PDA

View Full Version : Rules for off the wall things players may try.



Traab
2011-04-08, 06:41 PM
I was just wondering how things work for the dm in situations were the players will come up with the most insane thoughts and try to make them happen.

Odd stuff like, the party is talking to the king to get a quest. One of the players rolls for diplomacy to get the king to give them the treasury. Is there a set - to your roll for things like that? Or is that sort of thing generally left up to the dm to decide on a case by case basis?

Or say the party is in a fight and losing, suddenly one or more of the party decides they would rather try to join the bad guys and fight for them. Is there generally a rule set for deciding if the bad guy would accept?

Kurald Galain
2011-04-08, 07:09 PM
Odd stuff like, the party is talking to the king to get a quest. One of the players rolls for diplomacy to get the king to give them the treasury. Is there a set - to your roll for things like that? Or is that sort of thing generally left up to the dm to decide on a case by case basis?
There is such a thing as automatic failure. If you're trying to jump to the moon, you're not going to accomplish that by rolling a 20. This is a similar example.


Or say the party is in a fight and losing, suddenly one or more of the party decides they would rather try to join the bad guys and fight for them. Is there generally a rule set for deciding if the bad guy would accept?
No, that's for the DM to decide. The appropriate answer may well be the Traitor's Reward (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RewardedAsATraitorDeserves).

gurban
2011-04-08, 07:11 PM
In regards to the King and his treasury, Diplomacy and Intimidate, generally speaking, can't make somebody do something that is wholly against their nature. We'll use this example and show what I would do, in a very basic manner."
King to PCs "I've got a quest for you. Do it and I'll give you 500gp!"
PC wants to diplomacize the King, try to sweet talk some money out of him. OK, roll diplomacy.
1)Rolls middle, King says "I think the bounty is fair"
2) Rolls high, King says "You're right, that is low. Take this <insert magic item> or go down to magicmart and grab a new sword, just put it on my tab"
3)Rolls low, King says "500gp? Excuse me, I must have misspoken. I meant 400"

MeeposFire
2011-04-08, 07:14 PM
You set a difficulty class for the roll. You will have to decide on your own how high of a DC this will take. How you decide is based on how likely you see this working out and secondarily on whether you actually want to let it work within reason.

For instance if one of my players asked the king to seriously give them all the money in the treasury via diplomacy I would have to decide on how strong willed the king is. Frankly unless the king has no sense at all (ie insane or perhaps an astoundingly low IQ) this should be extremely hard near impossible sort of check (in fact it could easily be impossible for this character at this time). Now you still allow the player to try but you assign a DC that makes sense which can be outrageously high (they do not get to know the DC so if you are certain he is not able to be convinced by diplomacy then you can just say they fail but they still get to roll). The DMG has some listed DCs for things that you want to have a reasonable chance at success. The most important thing to remember that if it is possible for a character to do something you should allow the check even if the result may be impossible (a player can try to jump a 100 foot high wall at 1st level and should be allowed to roll if he wants but he will fail since there is no way he can make the jump check and thats ok).

Traab
2011-04-08, 07:31 PM
Ah ok, I understand now. In my first example, unless the king in question is written up as a spineless moron, or possibly bat&^% crazy, trying to make him do something that wouldnt happen no matter how smooth you are would end in an auto failure. However, if he is one or more of those three things, then there can be a roll with some level of dc on it depending on how close to impossible you think it should be.

Tankadin
2011-04-08, 07:39 PM
Feel free to also use rich half-wit sons in case your party has a map to some buried treasure and needs to charter a ship.

Bonus points if the rich half-wit son talks to a small, invisible man that lives in his finger.

MeeposFire
2011-04-08, 07:54 PM
Ah ok, I understand now. In my first example, unless the king in question is written up as a spineless moron, or possibly bat&^% crazy, trying to make him do something that wouldnt happen no matter how smooth you are would end in an auto failure. However, if he is one or more of those three things, then there can be a roll with some level of dc on it depending on how close to impossible you think it should be.

