Grapple check, 1 = auto fail?

[Question]

Theres also the "issue" of how the level 20 wizard can get stumped on a simple knowledge roll, while his apprentice knows everything about it.

 

[Thanee]

Why not? That happens in real life, too. Without the wizard, of course.

Bye
Thanee

 

[pawsplay]

Theres also the "issue" of how the level 20 wizard can get stumped on a simple knowledge roll, while his apprentice knows everything about it.

That's only an issue if the wizard starts play level 20. You don't have to make Knowledge rolls for what you already know, for instance.

EXAMPLE OF WRONG

GM: The green-skinned giant advances, leering with jagged teeth and mighty claws.
Wizard: I ready a scorching ray.
GM: Make a Knowledge (nature) check.
Wizard: Why?
GM: To see if you recognize the creature.
Wizard: But I do recognize the creature. It's a troll.
GM: We'll just see about that. Make a knowledge (nature) check.
Wizard: Well, if it's knowledge (nature), it must be a giant, and if it's green, it must be a troll.
GM: You don't know that.
Wizard: I don't even know what kind of check I'm making?

AFAIAC, by the RAW and the examples of play given in the book, I am free to metamage knowledge of monsters if I think it's reasonabe for my character. Knowledge checks deliver new information. They are not a requirement to simply know something.

 

[Question]

I was addressing the "But some things should be impossible" argument.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Even if the RAW would suggest that a one is an auto-fail and a 20 is an auto-success for opposed roles, I would strongly suggest house ruling it otherwise.

Otherwise you can end up with the exceedingly ridiculous situation of a pixie trying to trip a storm giant and having a 10% chance of success (1/20 chance of a natural 20 for the pixie, 1/20 chance of a natural 1 for the giant)

The other problem with treating opposed grapple checks like attack rolls w/regard to auto-success/failure is...what happens when both combatants roll natural 1's or 20's?