1's and 20's [Archive] - Wizards Community

1's and 20's [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sargon
07-06-05, 02:53 PM I was reading a thread about Gods and commoners and the sense motive skill...
There was alot of 1's and 20's in that thread and i thought i would make a thread on that.

Concerning SKills 1 is not always a failure and 20 is not always a succesful skill check.
As far as my games are concerned a natrual one is equivilant to a -10 so if you rolled a natrual 1 and had 11 ranks in a skill you would have a check of 1..
Natrual 20's are counted as 30's so the same skill sheck would be 41

I don't know what the Rules say about that but It is what my DM did.. Thats how i DM my players...

How about you?
kaldrin
07-06-05, 02:56 PM I definitely like that +10/-10 rule and would consider using it in my own games.

Our current DM just uses the straight number.

Of course, the comments on the 1s and 20s in that thread were relating to deities.
Centauri
07-06-05, 02:57 PM I don't know what the Rules say about that but It is what my DM did.. Thats how i DM my players...

How about you? I prefer to follow the rules, which say that a 1 or a 20 on a skill check is just a number. Nothing special about it.
Chobemaster
07-06-05, 03:02 PM I prefer to follow the rules, which say that a 1 or a 20 on a skill check is just a number. Nothing special about it.

Agree...adding that bit of randomness, especially w/ such a large deviation from the rest of the population, adds little IMO to the game.

I don't have nearly the problem with 1 being -10 and 20 being 30 on attack rolls, since in that case, it actually makes the results MORE homogeneous...
Steely Glint
07-06-05, 03:08 PM I use the -10/30 bonuses on checks where 1s and 20s would normally be autofailures and autohits. Making it work on skills too means that no lock is safe from even the must rudimentarily trained lockpicker.
Darkstealth
07-06-05, 03:28 PM I just use the autofailure/autopasswhatevertask ruling for my skill checks as well, because a skilled Rogue with 20 total modifer in Bluff is as likely to do the needed task as a Fighter with +20 Total Attack Bonus.
cambric
07-06-05, 03:42 PM I just use the autofailure/autopasswhatevertask ruling for my skill checks as well, because a skilled Rogue with 20 total modifer in Bluff is as likely to do the needed task as a Fighter with +20 Total Attack Bonus.

That's not exactly true.

For example: My gnome bard decides he wants to jump to the moon...but wait, come on, that can't happen...wait, I rolled a 20!!! I auto passed!! WOOHOO!!

My first level 1/2 orc barbarian is going to bluff the 20th level Red Dragon out of his treasure...LOOK AT THAT...A 20!!! I get it all!! I "auto passed".

Yes, VERY exaggrated skills...I know. But that's the difference with a "skill" that you know: not at all, poorly, ok, pretty good, darn near perfect.

Trying to "hit" something is different, for you might "get lucky" at hitting that creature that you need a natural 20 for...could happen. Jumping to the moon, isn't going to...nor bluffing out a dragon or demon for their treasure when you're a 1/2 orc.

The reason why there's a 1= failure and 20=success on attacking, the "luck" factor...or the "oops" factor.

With skills, you're that good...or your not.

As a first level fighter, with 1 skill point in Open Lock, cross classed I know...I come across the most amazing lock that I have ever seen...I roll a 20 and miraculously succeed!! What you say??

A 20th level rogue rolled a 19 and still didn't have enough skill points in open lock that was MAXED out and he couldn't get in?? Well...that's what luck is for my boy... :cool:

Not in skills...but as someone said, "DM rule 0"...I don't agree with it myself, and this is one example why.

Cam
celtredleg
07-06-05, 03:46 PM I use them as just numbers, especialy when there are opposed rolls.
LCD2YOU
07-06-05, 03:53 PM Roll a 1 and then roll again, this time subtracting 10 to the number rolled.

Roll a 20 and then roll again, this time adding 10 to the new number rolled.

Roll another 1 or 20 on the 2nd die roll, do the same thing and roll a third time.

Roll another 1 or 20 on the 3rd die roll......

Is it a bit cumbersome? Yeah, but so what? How many times will that really ever happen?

Then the gnome who wantd to jump, rolling first a 20 then a 15, adds that to their jump distance. No jumping over the moon, etc.

That is where the real luck or unluck comes in. The player is lucky/unlucky, so is the character.
cambric
07-06-05, 04:03 PM Roll a 1 and then roll again, this time subtracting 10 to the number rolled.