Yes though even if there is no chance you can still let the character roll. Just because there is no chance of success does not mean the player can't try anyway. Using Kurald Galain's example a character can try to jump the moon using their jump check-there is just no way it will actually succeed (but allowing them to roll allows you to adjudicate how well they did. In the jump example you will see how high he did jump in the king example a low diplomacy check might mean the king gets angry at the request while a high check might make the king laugh even if the character is serious as in he likes your moxie).

Traab
2011-04-08, 07:58 PM
Feh, best bet to get the kings treasury anyways, is to get an important quest, "Retrieve my daughter and the royal sword of ultimate power!" then when you finish the quest tell him, "If you want to see either again, you will add a few zeroes to that reward you mentioned!" I bet the chance of a successful roll would be a hell of alot higher at that point. :p Just forget to inform the paladin of your plan, and make sure he stays behind when you go to meet the king. lol

Mando Knight
2011-04-08, 08:25 PM
Feel free to also use rich half-wit sons in case your party has a map to some buried treasure and needs to charter a ship.

Bonus points if the rich half-wit son talks to a small, invisible man that lives in his finger.
And to hire Tim Curry as the ship's cook.

Reluctance
2011-04-09, 12:38 AM
It's a 3.5 rule, but practically impossible tasks have a +20 modifier to the DC. Minimum. I see no problem porting it to 4e.

Look at it this way. By the time you're an epic enough con man to swindle the king out of the royal treasury, you could probably make more money by disenchanting one of your treasure parcels. Set the DC as appropriate for epic tricksters. Remind lower-level characters that they don't autosucceed on a 20.

And if you're going to try and renege on your deal or try and hold somebody for ransom, ask yourself what happened to the last person who tried that. Y'know, the person who you meted out justice to not that long ago. A slightly stronger, less greedy group of heroes might be in your future.

MeeposFire
2011-04-09, 01:13 AM
Remind lower-level characters that they don't autosucceed on a 20.



One exception-a level 2 thief. They do auto double succeed at skill checks.:smallbiggrin:

Though only in skill challenges.

Traab
2011-04-09, 09:30 AM
It's a 3.5 rule, but practically impossible tasks have a +20 modifier to the DC. Minimum. I see no problem porting it to 4e.

Look at it this way. By the time you're an epic enough con man to swindle the king out of the royal treasury, you could probably make more money by disenchanting one of your treasure parcels. Set the DC as appropriate for epic tricksters. Remind lower-level characters that they don't autosucceed on a 20.

And if you're going to try and renege on your deal or try and hold somebody for ransom, ask yourself what happened to the last person who tried that. Y'know, the person who you meted out justice to not that long ago. A slightly stronger, less greedy group of heroes might be in your future.


True, but just think of how interesting the story of the campaign could become with THAT added wrinkle? The adventure party is off continuing the campaign however it runs, and behind the scenes the DM is arranging for an npc adventure party to be hired to track you down and kill you for the insult.

The New Bruceski
2011-04-09, 05:44 PM
"You walk into my castle, with all of my guards, carrying the item I hired you to receive and you now want to demand more money? I have one word. Fire."

(phrasing should be adjusted if they are holding daughter instead of magical sword)

Vknight
2011-04-09, 06:53 PM
No always have a plan.

Flaming Sphere at the door to block passage. Coat the tiefling in straw and light on fire, then send down a path carrying oil that he drops on the ground from a sealed sack. Have the Bard strike at one Guard and the Fighter finish said guard. The King is now trapped in the thron room the only entrance guarded by a burning sphere a tiefling and his druid animal companion

Also heres my take let your players have fun, they do something crazy give an appropriate DC.
They want to jump to the moon make it DC:1000

They want to set a dead dwarf on fire and roll him down some stairs. Ok but they take damage handling a burning dwarf. And a skill check for the rolling

Also you could send a animal companion with a message informing the king he must accept a duel against the Fighter or they keep the item/daughter.
Kings wins he does not have to pay them. Fighter wins he gets the kingdom

Also the captain of the ship is a frog

rayne_dragon
2011-04-11, 01:45 AM
I like to reward players for thinking outside the box. When someone does something unexpected I like to just roll with it and see where it goes to at least give the players a chance to do things the way they want to do things and maybe make an interesting story out of it. If their idea is really good I often try to throw some sort of reward their way, even if it isn't the reward they were looking for.

