20 no longer an autohit? [Archive] - Wizards Community

20 no longer an autohit? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
SeattleLightning
11-01-06, 12:51 PM I've been toying with the idea of having a roll of a natural 20 not be an automatic success. Instead, a roll of a natural 20 would be equivalent to a roll of 20 + d20, with the diminishing possibility of infinite repetition. This rule would apply with all things, but I will use combat as an example.

Assume that you were some chump 1st level wizard with an adjusted attack score with your dagger of +0. You've already cast your one and only spell for the day so now you're doing your best imitation of Jack the Ripper for the rest of the adventure. You're in a fight with some badass monster with an Armor Class of 42. You roll a nautral 20, and earn another roll. You're lucky enough for the double deuce to come up again, earning you a running total of 40, and another roll. This time you roll a 12. Your total adjust roll is 52, easily enough to score a hit. This rule would apply to attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws, skill checks... the works.

Similarly you could have an inverse rule for a roll of a natural 1. Say you have an adjusted attack score of +42 and you're trying to hit Average Joe Farmer with an Armor class of 10. Your roll a 1, which would be the equivalent of -20, and then roll again, getting another natural 1, bringing your running tally to -40, next you roll a 3, making your total adjusted attack roll be +42 -37 = 5 an you miss the scrawny farmer!

This would make it harder to hit things that are hard to hit, like will-o-the-wisps, and easier to hit things that are easier to hit, like Joe Farmer. My instinct is that this would actually be more of a penalty than a boon to players. How would you feel if you rolled a natural 20 on a DC25 death dealing spell, only to roll a 4 and bungle the save because your adjusted save vs the spell is +0?

Anyways, its an idea I've been kicking around in my head. What do you guys think?
RobbyPants
11-01-06, 12:54 PM There's actually a similar varient out there already (in the DMG?). The way it works is a natural 20 is considered to be a natural 30, and a natural 1 is considered to be a -10.

In many cases, the +10 boost or -10 penalty will be enough to simulate an auto-hit or miss, but when you run into a big difference between BAB and AC, then it can be a 100% or 0% chance to hit.

So, basically, the idea's been thought up before, and was written as a varient. I don't feel your system is really broken, and it could work, if that's what you want.
Chrono Nexus
11-01-06, 12:56 PM I already use a repetitive critical success/miss system. Automatic anything in a system as complicated as DnD irked me big time. I've been using this system since I started 3.0, with my friends and other gamers, and it's proven to be very successful.

On the offchance you roll a 20 or a 1, you reroll the d20, and take a bonus/penalty o your attack equal to the new roll. Each subsequent 1 or 20 warrants another roll and another bonus/penalty. Unless your final modified roll can overcome the ac of your opponent, the hit misses.

So if you're a level 1 commoner fighting a balor, and you manage to roll a 20, you still miss. If your roll two twenties in sequence, you still miss. If you roll three twenties, you hit.
Gorteck
11-01-06, 01:19 PM i think it should stay the same ... after all there are plunty of items and magic stuff that basicly have the "I hit you and there isnt realy anything you can do so :P" or "I Missed? But this says it allways hits ..." coz of some item or other spell that says "You ignor whatever" lol so if you where to change that players would probly ***** and complain about it so ... i rather not argue with them on that lol

At Least the players around hear ....
aotrscommander
11-01-06, 01:48 PM I've been toying with the idea of having a roll of a natural 20 not be an automatic success. Instead, a roll of a natural 20 would be equivalent to a roll of 20 + d20, with the diminishing possibility of infinite repetition. This rule would apply with all things, but I will use combat as an example.

Assume that you were some chump 1st level wizard with an adjusted attack score with your dagger of +0. You've already cast your one and only spell for the day so now you're doing your best imitation of Jack the Ripper for the rest of the adventure. You're in a fight with some badass monster with an Armor Class of 42. You roll a nautral 20, and earn another roll. You're lucky enough for the double deuce to come up again, earning you a running total of 40, and another roll. This time you roll a 12. Your total adjust roll is 52, easily enough to score a hit. This rule would apply to attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws, skill checks... the works.

