Epic Level Handbook and Natural 1/20

[Li Shenron]

No, not again! I have been reading a playtesting copy of the coming ELH, and I can't believe this rule is haunting me again, since in several occasions in the ELH draft there are examples about Natural 1 and Natural 20 for Saving Throws!

It's going to be a variant rule after all, but why should we introduce automatic hits/misses for epic PCs in attacks, ST, skill checks and even ability checks? It was fair enough for me to have Nat 1/20 for attacks only... Or do you think that for "epic tasks" such the already famous "balance check to walk a cloud" it should be better to have a different rule?

(The variant I am talking about is anyway more complicated than simply a flat 5% but may involve several rolls).

 

[IceBear]

While this rule might not be "offical" in 3E, it has always been so in the past incarnations of D&D and has been clarified to be used in 3E in the DNDFAQ. If, in combat, you can't be assured of always hitting or missing why should you be assured of always making or failing your saving throws in the same combat? This is the "luck" factor of D&D combat.

IceBear

 

[Crothian]

The rules should be the same if you are 1st or 50th level. So, just keep it what ever you have been using. It's a commone enough house rule that I'm not sure it makes that big of differenrce.

 

[James McMurray]

My group recently started using the open-ended optional rule originally presented int he playtest document. I hope it made the cut, as I'd like to see what the final version of it came out as. We'll keep using it whether it made it or not though, as it hasa worked well for us.

 

[Crothian]

My group recently started using the open-ended optional rule originally presented int he playtest document. I hope it made the cut, as I'd like to see what the final version of it came out as. We'll keep using it whether it made it or not though, as it hasa worked well for us.

What's the opened optional rule?

 

[James McMurray]

Basically it means that if you roll a 20, roll again and add. If you roll a 1, subtract 20 and roll again (this time subtracting).

here'sa few examples:

1) You're attacking a creature with an AC of 42 and have an attack bonus of 14. you oll a 20. So far you have 34, and need to roll again to see if you actually hit.

2) You're attacking a creature with an AC of 14 and have an attack bonus of 42. You roll a 1. So far you have a 22, roll again and subtract to see if you actually hit.

3) In either of the above cases, if you roll a 20 on your second roll, then you should roll again and add or subtract as indicated.

This means that a commoner (attack bonus 0) would actually have to roll 3 20's in a row to hit a character with a 61 AC, rather than just a single one. In order to actually crit, he'd have to roll 6 20s in a row.

It also means that high level fighters with attack bonuses of 32+ could actually roll a one and still hit when attacking AC 10.

Finally, we apply this to all d20 checks, including skill checks.

 

[Crothian]

I like that. I ussually use the nat 20 counts as 30 and nat 1 counts as -10. The rerolling and adding it adds a nice, extra level of randomness.

 

[James McMurray]

Also, the 20=30, 1=-10 variant still means it is impossible for a 20th level fighter to miss AC10, or a 1st level commoner to hit AC31 without other bonuses or penalties factored.

These things should be at least possible, if not very likely.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmmm.

I see people complaining about hit points.

I see people asking for more realisitic falling damage.

I see people complaining that classes are too restrictive.

I see people talking about high level mages still overpowered.

I see people who want heavy armour to mean you are hit more often for less damage.

Now, we have open-ended rolls.

I see the future of D&D, and it is Rolemaster!

 

[James McMurray]

I see the future of D&D, and it is Rolemaster!

Yippee! If Rolemaster were called Dungeons nd Dragons, I could finally talk my group into a game!

Then again, one of the great things about D&D 3E is that it is kind of a Rolemaster-lite. You get a lot of the good things without the complexity. I love Rolemaster, but I would much rather DM a game of D&D, as there's much less to remember. As a player though, gimme RM, because then all I have to remember is what my current character and his friends can do.