Players can't force a 20, but can they force a 1?

[a-d]

Would you allow a player to say that instead of rolling to determine success, they wanted it to be assumed they had rolled a one?
To summon bad luck?

This is based on the assumption that being allowed such a thing leaves it in the GM's hands on how "Bad Luck" was to be interpreted?

Since careful application of summoning bad luck might cause abuse:
"I attempt to to miss the enemy in front of me."

"Okay."

"And now I summon a bad luck roll of 1."


This would mean that allowing such a thing would leave the interpretation of what the "Bad Luck" did to the GM who would be well advised to take a third option every time bad luck is summoned in this manner in the hopes of stopping whatever subtle trick the player may be trying to pull.

"Your sword catches on their armor and takes 1d6 of damage. Also, you sprain your arm and are unable to attack for 2 rounds.

That doesn't sound good enough.

"Your sweaty hands lose their grip on your sword, causing it to fly off behind you and...roll...hit your parties archer in the leg, who screams and falls over grabbing at a nearby rope which looses one of the chandeliers to fall on you and your opponent for...roll...five damage.
The chandelier breaks the spear of your opponent, sending the spearhead whizzing to plunge deep into the wooden headrest of the judges seat. Three inches from their head."

...And that sounds like too much...


If you would allow this, would you allow "Super Bad Luck?"
Requesting super bad luck from the GM and "Placing" a d20 down on 20. (Cheating on purpose for the bad luck.)

Too problematic?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Um.... Why?

The only occasion I could think of for intentionally failing a roll would be for spell failure.

The only occasion I can think of wanting to fail a spell (and I'm sure other people can think of others) is to fail a Dispel or an Erase spell in order to trigger an Explosive Rune from a distance.

Otherwise, why would one want to encourage the DM to invent ways for you to experience failure?

If one of my players asked me to do this, I'd say no. If he insisted, I'd say ok, than create something horrific to occur to him, like sundering private parts. Than, if he liked it, I'd say "Are you serious? No, that did not happen, and I'm not giving into your masochistic enjoyment any more. Play the game to play well please".

 

[kitcik]

I would never let them do it.

But let's say I did...

First time, I would give them a normal fumble.

Second time, they would be in a coma for a month and not be allowed to roll a new character.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Can you give an example on how this might be beneficial? Perhaps if I understand why you are asking this, I'd be more sympathetic.

 

[a-d]

The reason I'm asking is for Control.

I can't control when I'd have a good roll but if there's a way to control times when I'd have a bad roll, there might be something I can use it for.

And no, I don't have anything in mind. It's just that being able to throw a pebble isn't very useful...until there comes a time when being able to throw a pebble would be very useful.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

The reason I'm asking is for Control.

I can't control when I'd have a good roll but if there's a way to control times when I'd have a bad roll, there might be something I can use it for.

And no, I don't have anything in mind. It's just that being able to throw a pebble isn't very useful...until there comes a time when being able to throw a pebble would be very useful.

I believe by RAW you can fail spell castings.

As I mentioned, I can think of one useful example for this off the top of my head.

Can you give me examples of how this degree of control may be useful? I can imagine wanting to appear more inept than I really am in order to trick an enemy, however in that case, I wouldn't force a failed roll, I'd intentionally nick myself on my sword or something. Not necessarily the same thing. I'm imagine that a player could RP doing something poorly on purpose, but that would be different than allowing the DM to come up with the way you end up failing.

By failing in order to force bad luck, and bad luck being giving the DM the option to choose how your failure player out, than you're not really in control.

 

[Nezkrul]

the only time i'd consider allowing a player to "take a 1" on a roll would be for a skill check that they automatically achieve the DC for, for instance Tumble DC 15 to avoid attacks of opportunity from 1 opponent by moving at half speed through it's threatened area... if said character has a modifier of +14 for tumble he automatically succeeds at this task and no roll would be needed.

Fumbles are houserules. natural 1's on skill checks are not autofailures.

 

[a-d]

Two things that have been coming to mind are:
Appearing inept in front of someone to appear relatively harmless.

Being unable to achieve some task when in a hostage situation.


Basically so I wouldn't have to make a bluff check.

Oh, and comedy.

Sorry about this but I need to go to bed. Didn't expect answers so soon.

 

[domino]

I've always allowed people to, if not "roll a one" they can apply a negative modifier to their rolls at will, in the same way that I allow people to choose to do less damage on an attack.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The rules state flat-out that you can choose to fail a save. At times this is a very good idea. One time my rogue got mentally dominated and was on the verge of killing another party member. The party psion used Time Hop on me to get me out of the battle till the effect wore off / dominator was killed. I asked the DM if I could purposely fail, he said the demon never bothered to order me to resist spells/powers from my allies, so I could. That was definitely a huge help for the party to lessen the number of people trying to kill them temporarily.

I use "taking 1" on skill checks all the time when I know i can automatically beat the given DC. It's really annoying when DMs make you roll for foregone conclusions. Both for the time waste and because...how freaking irritating is it when you roll 20 on something you had in the bag anyway?!

Another example is the "dispel magic cannon" my group has used in the past. The basic trick is just failing to dispel an area filled with Explosive Runes so as to set them off on foes in the region. The cannon name just stuck for a particular instance where we used Sculpt Spell to make a dispel in a 120 ft line and wipe out half the army advancing on us in one action. In that case, the DM refused to let me autofail my checks, and ad hoc ruled I could fail a % of the checks based on a Spellcraft roll (higher = more dispel checks failed), which was perfectly reasonable, because unerringly setting them all off would've been crazy.

I would also be careful about taking 1 in certain circumstances and limit the benefit to only when you actually roll a 1. For an example...There is a luck feat in C.Scoundrel to once per day turn a natural 1 on an attack roll into a natural 20 ("Make Your Own Luck," iirc). If someone could choose to just make their roll a 1...I think you see where I'm going with this.

So yes, there are perfectly practical reasons to want a 1 sometimes. And the rules generally allow you to fail at things on purpose, just be careful about possible major abuses, like that luck feat.