Similarly you could have an inverse rule for a roll of a natural 1. Say you have an adjusted attack score of +42 and you're trying to hit Average Joe Farmer with an Armor class of 10. Your roll a 1, which would be the equivalent of -20, and then roll again, getting another natural 1, bringing your running tally to -40, next you roll a 3, making your total adjusted attack roll be +42 -37 = 5 an you miss the scrawny farmer!

This would make it harder to hit things that are hard to hit, like will-o-the-wisps, and easier to hit things that are easier to hit, like Joe Farmer. My instinct is that this would actually be more of a penalty than a boon to players. How would you feel if you rolled a natural 20 on a DC25 death dealing spell, only to roll a 4 and bungle the save because your adjusted save vs the spell is +0?

Anyways, its an idea I've been kicking around in my head. What do you guys think?

Rolemaster uses a similar (D100) dice roll system; open-ended, they call it; on a 96+ you roll again and add, on a 01-05 you roll and subtract (with a 96+ being a further reroll to make thigns worse.) It works fine as far as it goes, and unlike Rolemaster as attack and damage aren't the same thing, you won't get quite such occasionally random results. However, be prepared to get some odd results on your skill checks!
Nom
11-01-06, 10:32 PM I've thought about using 20 + d20 rather than autohit or 30 too, mainly to stop the Power Attack abuse ("I need a 20 to hit anyway, so I may as well PA for everything"). However, I'd restrict the rule to attacks and saves. Allowing it for skills messes up the "take 20" mechanic, and encourages players to "take 400".
Stormbrand
11-03-06, 01:21 PM If Joe commoner is attacking a balor, the chance of him rolling a natural 20 is the least of your worries in that campaign.

Seriously though, it is a nice rule, but if those situations come up then it is a campaign to avoid.

If someone has a save vs death of +0, you have no business attacking them with things that do DC 25 save or die.
Nom
11-05-06, 05:56 AM In pitched battles with lots of magic, "20 to hit" can come up more often than you might think. Admittedly more often on secondary attacks or when a secondary combatant attacks a primary one.
tuffn00gies
11-05-06, 08:24 AM Might slow down combat with the extra rolling, but not a whole lot, I'd think.

How would you modify critical threats?
Critical_Failure
11-05-06, 09:41 AM some chump 1st level wizard with an adjusted attack score with your dagger of +0. You're in a fight with some badass monster with an Armor Class of 42.

you have some serious anger issues if youre putting a first level charicter angainst AC42

i prefer the 20 critical hit, 1 critical miss because if the brilliant feeling you get when your first attck with a charicter is a natrual 20 (i did this with my current ranger/assasin)
Reinforcements
11-05-06, 10:26 AM Rolemaster uses a similar (D100) dice roll system; open-ended, they call it; on a 96+ you roll again and add, on a 01-05 you roll and subtract (with a 96+ being a further reroll to make thigns worse.) It works fine as far as it goes, and unlike Rolemaster as attack and damage aren't the same thing, you won't get quite such occasionally random results. However, be prepared to get some odd results on your skill checks!
Rolemaster! *shakes fist in rage*

Ahem. Actually, it wouldn't apply to skill checks, since on skill checks a natural 20 is NOT auto-success and a natural 1 is not auto-failure.
Nickpire
11-05-06, 12:14 PM For my games I've house-ruled that 20 is still an auto success to hit and saves, but on skill checks you open end. So you'd roll a natural 20, roll the d20 again, add the two together then add the skill modifier.
Derren S.
11-05-06, 05:26 PM I also prefer the 20=30 rule. That way masses can't defeat everything be the 5% autohit. (The is relevant when the PCs manage to start something big, or the plot involves the action of many hundereds of soldiers).
coppro
11-05-06, 05:35 PM Why does everyone think that natural 20 is automatic success on skill check? because it isn't. It's just a 20, unless specified somewhere else. Same goes for natural 1, isn't autofailure, unless specifiend otherwise.

Now, I like the 20=30 rule myself. It means that some things are impossible to hit, like they should be. If you're so weak that you can't get through his armor, you shouldn't be able to period. Now, the idea of 20+reroll is interesting, and I guess comes as a result of the "ten=taking ten" argument.

