with all the modifiers even with only adding a 1 to it, I still miss. And that to me is far worse than the good granted by all the autosuccess in the world. Usually with optimized characters autosuccess on a 20 isn't that useful because you would have made it on a roll of less than 20 anyways, sometimes though with a really optomized character and an inferior opponent you could even succeed on a roll of 1, if it weren't for the pesky autofail.

We've gotten pretty far afield now, but on the topic of optimization, auto-success is a contributing factor to Power Attack being "always-on". Auto-success is also a contributing factor to people not using Aid Another in combat. I find people are more like to "swing for the fences" in combat than they are in skill checks -- precisely because they can in the former, and cannot in the latter.

So if you prefer a game where the PCs are not encouraged to work together, and instead encouraged to flounder about hoping for unexpected success, auto-success rules are for you! Because, hey!, Neil Armstrong landed on the moon ... why can't I?


Quote:
So, if those instances of attacks/saves are meaningless when given the 5% chance of success/failure, why is 5% in a skill so much more important. That one skill roll wins the encounter, where the attacks and saves do not? (I don't know about you, but having a lvl 20 cleric as my friend sounds like plenty of opportunity to win.)

Because a single attack check isn't going to decide the fate of the particpants, except if they are very close in power. A lvl 1 fighter have absolutely NO chance to do anything worth mentionning to a high level creature.

With autofailure/autosuccess, even a lowly commoner with no skill whatsoever can intimidate or perceive things that are just not possible to intimidate or perceive. This is no luck by itself. In skills, luck and other factors (tools, environment, ...) is dealt with circonstancial modifiers.

Quote:
So what you're saying is I need to have a group of 20 Kobolds around me at all times?

Or a single kobold with 20 tries. A single kobold will be freed of the best manacles in existence in 20 minutes.

As I also precised earlier : a normal ant can break apart an adamantium door with sheer strength with autosuccess/autofailure with 20/1. That's why it is absurd.

Quote:
We've gotten pretty far afield now, but on the topic of optimization, auto-success is a contributing factor to Power Attack being "always-on". Auto-success is also a contributing factor to people not using Aid Another in combat. I find people are more like to "swing for the fences" in combat than they are in skill checks -- precisely because they can in the former, and cannot in the latter.

I agree with you.

Silver Crusade

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
I again preface with the fact that I am not for auto-fail/success. However, what I don't get about those that hate an auto-fail/success on skills, is why isn't the same amount of vitriol applied to attacks or saves?

I hate auto fail and auto success in attacks and saves as much as for skills. I will tell people that I hate them.

The difference is that one is a rule, the other is not.

(Funny thing, though, I actually like the nat 1 rule for firearms. I play a gunslinger in PFS, and I thought I would hate this rule too, but I don't. I can get behind a piece of experimental technology having a 5% failure rate.)

I have seen a lot of house rules, including many put forth by yours truly. I can honestly say that I have yet to see one worth keeping. And of all of those house rules, none bother me as much as critical fumbles, regardless of whether it is on skills or attacks.


The Fox wrote:
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
I again preface with the fact that I am not for auto-fail/success. However, what I don't get about those that hate an auto-fail/success on skills, is why isn't the same amount of vitriol applied to attacks or saves?

I hate auto fail and auto success in attacks and saves as much as for skills. I will tell people that I hate them.

The difference is that one is a rule, the other is not.

(Funny thing, though, I actually like the nat 1 rule for firearms. I play a gunslinger in PFS, and I thought I would hate this rule too, but I don't. I can get behind a piece of experimental technology having a 5% failure rate.)

I have seen a lot of house rules, including many put forth by yours truly. I can honestly say that I have yet to see one worth keeping. And of all of those house rules, none bother me as much as critical fumbles, regardless of whether it is on skills or attacks.

I've given up almost every houserule that my gaming self was raised with. When I ran a game for our group, one by one I realized that they were all sort of awful in their own way. Some sort of put restrictions on the GM, others coddled the players, etc.

I don't even enjoy any of my own houserules as much as the smallest ones. I'm slowly trying to complete a stealth rewrite, which has seen a lot of revisions. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with my houserule that you can identify a spell by seeing it cast or by hearing its verbal components (though if one component factor is missing, the DC raises by 4).

Grand Lodge

I love the randomness of the dice rolls. That is for me what makes the mechanics of the game work. If I wanted a game where moves were predetermined and it was based on strategy I would play chess.

The feeling of seeing the dice come up 20 or 1 can be the best or worst thing that you can experience. Heck, my group even made a natural 20 an immediate critical hit so it would be more exciting to see it come up.

If people work the 20/1 success/fail rule sensibly there is no reason that it shouldn't work and add excitement to the game. Climbing over a 10ft wall? No problems you make it over. There is no need to make a roll at all if you have the in-game time, it will only slow down your out-of-game time. But if the castle guards are seconds from catching you after you grabbed the Kings crown, a skill check can add a bit of tension and excitement to the game, even if the chance of failure is very small.

And if you argue that you should be able to jump to the moon 5% of the time your DM should slap you and seriously look at your out of game Wisdom score.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

So the actual rules question was resolved within what, the first half-dozen posts or so? Then we have well over 100 posts of people debating the merits and flaws of a houserule. Could we please take that to the appropriate forum? I don't come into the Suggestions/Homebrew/Houserule forum and fill some random thread with 100 posts about how the published rules work. We have different forums for a reason.


You need a list of slapstick comedy results for a roll of 1. That is like a total fail.
Acrobatics 1 = you trip over your own feet and land flat on your face in the mud.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Avh wrote:


Or a single kobold with 20 tries. A single kobold will be freed of the best manacles in existence in 20 minutes.

If the DC to escape from rope or bindings is higher than 20 + your Escape Artist skill bonus, you cannot escape from the bonds using Escape Artist.


Catprog wrote:
Avh wrote:


Or a single kobold with 20 tries. A single kobold will be freed of the best manacles in existence in 20 minutes.

If the DC to escape from rope or bindings is higher than 20 + your Escape Artist skill bonus, you cannot escape from the bonds using Escape Artist.

It is 20+skill because, by RAW, there is no auto-success. However, this thread moved past RAW about 100 posts ago, as another lamented.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
So the actual rules question was resolved within what, the first half-dozen posts or so? Then we have well over 100 posts of people debating the merits and flaws of a houserule. Could we please take that to the appropriate forum? I don't come into the Suggestions/Homebrew/Houserule forum and fill some random thread with 100 posts about how the published rules work. We have different forums for a reason.

To be fair, it was largely the OP who was posting arguments in favor of the house rule.

The whole thread should be moved, really.

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / A natural one on a skill check. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.