Roll a 20 and then roll again, this time adding 10 to the new number rolled.

Roll another 1 or 20 on the 2nd die roll, do the same thing and roll a third time.

Roll another 1 or 20 on the 3rd die roll......

Is it a bit cumbersome? Yeah, but so what? How many times will that really ever happen?

Then the gnome who wantd to jump, rolling first a 20 then a 15, adds that to their jump distance. No jumping over the moon, etc.

That is where the real luck or unluck comes in. The player is lucky/unlucky, so is the character.

Valid Ideas.

I'm just against "auto pass/auto fail" on skills. I don't mind a bit of luck/unlucky, for instance:

Jumping over a pit. There is a chance you could stumble and fall in, where 19-20 times, you would make it...that's "unlucky"...or you're being chased and you're running like you've never ran before and have to jump over a wider pit than you ever have, and you do get the "20", just barely making it...sure.

That would be a bit tedious, LCD2YOU, but more acceptable to me than the auto's.

Cam
Inigo Carmine
07-06-05, 04:28 PM Using 1 and 20 as just their actual values works fine for dramatic purposes so far as I'm concerned.

To use someone's jumping example, it means your average person is going to trip and fall into the pit (gaining a foot of airtime) on a 1, and be able to jump 20 ft on a nat 20 (fairly impressive if you ask me).

The -10/+30 rules hurt players more than help them. A player will usually not attempt something dangerous (like jumping a pit) if they can only make it on a nat 20. That -10 penalty however will almost always result in a failure barring epic level play. Basically, it adds a lot of risk without really adding any reward.

In addition, the +20 leads to some rediculous things, like 20 mice breaking down an iron door in about 3 seconds, or one mouse breaking down an iron door in 2 minutes.*

*(I don't recall the actual DC, so i might be overstating my case in that one)
Chobemaster
07-06-05, 04:42 PM Using 1 and 20 as just their actual values works fine for dramatic purposes so far as I'm concerned.

In addition, the +20 leads to some rediculous things, like 20 mice breaking down an iron door in about 3 seconds, or one mouse breaking down an iron door in 2 minutes.*

*(I don't recall the actual DC, so i might be overstating my case in that one)

It's just +10, but yes it makes the impossible into the unlikely, and there are an infinite number of things that should just be impossible.
Gurthoron
07-06-05, 05:14 PM My group plays with the auto succeed and fail rules. Why? Cause its fun. We enjoy situations were you say "Spot check. Natural 1. You see . .. YOUR HAND!" Its just fun. My current DM also tends towards a fair bit of randomness in our game. We roll everything from food likes/dislikes to whether we are paranoid or not. Why? Because we find it entertaining. We do not consider it "rollplaying" as we then roleplay what our randomly determined preferences are.

The DM also does a lot of D100 rolling for "does something like you" or "would they know that". She also has a mental critical fail chart. Its based of a D100, and we pick whether we want high or low to be bad. (obviously we can't see what she rolls) Her chart ranges everywere from criting a friend to criting an enemy, and everything inbetween. True, its not that realistic that people screw up as often and spectacullarly as we do. But its a game thats meant to be fun, and this really does add to it IMO. She does the same thing for NPCs, which leads to fun stuff like an enemy knocking himself out of the fight, or hitting his friend.

True, statistically, these are worse for the party in the long run. But its incredibly amusing to see what happens when those ones and twenties show up. We don't take advantage of it stupidly, (I'm gonna keep jumping to get to the moon!) we just do what our characters would try and see were the chips fall. On a related note we rarely take ten on checks, because we believe it takes away from the game. Sure, you could go through life, knowing what you'll be able to do and being consistent about it. But thats not an Adventurer's point of view!
cambric
07-06-05, 05:45 PM My group plays with the auto succeed and fail rules. Why? Cause its fun. We enjoy situations were you say "Spot check. Natural 1. You see . .. YOUR HAND!" Its just fun.

The best reason so far!! If it's fun for all, then you definitely should do it!!
Moonflyer
07-06-05, 06:21 PM We use a roll a 1 or 20 roll again... for a 1 subtract the next roll for a 20 add the next roll... then add modifier... so 20+next d20 roll+mod=skill check or 1-next d20 roll+mod=skill mod.
yonman
07-06-05, 06:55 PM You guys do know the following for v3.5

From SRD:
To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure
Darkstealth
07-06-05, 09:14 PM Ooooo aaaaahhhhhh... I started a debate! I feel happy!

