• gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Actually my inspiration to use the “your character is too smart” sometimes when a smart character flops a roll

      “You’re too busy getting lost in the many potential complex solutions to the riddle, and are hopelessly consumed by it’s mysteries” for “when is a door not a door” or similar

  • Alteon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    Your daily reminder that"Nat 20" doesn’t apply to skill or ability checks. It’s applies to combat only.

    • WR5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      It does in fact apply to skill checks and ability checks. Nat 20 just means rolling a 20 naturally on the dice before any modifiers are added :) I think what you meant was that “critical success” only applies to combat! In this instance, the natural 20 still means it’s the highest possible roll for an ability checks which gives it the highest possibility of success.

      Just a daily reminder that someone can always come around and surpass in pedantry. (Sorry I couldn’t resist :) No hard feelings meant)

      • RichardDegenne@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        Bad faith and pedantry aren’t the same.

        The comic very clearly implies that the nat 20 caused their dumbass character to be able to decipher the runes.

        If it didn’t, the player wouldn’t have announced “Nat 20”, but the actual score, wirth modifiers taken into account.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          Nat 20 is very, very commonly used by GMs to mean “critcal success” in or out of combat, no matter the explict rule. Same goes for nat 1 being a “critical failure.”

          Why? Because it makes the game better for everyone to have these rare rolls rewarded or hilariously punished.

          • smeg@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            The trouble with doing that is that you end up in the stupid situation described by this comic!

    • 8osm3rka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      If a Nat 20 (the highest you can ever roll on a 20-sided die!) doesn’t succeed, what was the point of rolling in the first place?

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        Generally speaking it’s considered bad practice for a GM to call for rolls that literally no one in the party can succeed at, but as with anything in tabletop roleplaying there is nuance.

        There could be a narrative reason for the player to not know just how difficult something is and you don’t want to give it away by just telling the players they can’t succeed. If the most capable member of the party rolls a 20 and fails then the “reward” is the narrative of the attempt and learning what you’re up against.

        Or maybe someone in the party could succeed but for whatever reason the child-prodigy wizard with a strength of 8 wants to try lifting the portcullis. It wouldn’t make any sense for them to actually do it.