Impossibile Skill Check?

[mostrojoe]

Perhaps is addressed in some of the manuals, but I did not find anything in the player's book.

There can be an impossible skill check? I mean, what if the difficulty class is, say, 23 and the PC, bonus included, can only get a maximum roll of 21 or 22?

[Captain_K]

If the first level thief wants to climb an inverted ice wall without tools and a dislocated shoulder then even with a 20 it might be impossible to move more than a few feet up the wall and realize its impossible. A human fighter with an 18 str tries to lift a 78 tonne boulder.

So yes, all sorts of things should be impossible no matter what you roll.

Good examples are a fighter in plate mail cannot move silently... he can try to be quiet by not singing or hitting his plate with his shield, but silent, no chance.

So no rule will tell you its impossible, but math and logic and class restrictions should make that obvious.

You know this, let you're PCs find out and have them roll no matter what and your explanation or details about the level of success or failure (even if a 20 was rolled) will help calibrate your players and get you all in harmony.

Think of a 10 has being base line for easy stuff +/- 50%... If the task is 200% harder than average... then failure is likely.

[Lurker]

Roger on your All sorts of things should be impossible no matter what you roll.

Even in high fantasy high magic 'super heroes in medieval setting' game, there are still things that just can't be done no matter what your dice say.

Now on a side bar. level of failure . I saw something on a non C&C game .... crud my mind is blank of the rules, sorry ... a failed roll in the rules isn't a failure. It is a realization at the second you start to do something that you will not accomplish it, and you have a second to stop and reconsider before something catastrophic happens.

Something like you get ready to climb a cliff and fail the roll. Instead of ruling the character got 10 - 20 ft what ever up the cliff and then fell to take damage. They get to the cliff, get their first hand or foot hold and realize the angle is too steep . the rock to wet , the soil to loose for good footing, or how ever you want to narrate it.

The player can stop there, or look to see if there is some way to help overcome why they failed, or they can push it and try again (assuming they failed due to a truly poor roll) but they do suffer a negative effect if the 2nd roll fails.

I like the narrative feel of that way to handle it. Plus it fits your original question. It give the player a chance to realize what they are trying to do it just plane impossible as is and they need to fall back and regroup on the situation or look for a different way to do what they are trying to do.

[Grandpa]

There can be an impossible skill check? I mean, what if the difficulty class is, say, 23 and the PC, bonus included, can only get a maximum roll of 21 or 22?

If the PC said they were going to high jump to the moon would you even try to put a DC to it?? No, because it's impossible.

[serleran]

If the result is impossible, a SIEGE check is not even used per the rules. You only use it when there is a chance of success and it is "dramatic/cinematic."

Likewise, if the chance is guaranteed, no roll is needed.

This does lead some to suggest natural 1 and 20 as failure or success, respectively, but it then means everything has a flat 5% to do anything and also 5% to fail anything... neither of which is right. But, it can be fun to allow anyway.

[Kayolan]

I usually don't allow a natural 20 as a sure chance of success unless it's a to hit roll.

[mostrojoe]

Thank you all.
I was against the natural 20 as an automatic success indeed.
I am ok with the 1 as automatic failure anyway. Fumbles happen even in our everyday lives. So...