But if my players get a nat 20 on a jump the moon check, then they will be dead when they come back down. If they try anything extremely insane (a.k.a. roll nat 20 on spellcraft check to decipher the true meaning of life), they will have consiquences (such as going insane (insanity check) with the knowledge)

However, they have not done that and never will, because my players are not insane... mostly.

Cambric, thank you for saying your statement without going "yours is horrible and can never be used". By replacing that can with a should, you have gained my respect. :bow:

The 1 fail 20 dothecheck also ups on the suspense, and things become unpredictable.
Sargon
07-06-05, 11:48 PM Ooooo aaaaahhhhhh... I started a debate! I feel happy!

really? I thought i posted the thread... :w00t:
Nom
07-06-05, 11:59 PM There is one point where it's worth introducing open-ended or 20 = 30 rules - melee combat. Specifically the case where the to-hit required is 20+ anyway. In such a case, the powergaming player will stack on the Power Attack, using the (correct) logic that it will take a 20 to hit anyway, so to-hit penalties don't actually matter. If 20 is not an auto-hit but "roll another d20 and add it on" then the player won't be as inclined to do this, since every point to PA reduces the chance of hitting even on a 20.
WizardlyFriend
07-07-05, 12:30 AM natural 20 is an auto-hit, natural 1 is an auto-miss. these have no bearings on skills or saves. problem is dieties always roll a natural 20, but i havent had any of those in any of my games yet (atleast not in tangible form, or in any form.)
Always-Late
07-07-05, 12:54 AM You guys do know the following for v3.5

From SRD:-snip-I think everybody's pretty much sure these are all houserules.
cambric
07-07-05, 08:07 AM natural 20 is an auto-hit, natural 1 is an auto-miss. these have no bearings on skills or saves. problem is dieties always roll a natural 20, but i havent had any of those in any of my games yet (atleast not in tangible form, or in any form.)

:teach:

With due respect to this comment, the "save" part is incorrect: It is auto fail or succeed on 1 or a 20.

Per the SRD:
Automatic Failures and Successes: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

Cam
cambric
07-07-05, 08:12 AM really? I thought i posted the thread... :w00t:

Darkstealth started a debate on "auto-failing/succeeding". And, without wanting to sound rude, he at least came back and replied to comments that he entered.

Such a trend I've noticed: OP starts a post and never returns to thank anyone or give some additional input. Saying, "I thought i posted the thread..." and wanting to take credit for a debate is like handing the blue prints to a construction company and walking away...walking back and showing everyone the building and saying, "Look what I built."

Just because someone started something, doesn't mean they get the credit, especially if they post and "disappear".

Cam
LCD2YOU
07-07-05, 08:46 AM Darkstealth started a debate on "auto-failing/succeeding". And, without wanting to sound rude, he at least came back and replied to comments that he entered.

Such a trend I've noticed: OP starts a post and never returns to thank anyone or give some additional input. Saying, "I thought i posted the thread..." and wanting to take credit for a debate is like handing the blue prints to a construction company and walking away...walking back and showing everyone the building and saying, "Look what I built."

Just because someone started something, doesn't mean they get the credit, especially if they post and "disappear".

CamI've answered more than one, "I need help with X, Y and Z ASAP", and I didn't hear much back. I'm starting to wonder if I should first post something like, "Sure, I'll help, but I want to know you're not a FAF, fire and forget, poster."

Maybe I'll go back and ask those I've recently "helped" how it went and to not disappear.
cambric
07-07-05, 08:53 AM I've answered more than one, "I need help with X, Y and Z ASAP", and I didn't hear much back. I'm starting to wonder if I should first post something like, "Sure, I'll help, but I want to know you're not a FAF, fire and forget, poster."

Maybe I'll go back and ask those I've recently "helped" how it went and to not disappear.

I totally agree!! :bow:

It "seems" like it's happening more lately than ever. "Please help"...and nothing afterwards. No "thanks"...or "got it worked out"...or "how about this"...just "something" to say they appreciated the help.

Shoot, how many times have there been "flame wars" and the original OP NEVER was around...it's like they start a post just to have one out there.

