I'm mad, /tg/.
How did the idea surface that a natural 20 means you ALWAYS succeed, no matter what ludicrous bullshit you're doing, and that a natural 1 means you spectacularly fuck up the most menial of tasks?
I was DMing a campaign earlier and a player tried to argue that his 20 on a Diplomacy check would allow him to convince the group of Sahuagin to change their minds about attacking the party. They didn't even share a language.
What weird system are you playing that says a natural 20 always succeeds regardless of anything? I've never played a system that worked this way. My DMs have always had situations where even a nat 20 isn't enough sometimes.
People skim over skill and combat rulings then they think rolling a 20 on a skill check or combat roll mean the same things. Retard DM encourage it and those player then teach it wrong to more people that never bother to learn the rules.
Probably because of nat 20 = crit (or at least auto-hit) on attacks and auto-success on saves and people simply assuming that worked with all d20 rolls in D&D.
And then it would likely spiral from there with DMs letting all kinds of "awesome" wacky stuff happen to try to be cool and because "it's totally uncommon to get a natural 20!" and now people are used to it.
And then they start adapting it to other systems. The worst case I've seen is someone adding a crit fail rule to Dark Heresy. D100 roll under system, so he treated a natural 100 as a crit fail. The reason it was so bad there was because Dark Heresy has fate points, letting players reroll a few rolls each session. Since we knew that a nat 100 would go really badly for us, we always used a fate point to reroll them when they came up.
NPCs do not have fate points. So they had to suffer the effects of their crit fails. Which always made things easier for us.
Actually, that whole campaign was filled with house rules that GM thought would make things harder, but really only made things easier because the GM forgot to account for fate points.
If it is impossible, don't let them roll. If they roll, tell them that it is tough shit, you didn't allow the roll.
I only allow rolls if I figure there is at least a 5% chance that someone could succeed at it. And then, sure, a nat 20 succeeds.
There were a few NPCs important enough to have fate points. I don't know if they rerolled nat 100s or simply never had them in the first place.
It's the mooks that had the embarrassing crit fails. Like trying to dodge and knocking himself out on the nearest wall.
It really does grind my gears.
There was a particular trend of D&D-posting on imgur, almost completely memeing about "lol nat1"/"lol nat 20".
It was as horrible as you might imagine. Thank fuck no one will probably pick D&D despite popularity of those posts. It is a terribly place regardless.
>How did the idea surface that a natural 20 means you ALWAYS succeed, no matter what ludicrous bullshit you're doing, and that a natural 1 means you spectacularly fuck up the most menial of tasks?
A lot of friendless losers who've never played RPGs before post on /tg/.
Whenever my party tries to do something nigh impossible like that, I tell them "fine, but roll the d100 (2d10s). You need to roll 100." Some people in my party always want to try the most stupid stuff, like seduce the succubus or talk the snow wolves out of eating them. So far, no one has ever rolled the 100, and it makes them give up on the stupid ideas since they at least got a chance. And I figure, if only 1 out of every 100 stupid ideas goes through, that's still not ruining anything.
As far as natural 1 fails, there's one house rule I like fairly well: If a ranged attack misses with a natural 1, they must reroll the attack dice to see if it hits something else important (of my choice) in the path of the projectile. Although I'd allow it to hit an enemy that way, 9/10 times there's an ally in the way that I can select. The damage is never game changing, but it makes ranged users try not to shoot from behind a wall of friends all the time.
I'm boring, when a ranged guy rolls a 1 his bowstring breaks, and he has to spend 1d4 turns restringing
Although I'm just having a fun game with friends and let CUHRAYZEE stuff happen on 20s and awful stuff happen on 1s
I'm the last person to defend D&D's shitty rules, but look at it this way: when you fire a bow hundreds of times in practice, you're taking 10 every time. If you were in close-range combat with a horde of orcs, it might not be unreasonable to say you have a 5% chance of getting your bowstring fucked up
Nat 20s should only always be successes in combat, with crits depending on the weapon.
Just don't apply the idea to skill rolls, especially not diplomacy. Anyone that tries to abuse diplomacy like that, I'd honestly kick out. I am so tired of players trying to use high diplomacy as a 'I can win anything' button, especially when I've houseruled no social skills can be used against fellow players.
People who have the system verbally explained to them, or who assume skill resolution works exactly like combat resolution and skim the section, tend assume that. You also get the rare fucktard who actively encourages it because something something "crit successes so kewl and randumb XDDDD".
Sometimes this can create feedback loops within a playgroup, where they all believe it and teach it to new players who join, and nobody thinks to question it. I see this happen alot with my FLGS' D&D Encounters, which tends to have DMs with little experience and tons of new or rules-illiterate players. We've had to fix some weird fucking rule misconceptions when those players bleed over into the normal D&D group.
