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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Branduil" data-source="post: 8747289" data-attributes="member: 11617">A 1 being a critical miss on a skill check makes sense to me. I think checks should be defined as an action that always has a chance of failure. Otherwise there is no check-- you don't roll to breathe, to walk each step in town, etc. However, I do not like 20 as an automatic success, because chance of failure does not always imply chance of success.For me there are two big problems with this rule:#1) This is going to lead to annoying arguments for the DM, because there will obviously be cases where the PCs cannot succeed at something. So either the DM withholds checks, leading to arguments from players who think they should be allowed to always make Diplomacy checks etc., or the DM allows it and tries to "cheat" a player out of his well-earned 20, resulting in more arguments. But my bigger argument would be#2) It is actually good to allow players to attempt impossible checks. People attempt impossible things all the time in real life. For one thing, especially with social skills, it should not necessarily be obvious to the player they are attempting the impossible. And secondly, even if they are attempting the impossible, this can lead to some of the best and most memorable roleplaying in games. No, the Bard cannot successfully seduce the epic-level Lich... but won't it be great to watch him try? Think of the scene in Star Wars where Han attempts to bluff security about the state of the detention level over the intercom. To me, this is an example of an impossible skill check... and it's one of the funniest scenes in the film. Let players attempt impossible checks; the value of D&D is not limited to successful mechanical rolls.</blockquote>

Verification