There's several posters that I refuse to even go into, you seen their names ALL over, with new posts, yet they've never once replied back.

:rant over: ... for now.

Cam
Sargon
07-07-05, 11:26 AM Well now i started a rant session, hope your testostrione levels aren't to high, roids are bad for you ya know...

i've read all the comments and infact the thread ever couple of hours...
so i havn't fired and forgtten,

But if it Does make you feel like your a better person, Thank you for :twocents: feel free to help yourselfes to these :cookie:'s i dropped on the floor earlier.
LCD2YOU
07-07-05, 01:57 PM Well now i started a rant session, hope your testostrione levels aren't to high, roids are bad for you ya know...

i've read all the comments and infact the thread ever couple of hours...
so i havn't fired and forgtten,

But if it Does make you feel like your a better person, Thank you for :twocents: feel free to help yourselfes to these :cookie:'s i dropped on the floor earlier.I know I wouldn't, nor do I think Cam would, talk poorly about you to your face on the thread you started and have the decency to hang around.

Nah, I won't do it here, I promise. That's what the "Private Messages" are for! :evillaugh
cambric
07-07-05, 02:10 PM I know I wouldn't, nor do I think Cam would, talk poorly about you to your face on the thread you started and have the decency to hang around.

Nah, I won't do it here, I promise. That's what the "Private Messages" are for! :evillaugh

I totally agree!! :devil:

Seriously, I didn't say Sargon directly...I was pointing out that some OP's, actually quite a few lately, seem to ask a question and then disappear.

And I would like to add: An interesting use of Spelling and Grammar, or lack of it with some posters. Again, NOT pointing out anyone in particular.

The only direct comment I made to Sargon was about how he wanted to take credit for a debate that "he thought he started". I wouldn't think about putting someone down directly in a thread they started...it was just a comment giving Darkstealth the proper credit.

Cam
Sargon
07-07-05, 02:34 PM Well whoever started the debate it off-subject now so i guess it doesn't matter.

I really don't care wants credit..

And i know i have poor use of grammer, It doesn't really bother me as much as it does you though. I can generally tell what ideas someone is trying to convey. Not everyone has a Masters Degree in English, afterall.

