|
Home rule a fumble rule. Roll a natural 1 and something goes wrong with the attempt. Because no matter your skill at something there should always be a chance for failure.Haha, my tables always play with 1's being massive failure. Crit fumble decks make things interesting (that said, it does hurt TWFers and monks much more than anyone else)
Not to mention that higher level characters will fumble more than level 1s.
Because that totally makes sense! :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many, many, many people loathe auto fail rules. And hate fumble rules even more.
Realistically, people do NOT fail 5% of the time (let alone catastrophically fail) no matter how trivial the task is for them. Do you fail your drive check every 20 trips? Do you fail your profession check once a month?
It could be argued that you're taking a 10 every time you go driving. When the sob to your right tries to speed up and cut you off, you come out of "taking 10 mode", slam on the gas, and take your chances that you can box him out (roll the die.)
I would be fine with a 1 be a catastrophic fail for skills if a 20 is an incredible success. If my PC is crafting a sword and rolls a 20, the sword is so finely crafted it gets a magical ability or some such.
Terrible failure and amazing success can be a lot of fun as long as everyone's on board. Of course, I also really like critical hits and fumbles, so to each their own.
+1 to hating critical fumbles.
Criticals hurt PCs much worse than NPCs. Rerolls can mitigate that, but it still is the case that when the crit fumble hits the wrong PC at the wrong time it can quickly lead to TPK. Especially if the NPCs get a crit success at the same time.
If you play long enough, you are going to hit that case. Really, the odds aren't that long -- especially when you get to the level where you are rolling multiple attacks per round.
+1 to hating critical fumbles.
Criticals hurt PCs much worse than NPCs. Rerolls can mitigate that, but it still is the case that when the crit fumble hits the wrong PC at the wrong time it can quickly lead to TPK. Especially if the NPCs get a crit success at the same time.
Sure - but isn't that the point? In a more general sense, if the PCs are rolling poorly, and the enemies are rolling well, shouldn't TPK be a possibility?
Personally, I don't like campaigns that go months and months or longer without a single PC death, but like a lot of other things, its all up to people's preferences. I know some people like to play that the PCs can never die, and the GM will fudge rolls or whatever to make it so. Others like that possibility of PC death - to me its one of the elements that makes TTRPGs special as compared to console or computer games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure - but isn't that the point? In a more general sense, if the PCs are rolling poorly, and the enemies are rolling well, shouldn't TPK be a possibility?+1 to hating critical fumbles.
Criticals hurt PCs much worse than NPCs. Rerolls can mitigate that, but it still is the case that when the crit fumble hits the wrong PC at the wrong time it can quickly lead to TPK. Especially if the NPCs get a crit success at the same time.
You like one lucky / unlucky shot to kill?
I don't.
Note I'm not talking about several poor or good roles, but rather a single instance where a suddenly a confluence of critical fail on a PC roll with critical success on NPC roll suddenly turns the whole battle. If it is spread over several rolls, it gives the PCs time to react. Even with the current RAW a single crit can be deadly. Any first level character that gets a confirmed crit from a glaive or scythe can potentially go from full hit points to dead in one hit.
As for skills, you've posted more than 600 times. How many critical failures have you had? How many times have you driven in traffic and had someone else do something unexpected?
I find a 5% chance of critical failure too high.
I don't make 1's an auto-fail for skills, but a 1 can modify the success the PC would otherwise have. Basically, if it's a 1 don't just give them an auto-success make it a success with a small drawback. They succeeded, they just didn't succeed as well as they wanted to.
They rolled a 1 climbing that cliff, well, they managed that just fine but cut their hand on a sharp rock on the way up and have taken 1 point of damage from it. Just use the 1's to make things interesting not damaging.
I, personally, have a critical fail Percentiles chart that I use. It's home made and some "Bad" things can happen and some really awesome things can happen and sometimes something really goofy happens. Most of them amount to, Oops, sorry, you missed and your turn is over (this is all for combat not skills). I'm considering making one for skills where some effect or other happens along with their success (if they succeed) and make another one for failures. They rolled a 1 and failed so this is why that didn't work. They rolled a 1 and succeeded, so it worked like this, but...
I have never had a player of mine fear to roll on one of my charts because I always balance the bad with the good and a 1 will never kill them, it just makes things more difficult.
|
(i.e. taking a 10 or 20) which is what characters could do. How many times when you are typing do you make a typo if you are attempting to push yourself?
