DC modifiesr.

[Question]

Lets say a regent rules a holding.DC is 11(for sake of argument).Lets say with skill,feats,bonuses,etc,etc the total bonus is 15.So it would go down to 2 right(maximum 2,as 1 always fails)?What happens then if someone opposes the action?

Is the "un used" bonus from applied to the new DC,or is it lost?

[ausrick]

This is only my assumption based on my understanding of 3rd edition rules but here goes.

essentially you are talking about any check in BR where regents can bid RP to support or oppose an action. IIRC those bids "modify" the DC. and I've always been under the idea that when making a DC check in D20, you apply all bonuses, penalties, and modifiers and after that, when actually making your roll, a "natural" 1 always fails. So I guess in rules-theory you could have a scenerio where a regent needs to roll a -17 or lower to fail his action, but what that really means is he would need to roll a natural two or better, but another regent would need to bid 19 or more RP against the action to see a difference.

[irdeggman]

The only time a natural "1" automatically fails or a natural "20" automatically succeeds is for to hit rolls (i.e., attack rolls) and saving throws. At no other time does a natural 1 or 20 have an automatic effect. In fact a character can have a skill check automatically succeed without making the roll, if his modifiers are high enough.

[irdeggman]

Lets say a regent rules a holding.DC is 11(for sake of argument).Lets say with skill,feats,bonuses,etc,etc the total bonus is 15.So it would go down to 2 right(maximum 2,as 1 always fails)?What happens then if someone opposes the action?

Is the "un used" bonus from applied to the new DC,or is it lost?

Technically the DC does not change the other factors are modifiers to the roll. So with a DC 11 and total modifers of +15 the regent would automatically succeed and technically wouldn't need to bother with the roll. But as pointed out earlier, ensure that all RP bidding is done before determining the outcome since they all count towards modifiers.

And yes if you have more bonuses than are necessary they just don't help anymore. Same is true when applying modifiers to damage in combat. AIt is possible that a character's total damage modifers could be more than enough necessary to "kill" his opponent, they are "wasted" in the sense you are using the term, since they are not necessary.

[ausrick]

Yes, Irdeggman, you are 100% correct about that Natural 1 thing, I totally spaced that. . . and I play this stuff tabletop every week since 3rd ed came out you wouldn't think I would have forgotten that. Thanks. So a situation, however ludicrous, could be "So I need above a -8 on a d20, think I can do it?"

[irdeggman]

Here's one that most likely pops up all the time and you don't even notice.


For the Ride skill a DC 5 ride check allows the following:


Guide with Knees: You can react instantly to guide your mount with your knees so that you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount.


Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action.


So with 5 ranks in Ride (not even counting any modifier for Dex) how often to you make the players (or are made to as a player) make a check to see if you can fight in battle - that is using a sword and shield (requires both hands) or to stay in the saddle when taking damage?


It takes a ride check with a DC of 10 to get your warhorse to fight. This is one that is not usually defaulted too (i.e., no check required), well not until around 5th-6th level that is.

[Osprey]

Personally, I like the the rule of 1 and 20, and do use it for all d20 rolls in my games. In fact, I think most every D&D game I've ever played in has used that rule as standard practice (1's always fail, 20's always succeed).

Since domain action checks are a seperate system from attacks, skills, saves, etc., we could implement the rule of 1 and 20 for them if we (the BR community) so decided, thus leaving always a 5% chance of success or failure no matter how much RP is spent or other modifiers are applied. Given the complex series of actions that each domain action check involves, I think this would be an excellent addition to the rules. There's always those incompetent and unusually talented underlings, random events like weather, accidents, etc., and many other small factors that could undermine or allow success even in the most unlikely of situations. That's my take on it, anyways.

Poll, anyone?

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Personally, I like the the rule of 1 and 20, and do use it for all d20 rolls in my games. In fact, I think most every D&D game I've ever played in has used that rule as standard practice (1's always fail, 20's always succeed).

Osprey

Problem with 1s and 20s is that it bypasses the take 10 and 20 rules. It also makes having a lot of ranks in something have a potential to fail when it reality there really isn't. That is the crux of the take 10 concept - you are being careful when making the attempt.

Also many people like to further apply the critical miss rules with a 1. Which comlicates things even further, especially when they don't follow the variante for it in the DMG and instead have a nat 1 critically fail. Which IMO is plain ridiculous. I mean if in order to score a critical hit it takes a 2 succussful rolls (one success after reaching the threat number) then why should a fumble or critical failure have any easier cahnce of occuring?

Oh and in 2nd ed when rolling for domain actions a natural 1 or 20 did not automatically fail or succeed.

[DemyztikX]

If a natural 1 always fails, it definately makes me having high skills almost completely worthless. A 1 always failing would mean that I could fail at tying my shoes (5% chance). I don't like that rule can you tell? My players are all used to having horrible things happen if they roll ones, like being shot in the foot and such. They aren't really used to a 1 just being a "fail" so any institution of automatic failures (outside of the 20/1 in combat) is detrimental to their rehibilitation.