Of course, a lot of people have tried to do things like persuade the king to give them all his money by using the diplomacy skill. Lazy attempts at shortcuts like that aren't creative so they don't usually rate a reward, in my opinion, but at least still rate an interesting response - such as the one Meepos Fire suggested (diplomacy determining if the king is offender or plays it off as a joke).

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-12, 04:23 PM
As a rule: don't set DCs for Impossible Things

Tell the PC it's impossible and move on. Doing otherwise will ensure that they roll a natural 20 and screw up your campaign.

* * * *
More generally:

If a thing they are asking is difficult, but possible, use the level-appropriate Hard DC on DMG 42. If it's something which is difficult and takes a lot of time, set up an impromptu Skill Challenge (4/3 works well).

If the thing they are asking is doable, but something you never thought of, then use the level-appropriate Medium DC. Before having them roll, make sure you know what success and failure will entail and be prepared to narrate from there.

MeeposFire
2011-04-12, 04:38 PM
Natural 20s are not auto succeed in skills (outside of the before mentioned thief in a skill challenge though in that case your results are predetermined due to the mechanics of skill challenges and any check you make that allows for success in skill challenges are "doable" so this problem should not come up).

Erom
2011-04-12, 09:49 PM
I still agree, though, that setting impossibly high DCs for impossible tasks is bad form, and it's better to just tell players that what they are proposing is too difficult. It's not really metagaming - it's sort of the opposite. The character probably knows that the task is impossible due to common sense and living in this fictional world, while the player might not realize it since we view that world through the imperfect lens of a roleplaying game.

Katana_Geldar
2011-04-12, 10:40 PM
No dice in the world will convince an NPC to do what he does not want to do.

MeeposFire
2011-04-12, 10:54 PM
Well there are impossible things out there doe snot mean you have to say NO to letting somebody try. Yea you may not have a chance in the universe of convincing the king to give you money but a player may still attempt it since who knows it might be in character. Maybe the character is not wise enough to realize the problem. Dos not mean you have to say no though you might want to tell the player "I don't think it is going to work". People try to do impossible stuff all the time and fail. If they want to do something stupid or ridicules let them try. You might have a fun time from it.

Though if they ask "is this possible to do" and it is not it would make sense to be upfront and say "no I don't see it as possible".

Fuzzie Fuzz
2011-04-12, 11:11 PM
DMG 42

This. Rule 42 is your friend.

Basically, page 42 in the DMG has all sorts of handy tables for quick skill check DCs by level. Use that when in doubt.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-12, 11:36 PM
Well there are impossible things out there doe snot mean you have to say NO to letting somebody try. Yea you may not have a chance in the universe of convincing the king to give you money but a player may still attempt it since who knows it might be in character. Maybe the character is not wise enough to realize the problem. Dos not mean you have to say no though you might want to tell the player "I don't think it is going to work". People try to do impossible stuff all the time and fail. If they want to do something stupid or ridicules let them try. You might have a fun time from it.
The important thing to remember is that, even though they are trying, they are not to roll any dice.

Rolling checks that it is impossible to make is bad form. If they ask to roll an impossible check, you just say "no, you can't succeed." Sure, if they want to ask the king for his treasury, they can - but they can't roll a Diplomacy check in the process.

MeeposFire
2011-04-12, 11:53 PM
The important thing to remember is that, even though they are trying, they are not to roll any dice.

Rolling checks that it is impossible to make is bad form. If they ask to roll an impossible check, you just say "no, you can't succeed." Sure, if they want to ask the king for his treasury, they can - but they can't roll a Diplomacy check in the process.