If you are rushing a task (rolling a check rather than taking a 10 or 20), what is your failure rate? How often for instance do quarterbacks even at the professional level...
While obviously I haven't seen your game, in my experience games that have autofail and fumble rules do NOT allow one to take 10 when the rules specify. They have some house rule "not when failure could hurt" or the like and do not allow the various mechanical means that exist to allow for ALWAYS taking 10.
But to answer your question, if a skill is so incredibly trivial that a 1 would succeed then in both reality and, more importantly, most of the fiction that we're trying to emulate then it really never fails. Or, at the very least, fails a LOT less than 5% of the time.
the problem with skills is not that the DCs are not high enough but the penalties for situation are not being applied. Take a bardic performance. The rules don't give you anything for environmental factors. Sure an extraordinary performance is DC 30 and you have +20 to the role so you could take 10 and succeed. But what if the crowd is a hostile crowd? I'd give you -5 or even -10 of they are throwing things and not allow take 10. Sure there is no rule for that but as GM you can apply that. Think of it like this. You are country music singer playing for crowd drunk people that expect speed metal band. Now you want put on extraordinary performance to win that crowd over. That's going to take some pretty high skill to pull that off, I don't think +20 would do it. But in a acoustically perfect venue playing classical music for small crowd of classical music lovers, you could easily take 10 and astound them.
So as GM feel free to add negatives or increase the DC for factors that affect the use of the skill. The base DC is just where it starts. Some skills have these modifiers already for certain situation, use them as guide. They book can't tell you every circumstance that may effect a skill. As character gets to be high level they should be able to pull off skill rolls they'd never be able to at lower level.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So as GM feel free to add negatives or increase the DC for factors that affect the use of the skill. The base DC is just where it starts. Some skills have these modifiers already for certain situation, use them as guide. They book can't tell you every circumstance that may effect a skill. As character gets to be high level they should be able to pull off skill rolls they'd never be able to at lower level.
I think the problem here is that most people are seeing this as 'the GM is making things harder because I have a high skill'. And some people here have admitted that is their reasoning.
Good GMs will only adjust circumstances where it is warranted, while allowing players to auto-succeed on the checks that aren't extraordinary. If every situation is your speed metal concert example, it will wear thin very quickly.
What do you do when your player's skills are so high that they auto-succeed against your DCs? Don't have them roll. Just tell them they succeed. It saves time and rewards their mastery of that skill.
However, if this is making the game less fun for you as a GM, then spice it up. There are always circumstance bonuses/penalties you can use. For example, set it up so they aren't just jumping a chasm. They could do that ages ago. Now, they are jumping a chasm off of loose sand, which is sliding under their feat, pulling them towards the chasm because the chasm just split open due to the eruptions of the erupting volcano in the background. Also, they are blind from smoke and ash and fiery rocks are raining down all around. That's a harder can't-take-10 DC for a higher level PC, and it still rewards them for their skill mastery since no one else with less mastery would ever have enough luck making a jump like that.
You should NEVER arbitrarily scale DCs. That not only goes against the game's basic design principles, it will piss off your players to no end. What you should do is present epic PCs with epic encounters, and not all the time. Use them sparingly, or else they become less special. Said PC with skill mastery should be making those checks most of the time, but every once in a while, reward him with a real challenge that only he can do. Makes him feel special, allows you to feel like you are fulfilling your purpose, and makes the game better all around for everyone evolved (except for those players who can't possibly make the jump--be mindful of that too).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I intensely dislike 1 = auto fail houserules on skill checks. An Olympic swimmer doesn't fail to stay afloat 5% of the time they race. It's unlikely they're taking 10 when trying to do their best but the failure rate is much much less than 5%. Any professional at their job does not fail a trivial task when trying to do their best at anywhere near a 5% rate - it's more like one in thousands or millions.
In general I find critical fumble rules are more fun for the GM than players, tend to turn the game into a slapstick comedy, and penalize people for being good at their jobs. More attacks=more chances to fumble so a high level character is worse at fighting. Oh and spellcasters don't often roll to hit so they are immune. No thanks.
