You take a character, and build him to be special in certian ways. Then you run a couple adventures, and try to find ways to justify your specialness, instead of taking feats that you probally would have been better off using.
To explain further, I made a gnoll bard. I had three goals. 1) Make a leader, 2) Make a gnoll, 3) Make him awsome at skill checks.
And so the first level feat i pick up is Gnoll Tracking. Cause i was like, Hey that could be useful.
then we run a couple of adventures and I try to find ways of actually using Gnoll Tracker in practice. The DM denies almost every request, often saying that there are certian other smells that are far more overpowering. Then we finally get to a point were we can track an enemy. Overjoyed at the fact i could finally make use of my feat, I start trying to roll perception checks to track the enemy. I roll a 1.
Dm calls it an instant failure.
My character also of course was suppose to be fairly awsome at skill checks. but during the first few adventures, we always had this guy and that guy who where better at almost everything. (cept diplomacy.)
So i decided to not play the character one session. And the party i'm in this time has absolutly NO capability in most skill checks. And we chase down some gnomes that go invisable.
Its like ARG!! Had i been playing my gnoll, I could have done all of this. Its like time to kick my self in the head since i played a striker instead (our party had no strikers besides me. Which is really freeking shocking.)
Now I probally wont ever get another chance like that to make use of my feat. 
Even down to the fact that I had to ask a new player to roll up a Striker, since we had none but we did have several Leaders.
I wonder, how many people were in the party? With larger groups it seems to be more of an issue.
I would also like to propose the following theory: When one person is trained/have invested skill points in a skill, they will inevitably fail. When two or more are trained/have invested skill points in a skill, they will all succeed, and do better the more people are rolling.
But I also think my dice are trying to kill me and considering getting new ones, if only to put the old ones in their place.
typically we always had about 4 people in the group.
The thing that got to me, is that the feat I took "Gnoll Tracker" has been mostly worthless. Partially because of the modules we run, partial because of poor dm interaction. All the various "trainings" had also been fairly useless.
Then we play a moduel he could have excelled at, and i of course didn't play him. (Five people in teh group. 2 wizards, 1 fighter, 1 cleric, and i was a revenerant warlock.)
Overjoyed at the fact i could finally make use of my feat, I start trying to roll perception checks to track the enemy. I roll a 1.Dm calls it an instant failure.
DM needs a quick refresher course on how skills work.
But the big problem, here, isn't your character, it's that the character doesn't fit in the game. You build for skills and took Feats that buff skills that *your DM doesn't want to use*. You've built a character who is absolutely great at things the DM doesn't want in his game, so he's making your character useless as a side effect.
In other words, 1's arn't an instant failure for skill checks, cause 20's arnt instant successes?
In other words, 1's arn't an instant failure for skill checks, cause 20's arnt instant successes?
Basically. 4E finally smartened up and realised that there are some things that a sufficiently trained and talented person should never fail at, barring exceptional circumstances.
And those "exceptional circumstances" are expressed by upping the DC.
Thats good. I need to bring that to light so that he knows the Raw, and then can make the desicision of either screw the raw or love the raw.
I'll probally drop gnoll tracker and pick up alertness. Since that will flat out give me a perception bonus that cannot be denied.
In other words, 1's arn't an instant failure for skill checks, cause 20's arnt instant successes?Basically. 4E finally smartened up and realised that there are some things that a sufficiently trained and talented person should never fail at, barring exceptional circumstances.
And those "exceptional circumstances" are expressed by upping the DC.
Uh, what?
3.5 had the same rule for skill checks.
Sounds like the Dm doesn't understand something so he refuses the use of it.
I have a Dm who doesn't understand landmark-based navigation(using objects to navigate by i.e. east is towards that big tree, now towards that pond, now towards that wierd hill, etc), so refuses to allow the group the use of it.
OT, I use crits and fumbles with skill checks. Even the most experienced person will still make a mistake and kharma allows the unskilled to succeed
OT, I use crits and fumbles with skill checks. Even the most experienced person will still make a mistake and kharma allows the unskilled to succeed
I'm not a fan of it because 5% is *way* to common for an autofail, and making it anything more complicated than "1 on the D20" means adding mechanics.
20 for autosuccess - it's REALLY rare for a skill DC to be higher than 20 + Halflevel, and when it is, it's often something like "I want to leap onto the rapidly receding raft 40 feet away" - something that's basically impossible, but you roll anyway to see how far you get before failing in the water.
I'm not a fan of it because 5% is *way* to common for an autofail, and making it anything more complicated than "1 on the D20" means adding mechanics.
20 for autosuccess - it's REALLY rare for a skill DC to be higher than 20 + Halflevel, and when it is, it's often something like "I want to leap onto the rapidly receding raft 40 feet away" - something that's basically impossible, but you roll anyway to see how far you get before failing in the water.
That's why you have passive checks imo.
If you roll a 1 and still pass the DC, why in the world are you even rolling for? For me you roll for the extrodinary not for the ordinary, or for something special to happen.
I don't do the 20 as an autosuccess, it's a crit. Read the DMG about houserules page 189ish.
Personally though, I think my dm might have been using voodeedoo now that i think back to it. Because even with out the gnoll tracking feat, my character does have 17 passive perception, which should be good enough to get anything at level 1 for skill challanges.
But he had me roll still. :/
I think he knew.
I'm not a fan of it because 5% is *way* to common for an autofail, and making it anything more complicated than "1 on the D20" means adding mechanics.
20 for autosuccess - it's REALLY rare for a skill DC to be higher than 20 + Halflevel, and when it is, it's often something like "I want to leap onto the rapidly receding raft 40 feet away" - something that's basically impossible, but you roll anyway to see how far you get before failing in the water.
That's why you have passive checks imo.
If you roll a 1 and still pass the DC, why in the world are you even rolling for? For me you roll for the extrodinary not for the ordinary, or for something special to happen.
I don't do the 20 as an autosuccess, it's a crit. Read the DMG about houserules page 189ish.
Exactly. If your modifier is high enough that you can't fail, don't roll (or if the DM knows it's that high, he doesn't call for a roll). There is simply success.
My group uses(3.5) the house rule(believe it's suggested in one of the sidebars in either PHB or DMG, can't remember), Natural 1 is a -10 on Skill Checks while a Natural 20 is a +10.
Exactly. If your modifier is high enough that you can't fail, don't roll (or if the DM knows it's that high, he doesn't call for a roll). There is simply success.
Precisely. It's why there is that half level to skill checks for.