That's how I prefer to handle it.
If you wouldn't succeed even with the highest roll possible, I won't ask you to roll. Conversely, if you couldn't fail even with the lowest possible roll, I won't ask you to roll either.
It's a house rule and always has been. In 5e they take pains to note that it is a house rule, because popularized mention of the Nat 20 rule has strengthened the erronious belief that it is the default.
> tl;dr Make sure your players understand that that is a house rule. Explain to them calmly that you do not want to use that house rule.
Try looking at it from another angle: if a natural 20, the best possible roll, doesn't succeed, then why the fuck were you allowed to roll in the first place? Whatever you were trying to do must have been in the realm of possibility for there to be any point in picking up the die.
>How did the idea surface
Because you shouldn't roll a die unless multiple outcomes are possible.
If someone tries to do something that can't work (or only has one possible outcome, which is typically failure), then you don't bother rolling for it. You just say it fails.
Disagree. "You can't roll Diplomacy, you don't share a language; they literally can't understand a thing you're saying, and don't much care either" is valid.
It's another matter if Diplomacy is always useless, of course, but occasions where your skills do not avail you because of circumstances aren't a bad thing.
No, it's a shit GM who calls for a die roll for every single fucking action.
WHEN TO CALL FOR A DIE ROLL AS A DM:
1. Action has a chance of success
2. Action has a chance of failure
3. There is a risk or cost for failure
ALL THREE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET
There is a difference between letting them roll and letting them succeed at what they rolled for.
Just because none of the possible results are high enough to succeed doesn't mean you shouldn't let a player that wants to roll for something to roll for something.
Now, if you declare failure on a roll that should have succeeded, that is some bullshit.
Common house rule is to apply critical success and failure to all dice rolls, not just attacks.
This tends to be because of initial misreading of the rules, and then gets exaggerated and insisted upon due to "awesome shit" that pops up.
>I'll roll a stealth check so I don't wake up the dragon
>Ok, go ahead
>Hmm... The dragon's innate sense of perception is so powerful that, despite the fact that you just crit on your stealth roll, he wakes up and kills you anyway. Roll a new character.
You see how that makes no real sense? It doesn't matter how high I roll on stealth, I'd never beat a Dragon's passive perception, unless I crit.
>Trying to sneak up on something that is better at noticing things than you are at not being noticed
Maybe you shud git gud before you try sneaking up on dragons, m80
As someone who has fired bows multiple times in his lifetime, I can safely say that a bowstring is not so fragile that it will snap after only a 100 or so shots.
Think about it, back then you didn't take a bow out to shoot at targets for fun, often times you were doing so because you were fighting for your life on a battlefield. If your bowstring is snapping once ever 20 shots, you're either improperly maintaining it or you're using shit materials that have the longevity of a housefly.
>The more skilled you are, the more rolls you make in a round
>The more times you roll, the more often you'll roll a 1
Fumble rules barely affect characters on the level of normal people, but they make you clumsier and worse at fighting the more skilled you are at fighting, to the point where a master swordsman can't attack anything without decapitating himself.
>"But it's more realistic that way!"
You're kind of a retard. I've got a bigger menagerie of dissimilarities in my game group. I bet that Muslim isn't even a closet homosexual.
It was well drawn. I just wish it were based on their own idea instead of Facebook spam.
> Party runs into BBEG trap
> They're outnumbered, outgunned, outplanned
> They're all bloodied or worse
> Their spellcaster is out of spells
> There's no way out
> Half-orc Barbarian doesn't even get a round in as a miniboss stabs him with a glaive
> Elf Druid lights some pinecones with Druidcraft and only manages to set the building they're trapped in on fire
> Takes an arrow and blacks out
> It's down to the Paladin
> The player tells me he's going to go out swinging
> Charges the miniboss, swinging a cursed sword
> Rolls to attack
> He double crits the miniboss so hard that it cuts the thing in three pieces
> He's got 10 HP left, but for a moment he's alive
> BBEG, who's a half-giant bounty hunter, turns to the paladin
> Gives a little villainous speech about not usually giving heroes a chance to face him, but he'll make an exception
> Unsheathes his greatsword and charges
> Have a houserule that says that a natural 1 on an attack is always a miss, and if you confirmed the roll (i.e., you roll again and miss) the target of the attack gets a free attack against you if they're in melee range.