I intensely dislike 1 = auto fail houserules on skill checks. An Olympic swimmer doesn't fail to stay afloat 5% of the time they race. It's unlikely they're taking 10 when trying to do their best but the failure rate is much much less than 5%. Any professional at their job does not fail a trivial task when trying to do their best at anywhere near a 5% rate - it's more like one in thousands or millions.
In general I find critical fumble rules are more fun for the GM than players, tend to turn the game into a slapstick comedy, and penalize people for being good at their jobs. More attacks=more chances to fumble so a high level character is worse at fighting. Oh and spellcasters don't often roll to hit so they are immune. No thanks.
It really depends on the style of play. I tend to run some pretty slapstick comedy games as One shots. I made my critical failure charts as much fun for the PC as for me. In fact, one of my friends actually celebrates when she gets to roll on one of my charts. I also don't tend to run actual campaigns, although I did for a while and used the charts and everyone had fun.
The big thing is, if your players are having fun using your charts, then use them! If not, just make a 1 a miss. Also, consider that yes, they are better fighters, but they are also fighting against better fighters. So a 1 could be, "While that was an excellent move, your opponent got lucky and zigged rather than zagged. You miss."
And I didn't say that a 1 on a skill check was an auto-fail, I said that you can add some kind of condition to it to spice things up. Make them know that, for whatever reason, their character flubbed something slightly and didn't get the perfect result. You can't do everything perfectly 100% of the time, that would be boring, but if you're really really good at something, you also are not likely to fail. You are, however, likely to give a mediocre performance or half-assed attempt at something because of being too confident.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want superpowered PCs, don't play at high levels. Simple.
Once the PCs get to about level 7, they should be some of the most capable and remarkable people in the entire country.
So as GM feel free to add negatives or increase the DC for factors that affect the use of the skill. The base DC is just where it starts. Some skills have these modifiers already for certain situation, use them as guide. They book can't tell you every circumstance that may effect a skill. As character gets to be high level they should be able to pull off skill rolls they'd never be able to at lower level.I think the problem here is that most people are seeing this as 'the GM is making things harder because I have a high skill'. And some people here have admitted that is their reasoning.
Good GMs will only adjust circumstances where it is warranted, while allowing players to auto-succeed on the checks that aren't extraordinary. If every situation is your speed metal concert example, it will wear thin very quickly.
Very true. You don't want to do this all the time only when the player is trying to do something extremely hard. For easy stuff auto success all the way. You also don't want to auto succeed all the time as that gets kind of boring. It's balancing act. If you have +20 or higher you should be able to auto succeed in thing that mere apprentice or struggle with while showing them what real master of the skill can do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I despise house rules of 1 = catastrophic failure. In my current campaign (level 13) we rule that if you roll a 1 you lose the rest of your full attack and roll to confirm failure or the fumble deck comes out. We have a ranger in the group, this girl is cursed, she rolls more natural 1's than the rest of the party combined. She doesn't even use her rapid shot or deadly aim feats anymore just to fumble less. She doesn't use her animal companion much either because it usually deals more damage to itself than the enemy because to that accursed fumble deck. Seriously, it is not unusual for this level 13 character to take more damage from herself than from the enemy because she can't seem to figure out how to hold a bow.
I HATE that deck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Critical Fumbles target those who make the most rolls. This means TWF, Flurry, Rapid Shot, Many Shot much more than the casters. It also penalizes higher level characters more than lower level characters.
I think using fluff for describing what happens on a 1 or 20 to be much better. You have NO mechanical effect causing player dissatisfaction, and you have memorable story from the critical. For example, acrobatics roll of a one that fails = pratfall, or if it succeeds, making the check by the skin of their teeth. For the twenty, it can be making it so easy, that their hair is not mussed and their teeth shine as they smile doing it with one hand behind their back.
I likewise think sing skills creatively is good. Once my character was in waist deep water, and wanted to flank the BEG. To do this, he would have to pass in provoking range to get into position. This is what he did: 1) acrobatics to jump up, 2) use a class feature to walk on water (Light Steps), 3) Move across to flanking position, 4) Acrobatics to avoid the AoO, and finally 5) Sink back into the water while flanking.
Two acrobatic rolls, class features, and creative use made it memorable.
/cevah
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Home rule a fumble rule. Roll a natural 1 and something goes wrong with the attempt. Because no matter your skill at something there should always be a chance for failure.
I disagree. I will never incorrectly install a CPU which is mundane for me but not for another person. Once you get to a certain skill level the difficult becomes mundane and 5% failure is way to high.
