Troll Lord Games

Yep, Natural 20's automatically succeed in combat rolls and saves.

What about skill rolls? Are some things just beyond the abilities of the players until they reach higher levels? Or does even a first level thief have a 5% chance of busting into the fantasy equivalent of Fort Knox?

Thats house rule territory. Do it however you like it.

Treebore wrote:Thats house rule territory. Do it however you like it.

Really? Because it's codified in the SRD. I figured C&C either kept it the same or changed it. I am surprised that they didn't consider it at all.

I don't mind, but I find it interesting.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Treebore wrote:Thats house rule territory. Do it however you like it.

Really? Because it's codified in the SRD. I figured C&C either kept it the same or changed it. I am surprised that they didn't consider it at all.

I don't mind, but I find it interesting.

C&C never used a lot of things in the SRD, as well as used things differently than presented in the SRD when such items did get used. Fortunately, its easy to house rule it to be however you like it best.

The Trolls and I, (Steve, Tyler and Todd), just had a conversation about this at NTRPGCon. Basically Steve repeated that they intentionally left a lot of rules areas unexplained, so that a CK could house rule it however they like best, and not have it contradict the book, because the book never says anything about it.

If Tree says its not codified, I would suggest he's right. Ones always miss and 20s always hit I thought was a house rule too, but if tis codified in the CnC rules great.. so to me keep it the same so 1 always fail an ability check or SEIGE engine check and 20s always make seems balanced and how we play it.... officially there are no "skills" either.

Captain_K wrote:.... officially there are no "skills" either.

Aside from Class Skills.

Treebore wrote:Basically Steve repeated that they intentionally left a lot of rules areas unexplained, so that a CK could house rule it however they like best, and not have it contradict the book, because the book never says anything about it.

That is probably one of C&C's greatest strengths, imo. As someone who tends to go in and tinker with systems anyway, having one that gives me the room I need to make it my own and gets the rules out of my way is awesome.

It's the best iteration of d20 I've ever seen.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: It's the best iteration of d20 I've ever seen.

I'll completely agree with that.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:Yep, Natural 20's automatically succeed in combat rolls and saves.

Nope. In C&C a 20 is just a 20.

Arduin wrote: Nope. In C&C a 20 is just a 20.

Please clarify: the natural 20 is not an automatic success even in combat rolls and saves? So it is possible to fight a monster you can't hit or to be affected by a poison that you can't resist?

I've been playing wrong if that's the case. My players should probably all be dead. :-/ But if I've been doing it wrong, I will fix it for future games by explaining it.

I do house rule a tremendous amount of stuff, but I prefer to house rule setting stuff primarily, and I only fix rules that I feel are broken for my games, or don't fit my setting, neither of which applies to this rule.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Arduin wrote: Nope. In C&C a 20 is just a 20.

Please clarify: the natural 20 is not an automatic success even in combat rolls and saves?

Correct. The RAW in C&C does NOT give auto success or failure for 20's or 1's respectively.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: So it is possible to fight a monster you can't hit or to be affected by a poison that you can't resist?

Sure. That is pretty classic Fantasy material.

Arduin wrote:

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Arduin wrote: Nope. In C&C a 20 is just a 20.

Please clarify: the natural 20 is not an automatic success even in combat rolls and saves?

Correct. The RAW in C&C does NOT give auto success or failure for 20's or 1's respectively.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: So it is possible to fight a monster you can't hit or to be affected by a poison that you can't resist?

Sure. That is pretty classic Fantasy material.

Thank you for clarifying. I'll pass it along to the group.

Arduin wrote: Correct. The RAW in C&C does NOT give auto success or failure for 20's or 1's respectively.

One other thing: That also means that there are things you can't fail, right? I mean, with a high enough level even a 1 will succeed. So there is no chance of failure once you're up around 15th level for some tasks. Is this how it's usually played?

This is not to suggest that I don't believe you. I totally do, and it's demonstrably correct by reading the rulebook. I guess I just sorta assumed.

