DC modifiesr.

[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.