And why not? Doing so allows you to adjudicate things based on how they did. For instance if you tried to to jump over the moon it helps to know how close he got since he may want to know or somehow it is relevant (such as it was a challenge by the shaman leader. If you jump impressively then you may influence the situation even though you did not make it to the moon). If you tried to convince the king it might be useful to know how charming you were. It could mean the difference between being slain for being rude and just being dismissed.

And there are a lot of people who just like to roll. If they want to let them.

Katana_Geldar
2011-04-13, 12:17 AM
Asking the king for his treasury is not going to get you any favours from him if he's a reasonable king.

As for jumping over the moon, you can try but you'll never make it.

When a player proposes something unreasonable with a dice roll, I will tell them this. They can still roll, but unreasonable requests have consequences.

MeeposFire
2011-04-13, 12:26 AM
For the king and his treasury if you roll low on your diplomacy you say something in a fashion that king perceives as very rude which will have bad consequences (and of course what would you expect in that situation). If you roll well the king does not take it so poorly. He may not give you something but he does not send you away immediately. Of course I tend to tell players when an action would appear to be impossible (partially so they can point out something I missed such as "you said the king secretly approves of initiative and bold statements in a previous encounter") but if they want to try regardless I won't stop them. I just let them have the consequences.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-13, 03:41 AM
For the king and his treasury if you roll low on your diplomacy you say something in a fashion that king perceives as very rude which will have bad consequences (and of course what would you expect in that situation). If you roll well the king does not take it so poorly. He may not give you something but he does not send you away immediately. Of course I tend to tell players when an action would appear to be impossible (partially so they can point out something I missed such as "you said the king secretly approves of initiative and bold statements in a previous encounter") but if they want to try regardless I won't stop them. I just let them have the consequences.
The roll then just tells them how badly they lose. A waste of time, IMHO.

When the situation is "heads I win, tails you lose" then there is little point in forcing a die roll. If the Player just wants to roll for the hell of it, then by all means let them - but don't take it any more seriously than when a Player asks to roll to "win the game." When a Player makes a roll, they expect it to have some chance of success; having them roll when success by any measure is impossible is going to vex your Players when they catch on.

Besides, it's unnecessarily cruel to compound stupid decisions with the risk of Critical Failures. Like I said before - it's not the "wrong" way to run a game, but it's bad form.

Gillric
2011-04-13, 08:07 AM
Ok, as this is in the 4e thread, I will point out there is no auto fail on a skill check....

Kurald Galain
2011-04-13, 08:24 AM
Ok, as this is in the 4e thread, I will point out there is no auto fail on a skill check....
Sure there is. If a PC is trying to jump to the moon, or to convince the king to give him all of his treasure out of the blue, then that's an auto fail. It's most definitely not a level-appropriate DC with approx 30% chance for success if you're good at that skill.

Gillric
2011-04-13, 08:28 AM
Besides, it's unnecessarily cruel to compound stupid decisions with the risk of Critical Failures. Like I said before - it's not the "wrong" way to run a game, but it's bad form.

What I meant was that you don't have "critical failures" in 4e. Ie, if the DC is manageable, you don't auto fail by rolling a 1. You add your modifier and see what the result is.

mathemagician
2011-04-13, 09:40 AM
I might gently remind the players of the gravity of the situation, and offer them a skill challenge, which casts the event as an encounter, with clear tracks of failure / success. "Negotiating with the king and his advisors for something so grand is going to be set at a very high level skill challenge. The King is very busy, and will assuredly not appreciate wasting days of his time in petty negotiations. While you will (probably) not be executed for making a mockery of the king, at your level, this is the equivalent of you squaring off against an adult red dragon."

MeeposFire
2011-04-13, 10:02 AM
Who said it has to be that terrible? 4es attitude is to say yes and that is an attitude I like to use. So yes if the player wants to do something (even if I think it is not possible) I will allow it and there will be consequences or results for doing actions good or bad (if there is no consequence or result then players will start feeling like their actions have no meaning). In the king example a trained character in diplomacy with a decent cha score may have no chance of epically failing the check but if the total of the roll came to 12 and I decide that diplomacy checks under 15 are so boorish that it causes problems with the king yea there will be a consequence of whatever that is supposed to be. Most players I have met and played with would be more upset at being told "no you can't do that so you can't even roll" than being told that you don't think it will work, letting them roll, and saying you failed at what you were trying to do.