The biggest place my mind is blown is in combat. A 12th level fighter with no strength bonus will never fail to hit AC 13 (an Orc, for example). With a +3 Strength bonus, he'll never fail to hit at 8th level. I'm just not sure how that would work out. I may have to house rule it in after all. :-/

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Arduin wrote: Correct. The RAW in C&C does NOT give auto success or failure for 20's or 1's respectively.

One other thing: That also means that there are things you can't fail, right? I mean, with a high enough level even a 1 will succeed. So there is no chance of failure once you're up around 15th level for some tasks. Is this how it's usually played?

This is not to suggest that I don't believe you. I totally do, and it's demonstrably correct by reading the rulebook. I guess I just sorta assumed.

The biggest place my mind is blown is in combat. A 12th level fighter with no strength bonus will never fail to hit AC 13 (an Orc, for example). With a +3 Strength bonus, he'll never fail to hit at 8th level. I'm just not sure how that would work out. I may have to house rule it in after all. :-/

By the book, that would be correct. That's probably why so many people house rule it.

R-

There are no guarantees, until one is high enough level to automatically succeed. The other times are when a roll, regardless of its outcome, would not prevail... at which point, the question is begged: why allow a roll at all?

A natural 20 or 1 is not a success or failure. However, if you can only fail on a 1, unless there is some ultra-drama, I'd wonder why I was rolling it.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Arduin wrote: Correct. The RAW in C&C does NOT give auto success or failure for 20's or 1's respectively.

One other thing: That also means that there are things you can't fail, right? I mean, with a high enough level even a 1 will succeed. So there is no chance of failure once you're up around 15th level for some tasks. Is this how it's usually played?

Yep. Think of it as a version of hitting the broad side of a barn. For instance, with a rifle at 50 yds. I will NEVER miss a target the size of a cow. Not 5% of the time anyway.

serleran wrote: A natural 20 or 1 is not a success or failure. However, if you can only fail on a 1, unless there is some ultra-drama, I'd wonder why I was rolling it.

I knew someone would say that, which is why I waited until someone did to post this:

Our group rolls 1's (and sometimes 20's) far more than would seem statistically probable. A few days ago two players and 7 allies tried to take down a BBEG that I intentionally made easy enough to beat. The result? The incredible number of 1's rolled (which we have been calling critical failures) had the heroes on the ropes. I think four people died, IIRC (well, they didn't die, but they were driven to 0 hit points). Maybe I just have bad math, but they should have wailed on that beastie. But 1 after 1 after 1 after 1 kept coming up, which, as being judged as "critical failures" meant weapons were breaking, people were losing turns to being dazed, or whatever we could come up with it to differentiate it from "normal" failures.

For us, 1's are notable because they mean something bad happened (at least, that's how we were playing it, that may change now). It is what some games call a "botch." For that reason, when they happen, we see them more than we see "normal" failures.

They should come up 1 time in 20. They really don't. Or, if they do, our next game will not have a single 1 rolled, because the universe owes us some other numbers.

TL;DR In our group, being told you only fail on a 1 doesn't make us feel any more secure about our odds of success.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

serleran wrote: A natural 20 or 1 is not a success or failure. However, if you can only fail on a 1, unless there is some ultra-drama, I'd wonder why I was rolling it.

I knew someone would say that, which is why I waited until someone did to post this:

Our group rolls 1's (and sometimes 20's) far more than would seem statistically probable. A few days ago two players and 7 allies tried to take down a BBEG that I intentionally made easy enough to beat. The result? The incredible number of 1's rolled (which we have been calling critical failures) had the heroes on the ropes. I think four people died, IIRC (well, they didn't die, but they were driven to 0 hit points). Maybe I just have bad math, but they should have wailed on that beastie. But 1 after 1 after 1 after 1 kept coming up, which, as being judged as "critical failures" meant weapons were breaking, people were losing turns to being dazed, or whatever we could come up with it to differentiate it from "normal" failures.

