Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5974789" data-attributes="member: 3424">My short answer is no. My long answer is also no, but with a lot more explanation.The existing answer, in many games, is already no. There are many actions, from walking to drawing a weapon to casting a spell, for which no roll is needed.I suppose the crux of the question (and here I agree with the others who have mentioned that it could have been expressed more clearly) is whether an action for which rolls are required some of the time should always have at least some chance of failure and should always be rolled for.The Take 10 rule is probably the most obvious example. A character with a +5 modifier would normally only succeed on a DC 15 roll 55% of the time. However, if he was allowed to Take 10, his success is now guaranteed.Of course, there are two issues here. One is a matter of degree. The swing from 45% failure to 0% failure might be too large for some players. If we set the issue of degree aside (say by having only a Take 5 rule so that the automatic success only occurs if the chance of failure was 20% or less), there is still the philosophical issue of whether the chance of failure, once it has been set at a probability higher than zero, should ever be eliminated.I personally have no problem with that, but that is because I believe it is more rewarding of player skill and choice (in terms of character creation and advancement and/or setting up in-game circumstances) to allow for the complete elimination of failure if the player is able to do so. I can see the argument for a small chance of failure due to external circumstances, but I think a minimum 5% chance of failure (for a d20 based system) is too blunt an instrument to model that. If I actually did want to introduce a mechanic to account for external circumstances, I might do it as follows:The DM rolls 1d6. If he rolls a 6, the DC increases by 1, and he repeats the roll.This allows for the possibility of external circumstances making the task more difficult and causing the PC to fail without imposing a flat 5% chance of failure. And from the perspective of the player, his character didn't fail at a routine task because he rolled badly. He failed at a routine task because external factors made it more difficult. It's a subtle difference, but one that may be important to some players.</blockquote>

Verification