It does seem though that everytime someone get frustraded by a another poster they always resort to... " You exerice poor grammer skills " eh, whatever.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sargon 07-06-05, 02:53 PM	I was reading a thread about Gods and commoners and the sense motive skill... There was alot of 1's and 20's in that thread and i thought i would make a thread on that. Concerning SKills 1 is not always a failure and 20 is not always a succesful skill check. As far as my games are concerned a natrual one is equivilant to a -10 so if you rolled a natrual 1 and had 11 ranks in a skill you would have a check of 1.. Natrual 20's are counted as 30's so the same skill sheck would be 41 I don't know what the Rules say about that but It is what my DM did.. Thats how i DM my players... How about you?
kaldrin 07-06-05, 02:56 PM	I definitely like that +10/-10 rule and would consider using it in my own games. Our current DM just uses the straight number. Of course, the comments on the 1s and 20s in that thread were relating to deities.
Centauri 07-06-05, 02:57 PM	I don't know what the Rules say about that but It is what my DM did.. Thats how i DM my players... How about you? I prefer to follow the rules, which say that a 1 or a 20 on a skill check is just a number. Nothing special about it.
Chobemaster 07-06-05, 03:02 PM	I prefer to follow the rules, which say that a 1 or a 20 on a skill check is just a number. Nothing special about it. Agree...adding that bit of randomness, especially w/ such a large deviation from the rest of the population, adds little IMO to the game. I don't have nearly the problem with 1 being -10 and 20 being 30 on attack rolls, since in that case, it actually makes the results MORE homogeneous...
Steely Glint 07-06-05, 03:08 PM	I use the -10/30 bonuses on checks where 1s and 20s would normally be autofailures and autohits. Making it work on skills too means that no lock is safe from even the must rudimentarily trained lockpicker.
Darkstealth 07-06-05, 03:28 PM	I just use the autofailure/autopasswhatevertask ruling for my skill checks as well, because a skilled Rogue with 20 total modifer in Bluff is as likely to do the needed task as a Fighter with +20 Total Attack Bonus.
cambric 07-06-05, 03:42 PM	I just use the autofailure/autopasswhatevertask ruling for my skill checks as well, because a skilled Rogue with 20 total modifer in Bluff is as likely to do the needed task as a Fighter with +20 Total Attack Bonus. That's not exactly true. For example: My gnome bard decides he wants to jump to the moon...but wait, come on, that can't happen...wait, I rolled a 20!!! I auto passed!! WOOHOO!! My first level 1/2 orc barbarian is going to bluff the 20th level Red Dragon out of his treasure...LOOK AT THAT...A 20!!! I get it all!! I "auto passed". Yes, VERY exaggrated skills...I know. But that's the difference with a "skill" that you know: not at all, poorly, ok, pretty good, darn near perfect. Trying to "hit" something is different, for you might "get lucky" at hitting that creature that you need a natural 20 for...could happen. Jumping to the moon, isn't going to...nor bluffing out a dragon or demon for their treasure when you're a 1/2 orc. The reason why there's a 1= failure and 20=success on attacking, the "luck" factor...or the "oops" factor. With skills, you're that good...or your not. As a first level fighter, with 1 skill point in Open Lock, cross classed I know...I come across the most amazing lock that I have ever seen...I roll a 20 and miraculously succeed!! What you say?? A 20th level rogue rolled a 19 and still didn't have enough skill points in open lock that was MAXED out and he couldn't get in?? Well...that's what luck is for my boy... :cool: Not in skills...but as someone said, "DM rule 0"...I don't agree with it myself, and this is one example why. Cam
celtredleg 07-06-05, 03:46 PM	I use them as just numbers, especialy when there are opposed rolls.
LCD2YOU 07-06-05, 03:53 PM	Roll a 1 and then roll again, this time subtracting 10 to the number rolled. Roll a 20 and then roll again, this time adding 10 to the new number rolled. Roll another 1 or 20 on the 2nd die roll, do the same thing and roll a third time. Roll another 1 or 20 on the 3rd die roll...... Is it a bit cumbersome? Yeah, but so what? How many times will that really ever happen? Then the gnome who wantd to jump, rolling first a 20 then a 15, adds that to their jump distance. No jumping over the moon, etc. That is where the real luck or unluck comes in. The player is lucky/unlucky, so is the character.
cambric 07-06-05, 04:03 PM	Roll a 1 and then roll again, this time subtracting 10 to the number rolled. Roll a 20 and then roll again, this time adding 10 to the new number rolled. Roll another 1 or 20 on the 2nd die roll, do the same thing and roll a third time. Roll another 1 or 20 on the 3rd die roll...... Is it a bit cumbersome? Yeah, but so what? How many times will that really ever happen? Then the gnome who wantd to jump, rolling first a 20 then a 15, adds that to their jump distance. No jumping over the moon, etc. That is where the real luck or unluck comes in. The player is lucky/unlucky, so is the character. Valid Ideas. I'm just against "auto pass/auto fail" on skills. I don't mind a bit of luck/unlucky, for instance: Jumping over a pit. There is a chance you could stumble and fall in, where 19-20 times, you would make it...that's "unlucky"...or you're being chased and you're running like you've never ran before and have to jump over a wider pit than you ever have, and you do get the "20", just barely making it...sure. That would be a bit tedious, LCD2YOU, but more acceptable to me than the auto's. Cam
