Automatic success for every class

[Frostmarrow]

So none of you have ever fallen out of tree that you have been climbing since you were five on a sunny bright day and broken your arm?

I like climb checks because once you start climbing there is always a chance of slipping and falling.

But common sense from the DM should always be the case. in using skill checks.

Have a look at Dan Osman making 40 consequtive climb checks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy3SuhEQHVg

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Have a look at Dan Osman making 40 consequtive climb checks.

Dan Osman speed climber - YouTube

I am totally against automatic success, and instead demand fumble rules for everything!

I like the idea, though I am not sure it should be class-based and not just skill-based. But of course, then the Wizard has it as well.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

My problem with some forms of auto-success is that it can remove drama from a story, and indeed limit one's options as a DM to create potentially interesting threats.

For instance, I dislike the dwarven immunity to all poisons because poison can very easily drive a story. Sure, have them immune to some class of poisons, be that non-magical or poisons with a DC less than their Con score, but not immune to all poison ever.

The suggestion of tiered skill checks, so that some can be bypassed through competence, is fine, though I think the current rule on auto-success based on the DC involved works well too. Also being able to auto-succeed on something a given number of times per day is acceptable - it becomes an interesting resource, but not something that can always ruin a challenge.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One of the problems is usually the probability of d20 rolls. If you can succeed at all, the chance is at least 5 %, and if you can fail at all, the chance is at least 5 %. This can make failure of people doing something they are expert at actually pretty high after just a few rolls.

 

[bouncyhead]

One of the problems is usually the probability of d20 rolls. If you can succeed at all, the chance is at least 5 %, and if you can fail at all, the chance is at least 5 %. This can make failure of people doing something they are expert at actually pretty high after just a few rolls.

Agreed. Consider the example of a man-o-war with a hundred sailors clambering around the rigging. Give them a 15 climb skill.

Most of the time they can zip, climb and gibbon their way around the rigging without risk. They can take 10 on any check with DC 25 or lower.

Raise the DC to 26 and suddenly they need an 11 to move around and a 6 just to cling on. Of those who try to move, 25% fall from the rigging every six seconds.

 

[Harlock]

My problem with some forms of auto-success is that it can remove drama from a story, and indeed limit one's options as a DM to create potentially interesting threats.

For instance, I dislike the dwarven immunity to all poisons because poison can very easily drive a story. Sure, have them immune to some class of poisons, be that non-magical or poisons with a DC less than their Con score, but not immune to all poison ever.

The suggestion of tiered skill checks, so that some can be bypassed through competence, is fine, though I think the current rule on auto-success based on the DC involved works well too. Also being able to auto-succeed on something a given number of times per day is acceptable - it becomes an interesting resource, but not something that can always ruin a challenge.

Ha! Campaign arc right there. Dwarves being affected by poison. Thanks!

 

[BobTheNob]

One of the other things I dont like about rolling is that the number or rolls involved in resolution can be hard to nail down. For instance, when I snuck up on that goblin, I had to approach the goblin camp and get in position to sneak attack him. Now, was that 2 stealth rolls or one. Some DM's might claim them to be the different actions (getting to the camp and sneaking up on the goblin) while another DM might claim them they are same action. Given that its basically a fail if one of the two rolls fails, odds shift as if its two rolls, as its two chances to fail.

This also works in the other direction, where if a single success is required, multiple attempts drastically improve your odds.

4e tried to curb this effect with skill challenges (which I didnt like for other reasons...different debate).

Eventually, for 4e, I got in the habit of rolling the difficulty of the task rather than the player attempt. For instance, that wall the party is trying to climb : its not a case of each character individually rolling, instead, one of them rolls the difficulty (applies a modifier from the DM) and those with a high enough Athletic could, and those which couldn't couldn't. It ended up as automatic success based on a random roll which was made when the task was identified. Worked quite nicely to be honest.

At the end of the day, the skill roll is nothing but a quantifiable contributor to a binary decision : Can I do it, yes or no? I dont mind automatic success, as long as they are based on skill, as in principal its just a different methodology for answering the question.

 

[Stormonu]

So none of you have ever fallen out of tree that you have been climbing since you were five on a sunny bright day and broken your arm?

Just because sometimes crazy chance like this occurs in real life, I think its a poor idea to attempt to model it in a story-based game. Unless you want to also roll to see if your character walks into buildings (I had a habit of taking out my shoulder trying to walk through doors in my teens) or two people lose their action in a round left-right hussle to get past one another.

I'm perfectly fine with a PC NEVER making a drive check to safely drive to work every day - even with the real-life chance of having an accident. But I sure would like to have them make a check when a car full of bank robbers runs the stoplight in front of them at the start of an adventure - or when the character is trying to race his car away from armageddon to reach an airplane to escape, or when the PCs are trying to tail the local dealer through the steets of L.A.

 

[Elf Witch]

Nope, not a fan of automatic success for every class. I'd rather see automatic success removed from the Wizard - spells like fabricate should give a vast bonus to the skill check, and increase the rate of crafting, but they shouldn't just remove the skill. (And repeat for find traps, etc.)

Basically, you don't want the Wizard to have an easy spell that effectively makes another class obselete, nor do you want the Wizard to have an easy spell that allows him to outshine another character in an area that he has invested significant build options (that is, he's taken it as a skill).

However... it's entirely possible that the size of that bonus would make rolling pointless. But that shouldn't be a feature of the spell, it's a matter of advising the DM "don't roll for trivial checks" - that way it applies both to the Wizard with spider climb and to the Ranger who has been climbing forever.

I disagree with this find traps and knock for example they are spells with are limited and if you fail at it and it was your only one you are pretty much hosed. It does not make a rogue obsolete at all he can open locks and find traps until the cows come home have a dance and go back out again.


This is such an old argument and people who make it seem to forget the balance is spells are limited and skills are not. And very few wizards and clerics are going to take a whole bunch of find traps and knock and if he does well then he is going to be doing very little for the rest of the encounters.

Both of those spells are in the game not to step all over another character but to help a party that does not have that class in their party.

 

[Elf Witch]

Just because sometimes crazy chance like this occurs in real life, I think its a poor idea to attempt to model it in a story-based game. Unless you want to also roll to see if your character walks into buildings (I had a habit of taking out my shoulder trying to walk through doors in my teens) or two people lose their action in a round left-right hussle to get past one another.

I'm perfectly fine with a PC NEVER making a drive check to safely drive to work every day - even with the real-life chance of having an accident. But I sure would like to have them make a check when a car full of bank robbers runs the stoplight in front of them at the start of an adventure - or when the character is trying to race his car away from armageddon to reach an airplane to escape, or when the PCs are trying to tail the local dealer through the steets of L.A.

The point is that it can happen. One of my friend's son climbed mountains and rocks ,while visiting her he and some friends decided to climb a tree for a coconut he fell hit his head and eventually died from massive brain trauma.

Which is why I think the mechanic should be in the game flukes happen. The DM should call for skill checks to add drama and chance to the game when it feels right for the story and the timing.

I have run ship adventures and I don't ask for climb checks for characters who have a background in sailing and have ranks in climb for normal things but add in rain or wind or the sea churning then I do.

I also ask for skill rolls for characters who attempt something and have no ranks in it. If you have no ranks in climb and you want to climb a tree I will ask for a roll.