For us, 1's are notable because they mean something bad happened (at least, that's how we were playing it, that may change now). It is what some games call a "botch." For that reason, when they happen, we see them more than we see "normal" failures.

They should come up 1 time in 20. They really don't. Or, if they do, our next game will not have a single 1 rolled, because the universe owes us some other numbers.

TL;DR In our group, being told you only fail on a 1 doesn't make us feel any more secure about our odds of success.

Then, for your group, it is not a mere 5% but some statistical anomaly placing it more on the 95%.... otherwise, an inverse of the obvious. In these cases, you might consider opposite rolling like the Alternity system. Or, roll less often.

We have someone in the group who can also roll the worst case scenario more often that it should be possible. So... we tend to not have that person roll unless absolutely critical to the fun of chaos.

Probabilities are determined over a large number of rolls, not a single roll. This is why people get the impression they roll 1's or 20's more often than they should. If they were to make 1,000 rolls, and record them, they will see that they have the even distribution that they should see. Assuming the dice are truly "balanced". Which most are not. Which is why people often have a "favorite" D20.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote:

Treebore wrote:Thats house rule territory. Do it however you like it.

Really? Because it's codified in the SRD. I figured C&C either kept it the same or changed it. I am surprised that they didn't consider it at all.

I don't mind, but I find it interesting.

Actually, even in the SRD Nat 20's and Nat 1's do not mean automatic failure or success on skill checks, either.

D20 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.

EDIT: I just realized that you may have meant that it was codified to mean no automatic failure or success on skill checks. Either way, I figured I'd quote it.

-Chris

Since I'm also a newb with C&C, I'm glad that I had come across this thread. I was also just assuming that nat 20's/nat 1's were automatic success/fail in combat, and on saves. I'm planning on running RAW as I start, but this may very well be one of the first things that gets house ruled.

To be honest, though, that will probably be based on my players wants. I personally like the idea of that creature that requires an alternate way of defeating, other than combat. Or, for the players to learn that there really is a time to run. And from the other side of the screen, taking into account the Orc scenario listed above with PCs at 8th level or higher, those Orcs should be running the second they see how easily a character dispatches one of their number. Remember, the players aren't the only ones that should learn the lesson that it is ok to run. The NPC's want to live, too.

As for skills, I have no problem with things being beyond a character's ability, or so easy they could do it in their sleep. I mean, if it is so easy that only a nat 1 would fail, then I see no reason to make the player roll.

-Chris

darkpaladin45 wrote:Since I'm also a newb with C&C, I'm glad that I had come across this thread. I was also just assuming that nat 20's/nat 1's were automatic success/fail in combat, and on saves. I'm planning on running RAW as I start, but this may very well be one of the first things that gets house ruled.

To be honest, though, that will probably be based on my players wants. I personally like the idea of that creature that requires an alternate way of defeating, other than combat. Or, for the players to learn that there really is a time to run. And from the other side of the screen, taking into account the Orc scenario listed above with PCs at 8th level or higher, those Orcs should be running the second they see how easily a character dispatches one of their number. Remember, the players aren't the only ones that should learn the lesson that it is ok to run. The NPC's want to live, too.

As for skills, I have no problem with things being beyond a character's ability, or so easy they could do it in their sleep. I mean, if it is so easy, that only a nat 1 would fail, then most likely there doesn't even need to be a roll made, IMO.

-Chris

One thing I hate about "Crits" is when that is the only way a AC can be hit, and the CK still gives them the effect of a "Critical success", IE add additional damage in some manner. I think when it requires the NAt 20 for them to even hit, they should not then get any additional benefit.

Treebore wrote:One thing I hate about "Crits" is when that is the only way a AC can be hit, and the CK still gives them the effect of a "Critical success", IE add additional damage in some manner. I think when it requires the NAt 20 for them to even hit, they should not then get any additional benefit.

I like that idea! And on the flip side, if a Nat-1 misses, but is absolutely the only way to miss, then no critical failure. Just a simple miss.