Inigo Carmine 07-06-05, 04:28 PM	Using 1 and 20 as just their actual values works fine for dramatic purposes so far as I'm concerned. To use someone's jumping example, it means your average person is going to trip and fall into the pit (gaining a foot of airtime) on a 1, and be able to jump 20 ft on a nat 20 (fairly impressive if you ask me). The -10/+30 rules hurt players more than help them. A player will usually not attempt something dangerous (like jumping a pit) if they can only make it on a nat 20. That -10 penalty however will almost always result in a failure barring epic level play. Basically, it adds a lot of risk without really adding any reward. In addition, the +20 leads to some rediculous things, like 20 mice breaking down an iron door in about 3 seconds, or one mouse breaking down an iron door in 2 minutes.* *(I don't recall the actual DC, so i might be overstating my case in that one)
Chobemaster 07-06-05, 04:42 PM	Using 1 and 20 as just their actual values works fine for dramatic purposes so far as I'm concerned. In addition, the +20 leads to some rediculous things, like 20 mice breaking down an iron door in about 3 seconds, or one mouse breaking down an iron door in 2 minutes.* *(I don't recall the actual DC, so i might be overstating my case in that one) It's just +10, but yes it makes the impossible into the unlikely, and there are an infinite number of things that should just be impossible.
Gurthoron 07-06-05, 05:14 PM	My group plays with the auto succeed and fail rules. Why? Cause its fun. We enjoy situations were you say "Spot check. Natural 1. You see . .. YOUR HAND!" Its just fun. My current DM also tends towards a fair bit of randomness in our game. We roll everything from food likes/dislikes to whether we are paranoid or not. Why? Because we find it entertaining. We do not consider it "rollplaying" as we then roleplay what our randomly determined preferences are. The DM also does a lot of D100 rolling for "does something like you" or "would they know that". She also has a mental critical fail chart. Its based of a D100, and we pick whether we want high or low to be bad. (obviously we can't see what she rolls) Her chart ranges everywere from criting a friend to criting an enemy, and everything inbetween. True, its not that realistic that people screw up as often and spectacullarly as we do. But its a game thats meant to be fun, and this really does add to it IMO. She does the same thing for NPCs, which leads to fun stuff like an enemy knocking himself out of the fight, or hitting his friend. True, statistically, these are worse for the party in the long run. But its incredibly amusing to see what happens when those ones and twenties show up. We don't take advantage of it stupidly, (I'm gonna keep jumping to get to the moon!) we just do what our characters would try and see were the chips fall. On a related note we rarely take ten on checks, because we believe it takes away from the game. Sure, you could go through life, knowing what you'll be able to do and being consistent about it. But thats not an Adventurer's point of view!
cambric 07-06-05, 05:45 PM	My group plays with the auto succeed and fail rules. Why? Cause its fun. We enjoy situations were you say "Spot check. Natural 1. You see . .. YOUR HAND!" Its just fun. The best reason so far!! If it's fun for all, then you definitely should do it!!
Moonflyer 07-06-05, 06:21 PM	We use a roll a 1 or 20 roll again... for a 1 subtract the next roll for a 20 add the next roll... then add modifier... so 20+next d20 roll+mod=skill check or 1-next d20 roll+mod=skill mod.
yonman 07-06-05, 06:55 PM	You guys do know the following for v3.5 From SRD: To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure
Darkstealth 07-06-05, 09:14 PM	Ooooo aaaaahhhhhh... I started a debate! I feel happy! But if my players get a nat 20 on a jump the moon check, then they will be dead when they come back down. If they try anything extremely insane (a.k.a. roll nat 20 on spellcraft check to decipher the true meaning of life), they will have consiquences (such as going insane (insanity check) with the knowledge) However, they have not done that and never will, because my players are not insane... mostly. Cambric, thank you for saying your statement without going "yours is horrible and can never be used". By replacing that can with a should, you have gained my respect. :bow: The 1 fail 20 dothecheck also ups on the suspense, and things become unpredictable.
Sargon 07-06-05, 11:48 PM	Ooooo aaaaahhhhhh... I started a debate! I feel happy! really? I thought i posted the thread... :w00t:
Nom 07-06-05, 11:59 PM	There is one point where it's worth introducing open-ended or 20 = 30 rules - melee combat. Specifically the case where the to-hit required is 20+ anyway. In such a case, the powergaming player will stack on the Power Attack, using the (correct) logic that it will take a 20 to hit anyway, so to-hit penalties don't actually matter. If 20 is not an auto-hit but "roll another d20 and add it on" then the player won't be as inclined to do this, since every point to PA reduces the chance of hitting even on a 20.
WizardlyFriend 07-07-05, 12:30 AM	natural 20 is an auto-hit, natural 1 is an auto-miss. these have no bearings on skills or saves. problem is dieties always roll a natural 20, but i havent had any of those in any of my games yet (atleast not in tangible form, or in any form.)