[Osprey]

Problem with 1s and 20s is that it bypasses the take 10 and 20 rules. It also makes having a lot of ranks in something have a potential to fail when it reality there really isn't. That is the crux of the take 10 concept - you are being careful when making the attempt.

I was proposing the rule of 1 and 20 only for domain action checks, not skill checks. I wasn't under the impression that one could take 10 or take 20 on domain action checks, nor are there any skill checks involved, only your total skill bonus as a modifier.


Also many people like to further apply the critical miss rules with a 1. Which comlicates things even further, especially when they don't follow the variante for it in the DMG and instead have a nat 1 critically fail. Which IMO is plain ridiculous. I mean if in order to score a critical hit it takes a 2 succussful rolls (one success after reaching the threat number) then why should a fumble or critical failure have any easier cahnce of occuring?

In my game I have nat 1's always fail, but a second check is made to determine whether or not it is a critical failure (if the second roll is a normal failure, then a "fumble" occurs, otherwise it is simply a failed check). Thus, critical failures and critical successes are checked exactly the same way, and balance is maintained between the two.

Taking 10 or 20 on a skill check becomes more useful IMC because it avoids the chance of botching - though it also prevents one from achieving a critical success. You trade luck for consistency.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

I was proposing the rule of 1 and 20 only for domain action checks, not skill checks. I wasn't under the impression that one could take 10 or take 20 on domain action checks, nor are there any skill checks involved, only your total skill bonus as a modifier.

I was respondinmg to this:


Personally, I like the the rule of 1 and 20, and do use it for all d20 rolls in my games. In fact, I think most every D&D game I've ever played in has used that rule as standard practice (1's always fail, 20's always succeed).

Which seems to contradict the following clarification you made


In my game I have nat 1's always fail, but a second check is made to determine whether or not it is a critical failure (if the second roll is a normal failure, then a "fumble" occurs, otherwise it is simply a failed check). Thus, critical failures and critical successes are checked exactly the same way, and balance is maintained between the two.

Taking 10 or 20 on a skill check becomes more useful IMC because it avoids the chance of botching - though it also prevents one from achieving a critical success. You trade luck for consistency.

Seems strange to allow taking 10 and yet still have the nat 1 as a failure. This also goes against the take 20 concept which is that if you attempt something 20 times you will eventually get a 20 roll. By having a nat 1 fail then you can't take 20 since one of those rolls would have been a "1" and hence an automatic failure.

[DemyztikX]

Taking 10 or 20 on a skill check becomes more useful IMC because it avoids the chance of botching - though it also prevents one from achieving a critical success. You trade luck for consistency.
Except that if you have critical failure its only fair to have a critical success. This means by taking 20 you could both critically fail AND critically succeed in a single action (dice willing that is), since the concept of take 20 is (as previously stated) getting one of each roll. Unless you said you couldn't critical when you take 20, which is just adding rules to clarify a point that should be moot.
Maybe it's the Nyquill talking, but when rules are added they should be clear and not need more rules to clarify them. Maybe I need to re-read the rules in the book for critical failures, or if you use something different you should post EXACTALLY what you purpose we vote on to include, we can edit something thats posted, we can just complain about ideas otherwise. If it's on paper we can know EXACTALLY what we're all talking about. The majority of arguements are because someone doesn't have the facts straight, so getting the facts straight should be done before we deside on anything.

[ausrick]

I guess when deciding whether a check should have 20 as an automatic success or 1 as an automatic fail you need to ask yourself "Is there, no matter what the circumstances, atleast a 5% chance of success" and "Is there, no matter what the chances, a 5% chance of failure", and I don't know that if you have one you necessarily have to have the other. And if you are saying that there is really only a 1% chance, or even the proverbial "99.9%", then it is best to say no automatic success or fail in that situation, because there is a world of difference between 0.1%, 1%, and the 5% of the 1's and 20's.

So, you have to ask yourself in this extreme example, IF I had a province I wanted to create a level 0 guild holding in, The realm regent was on my side, The only other guilder in the realm who had all the holdings recently died of a coronary and had no heir. The temple priests all played bingo with me on the weekends, the source wizard was my uncle's drinking buddy, I had a huge blood line, 50 stored RP, a treasury of 20 GB, everyone likes me. Is there any chance if I go all in for anything to stop me? Is there any chance close to 5%? And most importantly, is there any chance "That could not be represented in the form of opposed modifiers to the check"?

In combat on the battlefield there is a lot of Luck, and any body no matter how prepared or skilled or how green or un ready has a chance, maybe not a good one (5%), but it's there. The unpredictability of battle is well represented by that additional 5%, but in matters of stictly skill and in this case actions that are calculated, take months to enact, and are not left to chance. I would say luck in the form of "its anybodys game" and automatic succeed/fail are not applicable to these kinds of checks so not well represented by an automatic 5% chance.