Page 1740 in Little Garden
first Latest
Page 1740


first Previous Next Latest
Average Rating: 5
Number of people who have voted: 1


By the same author as Grand Line 3.5
Comments:

zomg




16th May 2022, 2:49 AM

In 5th ed they tried to make it so you can't crit a skill roll. But it didn't work. No one I've ever met goes anything but 'nat 20!' when they roll a 20. Or go 'oh no, a fumble' when they roll a 1. It's one of those things no amount of rules can change.

edit delete reply

Guest




16th May 2022, 2:52 AM

It's not just 5th edition, to the extent of my knowledge it's every edition, but people just love to shout Nat 20

edit delete reply

Heyoceama




16th May 2022, 1:51 PM

I mean at the very least, a nat 20 means you've succeeded at what you're trying to do (unless the DM is seriously having you roll for something you could not possibly do, which is silly) to the highest degree you could achieve. On the opposite end if you've rolled a nat 1 you almost certainly failed at that attempt. You can't really change the nature of these numbers, especially not in a binary success/failure system.

edit delete reply

jy3




16th May 2022, 3:18 PM

You can't crit a skill roll, but a good GM won't call for a roll that's impossible to pass or impossible to fail unless that somehow needs to be kept secret.

edit delete reply

Samantha




17th May 2022, 9:47 AM

Sure you can. A crit skill roll is an automatic success even when 20 wouldn't be enough.

The only time critical 20 doesn't work is when there is a plot related reason you can't do something, like if the DM has made the lock unpickable for the time being. Or if the DM has called an end to shenanigans, and you're trying to get the king to get you a giant castle rivaling his. Or when something actively cannot be done. You can roll 20 to convince the king to give you something he can't get all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

edit delete reply

Pablo360

Pablo360




18th May 2022, 8:53 AM

That is absolutely not true. Maybe that's how your DMs have always played it, but it's not actually true.

As I have told my players: “I reserve the right to look you in the eye after you roll a 20 and ask you what the modifier is.”

edit delete reply

Kittoradra




20th May 2022, 12:32 AM

The rules for every edition of D&D that I've played did **not** have that. Nat 20 and Nat 1 only applied to attack roles and saving throws. Skill checks had always been raw number, which meant it was entirely possible for the target to be completely impossible to reach. At the same time, the bonuses could make a roll impossible to fail. It's just that everyone got hooked on "Nat 20 means automatic success" off the options that did have that, and it became a popular house rule that many people just started assuming.

PFv2 has adjusted that, where a nat 20 on a skill roll is still "better", but it just automatically improves the success by a ranking. If you fail the roll by enough, it can still be a failure.

edit delete reply

HexaDoken




16th May 2022, 4:16 PM

A 20 on a skill check is still a success, you just don't get any special bonuses, compared to a critical hit which is more than simply hitting. Similarly, a 1 on a skill check is just a regular failure, not somehow a super failure.

People do like to joke about super-knowledge or super-ignorance, though, which can be funny. Pretty sure that's what happening in this comic.

edit delete reply

Anvildude




16th May 2022, 7:36 PM

Nope.

It's not a Success. That's what people confuse. If you roll a 20, have a +1 and so get a 21 total, and the DC for the skill check was 25, you have still FAILED. You have done all you could possibly do and still failed! That is life!

But yeah. Honestly I think that doubling or halving Proficiency bonus on nat 20's and 1's would be fine, but you can't and don't have auto-successes or failures on them for skills. No amount of Athletics capability is going to let you bend an Adamantium bar, for instance.

edit delete reply

Airanuva




16th May 2022, 8:25 PM

In Pathfinder 2e, skill checks *can* crit, and the result of rolling a 20 is that it increases the level of success one step. If it would normally fail, it'd succeed. If it'd succeed, it would critically succeed. If it would critically fail the DC by being 10 under, it would just be a failure.

