Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Doombear 11-28-07, 12:11 AM	I seem to remember a rule that rolling a 1 on an open lock check damages thieves' tools, but I can't seem to find the reference. I know this goes against the 3.5 rule that there is no auto failure on a skill check, and that the book specifically lists open lock as a skill you can take 20 on (thus rolling a 1 somewhere in there), but both my DM and I remembered this rule. Are we both nuts, or is this something from 3.0 that is no longer viable?
kuonji 11-28-07, 01:02 AM	I don't remember any rule about that.
strenoth 11-28-07, 01:26 AM	I'm afraid it sounds liek you and yrou DM are btoh mistaken, though you may have been influenced by some one else's house rule in the past.
Fireclave 11-28-07, 02:36 AM	I've heard of a rule like that as well, but there is no such rule in 3.5. It's probably a houserule or maybe a rule from an older edition.
Eogan 11-28-07, 04:42 AM	Could it be that you remember this rule from Realms of Arkania (aka: Das schwarze Auge)? I know it from RoA/DSA, but I've never seen it in official AD&D or D&D 3.0/3.5 rules.
Sinfire Titan 11-28-07, 11:58 AM	That would be a variant rule presented in the DMG. It's complete crap though, it says in the PHB you aren't able to crit fail a skill check.
Dog_O_War 11-28-07, 12:07 PM	I wouldn't call it crap; sometimes you break tools while using them. To have stuff never break unless attacked is complete crap.
Krusk 11-28-07, 12:32 PM	I wouldn't call it crap; sometimes you break tools while using them. To have stuff never break unless attacked is complete crap. So sometimes my armor should break just because i used it to block that attack? Its compelte crap, and a horrible rule. I dont break my tools every 20th time i use them. It dosn't really help the game any, all it does is mean the rogue no longer buys 1 set of masterwork tools but instead buys 15 sets of cheap ones. that said, no there is no official rule in any of 3.5 about breaking your tools on a role of a 1.
Myers 11-28-07, 12:38 PM	I allow failures of an open lock check to result in damaging tools, or the lock or both, however a natural 1 is not the cause in my game, as said before, natural 1's and 20's have no extra effect on a skill check. An epic rogue with +30 to open lock, should not have a 1 in 20 chance of destroying his tools on a DC 10 lock, nor should a level 1 rogue have a 1 in 20 chance of picking a DC 50 lock. That being said, for me the chance of a "mishap" on a skill check is perfectly reasonable, via failing the check by a certain number, say 10 or more. As noted before it is all house rules, but more then a reasonable way to do it.
sapient 11-28-07, 12:41 PM	From a reality point-of-view it IS crap - though every 20th time would be to often. But, say a reverse of crit (natural one, roll again to confirm) would seem more like it. Now, reality is not a big factor in DnD. But it is certainly a valid reason to make such a house rule, if you want mot realism. And it might actually be an incentive to by masterwork-stuff. Masterwork don't break as easily, so as far as I'm concerned as a DM that would be insurance against breaking your tools. (I've had many chep keys break in a lock - buying low quality stuff is more costly with time... And those were keys, supposedly they shouldn't break when you use them for what they were ment to - opening locks. But they did. Then we switched to a better locksmith.)
Dog_O_War 11-28-07, 12:55 PM	So sometimes my armor should break just because i used it to block that attack? Its compelte crap, and a horrible rule. I dont break my tools every 20th time i use them. It dosn't really help the game any, all it does is mean the rogue no longer buys 1 set of masterwork tools but instead buys 15 sets of cheap ones. that said, no there is no official rule in any of 3.5 about breaking your tools on a role of a 1. Whoa, way to take it out of context. The premise behind the rule is nice and well-intentioned. I never said that every 20 hits/rolls should break your stuff, I just said that the rule isn't crap (though the mechanics certainly reak of feces), and that stuff should break through use. Stuff requires maintainance, and how and when that maintainance is performed is never explored. Cars break down while driving. God knows how many drill-bits (both well-used and brand new) I've broken while making/modifying stuff; point is that the rule has merit.
Krusk 11-28-07, 09:10 PM	The idea behind the rule has merit, but as written is exaclty what the previous poster said. Crap. The reason it was left out of core DND was because it is overly complex and just one more thing to deal with. It was decided that it generally isn't fun for a majority of people. How often do you see someone break their key in a lock and then start laughing with joy? Why emulate that in game. Items break during normal use maybe one out of every 10,000 times. Thats a little on the high side but we will go with that. The only way to reasonaby emulate this is to have the DM keep a tally of uses for each item every character has. Then take each item and give it a random ammount of uses, maybe 4d4X1000 and every use the DM makes a little tick mark. Once you hit your max the item breaks through wear. Masterwork and magical add 1000 each. Rules that attempt to bring realism into the game for the minor increadibly off chance that something bad might happen always are too much bookkeeping to be worth it in the end. Myers' rules also seem ok, but even then there is an overly large chance of your things breaking. His look playable if you really want to play with that ammount of realism.
Dog_O_War 11-28-07, 11:51 PM	The idea behind the rule has merit, but as written is exaclty what the previous poster said. Crap. The reason it was left out of core DND was because it is overly complex and just one more thing to deal with. It was decided that it generally isn't fun for a majority of people. How often do you see someone break their key in a lock and then start laughing with joy? Why emulate that in game. Items break during normal use maybe one out of every 10,000 times. Thats a little on the high side but we will go with that. The only way to reasonaby emulate this is to have the DM keep a tally of uses for each item every character has. Then take each item and give it a random ammount of uses, maybe 4d4X1000 and every use the DM makes a little tick mark. Once you hit your max the item breaks through wear. Masterwork and magical add 1000 each. Rules that attempt to bring realism into the game for the minor increadibly off chance that something bad might happen always are too much bookkeeping to be worth it in the end. Myers' rules also seem ok, but even then there is an overly large chance of your things breaking. His look playable if you really want to play with that ammount of realism. That number is WAY too high, as modern equipment made with exacting and precise computers only last that long. These tools that characters use are far more "primative" in their construction. Look in Complete Scoundrel at the drills. Those items wear down fairly quickly from use; I think that sapient has the right idea with the reverse crit thing. Atleast that would seem like a place to start.
Megido 11-29-07, 12:33 AM	I always just gave them a set number of HP and hardness based on materials they are made of, masterwork quality, and magical enhancement. If a critical failure is rolled then they take damage. They break when reduced to 0.