There's a reason skill checks don't have auto-success/failure. Consider a monk with high acrobatics - is he falling on his face 5% of the time he jumps a 5-foot gap? Of course not. By the same token, a level 1 commoner can't jump to the top of the 100-foot castle walls 5% of the time just by getting lucky.
It's not sensible to apply auto-failure and not auto-success either.
I have a home game with critical hit/fumble decks, and we do have rolling a 1 stop the full-attacks. We also fail/do minimum damage if we can't keep the dice on the table (it was an issue with some people at first). Sometimes these things are detriments, and there are some I'd rather play without, but we've also had really good things come about from failings by the NPCs. Also consider that fumbles will also affect NPCs more as they level up, and might even be more detrimental to monsters with many natural attacks, especially at early levels. They do affect martial characters more, though in our case we don't really have dedicated casters.
If you are willing to let the players self adjust the DC's on the spells they cast, on their crit ranges, damage dice, etc. then go ahead. Otherwise, play tennis with the net.
You like one lucky / unlucky shot to kill?
I don't.
My group actually likes it. In fact, we like it so much we play with an instant kill rule.
As for skills, you've posted more than 600 times. How many critical failures have you had? How many times have you driven in traffic and had someone else do something unexpected?
I've definitely had some posts that incorrectly remembered rules, or a few times where people angered me and then I posted in a rude manner, could those be considered critical failures?
I find a 5% chance of critical failure too high.
I understand, and I know a lot of people agree with you. Many players seem to not like the idea that this heroic image of their PC that they have in their head could make a terrible mistake.
For me and my group though, we really like it. Everyone remembers the time that the dragon was about to full attack the PCs into their graves, but rolled a 1 on its first attack, and lost the rest of its actions.
We actually had a guest player several months back, and she rolled a critical fumble pretty early on, and the fumble card said she stumbled in a random direction. As they were fighting on a bridge at the time, she went over the side (I gave her an acrobatic check to grab on and she succeeded.) The whole table erupted in laughter, it was a great time.
There's a reason skill checks don't have auto-success/failure. Consider a monk with high acrobatics - is he falling on his face 5% of the time he jumps a 5-foot gap? Of course not. By the same token, a level 1 commoner can't jump to the top of the 100-foot castle walls 5% of the time just by getting lucky.
The monk would likely take a 10. If the monk is in combat or other situation where he can't take a 10, then a 5% chance that something negative occurred that caused his jump to fail is plausible.
As for your commoner example, its not auto-fail and auto-success, its catastrophic failure versus amazing success. If the commoner is trying to jump 100 feet in the air, even an amazing success isn't going to get him there.
It really all goes back to some players prefer randomness, some don't like it. I'm a big fan of randomness - rolling stats, critical hits and fumbles, instant kill, etc. All of these add elements to the game that can't be completely mitigated, and that to me is a good thing.
In fact, as our last campaign wrapped up a few months ago, the BBEG was at about 40% health and one of the PCs instantly killed him. That's something that I'll remember for years to come. Its those kind of situations that really stick out in my mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with the 'it effects NPCs just as much' argument is that it isn't actually true. It effects each NPC for as long as they are 'on screen' when in truth that NPC had to make a bunch of check to get where he is today. Now you could say that he or she dealt with the same odds the PCs did, but unless you're actually rolling for your NPC's off screen time, it's just words.
PCs on the other-hand have this nasty little camera following them around forcing them to actually make checks 24/7
seems a little skewed...
There seem to be two different gaming philosophies in conflict here.
For one group, if you were summarizing the game mechanics, you'd say you roll a D20 and it tells you how well you did. 1 is bad, 20 is good.
For the other group, the game is about playing a character who is good at some things and bad at others. They will do well at the things that their character is good at, and badly at the things their character is bad at.
A lot of the time, the game mechanics support both ideas. In edge cases, only one of those is true. For example, if you're break down a door with a DC15 strength check, luck is likely to play a much bigger role than a few points of strength. The Strength 8 Wizard might succeed where the Strength 20 Fighter failed.
But if you're a level 20 character making a DC25 skill check, you will probably auto-succeed or auto-fail depending on whether you invested in that skill.
Most players will find one or the other situation irritating, depending on their RPG philosophy.
the Performance skill mentions 25 is the kind of level of roll that God's listen too.
