Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Laurefindel" data-source="post: 8510321" data-attributes="member: 67296">RE: advantageI love this mechanics because it doesn't involve floating modifiers, which I really got sick of in 3.X. As an alternate to advantage/disadvantage, the "roll a d4 and add/remove it to the roll" is nice too and if I had to rein back the use of adv/disadv, I'd use something similar. It could be progressive, like two d4 bonuses = one d6 bonus instead, but it partially defeats the point of not having to track each gorram source of possible modifier to stack as many as possible ftw.RE: critical hitsI like the present setup, and I particularly like the fact that they don't need confirmation. I applaud the "make them weaker but happen more often" approach. I would not be against a system where extra dice can be traded for status effects however.I like the idea of having critical save and ability checks, but they are hard to implement consistently. For saves, I though that a crit save could make you auto succeed against the same spell/effect until you take a long rest or something, but being submitted to the same spell/effect more than once doesn't happen regularly enough to make the houserule worth IMO.For cirt skill checks, there's the "choose one of the following: half time, double duration, give advantage to friend on same skill, gain inspiration, etc" option that some other games use. Used consistently, this could work.As for attacks yielding a natural 20 being both auto-hit and critical hit; this doesn't bother me. It fits in a fiction where the hero is fighting an invulnerable opponent where only a a decisive hit can have any hope to affect it. It's used often in movies and since called shots are not a thing in D&D, this emulates it close enough (punch, punch, punch; no effects. Bad guy is too beefy. Kick in the nuts; bad guy is DOWN!)RE: fumblesWhile I understand that things can go south in combat, I haven't found a satisfactory solution that doesn't make fumbles work in D&D that doesn't make PCs look like a stooge. At best, you could represent a 1 as a lost opportunity or an opening for the enemy to exploit, but D&D doesn't really support that kind of things. A natural 1 being an auto-miss is enough of a fumble for me.Fumbles on saves are difficult to implement consistently. At best they could represent something that has no direct connection with the spell or effect per se, like loss of inspiration, or disadvantage on your next save. But meh...Fumbles on skill could also work on a "choose one among the following, extra time, loss material, a complication of sort, etc." I like games that let you or your DM choose a consequence from a list that everyone is aware of and doesn't cause unfair surprises. A natural 1 should always be an auto-miss however. That'd be the fumble. If the check is worth rolling, it should be worth failing regardless of your skill level. It doesn't have to be an humiliating defeat. You botched and it didn't work. That's all.[SPOILER="The Surgeon Argument"]This argument came a lot in the 3e days: "If skill checks were auto-failed on a natural 1, 5% of ALL patients would die on the operating table regardless of their condition."Counter argument:First, not all surgeries require a skill check. Some are routine enough to let the surgeon succeed without a check if there are no significant chances of failure. 5e reinforces this approach.Second, not all failure result in death. Minor to moderate screw-ups happen often, only, they don't result in the patient's death. Usually, they will take longer to heal, will have to stay longer in the hospital due to a bad reaction with meds/anesthetics, or will need surgery again.Third, surgeons have access to masterwork tools. They are not operating out in the field. A fully equipped ER would grant advantage in 5e.Fourth, surgeons are assisted by a full medical staff. For the surgery to fumble, both the surgeon and their team should roll 1s.Fifth, people DO die on the operation table. Sometimes it's because the surgeon did screw-up.So, yeah. Not 5% of all patient would die out of of a auto-failed check of 1. I call bull**** on that. [/SPOILER]</blockquote>

Verification