"I ask the king to give me all his money"
"sorry it is impossible to convince the king of that so you don't ask him"
"But I ask him anyway"
"I said it is impossible you don't do it"

Most players I know would not like that.

Same thing except you allow the asking and it fails (like you said it would) but you give no consequences is also not so good. The reason is that it creates an atmosphere of my actions do not matter. Most people I know don't like that either. If a character is boorish enough to ask the king for all his money when they first meet then there needs to be a consequence and that could be as small as roleplaying it out, small penalties such as increasing the DCs against the king by 1 or 2, or other consequences. Also if it would work out make some positive consequences making the king laugh could work in your favor.

I am in favor of letting players know when an action would seem impossible but to not allow them to do it if they insist or to make their actions have no consequence are not the way I like to go.

Erom
2011-04-13, 10:17 AM
"I ask the king to give me all his money"
"sorry it is impossible to convince the king of that so you don't ask him"
"But I ask him anyway"
"I said it is impossible you don't do it"

Most players I know would not like that.
And for good reason. I think the best way to handle that is still without rolling, though:

"I ask the king to give me all his money"
"sorry it is impossible to convince the king of that"
"But I ask him anyway"
"Okay. You ask him. He says no."

is basically the same outcome but phrased in a way that doesn't deny the player choice.

MeeposFire
2011-04-13, 10:58 AM
Do that and you reinforce that players actions don't mean anything. That player just did something that can have consequences but you trivialize his actions and make it worthless.

This is like saying if the players found an avatar of a god at level one and decide to attack it and you say "you lose" now lets continue the conversation. Really you expect that the fight you just picked has no repercussions on the upcoming conversation? My players would be unhappy if I did not actually do the fight if they wanted to fight it (granted it would be super one sided but what do you expect at the at point facing a god).

When somebody does something in real life or a game there needs to be something that results from that action. It can be small and insignificant or even be something good but something should happen.

Timeras
2011-04-13, 04:19 PM
There is a difference between an action having no consquences and it having noch chance to succeed.
Honestly, what could some random vagabond say that would make a king give him all his money, thereby ruining the county?

Kurald Galain
2011-04-13, 04:52 PM
Honestly, what could some random vagabond say that would make a king give him all his money, thereby ruining the county?
Heh. The proper answer for the king is "See, this is how I became king, and I'm not falling for my own trick!"

JysusCryst
2011-04-13, 05:27 PM
I like the idea that someone suggested (not going to go look for it to quote it) to set a DC what happens. The task may be impossible, but SOMETHING is going to happen. A horrible role will have bad consequences, and a good roll will turn in favor.

Using the king example with a DC of 15. Roll below a 15 and the king gets angry (DC's vs. the king get -2/3, the reward is cut in half, ect). Roll above a 15 and the king could think it's funny and enjoys your humor (DC's vs king +2/3, or even +5 if you rolled really well, the king realizes that your reward wouldn't been good enough for the task and ups it some, ect). The player has NO CHANCE to get all the kings gold, but the PC get's SOMETHING, good or bad.

For jumping to the moon, use the RAW for Jump. The highest possible (with just a quick look at the DDI Character builder, did everything I can to boost athletics/jumping power) is around +50 athletics. So rolling a natural 20 is 70. With a running start your character can clear 14 ft with his feet. A goliath (tallest PC possible) at 7'8" would be able to reach 24'2" in the air with his fingertips. This includes utility powers, assist, and any feat that can boost athletics. That's still a far cry from the moon.

Katana_Geldar
2011-04-13, 06:31 PM
When somebody does something in real life or a game there needs to be something that results from that action. It can be small and insignificant or even be something good but something should happen.

And sometimes you just don't succeed because nothing happens:

Lets add to the list of impossible tasks, shall we?

* Trying to lift a cathedral
* Collecting water using a sieve
* Unscrambling eggs
* Beating Orcus in an arm wrestling match while you are still level one
* The barbarian half-orc convincing the adult red dragon to be his pet

What you're describing is player deciding to be idiots, which doesn't go down well in my games unless we are playing Paranoia. I do ask the players if they want to do this first, then if they say yes then they wear the consequences.

Anyone seen the second gamers movie? In one of the early scenes one of the players wants to steal a religious artifact, the DM does not say no but very wisely points out that doing that would be suicide.

Saying yes does not mean you have to say yes to unreasonable requests, you are not a door mat.

kyoryu
2011-04-13, 06:41 PM
* Trying to lift a cathedral
* Collecting water using a sieve
* Unscrambling eggs
* Beating Orcus in an arm wrestling match while you are still level one
* The barbarian half-orc convincing the adult red dragon to be his pet


* Making a shirt, without seams or needlework
* Finding an acre of land between the ocean and the beach
* Gathering herbs with a sickle made of leather

Wut?

Kurald Galain
2011-04-13, 06:51 PM
Saying yes does not mean you have to say yes to unreasonable requests, you are not a door mat.
Indeed.

Conversely, if you're saying "yes, but it won't do what you want it to, and may have negative consequences" then what you're really saying is "no".


* Making a shirt, without seams or needlework
* Cleaning the stables of Augias
* Defeat an immortal hydra single-handedly
* Bringing Cerberus up from the Underworld

:smalltongue:

Katana_Geldar
2011-04-13, 06:55 PM
* Defeat an immortal hydra single-handedly


He didn't do that, he had help.

Kurald Galain
2011-04-13, 06:59 PM
He didn't do that, he had help.

That's why it's an impossible task :smallsmile:

But kudos on catching that reference.

Katana_Geldar
2011-04-13, 07:04 PM
I did ancient civs, it was no biggie.

Can I just point out these sorts of unreasonable requests are usually quite disruptive to other players?

Like trying to pick the king's pocket while in the throne room. There will be more than one player annoyed with this, and it's probably isn't the first time that player has done something stupid.

How do I know this? That player was in my group until very recently, his unreasonable and mostly selfish requests annoyed the other players. He no longer plays with us.

I've had to make arguments against having PvP, resulting in a disatrous session with him being eaten by a red dragon, and why it was not a good idea to kill a Hutt lord. One session his disruptive behaviour so annoyed the other players they bound and gagged him.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2011-04-13, 11:14 PM
So if the main argument against it is that it's pointless, I don't see the problem. The whole game is pointless, when you get right down to it, so I don't see why it's a problem to let them roll, after telling them that it's impossible, if they enjoy rolling.

Someone want to explain it?

(The argument about disrupting other players is a good one, but that's easily fixed by simply not punishing the other players for the first's stupidity/silliness.)

Kurald Galain
2011-04-14, 01:31 AM
(The argument about disrupting other players is a good one, but that's easily fixed by simply not punishing the other players for the first's stupidity/silliness.)
Not necessarily. Even if there are no actual consequences, a PC that e.g. consistently asks every single NPC out on a date can be quite annoying to the other PCs.

It's a matter of expectations. If some of the players expect a serious heroic fantasy with character development, and some of the players expect cartoonesque hijinx with a disregard for consequences, then it is questionable whether these should be playing at the same table. Basically, it's the Real Roleplayer vs the Loonie of the classic four archetypes.

Erom
2011-04-14, 10:49 AM
Yeah, my reasons are the same - in an ideal game you should probably let everyone roll for everything (as stated, there are different degrees of failure - a nice roll can be "Nope, but good effort. Every applauds your effort." and a bad roll can be "Nope, and what the hell were you thinking?") but I've never been at an ideal table, and generally my Loonies have been disruptive to other players as well.

Katana_Geldar
2011-04-14, 07:11 PM
Like people who want to go skiing instead of going to a battle I've been working all campaign to get the players to.

:smalleek:

Kylarra
2011-04-14, 07:23 PM
So if the main argument against it is that it's pointless, I don't see the problem. The whole game is pointless, when you get right down to it, so I don't see why it's a problem to let them roll, after telling them that it's impossible, if they enjoy rolling.

Someone want to explain it?

(The argument about disrupting other players is a good one, but that's easily fixed by simply not punishing the other players for the first's stupidity/silliness.)Personally I don't have an issue with them rolling, just so they can narrate how badly they failed at what they're trying to do, but they should be aware that they don't have a 5% chance of success just because they're rolling a D20.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2011-04-14, 07:33 PM
Not necessarily. Even if there are no actual consequences, a PC that e.g. consistently asks every single NPC out on a date can be quite annoying to the other PCs.

It's a matter of expectations. If some of the players expect a serious heroic fantasy with character development, and some of the players expect cartoonesque hijinx with a disregard for consequences, then it is questionable whether these should be playing at the same table. Basically, it's the Real Roleplayer vs the Loonie of the classic four archetypes.

Well, yes, but this won't be fixed by not letting the Loonies roll dice.

Gillric
2011-04-14, 08:43 PM
Personally I don't have an issue with them rolling, just so they can narrate how badly they failed at what they're trying to do, but they should be aware that they don't have a 5% chance of success just because they're rolling a D20.

Skill checks don`t use the same rules about 1s and 20s as attack rolls anyway. You don`t crit or fumble skill checks anyway.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2011-04-14, 08:54 PM
Skill checks don`t use the same rules about 1s and 20s as attack rolls anyway. You don`t crit or fumble skill checks anyway.

Also, there isn't a crit fail rule even in combat by RAW.

Gillric
2011-04-14, 08:59 PM
Also, there isn't a crit fail rule even in combat by RAW.

Yes there is, page 216 of the rules compendium states:


Natural 1: When a creature makes an attack roll against a target and a 1 comes up on the d20, the power automatically misses the target. Bonuses and penalties don't matter; the target is simply missed.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2011-04-14, 09:17 PM
Yes there is, page 216 of the rules compendium states:

Wat. Well nevermind then. (I don't have that book, and my group uses errata... selectively. Also, we've decided not to use any Essentials materials.)

MeeposFire
2011-04-14, 09:54 PM
Wat. Well nevermind then. (I don't have that book, and my group uses errata... selectively. Also, we've decided not to use any Essentials materials.)

It is not an essentials rule. It has always been there. Page 276 of the players handbook under the attack results section under the miss heading.

"Automatic miss: if you roll a natural one... your attack automatically misses.

Reverent-One
2011-04-14, 09:56 PM
Wat. Well nevermind then. (I don't have that book, and my group uses errata... selectively. Also, we've decided not to use any Essentials materials.)

It's on page 276 of the original PHB I as well.

EDIT: ninja'd

Fuzzie Fuzz
2011-04-14, 09:58 PM
Well, just ignore me then. Wrong on all counts. I suppose I'm just blind. Ah well.

MeeposFire
2011-04-14, 10:18 PM
Well, just ignore me then. Wrong on all counts. I suppose I'm just blind. Ah well.

Its alright it is easy to miss a rule like that. To be hones for a long time I just assumed it was there from previous D&D editions which is a dangerous thing to do.

Kylarra
2011-04-14, 10:28 PM
Skill checks don`t use the same rules about 1s and 20s as attack rolls anyway. You don`t crit or fumble skill checks anyway.I'm aware, but there are people that will assume that because you are letting them roll for it, there's a chance of success.

MeeposFire
2011-04-14, 10:31 PM
I'm aware, but there are people that will assume that because you are letting them roll for it, there's a chance of success.

Well it is very important to communicate to the players that fact. Indeed I would consider it good form to tell a player that they are trying to do something I consider impossible so they can choose to not do it.

Gillric
2011-04-15, 06:17 AM
Also, it is entirely possible to fail a skill check when rolling a 20 no matter what your level or the check is for. I have played characters that just didn't have the necessary modifier to make the dc on a check. Even an entirely reasonable check like opening a difficult door can be what is basically an auto fail.

Erom
2011-04-15, 12:24 PM
Well it is very important to communicate to the players that fact. Indeed I would consider it good form to tell a player that they are trying to do something I consider impossible so they can choose to not do it.
As long as you tell them that it's impossible, I think letting them roll or not isn't actually that big a deal. I don't let them roll, to cut down on loonyism and speed up the game a bit, but I really don't think letting them roll it out for degrees of failure is a bad thing. In fact, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

In either case, the clear communication to the player that the task is beyond their abilities is the important part.

evirus
2011-04-15, 12:29 PM
In situations like this I've always had a player roll diplomacy or insight before hand to know the outcome of trying (and likely the consequences). That way the character knows what the outcome would be if he even attempts the task. Once the character knows (and the player got to roll his dice and feels placated), I've rarely had a problem with the action continuing.

In the only case where the character/player did it anyway and the outcome was bad, he was fully aware of the repercussions and rolled with it from there.

Traab
2011-04-21, 10:30 AM
So if the main argument against it is that it's pointless, I don't see the problem. The whole game is pointless, when you get right down to it, so I don't see why it's a problem to let them roll, after telling them that it's impossible, if they enjoy rolling.

Someone want to explain it?

(The argument about disrupting other players is a good one, but that's easily fixed by simply not punishing the other players for the first's stupidity/silliness.)

The main problem isnt that its pointless, but in the case of a king and his treasury, this would be the outcome.

"Hey king chin straps, give me the key to the treasury!"
"How dare you! Guards! Kill them!"

Dm "You are all killed by the guards, game over, see you all next week when maybe your irl int scores wouldnt make a senile trout call you morons."

MeeposFire
2011-04-21, 01:07 PM
The main problem isnt that its pointless, but in the case of a king and his treasury, this would be the outcome.

"Hey king chin straps, give me the key to the treasury!"
"How dare you! Guards! Kill them!"

Dm "You are all killed by the guards, game over, see you all next week when maybe your irl int scores wouldnt make a senile trout call you morons."

That would obviously be a low diplomacy roll. Otherwise are you telling my character what I am doing? Last time I checked I decide what my character does not you. So either you tell me I can't do something I honestly can do or use some imagination and figure out a better solution. It has been shown already how a good DM could choose to handle this that keeps player choice, keeps consequences, and can be acceptable in the narrative. Considering the game itself says to find ways to say yes I think you should find a better solution especially since your way leads to the game ending that night over something so trivial.

Traab
2011-04-21, 01:46 PM
That would obviously be a low diplomacy roll. Otherwise are you telling my character what I am doing? Last time I checked I decide what my character does not you. So either you tell me I can't do something I honestly can do or use some imagination and figure out a better solution. It has been shown already how a good DM could choose to handle this that keeps player choice, keeps consequences, and can be acceptable in the narrative. Considering the game itself says to find ways to say yes I think you should find a better solution especially since your way leads to the game ending that night over something so trivial.


Well obviously I was exaggerating for effect there, but in reality, think about it this way, no matter how you phrase it, you are seriously trying to get a ruler to hand over all his kingdoms money to you. Even with the best possible phrasing he is going to think you are a moron and likely tell you to leave and never come back. A middle level of failure? Perhaps prison time. With the worst? You would be lucky for that quick death. Either way, your adventure just ended, all because you wanted to do something stupid. He wont take it as a joke and laugh it off, because you are making an honest attempt to talk him out of his entire fortune.

If a player wants to do something silly, have him attack the darkness with magic missile, trying to talk a king out of his treasury, barring the king being a mind controlled zombie who automatically agrees to do whatever anyone asks him, is only slightly less suicidal than trying to talk an ancient red dragon into donating his entire fortune to the "Feed The Adventurers" foundation. Or deciding you want to clear the enclosed room you are in of marsh gas by casting fireball. Or asking that vampire if the perfume you have on your neck smells good.