The Dice Giveth...
-
Yeah and free parking jackpots break monopoly by making the game run for hours
Failed skill checks on 1 break d&d by making skilled people fail regularly just as less skilled people do. I also play in the Palladium system where skill checks are on percentile dice and also don’t fail on a minimum roll
One of the things I don’t like about BG3 is that the rogue with godlike sneak can’t get far with greater invisibility because everything they touch gives a 1/20 chance of being heard
When I roll a d&d skill I call out the total. A 1 might be 6 or 10. I’m not participating in rewriting the basic rules of the game
If you can’t fail a skill check, there should be no roll. Same as most DMs won’t make you do a skill check for “I sit down on a chair”.
Rolling dice implies that there’s a chance of failure.
Failed skill checks on 1 break d&d by making skilled people fail regularly just as less skilled people do.
Nope. 1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20. More skill doesn’t mean it always works, only that your chances are higher. And if you are skilled enough that it always works, then there should be no roll.
-
That’s a better way to put it. It’s fun to have critical failures as much as critical successes. Especially when it’s something that the character making the check on should easily handle.
“While normally, this lock would pose no challenge for you, in your confidence you did not notice the pebble on the floor, which causes you to trip and break your lock picking tools when you fall on top of them.”
If the action is something that can never fail, there shouldn’t be a skill check.
You don’t roll dice on sitting down at a table, so if you are a perfect lock picker who always succeeds at picking locks, no dice should be thrown.
The Lockpicking Lawyer doesn’t play with dice either.
-
If you can’t fail a skill check, there should be no roll. Same as most DMs won’t make you do a skill check for “I sit down on a chair”.
Rolling dice implies that there’s a chance of failure.
Failed skill checks on 1 break d&d by making skilled people fail regularly just as less skilled people do.
Nope. 1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20. More skill doesn’t mean it always works, only that your chances are higher. And if you are skilled enough that it always works, then there should be no roll.
The problem with this argument is that first off, the GM can’t know your character sheet front-to-back because they’re not playing your character, so they probably don’t know if even a 1 will pass the DC they’ve set.
1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20
It’s still far more common than is reasonable.
-
The problem with this argument is that first off, the GM can’t know your character sheet front-to-back because they’re not playing your character, so they probably don’t know if even a 1 will pass the DC they’ve set.
1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20
It’s still far more common than is reasonable.
The problem with this argument is that first off, the GM can’t know your character sheet front-to-back because they’re not playing your character, so they probably don’t know if even a 1 will pass the DC they’ve set.
The GM should know exceptional stats of their player. Yes, I might not know some rarely relevant stat of my players, I but surely know how well the rogue stealths, how well the elf bowman arches, how well the mage spells and how hard the barbarian hits.
And even if I don’t, the players can tell me the stat before a potential check.
-
The problem with this argument is that first off, the GM can’t know your character sheet front-to-back because they’re not playing your character, so they probably don’t know if even a 1 will pass the DC they’ve set.
The GM should know exceptional stats of their player. Yes, I might not know some rarely relevant stat of my players, I but surely know how well the rogue stealths, how well the elf bowman arches, how well the mage spells and how hard the barbarian hits.
And even if I don’t, the players can tell me the stat before a potential check.
I just think whether or not each and every player here has an outrageously high stat and what those stats are is a bit of an unnecessary hassle to add to the already long list of things the GM needs to keep track of.
-
I just think whether or not each and every player here has an outrageously high stat and what those stats are is a bit of an unnecessary hassle to add to the already long list of things the GM needs to keep track of.
I find that not very hard to keep track, honestly. They usually don’t have a lot of them.
And in any case, the player can just say when they have one.
-
If you can’t fail a skill check, there should be no roll. Same as most DMs won’t make you do a skill check for “I sit down on a chair”.
Rolling dice implies that there’s a chance of failure.
Failed skill checks on 1 break d&d by making skilled people fail regularly just as less skilled people do.
Nope. 1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20. More skill doesn’t mean it always works, only that your chances are higher. And if you are skilled enough that it always works, then there should be no roll.
Isn’t that okay for easy stuff? Skilled characters also see harder challenges, disarming a dc20 trap for example
Why should they fail to tie a simple knot on a +5, dc5 use rope check 1 in 20 times?
