Alexander123
First Post
Do you use the 1 is an automatic failure (and 20 an automatic success) rule? If not why? Would you suggest that I houserule that 1 is not an automatic failure and 20 not an automatic success?
D&D 3.x Automatic failure. (3.5)
- Thread starter Alexander123
- Start date
Starbuck_II
Explorer
Only for attack rolls/saves.
Are you going with 1 is -10 and 20 is a 30 variant? The difference is you may still hit (maybe) and might still miss (maybe) depending on difference between your bonuses and their AC.
Alexander123
First Post
I was thinking of going with the 1 is one and 20 is 20 variant but I thought about it again and I decided that I would simply have 1 be an automatic failure and 20 an automatic success. I thought the RAW was not in need of any change.
Sekhmet
First Post
I typically use 1 fails and 20 succeeds because I think it makes more sense. Even an untrained person can sometimes do something extraordinary, and even the world's best can sometimes make an amateur mistake.
It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
I once tried out acting them like critical hits, confirming the roll. If a player rolls a 1, they roll again. If the second roll is a failure, it becomes a critical failure - Materials wasted to no affect, spell backfires, weapon is thrown away from the melee, you hit your ally, bowstring breaks, etc.
If the second roll succeeds, the 1 is counted as a 1, so if you have enough bonuses you can still make up for it.
20's worked the same way - If the second roll succeeds, you've had a critical success. Material costs reduced, spell has a metamagic feat tacked on to it at no cost to you, you deal critical damage on your attack, etc.
It worked well, and my players enjoyed it, but I eventually ended up ditching the system for some reason that I can't quite recall. I might try it out again and see what the problem was and try to find some way to fix it.
It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
I once tried out acting them like critical hits, confirming the roll. If a player rolls a 1, they roll again. If the second roll is a failure, it becomes a critical failure - Materials wasted to no affect, spell backfires, weapon is thrown away from the melee, you hit your ally, bowstring breaks, etc.
If the second roll succeeds, the 1 is counted as a 1, so if you have enough bonuses you can still make up for it.
20's worked the same way - If the second roll succeeds, you've had a critical success. Material costs reduced, spell has a metamagic feat tacked on to it at no cost to you, you deal critical damage on your attack, etc.
It worked well, and my players enjoyed it, but I eventually ended up ditching the system for some reason that I can't quite recall. I might try it out again and see what the problem was and try to find some way to fix it.
For Skill, Attack and Saving Throws my group uses an exploding die system.
A roll of 20 becomes 30 + your character modifiers.
A roll of 1 becomes -9 + you character modifiers.
By using this system it is possible to attack a unarmored klutz (low-dex) opponent and still hit on a roll of 1 and it is possible to make a saving thrown against a spell cast off a scroll.
A roll of 20 becomes 30 + your character modifiers.
A roll of 1 becomes -9 + you character modifiers.
By using this system it is possible to attack a unarmored klutz (low-dex) opponent and still hit on a roll of 1 and it is possible to make a saving thrown against a spell cast off a scroll.
Dandu
First Post
I use it for attacks, but I am considering modifying/chucking it because it means that a 20th level fighter has a 5% chance of failing more per round than a first level fighter.
This seems wrong.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
You could always change how base attack works instead. I love the variant in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/248004-iterative-attacks.html.
However, if you have builds that use a lot of touch attacks, I can see how they change would hurt. If not, it generally increasing damage (generally), as well as cuts down on the time between turns.
To answer the OP, I completely got rid of any automatic success or failure in my mod. I don't like the idea of those absolutes, and 5% of the time is either just right, or wildly too high, dependent on the situation.
I figure if someone can still hit a target by rolling a 1, then he probably deserves to hit. If you can't hit a target by rolling a natural 20, then you probably deserve to miss. Same concept carries over to saves for me.
Greenfield
Adventurer
The other system I've seen used was: 1 = -20 + a new D20 roll. 20=20 + a new D20 roll.
We only went to rules like this when we started to see attack/save bonuses over 20, and AC's in the 40+ range. In short, we shifted over as we approached Epic levels.
We only went to rules like this when we started to see attack/save bonuses over 20, and AC's in the 40+ range. In short, we shifted over as we approached Epic levels.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Only for attacks and saves, as per RAW. I'd never want it used for skills and other checks. I don't mind it for attacks and saves, mainly because the game already features pretty exponential growth with level/CR, and it's nice for a large army of weak creatures to have a chance of doing something at all.
Tovec
Explorer
Interesting..
In our games we use Nat1 as an auto fail, and Nat20 as an auto succeed on on all attacks and saves but when it comes to Skills we change it up. When we use it for Skills we use it as Regular Mods + Roll, as normal. However when you get a natural 20 on a skill check then it results in mods + 20 + roll again. When its a 1 then the inverse happens, you scale down. so mods - roll again. In the negatives, 20s and 1s are the worst u can roll again.
Examples:
Base skill of say 15, then roll a 1 then a 20 then a 6 - would result in 15-20-6=-11
Base skill of 15, then a 20, then a 15 = 15+20+15=50.
Both results make for truly entertaining results. Like when we were locked up and the Paladin diplomacied a NPC for a REALLY nice bottle of wine from the king's personal stores. Not the keys, sadly but wine that would make you weep. As I recall that was a roll of a 62 Diplomacy check or something.
Similar Threads
