Ok, so to the people saying it is totally impossible if your mod is too low, it is not "totally impossible" it is "beyond your current abilities". Totally impossible implies that no matter what your character does now or ever, they will not achieve this. So no, a too-small mod is not totally impossible but simply currently so. There is a difference. Totally impossible means that no amount of training/studying would make it possible.
The rock climbing example. You are climbing as a hobby and aiming for improving your ability. There is now a horde of orcs in the canyon. Your option is to die or climb. You are now adrenaline filled and determined to live. You're going to climb regardless of numbers given. You may make it, you probably won't, but the sliver of hope is enough to make you try...
you've reached the top of the canyon. but, wait: there are more orcs up here! also the orcs below have adrenaline too and are right behind you! now you must fly away. you are going to fly regardless of the odds. you may not make it, you probably won't, the warning label on your trusty umbrella says you shouldn't even contemplate it, but the buzz of adrenaline is enough to make you try...
...are we okay with flying being totally beyond their abilities? i mean, they do have that umbrella. in the previous mention of rock climbing AffenWiesel said that a climb beyond their abilities is a climb beyond their abilities. then orcs came and suddenly impossible had to be reevaluated. but Affen didn't say impossible unless they tried real hard. rather than flying we could have instead attempted to speedily seduce a dragon or operate an arcane lock on baba yaga's house or convince a herd of goats to turn and fight. all impossible unless the one telling the story decides to reduce the DC for reasons... which is exactly what mentioning the adrenaline factor is doing in this narrative. however, if you're inventing new ways for them to defy their fate, then why even let the dice decide? if we're fishing for a critical, 95% of the time you've just given them hope only to dash it upon the rocks.
...The appendectomy example. The world has now ended. Society has collapsed. Your wife/husband/child is developing appendicitis. You know roughly that the appendix is located in the right side of the abdomen, how to sew, and very basic sterilization techniques. They will die if you do nothing. No one is coming. There is nobody to go to. You are alone and they will die. Do you watch their inevitable death or try? You'll probably fail. The odds are heavily stacked against you and you're pressed for time. But maybe, just maybe, they will survive if you try. It won't be a perfect surgery by any means, but would you really say, "I'm no surgeon so... sucks to suck I guess. Die with dignity wifey"?
And to the comment that it makes it hard for the DM, if you have a hard time separating, "yea, that'd be possible for someone with training" and, "no amount of training would make that possible", like I've said, don't use the rule. Personally, I find it easy to quickly judge whether or not something can be "fluked forward". If it is skill based and can be acquired through training, it can be fluked forward. If it requires a special ability, magic, or something to that effect, it can't.
And, again, I'm a big advocate for "play your way". I'm not "right" about using critical success/failure. I just prefer to. I'm also not saying you should be required to. I just think it adds more "unpredictability of life" to the game and makes for some awesome moments.
just to point out: the person in your example isn't completely without training. like a player describing their methods in order to influence the final DC, you mention sewing and sterilization. also, they've diagnosed the problem which is a huge step! this isn't an example of an impossible task relying on a miracle, this sounds like a series of high but achievable DC checks.
Your example about flying is, once again, inflating things. Every character can climb. That is a fact. They may not climb well but every character is physically capable of climbing. Your flying jab just proves my point. If the character is entirely unable to fly, they can't attempt it. They are simply jumping and delusional then. However, sometimes we climb better and sometimes we don't. "Beginners luck" is a common phrase for a reason, but...
...attempting to fly on a character that can't fly shouldn't even be a roll.
...At best, you should describe the character flapping their arms like a chicken and looking ridiculous.
And as to the surgery again, the player declaring they do all of these steps that their character would have no training in or expectation of knowledge of is just describing the "impossible" for their character but you count it. The player knowing that has no effect on the character's knowledge. You climbing in real life doesn't make your character climb better just because you can describe how you, the player, would use techniques to climb. You allow it because you like that style of play but that could be easily argued as metagaming because, "your 11 wis pc knows about sterilization and the general location of the appendix?" What if your player is a surgeon for real but plays an 8 wis barb but perfectly describes the exact technique for an appendectomy? Are you going to say they can't do it? But you just allowed the other player to do that exact thing; just because the surgeon described it better, it's suddenly not allowed? Or do they get the same adjustment as the limited description I gave? Then why did the description matter beyond the very basics? And both cases are still meta information used in game. So metagaming is now preferable to having a stroke of good luck?
We are both stretching reality for our players because allowing the slightly out of reach to be achievable is often fun. Critical success also allows players with less real knowledge or trouble explaining steps to have cool moments, not just the ones that can role-play better. I'm not saying you shouldn't consider what a player describes, I'm just pointing out that you're drawing arbitrary lines.
that's right. that guy shouldn't fly. if the dm doesn't want it to happen (because it's implausible or counter to the narrative), then the dm shouldn't call for a roll of the dice. attempting to climb again where it's already been established to be lacking in handholds before is an act of desperation on the order of attempting to fly or turning to shout "parley??" at the orcs. giving a qualifier along the lines of "if i was the dm, then..." is moving the goalposts. an unremarkable elementary school child sits to take a graduate level math exam? impossible. ah, unless it's multiple choice! goalposts moved, now it's possible. now the dm can't be described as "doesn't want it to happen" if its happening is being facilitated.
if this is where the story says Mufasa falls into the stampeding wildebeests, now's probably not the time for a series of sure-to-fail dex saves. if this is where Aladdin finds the lamp to continue, then it's just asking for trouble to call for a perception roll that you narratively need to not fail. Rapunzel cannot flub a check and fall to her death the very first time down the lonely tower unless you're entirely comfortable with the awkward "now what?" sandbox that comes next. on the other hand, Donkey can roll to seduce the dragon guarding Shrek's macguffin-princess because Donkey's reason for being is charismatic distraction and also you're obviously in a more permissible gag story anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the player having a moment of great or terrible luck is a thing to be excited or stricken about and so I make it something worth celebrating by giving that player something impactful.
