The *automatic* success/failure rule

[Simulacrum]

Originally posted by IceBear

sure I see the argument too.

a) the tumble thing, thats a dumb exeption too. skills should be always countered by the same skill or at least ability score it uses.
No MORE fixed DC's.

b)the bad side of the coin is that it creates so much totaly silly situations, and as a DM you are outright struck by the incoherency of the rules that way.

So I'd say that when the game is still so unbalanced that even with a -10 (or -d20) you always succeed at something that is meant to be a challenge for you, then the game is broken more than we all had thought

 

[IceBear]

I don't have a problem coming up with a reasonable (if contrived) explanation for when someone rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll when they normally can't miss.

With Epic Level rules it can be easy to still hit something with a -10 penalty (which is why they suggested open ended rolls instead). I think the main point with the natural 1 misses and natural 20 hits is that in most cases rolling a 1 and getting a -10 WILL result in a miss, so why add the level of complexity

For me, if I had someone that could still succeed when he rolls a natural 1, that would tick me off more than having to come up with the contrived explanation for the miss. Obviously, the opposite is true for you (which is why the variant is there).

IceBear

 

[AdamBank]

If you use critical success/failure for skills, you could require a critical for automatic success (2 20s, or 1%) for truly drastic situations.

 

[Dimwhit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the the auto success/failure, as written in the books, only applies to saves and attacks. As far as I know, and as far as we've played, a "1" isn't an auto fail with a skill, and a "20" isn't an auto success with a skill. Only saves and attacks.

Am I wrong?

 

[IceBear]

You aren't wrong, except "as written in the books" only attack rolls have the auto success/fail. The FAQ states that saving throws also should work that way (there is nothing in the core books stating that), but that's being discussed in another thread

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the the auto success/failure, as written in the books, only applies to saves and attacks. As far as I know, and as far as we've played, a "1" isn't an auto fail with a skill, and a "20" isn't an auto success with a skill. Only saves and attacks.

Am I wrong?

Consider yourself corrected. As written in the core books, auto success/failure applies to attack rolls only. Saves are added in to the mix through the FAQ.

I'd rather not have auto success and failure - I think it's silly and can lead to...odd... results.

 

[Simulacrum]

the FAQ also suggest making opposed rolls (like strength when grappling etc) also part of that rule. creating a new unexplained exeption in the process.

 

[Gez]

nope I didnt confuse it with classskill, I thought of Saves and Attack mods (without ANY modifiers exept +3 for a '*weak* stat)

Then a save is going to be either 13 (10 base) or 8 (5 base).

As AC and Saves are nothing else than DC's things get odd, the system creates exetpions and loopholes.
auto rules go for: opposed rolls, attack, saves...but nor for skills?
2+2=5??

Use of skills are usually much less hazarduous and especially, much less dramatic than combat, poison, and magic. There are less parameters to it. The whole thing is more abstracted. You don't have special manoeuvers and options for how you can cook with an oven or a pan, reverse the pie to bake a Tatin tart, or attempt to make a carpaccio. You would have if the mechanic for the Craft: Cooking skill was as detailed as the combat system.

And I don't see how's that 2+2=5. It's using two different scales, heavily detailed and heavily abstracted, for two different kind of actions, it's not doing bogus mathematics coming from Orwell's 1984. You're paranoid, aren't you ? We'll take care of you...

The 5% chance you have to outwrestle the horrific colossal dragon who started a grapple with his teeth filled deathbringing jaw is just silly. The dragon rolls a 19 gets and gets a number above 30 or even 40. Your 1st level peasant gardener rolls a 20 snapps open the dragons mouth and escapes!
sure.

You are the one interpreting it that way. Don't remember if grapple checks are attack rolls, by the way, I would tend to say no. The touch attack you make for starting a grapple is, but then it's opposed checks.

The same gardener standing on an open field with nothing but his toothbrush to protect him and no cover is attacked by the fearsome dragon who has only the one chance to kill the nasty peasent before the good mage teleports him into safety.
Despite his attackbonus of +99 he misses because he rolls a 1.
yeah.

He's so good, he's overconfident and the peasant was standing there, just in between the trajectories of two claws.

If you don't like it, don't use it. But most people, from what I've seen, prefer to use that rule as is. Since the option you want is provided in the DMG, the point is moot.

 

[Simulacrum]

yeah right tumbling through dragons isnt dangerous, as isnt jumping and climbing and disarming traps and various non coombat related things like those above
(bluffing in combat, even hiding and moving silent etc...)
-
and in the faq it says that it applies to grappling as well
-
its simple as this. It's an odd rule that doesnt follows how the system was laid out.

 

[Artoomis]

If you don't like it, don't use it. But most people, from what I've seen, prefer to use that rule as is. Since the option you want is provided in the DMG, the point is moot.

The poll, though, has it 23 against and 16 for. For it being a core rule, that is. Interesting.

Of course this is not a scientific survey.