Except for using this roll for certain save functions in a bardic performance, virtually any roll I make for regular Sing is going to make god's turn and looks at me.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but a Perform check result of 25 does not attract deific attention. It is a "memorable performance", and a consistent performance at that level will attract national attention.
A check result of 30 is an Extraordinary performance, and over time, may attract the attention of extraplanar beings. Even at this stage, however, extraplanar does not equate to deific. A hound archon is extraplanar, for example.
At what point do you as a DM have to throw your hands up at some skill totals and just skip rolling and "give" the players whatever it is they wanna roll for?
The point at which rolling a 1 will give the player the best result possible with the skill.
I think "extraplanar beings" is basically code for azatas.
I hate, and despise critical success/failure skill checks so much, I will refuse to play.
Straight up walk away.
I don't care what the situation is, or who I am playing with.
If it's friends or family, then they should know better.
That's a bit strong. Now critical fumble rules, on the other hand.... }XP
|
|
That's a bit strong. Now critical fumble rules, on the other hand.... }XPI hate, and despise critical success/failure skill checks so much, I will refuse to play.
Straight up walk away.
I don't care what the situation is, or who I am playing with.
If it's friends or family, then they should know better.
Same response to those as well.
Yeah, it's a bit strong, but that's how I feel about it.
That's a bit strong. Now critical fumble rules, on the other hand.... }XPI hate, and despise critical success/failure skill checks so much, I will refuse to play.
Straight up walk away.
I don't care what the situation is, or who I am playing with.
If it's friends or family, then they should know better.
Same response to those as well.
Yeah, it's a bit strong, but that's how I feel about it.
I pretty much think the GM should only occasionally do things for 1s and 20s that are thematically/story relevant. like a roll 1 check to pick a lock shouldn't do anything, unless maybe your in combat, and so dropping your lockpick might be interesting. I don't want my players to see a 1 or a 20 and instantly have their expressions change. however, I do want occasionally things to get thematically worse or better, and rolls tend to give me chances to do this, but mostly nothing happens.
I'd say playstyle of the table matters a lot for crit fumble rules. Sure it turns combat into something out of the Three Stooges, but some people like things to be a bit slapstick.
|
|
I'd say playstyle of the table matters a lot for crit fumble rules. Sure it turns combat into something out of the Three Stooges, but some people like things to be a bit slapstick.
For me, that's for things like Dirty Trick, and the Roll With It feat.
No need to have the martial heroes stab themselves %5 of the time, whilst the Wizard mocks everyone, as he doesn't need to roll.
There are rules already for certain things to happen on some natural 1, and natural 20 rolls on a d20.
there are also rules for what happens to characters underwater for long periods of time, doesn't mean i can't have a mermaid help them or something.
|
|
There are rules already for certain things to happen on some natural 1, and natural 20 rolls on a d20.there are also rules for what happens to characters underwater for long periods of time, doesn't mean i can't have a mermaid help them or something.
No, it's like becoming a mermaid on natural 20 Swim check, and having a sudden onset of mental retardation, and paralysis, on a natural 1.
You know, because lulz.
The DM arbitrarily raising the DC for skills is bull. Else, what is the point of focusing skill points into a skill. You're doing it to be good at something and not fail common tasks and actions. That's the point.to still give them the challenge, obviously rewards should shift up accordingly for success as well, but most rolls should still just be auto wins.Is it actually fun to do that?
As a player, that answer for me is a clear no. Otherwise you are negating the point of my choices. Short of a few specific skills and how they are used I don't feel this is a problem. The skills which it is a problem are Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate and those problems are because of how those skills specifically work not because DCs aren't necessarily high enough, but the power they have.
Skills like Stealth and Perception are opposed and can remain challenging based on your opponent. Skills like acrobatics for jumping shouldn't necessarily remain relevant because why should a jump of the same distance suddenly be impossible.
I get the idea of challenges, but after 10 levels skills shouldn't really be what you're challenged on.
For the most part, I agree.
It seems to me that, for example, a rogue being good at making acrobatics checks because she put a point into it every level, gets a +4 bonus from dexterity, and is getting an additional +3 because acrobatics is a class skill--is just the system working as intended.
You made a heavy investment into a skill your supposed to be good at and are therefore able to make most checks for that skill.