If i don't want a player to be capable of a feat, I simply narrate it as such or make it a multi-step process. A nat 20 being just a 20 makes the roll unexciting. Instead of hype and an awesome player moment you get "20 plus mod is blah blah. Is that enough?" And if that's a no, the player feels like they wasted time doing something pointless. There was no reality in which they would be allowed to do it so why even try? It discourages unconventional plans because you're telling them to "stay in their lane".
And if you really want to lower the 5% success rate, introduce multiple steps. Roll to convince the teacher you're even a student. Now roll to attempt the test. You just turned 5% into 0.25%. Add another step and it's now 0.000125% just because of three steps. Surgery? Roll to cut, find appendix, remove appendix, and suture. 0.00000625% of critical success. Simply telling players "even your best isn't good enough" doesn't feel good to me. But telling them it would be insanely difficult to pull off makes it a situation where they weigh the risk/reward.
I'd say the thing is that you're assuming a nat 20 must have a hard bonus, instead of a soft one. Keep in mind that skill checks are not required to be a binary pass/fail check. If you want to make a nat 20 success feel special, add some extra flair to the narration or work in a bonus in whatever they were trying to achieve.
And regarding adding extra steps, the thing is that if you're only adding them because someone who should have failed didn't because they rolled a 20, then we're returning to the point where the goalposts are being arbitrarily moved and arguably running counter to your idea that a nat 20 should feel special, because now it looks like you're just trying to go back on giving the player the option to succeed. Just telling them outright "your best wasn't good enough" honestly seems more honest than "I'm gonna ask you to try for a second nat 20 in a row now, almost certainly resulting in you ultimately failing despite making it seem like you were going to succeed".
I actually, specifically said it doesn't have to be a hard bonus. It just has to be a succes regardless of modifiers. In fact, i believe the exact quote was "You don't have to give them the entire thing but giving them that small win is a huge thing." The nat 20 just means you can't utterly fail...
I'm also not saying move the goalposts retroactively because they should have failed, I'm saying decide ahead of time that this is a difficult, multi-step process. Regardless of who attempts it, they need to pass x amount of checks for the best result and the results are progressively worse the less checks they pass.
So the surgery thing. Pass all 4 steps i named above, surgery is a success and character is recovering well. Pass 3/4 surgery completed but character "isn't out of the woods". Pass 2/4 character stabilized for 3 days giving players more time to find a solution. Pass 1/4 you manage to not make them worse. Fail all four, patient dies.
Let the players know that this thing they want to do is a "process" and the risks. "As you look at [the character] as they scream in agony, you quickly realize that any attempt to do the surgery yourselves would be exceedingly difficult with several different opportunities to fail and cost [the character] their life." It's now an intense situation with high difficulty that:
1. Decreases the risk of nat 1 failure because they have a 0.00000625% chance of nat 1 failing
2. Decreases the chance of nat 20 "giving them everything"
3. Makes nat 20's a chance for a little bonus (maybe even count a nat 20 for two steps if you're feeling generous. It's your game, go wild.)
4. Creates drama and tension because they know this surgery could go either way right up until the end.
5. Allows you to keep critical success in the game for other exciting moments in the future.
You can also turn this into a group activity. Each character gets to complete a single step. Who attempts which steps? Now they have almost 0 risk of nat 1/20 carries/fails and have to plan out the surgery as a team. And if, say, the barb gets stuck with suturing, their nat 20 is a big win for the whole team without "breaking your scene".
okay, as long as the steps are achievable by math ("pass x amount of checks") then i, as a player, would see this as a difficult challenge rather than an intend-to-fail scenario. as soon as any number of critical successes are required rather than being simply a windfall, that's when i'd question whether this activity was not so secretly on the rails.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
that's right. that guy shouldn't fly. if the dm doesn't want it to happen (because it's implausible or counter to the narrative), then the dm shouldn't call for a roll of the dice. attempting to climb again where it's already been established to be lacking in handholds before is an act of desperation on the order of attempting to fly or turning to shout "parley??" at the orcs. giving a qualifier along the lines of "if i was the dm, then..." is moving the goalposts. an unremarkable elementary school child sits to take a graduate level math exam? impossible. ah, unless it's multiple choice! goalposts moved, now it's possible. now the dm can't be described as "doesn't want it to happen" if its happening is being facilitated.
if this is where the story says Mufasa falls into the stampeding wildebeests, now's probably not the time for a series of sure-to-fail dex saves. if this is where Aladdin finds the lamp to continue, then it's just asking for trouble to call for a perception roll that you narratively need to not fail. Rapunzel cannot flub a check and fall to her death the very first time down the lonely tower unless you're entirely comfortable with the awkward "now what?" sandbox that comes next. on the other hand, Donkey can roll to seduce the dragon guarding Shrek's macguffin-princess because Donkey's reason for being is charismatic distraction and also you're obviously in a more permissible gag story anyway.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
okay, as long as the steps are achievable by math ("pass x amount of checks") then i, as a player, would see this as a difficult challenge rather than an intend-to-fail scenario. as soon as any number of critical successes are required rather than being simply a windfall, that's when i'd question whether this activity was not so secretly on the rails.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!