Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salthorae" data-source="post: 1224389" data-attributes="member: 1095">I don't know if this has been covered, i'm sure it has but as i can't search the boards i'll raise it once more...here goes:Ok, so my friend (and sometime DM) are having a debate right now about critical successes and failures. He, and all the other DM's in my area, say that anytime a roll on a d20 is needed (attacks, skills, spell penetration...and so on), a 20 is always a &quot;critical success&quot;. While I agree that in combat it should be that way i.e. &quot;finding that chink in the armor&quot; to hit the opponent in a vital spot, the point of dispute comes in other areas, namely: 1 - Skills: I know that in the DMG there is a variant rule option allowing for the &quot;critical&quot; success/failure of skills, thus doubling effects or what have you (p.35 3.5 DMG), but to me that doesn't really make sense to allow a &quot;critical&quot; success other than the rewarding experience of &quot;wow i rolled a 20, it must mean great extra stuff&quot;2 - Spell Penetration: why does rolling a 20 mean that you can penetrate the spell resistance of a creature/foe? If I have an SR of 46 say or anything higher than 27 because we were using a 7th level wizard in our debate, there is no way that a 7th level spellcaster's &quot;dumb luck&quot; is going to allow him to penetrate Spell Resistance of 28. He is simply not powerful enough to contend with a foe like that, come back in a level when you MIGHT be able to...if you roll a 20.Those are my thoughts, to re-iterate, my DM's think that a &quot;20&quot; on any type of roll allows for automatic success, a &quot;critical&quot; success if you will, for ANYTHING, with the reverse being true of a &quot;1&quot;. Thoughts? Ideas? Agree? Disagree?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salthorae, post: 1224389, member: 1095"] I don't know if this has been covered, i'm sure it has but as i can't search the boards i'll raise it once more...here goes: Ok, so my friend (and sometime DM) are having a debate right now about critical successes and failures. He, and all the other DM's in my area, say that anytime a roll on a d20 is needed (attacks, skills, spell penetration...and so on), a 20 is always a "critical success". While I agree that in combat it should be that way i.e. "finding that chink in the armor" to hit the opponent in a vital spot, the point of dispute comes in other areas, namely: 1 - Skills: I know that in the DMG there is a variant rule option allowing for the "critical" success/failure of skills, thus doubling effects or what have you (p.35 3.5 DMG), but to me that doesn't really make sense to allow a "critical" success other than the rewarding experience of "wow i rolled a 20, it must mean great extra stuff" 2 - Spell Penetration: why does rolling a 20 mean that you can penetrate the spell resistance of a creature/foe? If I have an SR of 46 say or anything higher than 27 because we were using a 7th level wizard in our debate, there is no way that a 7th level spellcaster's "dumb luck" is going to allow him to penetrate Spell Resistance of 28. He is simply not powerful enough to contend with a foe like that, come back in a level when you MIGHT be able to...if you roll a 20. Those are my thoughts, to re-iterate, my DM's think that a "20" on any type of roll allows for automatic success, a "critical" success if you will, for ANYTHING, with the reverse being true of a "1". Thoughts? Ideas? Agree? Disagree? [/QUOTE]

Verification