Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Uller" data-source="post: 1606379" data-attributes="member: 413">With the auto-failure/success for attack rolls...it is there to keep things interesting.  There is ALWAYS a chance that when one character attacks another he will hit (or miss).  This means that even a character with a 21+ AC is attacked by a horde of mooks with a +0 Attack Bonus, there is still a chance for them to do damage (and if you have enough of them, they will do significant damage).   For instance...a dragon passing over a company of War1 archers...if there are 100 of them, ~5 will hit and do a little damage (unless the dragon had damage reduction).There is also a chance when that monster with the +50 attack bonus attacks you there is a chance you'll survive (just a chance).  I've seen these rolls come up...Back in 2e I had a party that was fighting for its life.  The BBEG was about to finish off the party's wizard and the rogue had snuck around behind him.  Only a 20 would hit.  He rolled it.  The BBEG died (only had a few hitpoints left).  The players literally cheered.  The rogue player said (and this is a direct quote) "That was so cool I'm shaking!"So...IMO this rule adds to the game.  Especially as you get to higher levels there is enough variation in Save bonuses and Save DCs and Attack Bonuses and ACs that you will often end up with impossible to save/hit or impossible to fail/miss situations cropping up all the time and that would be no fun.If you don't like the 5% chance to fail...what about the opposite?  What if the DM put a monster in with a poison with a 36 DC poison.  You'd be begging for a nat 20 to succeed.  It would be bad to have no chance of success or no chance of failure in these situations.  That just wouldn't be any fun.  YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification