>anon you can't just do whatever you want just because you roll a nat 20
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>anon you can't just do whatever you want just because you roll a nat 20
>anon you can't just do whatever you want just because you roll a nat 20
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Critical Success (Automatically Succeeds)
you succeed but you are now under arrest for blowing up the local lords estate
Frick is he gonna do? All his men-at-arms' harnesses were in the estate at the time.
he has a bell that rings every time you tell a lie.
Which game are you playing? Because I can't find that in any rulebook I have.
According to what, exactly?
Baldurs Gate 3
Ew
>BG3
>Allowing you to do whatever you want
You're more restricted in BG3 than any table top, because you can't even suggest things the game didn't account for already
dumb aquaposter
>dumb
Isn't that the whole point of aquaposting?
>If a 20 wasn't enough to succeed then you shouldn't have made me roll and just told me it was an impossible task.
"I did tell you it was impossible, you're the one who tried to do it anyway."
I don't do that shit, I always ask the GM before I make any rolls if I can even attempt them because doing otherwise is rude.
Not in a D20 system.
RAW you should never roll unless there is a chance of failure or success.
>I'm not in charge of knowing every bonus for every skill for every PC you fricking homosexual
Ask then you lazy homosexual. When I GM I always ask my players what their maximum roll is if I'm unsure if the character could succeed when they ask me to do something.
>Not in a D20 system.
have you tried homebrew?
D20s suck shit for degrees of success. Use 3d6 instead.
>Oh really, in every game ever published that's RAW? Frick off, moron.
If a system encourages making players roll for the sake of rolling, it's a shit system.
>No.
Then any words you have to say about TTRPGs are null and void because you're a lazy homosexual.
>You don't GM, stop lying.
I currently GM 3 games, Sundays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays, so you're wrong.
>even asking for a character's max roll is providing meta information
And there's nothing wrong with that in service of a superior play experience.
>it implies that there is probably a character in the party who would be able to pass
No, it doesn't, and even if it does I can literally just say "No, only X asked to roll, none of the rest of you can roll". You'd know that if you GMed at all, which you don't. You don't even play.
>It also slows down the game for absolutely no purpose
It actually speeds up play, because you aren't sitting there rolling dice for no reason.
>It's a moronic solution to a non-problem
It's an elegant solution to a huge problem. Why should the players roll if they can't succeed or fail? It's just pointless dice rolling and a massive waste of time and energy.
>The obvious answer is the DM setting the DC and the players passing or failing as they will
Players should not roll if they would automatically fail or succeed a check, because that's a waste of time. If the guy with a +10 to hacking could roll a natural 3 and pass a DR of 12, then they automatically pass. Much faster than rolling the dice and doesn't make the roll pointless.
>Only a turbo autist like yourself would take issue with this.
Or you know, every system worth a damn. Have you tried not playing D&D? Or any D20 shitheap for that matter? Because all d20 systems fail in this way.
>RAW you should never roll unless there is a chance of failure or success.
Oh really, in every game ever published that's RAW? Frick off, moron.
>Ask then you lazy homosexual.
No.
>When I GM I always ask my players what their maximum roll is if I'm unsure if the character could succeed when they ask me to do something.
You don't GM, stop lying. Anyways, even asking for a character's max roll is providing meta information, it implies that there is probably a character in the party who would be able to pass. It also slows down the game for absolutely no purpose. It's a moronic solution to a non-problem. The obvious answer is the DM setting the DC and the players passing or failing as they will. Only a turbo autist like yourself would take issue with this.
That's not RAW. That's just your preference. I make people roll to influence my opinion of their outcome. A roll closer to the DC is less bad, could even come with some upsides, while very bad rolls mean failing more seriously.
Sorry kiddo, I'm the GM so I get to decide what passes and fails and you fail. RAW, DMG 236:
>Remember that dice don't run your game-you do.
there are levels of failure dumbass
Stop posting this moronic argument. Maybe you can succeed, maybe someone else in the party can, maybe none of you can. I'm not in charge of knowing every bonus for every skill for every PC you fricking homosexual. I just set the DCs.
AQUA SEXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Men of taste.
Then explain why I natted 20 in your mom's ass last night
I swear to god this anime has been nothing but an absolute cancer.
Nah that's Goblin Slopper
You're both shit.
Ok
Aqua is best
A natural 20, in D&D 3.5e anyway, means that you automatically hit or automatically succeed in your Saving Throw.
A hit doesn't mean you will also automatically deal damage, and a successful save doesn't necessarily mean that you will survive.
Example 1: A level 1 commoner rolls a Natural 20 against a Balor. His punch deals 1d3 + STR Modifier rolled twice. The Balor's DR will just tank it and the peasant will die from the heat aura anyways.
Example 2: Fire Storm allows a Reflex Save for half damage, it still deals 20d6 as a base. Even if the peasant rolls a nat 20, that's still an average of 30 damage (~60 / 2 => ~30).
Of course, some effects allow you to completely negate them with a save so... you could have a peasant tanking an Implosion from even a Deity.
I'd say a "Natural 20 allows you to do anything" is a half-truth at best.
It allows you to automatically, I guess, touch something with the potential of damage AND it allows you to potentially survive anything.
It all comes down to the dm only asking for rolls on checks you could conceivably pass.
If the player tries to seduce the dragon, just say they fail. Only make them roll if a nat twenty would be a success.
Yeah that's fricking moronic and you would know that if you ever
DMed anything, or were capable of examining situations from another person's perspective. But since you are autistic, you are incapable of doing either of these things.
Boy you sure convinced me of your expertise.
Move, b***h. That's my seat, I'm the GM now.
Sometime I managed to negociate to roll a d1000+ and on critical success, what I wanted to do would work. It managed to placate me and I guess the DM wouldn't have complained and adapted if I had displayed enough luck to have a success. I think its a good compromise.
I guess another way to do it would be to consider everything but a critical success to be a critical failure.
Did 5.5e remove that rule from the preview we got? I distinctly remember that was a complaint people had about it.
Aqua is for frick.
Yes I can because it's not everyday you roll a 20 on the godlike 2d6+1d10-2 system.
>I'm special, I rolled a 20 in 2d6+1d10-2
No you aren't, you do what your dice and the laws of mathematics tell you. I hit 20s in 3d6, that's what makes me special. Dyscalculia.
Rolled 3, 1 + 1 = 5 (2d6 + 1)
Rolled 52, 36 = 88 (2d61)
bump
I want aqua to sit on my face.
Why?
You can do whatever you want in the range of your ability.