Also, the idea of rolling AC seems, to me, to be a good idea. Same goes for a critical miss/critical fumble.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SeattleLightning 11-01-06, 12:51 PM	I've been toying with the idea of having a roll of a natural 20 not be an automatic success. Instead, a roll of a natural 20 would be equivalent to a roll of 20 + d20, with the diminishing possibility of infinite repetition. This rule would apply with all things, but I will use combat as an example. Assume that you were some chump 1st level wizard with an adjusted attack score with your dagger of +0. You've already cast your one and only spell for the day so now you're doing your best imitation of Jack the Ripper for the rest of the adventure. You're in a fight with some badass monster with an Armor Class of 42. You roll a nautral 20, and earn another roll. You're lucky enough for the double deuce to come up again, earning you a running total of 40, and another roll. This time you roll a 12. Your total adjust roll is 52, easily enough to score a hit. This rule would apply to attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws, skill checks... the works. Similarly you could have an inverse rule for a roll of a natural 1. Say you have an adjusted attack score of +42 and you're trying to hit Average Joe Farmer with an Armor class of 10. Your roll a 1, which would be the equivalent of -20, and then roll again, getting another natural 1, bringing your running tally to -40, next you roll a 3, making your total adjusted attack roll be +42 -37 = 5 an you miss the scrawny farmer! This would make it harder to hit things that are hard to hit, like will-o-the-wisps, and easier to hit things that are easier to hit, like Joe Farmer. My instinct is that this would actually be more of a penalty than a boon to players. How would you feel if you rolled a natural 20 on a DC25 death dealing spell, only to roll a 4 and bungle the save because your adjusted save vs the spell is +0? Anyways, its an idea I've been kicking around in my head. What do you guys think?
RobbyPants 11-01-06, 12:54 PM	There's actually a similar varient out there already (in the DMG?). The way it works is a natural 20 is considered to be a natural 30, and a natural 1 is considered to be a -10. In many cases, the +10 boost or -10 penalty will be enough to simulate an auto-hit or miss, but when you run into a big difference between BAB and AC, then it can be a 100% or 0% chance to hit. So, basically, the idea's been thought up before, and was written as a varient. I don't feel your system is really broken, and it could work, if that's what you want.
Chrono Nexus 11-01-06, 12:56 PM	I already use a repetitive critical success/miss system. Automatic anything in a system as complicated as DnD irked me big time. I've been using this system since I started 3.0, with my friends and other gamers, and it's proven to be very successful. On the offchance you roll a 20 or a 1, you reroll the d20, and take a bonus/penalty o your attack equal to the new roll. Each subsequent 1 or 20 warrants another roll and another bonus/penalty. Unless your final modified roll can overcome the ac of your opponent, the hit misses. So if you're a level 1 commoner fighting a balor, and you manage to roll a 20, you still miss. If your roll two twenties in sequence, you still miss. If you roll three twenties, you hit.
Gorteck 11-01-06, 01:19 PM	i think it should stay the same ... after all there are plunty of items and magic stuff that basicly have the "I hit you and there isnt realy anything you can do so :P" or "I Missed? But this says it allways hits ..." coz of some item or other spell that says "You ignor whatever" lol so if you where to change that players would probly ***** and complain about it so ... i rather not argue with them on that lol At Least the players around hear ....
aotrscommander 11-01-06, 01:48 PM	I've been toying with the idea of having a roll of a natural 20 not be an automatic success. Instead, a roll of a natural 20 would be equivalent to a roll of 20 + d20, with the diminishing possibility of infinite repetition. This rule would apply with all things, but I will use combat as an example. Assume that you were some chump 1st level wizard with an adjusted attack score with your dagger of +0. You've already cast your one and only spell for the day so now you're doing your best imitation of Jack the Ripper for the rest of the adventure. You're in a fight with some badass monster with an Armor Class of 42. You roll a nautral 20, and earn another roll. You're lucky enough for the double deuce to come up again, earning you a running total of 40, and another roll. This time you roll a 12. Your total adjust roll is 52, easily enough