I would also like to add Sleight of Hand to that list of problematic skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i'm saying, that if there's a DC 25 climb check, he auto passes it, but now he can grab people who might fall, and rush up the wall. or who knows, it might be raining. so all the torches are out making the stealth climb up the cliff side extra sneaky but harder.So, let me see if I understand...
If a character can auto-succeed on a DC 25 climb check, that's bs, but if they can cast levitate, then that's normal?
Sound's like you're discriminating against non-casters. Shouldn't 10th level characters be cool? Like, James Bond cool?
The thing I don't like about this, is what about the people who are NOT auto passing things?
If you make it raining and slippery and extra tough for the guy who trained hard to be the 'climber' in the group... then the three others who only dabbled a bit in the skill are doomed to suck that much more.
He HAS to be able to catch them, because they are going to fall... If there's a warrior in the group, he could have up to -7 or so penalty to climb.
This is the problem with not having a set paramaters for stats. If one person is super-duper-awesome at something... and the DM challenges them efficiently... he's outright schooling everyone else.
Regarding skills (or spells or anything else, really), if the power level of stuff gets out of control at a certain level (or simply beyond the level you're comfortable with), there is also simply the option of not going there and ending the campaign early. Plenty of campaigns have run their course by then. Another option would be switching to a narrower power curve like E6.
Re: perform checks gaining the attention of outsiders, deities, and extraplanar beings, that's possibly a whole other kettle of fish. Such attention doesn't necessarily always have to be beneficial and could very well come with complications. Sometimes the thing is not determining whether you succeed or fail at something as determining what it is you want to do/what is the best thing to do in the first place.
i'm saying, that if there's a DC 25 climb check, he auto passes it, but now he can grab people who might fall, and rush up the wall. or who knows, it might be raining. so all the torches are out making the stealth climb up the cliff side extra sneaky but harder.So, let me see if I understand...
If a character can auto-succeed on a DC 25 climb check, that's bs, but if they can cast levitate, then that's normal?
Sound's like you're discriminating against non-casters. Shouldn't 10th level characters be cool? Like, James Bond cool?
The thing I don't like about this, is what about the people who are NOT auto passing things?
If you make it raining and slippery and extra tough for the guy who trained hard to be the 'climber' in the group... then the three others who only dabbled a bit in the skill are doomed to suck that much more.
He HAS to be able to catch them, because they are going to fall... If there's a warrior in the group, he could have up to -7 or so penalty to climb.
This is the problem with not having a set paramaters for stats. If one person is super-duper-awesome at something... and the DM challenges them efficiently... he's outright schooling everyone else.
he's creating hand holds...
How do you guys handle this kind of issue? Or how would you see handling it?
I'm no sure if the book states it or not. But when it comes to knowledge of things; we usually state 15 gets you the base knowledge (A monsters name for instance), and for every 5 points or part of greater, you get another piece of knowledge (Like knowing a single category on a monsters stat block). This is getting frustrating to my Dm with my Bard because unless the DM creates a a monster whole cloth and has it be unique, my Bard generally points at it and goes "I know what that is. here;s how to bet it!"
As a player and GM, I see the problem and don't like it. I don't have a solution, though.
On a related note, I think a d20 roll adds a lot of randomness to something that you are supposed to be trained in. That is a lot of unpredictability. Glad to know I don't have have that much of a swing every time I use Computer Use or Driving on a daily basis!
Another thing: we use auto fail on a "1". Is that a hold over from 3e?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
In no version of 3e did skills auto-fail on a 1. It's a commonly misunderstood rule though.
Critical fumbles mean a 20th level fighter hurts himself fighting a training dummy, and hurts himself more than a nonproficient 1st level commoner fighting the same training dummy for the same period of time. Heaven help the poor fighter if he tries TWF.
In fact here's my way of judging a critical fumble system: Imagine a squad of 10 guardsmen (1st level warriors) fighting straw sparring dummies for 10 minutes. Overall they make 1000 attack rolls, rolling 50 ones.
-If any of them are injured you have a problem.
-If any of them break or lose their weapons you have a problem.
-If any of them are dead or dying you have a big problem.