-
Isn’t that okay for easy stuff? Skilled characters also see harder challenges, disarming a dc20 trap for example
Why should they fail to tie a simple knot on a +5, dc5 use rope check 1 in 20 times?
Isn’t that right foot easy stuff?
Sorry, don’t know if I understand what you mean with that.
Why should they fail to tie a simple knot on a +5, dc5 use rope check 1 in 20 times?
Why should they roll for something as simple as tieing a simple knot? I don’t make my players roll whether they manage to tie their shoes either.
-
Isn’t that right foot easy stuff?
Sorry, don’t know if I understand what you mean with that.
Why should they fail to tie a simple knot on a +5, dc5 use rope check 1 in 20 times?
Why should they roll for something as simple as tieing a simple knot? I don’t make my players roll whether they manage to tie their shoes either.
Swipe typo. Corrected now
-
Isn’t that right foot easy stuff?
Sorry, don’t know if I understand what you mean with that.
Why should they fail to tie a simple knot on a +5, dc5 use rope check 1 in 20 times?
Why should they roll for something as simple as tieing a simple knot? I don’t make my players roll whether they manage to tie their shoes either.
A simple knot like the bowline you’d tie around a sturdy tree before descending by rope into a hole
That’s exactly the sort of thing a DM would set as DC10
-
A simple knot like the bowline you’d tie around a sturdy tree before descending by rope into a hole
That’s exactly the sort of thing a DM would set as DC10
If your skill level would guarantee a win if you ignore the concept of a natural 1 auto-failing, then there should be no roll.
-
When you’re +12 to stealth a 1 isn’t that critical
Enemy Perception DC? 25
-
Yeah, Nat 1 is miraculous failure, Nat 20 is miraculous success in all games I’ve played
That’s the only way I’m willing to house rule this. If 1 fails regardless, 20 succeeds regardless
But I prefer to call things easy or impossible
-
If you can’t fail a skill check, there should be no roll. Same as most DMs won’t make you do a skill check for “I sit down on a chair”.
Rolling dice implies that there’s a chance of failure.
Failed skill checks on 1 break d&d by making skilled people fail regularly just as less skilled people do.
Nope. 1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20. More skill doesn’t mean it always works, only that your chances are higher. And if you are skilled enough that it always works, then there should be no roll.
Nope. 1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20.
What do you mean here? Any roll is as likely as any other
Do you mean 2-20 is more likely than rolling a 1? Of course it is, but an invisible rogue sneaking at +15 shouldn’t be seen by the monster who’s -4 to spot 1 in 20 events, or if 20s are also special, 1 in 10 events (one for the rogue getting a 1, one for monster getting a 20)
-
If the sneaking person rolls a 13 +12, yeah it would be DC25 to see them. If they rolled a 1 the DC would be 13
-
If your skill level would guarantee a win if you ignore the concept of a natural 1 auto-failing, then there should be no roll.
If everyone is aware. If the player knows the DC and the GM knows the players character sheet
…ignore the concept
I call it following the rules. 1 as an auto fail is a common house rule, it is not the rule in d&d
-
Nope. 1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20.
What do you mean here? Any roll is as likely as any other
Do you mean 2-20 is more likely than rolling a 1? Of course it is, but an invisible rogue sneaking at +15 shouldn’t be seen by the monster who’s -4 to spot 1 in 20 events, or if 20s are also special, 1 in 10 events (one for the rogue getting a 1, one for monster getting a 20)
In that case, and I keep repeating myself: don’t roll.
Don’t roll for things that can’t fail.
-
If the sneaking person rolls a 13 +12, yeah it would be DC25 to see them. If they rolled a 1 the DC would be 13
You know how it’s “RPGMemes” and not “D&D 5e Memes”? You’re making assumptions about where the joke is rooted.
-
Nope. 1/20 is much less regular than 5/20 or even 19/20.
What do you mean here? Any roll is as likely as any other
Do you mean 2-20 is more likely than rolling a 1? Of course it is, but an invisible rogue sneaking at +15 shouldn’t be seen by the monster who’s -4 to spot 1 in 20 events, or if 20s are also special, 1 in 10 events (one for the rogue getting a 1, one for monster getting a 20)
They’re talking the probability of failure, not the specific number on the die. If your skill bonus meets the DC, you have a 1/20 chance of failing, assuming a natural one equates to an auto-fail. If your bonus doesn’t meet the DC, you have a higher chance of failing.