to score a hit. This rule would apply to attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws, skill checks... the works. Similarly you could have an inverse rule for a roll of a natural 1. Say you have an adjusted attack score of +42 and you're trying to hit Average Joe Farmer with an Armor class of 10. Your roll a 1, which would be the equivalent of -20, and then roll again, getting another natural 1, bringing your running tally to -40, next you roll a 3, making your total adjusted attack roll be +42 -37 = 5 an you miss the scrawny farmer! This would make it harder to hit things that are hard to hit, like will-o-the-wisps, and easier to hit things that are easier to hit, like Joe Farmer. My instinct is that this would actually be more of a penalty than a boon to players. How would you feel if you rolled a natural 20 on a DC25 death dealing spell, only to roll a 4 and bungle the save because your adjusted save vs the spell is +0? Anyways, its an idea I've been kicking around in my head. What do you guys think? Rolemaster uses a similar (D100) dice roll system; open-ended, they call it; on a 96+ you roll again and add, on a 01-05 you roll and subtract (with a 96+ being a further reroll to make thigns worse.) It works fine as far as it goes, and unlike Rolemaster as attack and damage aren't the same thing, you won't get quite such occasionally random results. However, be prepared to get some odd results on your skill checks!
Nom 11-01-06, 10:32 PM	I've thought about using 20 + d20 rather than autohit or 30 too, mainly to stop the Power Attack abuse ("I need a 20 to hit anyway, so I may as well PA for everything"). However, I'd restrict the rule to attacks and saves. Allowing it for skills messes up the "take 20" mechanic, and encourages players to "take 400".
Stormbrand 11-03-06, 01:21 PM	If Joe commoner is attacking a balor, the chance of him rolling a natural 20 is the least of your worries in that campaign. Seriously though, it is a nice rule, but if those situations come up then it is a campaign to avoid. If someone has a save vs death of +0, you have no business attacking them with things that do DC 25 save or die.
Nom 11-05-06, 05:56 AM	In pitched battles with lots of magic, "20 to hit" can come up more often than you might think. Admittedly more often on secondary attacks or when a secondary combatant attacks a primary one.
tuffn00gies 11-05-06, 08:24 AM	Might slow down combat with the extra rolling, but not a whole lot, I'd think. How would you modify critical threats?
Critical_Failure 11-05-06, 09:41 AM	some chump 1st level wizard with an adjusted attack score with your dagger of +0. You're in a fight with some badass monster with an Armor Class of 42. you have some serious anger issues if youre putting a first level charicter angainst AC42 i prefer the 20 critical hit, 1 critical miss because if the brilliant feeling you get when your first attck with a charicter is a natrual 20 (i did this with my current ranger/assasin)
Reinforcements 11-05-06, 10:26 AM	Rolemaster uses a similar (D100) dice roll system; open-ended, they call it; on a 96+ you roll again and add, on a 01-05 you roll and subtract (with a 96+ being a further reroll to make thigns worse.) It works fine as far as it goes, and unlike Rolemaster as attack and damage aren't the same thing, you won't get quite such occasionally random results. However, be prepared to get some odd results on your skill checks! Rolemaster! shakes fist in rage Ahem. Actually, it wouldn't apply to skill checks, since on skill checks a natural 20 is NOT auto-success and a natural 1 is not auto-failure.
Nickpire 11-05-06, 12:14 PM	For my games I've house-ruled that 20 is still an auto success to hit and saves, but on skill checks you open end. So you'd roll a natural 20, roll the d20 again, add the two together then add the skill modifier.
Derren S. 11-05-06, 05:26 PM	I also prefer the 20=30 rule. That way masses can't defeat everything be the 5% autohit. (The is relevant when the PCs manage to start something big, or the plot involves the action of many hundereds of soldiers).
coppro 11-05-06, 05:35 PM	Why does everyone think that natural 20 is automatic success on skill check? because it isn't. It's just a 20, unless specified somewhere else. Same goes for natural 1, isn't autofailure, unless specifiend otherwise. Now, I like the 20=30 rule myself. It means that some things are impossible to hit, like they should be. If you're so weak that you can't get through his armor, you shouldn't be able to period. Now, the idea of 20+reroll is interesting, and I guess comes as a result of the "ten=taking ten" argument. Also, the idea of rolling AC seems, to me, to be a good idea. Same goes for a critical miss/critical fumble.