Auto fail on a 1 for skills means that 5% of the time, in a situation where someone-someone professionally trained to do well at complex tasks, who has no relevant disability- is really trying:
-They fail to remember basic information, like where they live or work
-They fail to hear a jackhammer being run 5 feet away
-A professional driver fails to move a car from their driveway to the street
-A veterinarian fails to remember how to feed their pets
-A professional handyman fails to perform a basic home repair task like replacing a single nail
Think of all the things that are effectively DC0-5 that people do everyday, and give them a 5% failure rate. I don't want to live in that world, and thankfully the real world is nothing like that.
In no version of 3e did skills auto-fail on a 1. It's a commonly misunderstood rule though.
Critical fumbles mean a 20th level fighter hurts himself fighting a training dummy, and hurts himself more than a nonproficient 1st level commoner fighting the same training dummy for the same period of time. Heaven help the poor fighter if he tries TWF.
In fact here's my way of judging a critical fumble system: Imagine a squad of 10 guardsmen (1st level warriors) fighting straw sparring dummies for 10 minutes. Overall they make 1000 attack rolls, rolling 50 ones.
-If any of them are injured you have a problem.
-If any of them break or lose their weapons you have a problem.
-If any of them are dead or dying you have a big problem.Auto fail on a 1 for skills means that 5% of the time, in a situation where someone-someone professionally trained to do well at complex tasks, who has no relevant disability- is really trying:
-They fail to remember basic information, like where they live or work
-They fail to hear a jackhammer being run 5 feet away
-A professional driver fails to move a car from their driveway to the street
-A veterinarian fails to remember how to feed their pets
-A professional handyman fails to perform a basic home repair task like replacing a single nailThink of all the things that are effectively DC0-5 that people do everyday, and give them a 5% failure rate. I don't want to live in that world, and thankfully the real world is nothing like that.
Good to know. I never liked the way skills can sometimes "short circuit" roleplaying, and the auto fail made it even worse.
Solution derived from the old XXVc RPG (streamlined 2e rules by TSR):
Ditch skill DCs.
Task is either Easy, Moderate, Difficult, Heroic (or some such);
Easy - Skill rating x 2 (or Skill rating);
Moderate - Skill rating (or 3/4 Skill rating);
Difficult - 3/4 Skill rating (or 1/2 Skill rating);
Nearly Impossible - 1/2 Skill rating (or 1/4 Skill rating).
Use the value in parenthesis if you want a more challenging gradient.
Roll d20. If value is equal or less than modified skill rating based on difficulty, then you succeed.
So skill rating of 20 becomes 40 (auto success), 20 (another auto), 15 and 10 OR 20, 15, 10, and 5 in the "harder" system.
On a related note, I think a d20 roll adds a lot of randomness to something that you are supposed to be trained in. That is a lot of unpredictability. Glad to know I don't have have that much of a swing every time I use Computer Use or Driving on a daily basis!
You do (have that much swing), but you just don't realize it, because the tasks that you do on a routine basis are in fact, so easy that "that much swing" doesn't matter.
For the tasks that you succeed at about half the time, you will -- obviously -- fail half the time. But some of your failures will be much worse, and some successes will be much better. This could be a skill you're not very good at, or it could be a skill you're very good at but under extremely difficult conditions (so those don't arise very often in day-to-day life).
If your Profession (Driver) skill is +5 and driving to work is a DC 5, then it doesn't matter if you roll a 1 or not. And if there's no call for an awesome maneuver that day, you'll never know if you rolled a 20 or a 2, because you got there either way. (And, in fact, you probably took 10 anyway -- and that is why the take 10 rules are there, too.)
What a lot of people miss is that skills are not necessarily there to be challenges; if you really are a professional locksmith, opening a normal locked door is what you do for a living and you really can do it reliably and without thinking. And if you're not merely a professional locksmith, but the best locksmith in the world, opening anything is easy for you, because that's what you do.
I'd scrap the 'standard' DCs for skills for either scaled DCs based on character level or do away with DCs altogether and base success or failure based on the result of the roll and the situation at hand.
If someone rolls a 30 on say Diplomacy on average and it talking with a nobody commoner, then yeah, they will almost always get their way. But maybe you think 30 is not enough to Diplo the BBEG or ally of said BBEG. The DCs will never be set in stone which can be problematic but it gives you a lot more flexibility.
Do you also bump the saves of critters so that they will not fail a save against the casters? Do you crank the AC of the critters because the fighter is good at hitting things? If not, then why do you punish skill monkeys for being good at what they do?