> No idea where it came from, but it made polearms a lot more appealing and gave melee characters more active stuff to do
> Gets resolved as a part of your turn, so it's conceivable for you to get knocked out on your turn
> Bounty hunter rolls a 2 and a 4, confirming the first critical miss
> Paladin attacks before the end of the bounty hunter's turn
> Rolls an 18
> Paladin manages to drive the sword into the bounty hunter's chest
The bounty hunter survived. The party still lost. But for a moment, everyone was cheering for the least skilled player at the table.
What the fuck is happening. Why are people talking like critical success is a thing on skills? You all realize that's not a thing, right? Crits only can occur on initiative, attack rolls, and saving throws.
>You shouldn't be able to roll if you can't succeed
>A good GM always lets you roll
> Here's an examle that shows why you're wrong
>You shouldn't be able to roll if you can't succeed
>20 town guardsmen hit the training room for an hour, hitting practice dummies with wooden clubs
>at the end of the session 5 guardsmen have died and 6 are heavily wounded
>"But it's more realistic that way!"
>There is a difference between letting them roll and letting them succeed at what they rolled for.
Unless you're deliberately obfuscating the difficulty of the action, all allowing unpassable rolls does is waste time.
If the player insists on doing something that is impossible but can still be attempted it makes sense to roll on it.
Flapping your arms to try and fly is impossible and requires no roll. Jumping over an 80ft. gorge is also going to be impossible for most characters, but I'm still gonna make somebody who tries it make a Jump check, cause that's what that check is for.
I think it is actually kewl and randumb, awesome or comical, depending on context. The problems of skewed mechanics aside, crit success or fail can make something happen that seemed impossible: No-one at the table expected it! This leaves us with an explanation problem and we (usually the GM) are left to explain "how the heck did that happen". The surprise and often memorable explanation gives an intense experience with the potential to form a focal point for the story, be it tragic, comic, heroic or tense.
>ALL THREE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET
Not really. When a character goes to the king and tells him to hand over the crown, the range could be from king laughing because he thought it was a joke to kill that insolent son of a bitch immediately.
Chance of success? None.
You could do that with a 1/20 chance of a snap too. 1/20 doesn't mean one out of every 20 pulls results in a snap. The probability is the same for every pull so you're always 19 times more likely to NOT snap the string.
If a player made a roll without me telling him to do it, he would get a warning not to do it again, because I won't count uncalled rolls.
If he argued that is should, because he rolled 20 or some other, stupid shit, he would get kicked out of my group.
If he did it again, depending on my mood (how much of other bullshit I had to put up with during this playing session), I would either remind him I won't count that types of rolls or just give him the boot.
There are some borders you just shouldn't try crossing when socializing with civilized people, one of them is not to piss them off intentionally.
>I was DMing a campaign earlier and a player tried to argue that his 20 on a Diplomacy check would allow him to convince the group of Sahuagin to change their minds about attacking the party. They didn't even share a language.
Why did you let him roll diplomacy if it was impossible?
How about buying war bonds?
So....nothing about the situation described works like that. Assuming we are talking about DND, diplomacy requires that you be able to communicate clearly, and that the other party gives you time to make your case (several minutes worth, IIRC).
So you shouldn't get mad at your player for trying this, just have the sahuagin stab his ass while he tries to talk to them and continue on.
first game ever played
>party thrown in jail. next morning guard is laying dead on the floor in the hallway
>ranger wants to pick up the keys on the floor to unlock his cell
>haha okay roll for dex
>rolls a 1
>uhh i don't know...the keys uhh explode in your hand haha. take 1 dmg.
ranger and the rest of the party went along with it and they all thought it was funny. i thought it was stupid but i ignored it.
DM ended up being fucking terrible and we only played 3 sessions with him. we don't really do crazy stuff on fails anymore except accidentally hitting party members.
1) because as the highest roll possible to get, it's generally a success in something actually possible to achieve. If it's impossible, why did you even let them roll?
2) house rules to let them do something seemingly impossible as a last ditch effort. They are heroes, after all; Million to one odds come up 9 times out of ten
3) house rules for when people are fucking about
4) doormat GMs that don't put their foot down when some lolsorandumb fuck decides to seduce the king
>>ranger wants to pick up the keys on the floor to unlock his cell
>>haha okay roll for dex
Having to roll to pick up an object off the floor should have been the first warning sign.
>the best possible roll, doesn't succeed, then why the fuck were you allowed to roll in the first place?
Because your shitty rpg have 5% increments
Its not you cant do it, its just you cant have something with less than 5% chance of doing and so everything below 5% is 0%
Roll in multiple stages? "You have a five percent chance of performing stage one correctly, then a fifty percent chance of stage two" gets you to 2.5%, you can fiddle with it from there to get your exact desired odds.
Sometimes crit roles like that make for a better, more interesting story.