Always-Late 07-07-05, 12:54 AM	You guys do know the following for v3.5 From SRD:-snip-I think everybody's pretty much sure these are all houserules.
cambric 07-07-05, 08:07 AM	natural 20 is an auto-hit, natural 1 is an auto-miss. these have no bearings on skills or saves. problem is dieties always roll a natural 20, but i havent had any of those in any of my games yet (atleast not in tangible form, or in any form.) :teach: With due respect to this comment, the "save" part is incorrect: It is auto fail or succeed on 1 or a 20. Per the SRD: Automatic Failures and Successes: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success. Cam
cambric 07-07-05, 08:12 AM	really? I thought i posted the thread... :w00t: Darkstealth started a debate on "auto-failing/succeeding". And, without wanting to sound rude, he at least came back and replied to comments that he entered. Such a trend I've noticed: OP starts a post and never returns to thank anyone or give some additional input. Saying, "I thought i posted the thread..." and wanting to take credit for a debate is like handing the blue prints to a construction company and walking away...walking back and showing everyone the building and saying, "Look what I built." Just because someone started something, doesn't mean they get the credit, especially if they post and "disappear". Cam
LCD2YOU 07-07-05, 08:46 AM	Darkstealth started a debate on "auto-failing/succeeding". And, without wanting to sound rude, he at least came back and replied to comments that he entered. Such a trend I've noticed: OP starts a post and never returns to thank anyone or give some additional input. Saying, "I thought i posted the thread..." and wanting to take credit for a debate is like handing the blue prints to a construction company and walking away...walking back and showing everyone the building and saying, "Look what I built." Just because someone started something, doesn't mean they get the credit, especially if they post and "disappear". CamI've answered more than one, "I need help with X, Y and Z ASAP", and I didn't hear much back. I'm starting to wonder if I should first post something like, "Sure, I'll help, but I want to know you're not a FAF, fire and forget, poster." Maybe I'll go back and ask those I've recently "helped" how it went and to not disappear.
cambric 07-07-05, 08:53 AM	I've answered more than one, "I need help with X, Y and Z ASAP", and I didn't hear much back. I'm starting to wonder if I should first post something like, "Sure, I'll help, but I want to know you're not a FAF, fire and forget, poster." Maybe I'll go back and ask those I've recently "helped" how it went and to not disappear. I totally agree!! :bow: It "seems" like it's happening more lately than ever. "Please help"...and nothing afterwards. No "thanks"...or "got it worked out"...or "how about this"...just "something" to say they appreciated the help. Shoot, how many times have there been "flame wars" and the original OP NEVER was around...it's like they start a post just to have one out there. There's several posters that I refuse to even go into, you seen their names ALL over, with new posts, yet they've never once replied back. :rant over: ... for now. Cam
Sargon 07-07-05, 11:26 AM	Well now i started a rant session, hope your testostrione levels aren't to high, roids are bad for you ya know... i've read all the comments and infact the thread ever couple of hours... so i havn't fired and forgtten, But if it Does make you feel like your a better person, Thank you for :twocents: feel free to help yourselfes to these :cookie:'s i dropped on the floor earlier.
LCD2YOU 07-07-05, 01:57 PM	Well now i started a rant session, hope your testostrione levels aren't to high, roids are bad for you ya know... i've read all the comments and infact the thread ever couple of hours... so i havn't fired and forgtten, But if it Does make you feel like your a better person, Thank you for :twocents: feel free to help yourselfes to these :cookie:'s i dropped on the floor earlier.I know I wouldn't, nor do I think Cam would, talk poorly about you to your face on the thread you started and have the decency to hang around. Nah, I won't do it here, I promise. That's what the "Private Messages" are for! :evillaugh
cambric 07-07-05, 02:10 PM	I know I wouldn't, nor do I think Cam would, talk poorly about you to your face on the thread you started and have the decency to hang around. Nah, I won't do it here, I promise. That's what the "Private Messages" are for! :evillaugh I totally agree!! :devil: Seriously, I didn't say Sargon directly...I was pointing out that some OP's, actually quite a few lately, seem to ask a question and then disappear. And I would like to add: An interesting use of Spelling and Grammar, or lack of it with some posters. Again, NOT pointing out anyone in particular. The only direct comment I made to Sargon was about how he wanted to take credit for a debate that "he thought he started". I wouldn't think about putting someone down directly in a thread they started...it was just a comment giving Darkstealth the proper credit. Cam
Sargon 07-07-05, 02:34 PM	Well whoever started the debate it off-subject now so i guess it doesn't matter. I really don't care wants credit.. And i know i have poor use of grammer, It doesn't really bother me as much as it does you though. I can generally tell what ideas someone is trying to convey. Not everyone has a Masters Degree in English, afterall. It does seem though that everytime someone get frustraded by a another poster they always resort to... " You exerice poor grammer skills " eh, whatever.