1 = -10, 20 = 30 with everything

[Numion]

There's an optional rule in the DMG that reads that in attack roll a roll of 1 equals -10 and a roll of 20 counts as 30. This supposedly deals with the problem of a kobold slicing through an ac 50 opponents armor / defences. (Since a 20 isn't an automatic, just a great strike.)

My house rule is this: The above optional rule applies to all d20 rolls, except of course to monks unarmed damage.

Skills, saves and attacks thus use the rule. It prevents really good characters at failing routine operations. I've used this rule for 1.5 years, and it has worked just fine.

Any opinions? Do you foresee any drawbacks to using this? I haven't noticed any yet, despite of thorough playtesting.

 

[Crothian]

I use it and never had any problems. However, I think I like the new optional rule in ELH where a roll of a 20 or 1 the person rerolls the die and adds it to the 20 or subtracts it from the 1. Repeat as long as you keep rollining 1's or 20's.

 

[Jeph]

The group which I GM, and Corlon's (which I play in) have used this rule for about a year and a half, and have never had a problem with it.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Personally, I don't like it. Tried it for a couple of sessions and then reverted back to the normal way.

Generally, I'm opposed to anything that let's the players take something for granted. God knows I've brain-farted often enough on some routine task to believe that there's always the possibility of spectacularly embarrassing failure.

Also, with 20 not being an auto-success, the later iterative attacks become much less effective with high AC opponents. I've been playing a lot of Neverwinter Nights with high-level characters with ACs in the 30s. Knowing a horde of whatevers could still take me down if I didn't kill them fast enough added a certain thrill.

 

[tburdett]

Let me tell you, as someone who deals with safety issues in the workplace, that routine (can do it with my eyes closed) behaviors are a common cause of workplace injury.

No matter how dangerous the job is, some people just seem to develop an attitude over time that they are too skilled or too good at their job to get injured and they let their guard down.

For whatever reason (sloppiness, inattention, carelessness, boredom) they stop taking the necessary precautions to keep themselves safe and they suffer an injury.

I have no problem at all with the ruling that a 1 always results in a failure, as I've seen many, many highly skilled workers injure themselves doing mundane tasks.

The idea that just because you have x number of skill points means that you are unable to make a mistake is ridiculous.

 

[Mark Chance]

True, but...

The idea that just because you have x number of skill points means that you are unable to make a mistake is ridiculous.

The point of the optional rule isn't to eliminate all chance of failure or success. The point is to eliminate the statistical absurdity that, regardless or circumstances or relative skill levels, all attacks (for example) succeed 5% of the time and fail 5% of the time.

-- Mark L. Chance.

 

[Stalker0]

Re: True, but...

The point of the optional rule isn't to eliminate all chance of failure or success. The point is to eliminate the statistical absurdity that, regardless or circumstances or relative skill levels, all attacks (for example) succeed 5% of the time and fail 5% of the time.

-- Mark L. Chance.

If all you want to do is lower the percent chance then there's a simple way to do that. Basically if they roll a 1, have them roll again. 9 or below and they fail, 10 or above and its not an autofail. Basically, you can adjust what they have to roll on the second dice to get whatever percent of automatic you want, 5, 4, 1% or even lower.

 

[tburdett]

Re: True, but...

The point of the optional rule isn't to eliminate all chance of failure or success. The point is to eliminate the statistical absurdity that, regardless or circumstances or relative skill levels, all attacks (for example) succeed 5% of the time and fail 5% of the time.

-- Mark L. Chance.

Let me get this straight. You don't find it absurd that guys in pointy hats prance around casting spells, but you do find it absurd that there is a built-in 5% chance to succeed or fail?

At some point you have to accept and understand that it is just a game and move on.

Do you guys spend this much time analyzing (heavy emphasis on the anal) Monopoly or Checkers?

 

[Mark Chance]

Re: True, but...

If all you want to do is lower the percent chance then there's a simple way to do that. Basically if they roll a 1, have them roll again. 9 or below and they fail, 10 or above and its not an autofail. Basically, you can adjust what they have to roll on the second dice to get whatever percent of automatic you want, 5, 4, 1% or even lower.

Or you could just count 1s as -10s and count 20s and 30s. Or you could use an open-ended dice system. Or you keep a bag of M&Ms handy and draw one at random. If the M&M is yellow, then there's no autofailure. Et cetera, et cetera.

Another person scrawled:

Let me get this straight. You don't find it absurd that guys in pointy hats prance around casting spells, but you do find it absurd that there is a built-in 5% chance to succeed or fail?

I have no real-life experience with magic on which make decisions about what sorts of magical happenings are absurd or not absurd.

I do have plenty of experience with doing skill-like things, such as typing. That experience tells me that it is absurd to say that all people who type, regardless of comparative skill levels, misspell or otherwise typo 5% of the words they type.

 

[Numion]

Let me tell you, as someone who deals with safety issues in the workplace, that routine (can do it with my eyes closed) behaviors are a common cause of workplace injury.

No matter how dangerous the job is, some people just seem to develop an attitude over time that they are too skilled or too good at their job to get injured and they let their guard down.

For whatever reason (sloppiness, inattention, carelessness, boredom) they stop taking the necessary precautions to keep themselves safe and they suffer an injury.

I have no problem at all with the ruling that a 1 always results in a failure, as I've seen many, many highly skilled workers injure themselves doing mundane tasks.

But the point of the rule was excactly opposite to your posts point; we're not talking about ordinary workers and workplace safety. We're talking about adventurers. This rule prohibits them from drowning in their own swimming pool or cracking their skull by slipping in bathroom.

I can easily believe that routine leads to accidents. Most of car accidents happen near your home - the place you're most familiar with. IMHO this just shouldn't apply to experienced adventurers.