-Chris

Treebore wrote:Probabilities are determined over a large number of rolls, not a single roll. This is why people get the impression they roll 1's or 20's more often than they should. If they were to make 1,000 rolls, and record them, they will see that they have the even distribution that they should see. Assuming the dice are truly "balanced". Which most are not. Which is why people often have a "favorite" D20.

Exactly, which is why I said we shouldn't get any 1's in the next few games, as the universe owes us some other numbers.

I'm not suggesting that my house has a field around it where probability doesn't work properly, if only because I don't want to be kicked out of my house to have it torn down and someone to put a casino here. I'm just saying that, in actual play, that 1 shows up enough to make us all laugh a lot. I'm considering making a drinking game out of it. (Roll a 1, take a shot!).

If the only way to miss hitting an Orc in combat is on an automatic failure, I'm still going to require a roll. If the rules have no automatic failure, then I'll have to house rule one in for that combat (although I agree with the above that a 1 should not be a critical failure, or maybe a second roll should be made to determine if it is, if we really want critical failure rules). One Orc would not be a challenge if you only need to roll a 2 or greater to hit, but 20 or 30 still would be. And with that many, and that many rolls, you're bound to hit 1 at least a few times, and those few times might be what they need to bring you down a bit while they're attacking.

I play guitar. I can usually play "Mary Had A Little Lamb" without making a mistake. In the case of making a skill roll that is unopposed, I can see me not needing a skill roll to play the nursery rhyme (even though a string could always break, or I could have a sudden memory of my mother-in-law pop into my head), but in a combat or any opposed situation, it still makes sense to me that there's always a chance of failure because there's always a chance your opponent might succeed or in some way limit your ability to succeed, and C&C's simple system doesn't always take that into account mechanically.

YMMV, and how!

Definitely! Just last night we, or at least I, got a great laugh out of Zask the Gnome Fighter rolling a fumble on his attack, then a fumble on his DEX check to avoid a bad mishap, which caused him to fall off of the table he was fighting from, face first, onto the floor, prone, but not helpless, before TWO Skeletal Warriors,

Treebore wrote:Definitely! Just last night we, or at least I, got a great laugh out of Zask the Gnome Fighter rolling a fumble on his attack, then a fumble on his DEX check to avoid a bad mishap, which caused him to fall off of the table he was fighting from, face first, onto the floor, prone, but not helpless, before TWO Skeletal Warriors,

Ah, so you do have fumbles? By rolling Natural 1? Or do you use another system?

I have started to like the idea of, on a very high roll (10+ more than needed), one draws a card from a standard Poker deck. The card determines the effect, which is something I stole from Deadlands in essence. Similarly, a very bad roll has the same thing, only reversed.

serleran wrote:I have started to like the idea of, on a very high roll (10+ more than needed), one draws a card from a standard Poker deck. The card determines the effect, which is something I stole from Deadlands in essence. Similarly, a very bad roll has the same thing, only reversed.

I like it! Although, quite obviously, I would draw from a Tarot deck. I also think that matches the atmosphere of the game, too.

True. Tarot is more... random, too, when done right. Plus using the Major Arcana can have some more significance when drawn.

I think I'll change my own recommendation.

serleran wrote:True. Tarot is more... random, too, when done right. Plus using the Major Arcana can have some more significance when drawn.

I think I'll change my own recommendation.

I thought about it myself a bit, and actually, although it would limit "options" from 78 to 22, (or from 156 to 44 is you use reverses), I would probably stick with just the Majors for the rule.

Partly because the Major cards are what everyone consider spooky, so it would be cooler to turn up, say, "The Hanged Man" rather than "7 of Cups."

But also partly because I have some really great decks that have very evocative art on the Majors, but the Minors are just depicted as normal pip cards. Without the picture, I feel the idea would fall a bit flat with players. Obviously, since you were originally wanting to use poker cards, you probably disagree, though.