Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-24-07, 11:41 PM	The default is that a natural 20 always succeeds regardless of total and a natural 1 fails regardless of total (except skill checks). Some people treat a natural roll of 20 as a 30 and a natural roll of 1 as a -10. I had another idea. When you roll a 20, you roll again. Add 19 to your next die roll, and that's what your "roll" actually is. If you roll another 20, add 39 to your next die roll, and that's what your "roll" is. And so forth. Example: I rolled a 20. I roll again, and add 19. This time I roll a 6. My total is 25. Another: I rolled a 20. I roll again, and get another 20. I roll a third time, and get a 17. My final result is 56. Use it in the reverse too. If you roll a 1, roll again but subtract 19 from your roll. And so on. Example: I rolled a 1. I roll again, and roll a 17. My final result is -2. Another: I rolled a 1. I roll again, and get another 1. I roll a third time, and roll a 2. My final result is -38.
StoneStokes 02-25-07, 12:59 AM	My group actually uses the first part of this rule, except we add 20 to the subsequent rolls (not 19). Granted, this prevents having a base roll of 20, but it really isn't a big deal--such cases are almost always a success anyway, especially at low-level play. Really, the biggest advantage of this rule is that it is fun for the players to get a 37 on their Knowlege (nature) check, and gives me (as DM) an excuse to give them excruciatingly detailed information regarding the subject in question. (Most recently a druid in our group rolled a 43 Survival check while hunting for food for the party--she killed an elk, for enough meat to last pretty much indefinitely.) It is also reasonable to only allow this rule on trained skills (those that you have ranks in). If you do this and take away the auto-success-on-natural-20, then it makes cross-class skills more valuable. I really don't see the attraction of the second half of your house rule, but I don't have any real criticism of it either. Cheers, StoneStokes
bartleby42 02-25-07, 03:11 PM	there is nothing wrong with the rule, the only problem is it doesn't really achive anything. Let's have a couple of examples. 1- A party of 1st level PCs are fighting some heavily armored goblins with an AC of 24. Lets assume a Bab of +0 and a Str bonus of +2 the PCs all need a 20 to hit them, under the old system they had a 1 in 20 chance of hitting, in your system they have a 1 in 21 chance of hitting (approx.). No real change. 2- A party of 20th level PCs are fighting an uber dragon with an AC of 200, the odds of the hit go from 1 out of 20 to 1 out of 40-70 depending on build, that sounds like a big difference but in percentiles it looks like 5% chance of hitting under the old system vs a 1.5-2.5% chance of hitting, not that signifigant. 3- A party of 1st level PC's fight a Diety with an AC of 1000, old system odds of hitting 1 out of 20, your system about 1 out of a 100. So instead of 5% it is only a 1% chance to hit, even with 1 out of a 1000, a .1% chance to hit your rule only does make 50 times less likely for someone to hit a diety, but that isn't that much really. The auto miss and auto hit just save you time, in almost every sitiuation if you add 19 to the prior roll you will hit the target, unless you are fighting something that you shouldn't be fighting. Not a bad rule, it just doens't do much.
FoxmanFX 02-27-07, 12:06 PM	I think bartleby42 has a vaild point - I wouldnt use this system for combat. I would however consider using it for skill checks....