edit delete reply

Halosty45

Halosty45




17th May 2022, 2:25 PM

I do like the PF2e approach to things. Just began to familiarize myself with those rules recently, and the crit (success/failure) system is pretty nice. Allowed for more variability in spell saves than pass/fail for one, and so spells and other effects are less all-or-nothing than they have been in most d20 systems.

edit delete reply

khade




17th May 2022, 12:28 AM

Of course not! Bending adamantium is a strength check, not athletics. Which might make it harder. I'm not sure how you'd set up the difficulty for this, but I imagine it's going to need a roll +str in excess of 20 and probably closer to 30

edit delete reply

QuinTinTin




17th May 2022, 5:11 AM

I'm sure it depends on the system, and the ruleset. In D&D 3.5 (on which this series is ostensibly based, though it's clearly mostly homebrew at this point), a 20 on a skillcheck is an instant success to the maximum amount you COULD succeed, and perhaps even a bit more. Skill checks in D&D tend to give you levels of success based on how well you roll, especially knowledge checks. Just passing will get you some info, but not all available info, for example. UNLESS you were playing an Epic Level campaign (i.e. characters above level 20), in which case a 20 on the die is not an instant success, but gives a bonus +10 in addition to whatever your ranks are in the skill. Because skill checks could easily be over 30 in an Epic Campaign.

edit delete reply

Halosty45

Halosty45




17th May 2022, 2:22 PM

Not sure which 3.5 rules you read, but skill checks gain nothing from nat 20's.
Direct quote: "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure."

edit delete reply

QuinTinTin




19th May 2022, 4:52 AM

Couldn't find the "20=+10, 1 = -10" rule within the five minutes I spent looking, but Crit (fail and success) Skillchecks are described on page 34 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide. The original, not the second one.

edit delete reply

Samantha




17th May 2022, 9:52 AM

That depends on the DM. Alot of DMs feel like Natural 20 is auto-success, because having a roll that you can't make even with a perfect roll is just cheap.

However, if it's an epic tier use of the skill, then no, you can't do it.

A good way to mitigate this is to add another roll of some sort. Either, you have to get two criticals for an auto-success, or you roll 1d6 or something, and add the bonus.

edit delete reply

HexaDoken




17th May 2022, 3:17 PM

Question: If the maximum possible roll is not enough to achieve success, then... why are you rolling, again?

If you don't want a player to bend an adamantium bar on a natural 20, you do not let them roll and then say "haha nope." You just say they can't bend an adamantium bar, because, well, it's an adamantium bar.

If the result is the same no matter how you roll, then you should not roll at all. That's an option, you know.

edit delete reply

khade




17th May 2022, 6:08 PM

Because people try things they can't do all the time. That try to bend the unbendable thing for example. And also because technically it IS possible, they just might not be able to do it right now.

You can't disguise a centaur as a normal human, though you might be able to convince people it's something else. But that doesn't mean you can't try to do so.

Also trying the impossible sometimes leads to great scenes, especially if you figure out a way to justify it being something that your character does. This is why Rule 0 exists, sometimes what the rules allow and what MUST HAPPEN aren't compatible.

Incidentally, I now want to see one of these screencap comics doing Gurren Lagann.

edit delete reply

Heyoceama




17th May 2022, 7:03 PM

Rolling does nothing in either of the cases you mentioned. A player doesn't need to make a roll to try to jump over the grand canyon, they can just try it (and fail because it's literally impossible). There's no reason to get dice involved unless you want to fuck with your players hopes.

As for rolling for something that might be doable later, in my experience and from what I've read online players take failure on a high roll to mean they can't do that thing. If you tell them the bars are unbendable after rolling then they're likely to never try again unless things dramatically change or you prompt them to do so.

edit delete reply

Pablo360

Pablo360




18th May 2022, 8:54 AM

That sounds like a mismatch of genre expectations to me. If a DM is simply honest with their players about what a die roll means, all of those problems disappear and the game becomes more fun for everyone.

The problem is, some DMS have forgotten that they're legally allowed to be honest with their players.

edit delete reply

Leave a Comment