Like I doubt Bilbo's stealth was high enough to sneak around Smaug, he just rolled incredibly well, and it was a good storytelling point, so it was allowed.
On the other hand, if Bilbo's player had tried to roll for something like "I sneak up on Smaug, climb down his throat, and tear out his heart" he should be allowed to roll, but that doesn't mean he has any chance of success. I would use it more as a degrees of failure situation.
Ie. Rolls a 1: dies in smaugs mouth, because Smaug let him in.
Rolls a 10: Smaug wakes up and bats him across the room, heavily injuring and potentially killing him.
Rolls a 20: Smaug wakes up before the attempt can get fully underway, potentially, but unlikely, saving the players life.
Let's take a second and pretend all our players are actually competent role players (difficult, I know)
If they're actually attempting something, it's probably fairly reasonable plot wise, ergo, let them roll, even if it's a guaranteed failure, just use the roll to determine how badly they fail.
If your characters are proposing ideas that are fundamentally retarded, your problem isn't the idea that a 20 is natural success, the problem is stupid players.
Not only that, but like most houserules intended to add "realism" to the game, it makes martials even weaker relative to casters, since there is no roll to cast a spell.
>Swinging a sword is riskier and more unpredictable than bending the laws of physics and the fabric of the universe
>"But it's more realistic that way!"
Crits don't promote realism, they promote variety.
That said, a 5% crit chance is too high if you ask me. Instead, follow each crit chance with a confirmation roll that must succeed (or fail) to confirm the crit.
Another option would be to make a nat 20 explode (roll again, add 20 + the new result to your roll.) gives you a chance to make that DC 35.
> a thread based on a misnomer
> still alive
it was everyone's first time and i think most of them just thought it would be fun because of the critical failure jokes that circulate. particularly the ones about accidentally seducing enemies. no, he was a bad dm for other reasons.
Increments smaller than 5% aren't worth tracking for a game. Lots of games do have 1% or smaller increments or include special tables to roll on for some event with <1% chance of happening, but they're bad, and exist out of some designer's compulsive need for extraneous detail.
Skill checks don't have crits. A 20 on your skill check just means you got a 20+skill mod against your DC (which can easily be higher than a 30 or 40).
As regards combat, sure, a 20 is a hit, but that's all it is. You still need to confirm it and even if you get a confirmed crit it's going to mean you win.
That can't always apply. There are situations where success or failure is guaranteed, but they should still be allowed to roll searches, for example.
They may want to search, but nothing is there. You let them roll, and if for some godforsaken reason you play with skill auto success, they would still find nothing.
I don't know about not being able to spend a fate point to avoid it, but under the "Roll Dice" section on page 22 of the Dark Heresy 2.0 core rule book, it says any roll the results in a 1 is an automatic success, and any roll that results in a 00 is an automatic failure.
Anyone else browse /tg/ and see these threads where people complain about dead systems where the rule they're mad about isn't even a rule and they were the dm and they could have just houseruled it either way but they don't and they don't communicate and it's like jesus christ dude what are you doing with your life but then you realise this guy probably doesn't actually play games he just posts fake complaints because that's what you do on /tg/ ?
I wouldn't think so. Crits were around in wargaming at the time D&D was developed, and were a popular house rule. But even critical hits in combat are a relative novelty in the published rules. Gygax hated them and ranted about how criticals were unfair on the players and in any case needless complexity when the game already had damage rolls. I think critical hits showed up as an "official option" in 2E, but didn't become part of the core rules until 3E.
Not a good counter-example. In that situation, the DM has (implicitly) said that getting the crown is impossible and no roll should be made for that. There's a separate but related question of how well the king responds to the request, where there's a chance of success (amused monarch), failure (unhappy monarch) and a risk (execution). The DM could certainly lie to the players and call the roll one thing while having it be another, but that doesn't change what's going on behind the screen.
This is pretty much RAW, because listen vs. move silently is adjusted for distance. You could use the hobbit's real check (without a silly critical hit notion) against the dragon's passive listen to work out how close Bilbo gets before he's discovered.
>Not a good counter-example.
Yes it is. You are just moving the goal post by arbitrarily adding more factors, which is not only irrelevant but also stupid.
The character takes an action and rolls for its ramifications.
>Increments smaller than 5% aren't worth tracking for a game.
actually you can use actual % to make stuff easier to developer, dm and players.
By having a % system that can be broken down as much as needed.
One example of a related problem not related with dices is dwarf fortress, the tile dont have a size and beings are multi tiled. If you overthink about this situation (using walk speed to check tile size and etc......) you see how messy the game is, if he decided for a tile size and used multi tile, he wouldnt need to guess or to decide how fast, long ...... stuff will be, he just do according to how fast or long the stuff really is