|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 16:26:52 GMT
Post by Prestige on Nov 14, 2015 16:26:52 GMT
... Should not be automatic failures.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 18:31:37 GMT
Post by epitaxis on Nov 14, 2015 18:31:37 GMT
Are we talking about mechanically or RPly?
Because mechanically it's.. Unavoidable. There isn't a script that I know of that has been able to change natural 1s.
RPly? I actually enjoy them, they're a chance to bring a bit of comedy that shows the character his/her humanity.
Now, as for easy to do tasks? Like pulling someone within your carry weight or performing a basic ritual as a master wizard? I'd say that's more up to the player or the DM for a chance of something interesting or unlucky to happen...
In a combat situation versus another player using the dice? It's completely realistic. Even a master swordsmen would run the risk of running into a bit of bad luck. You wouldn't be fighting at your best all of the time, there's distractions and trying to read your foe. You can read them wrong... You can pull a muscle! Fighting is very stressful, its very nature means it's unpredictable.
Though I feel something bad shouldn't happen with every 1, it's.. An unlikely situation that has the possibility to further a story in a new or amusing direction.
|
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 18:43:14 GMT
Post by Prestige on Nov 14, 2015 18:43:14 GMT
nwnplayer.ini, server options. Saving Throw Automatic Failure on 1 = 1. I'm proposing to change it to 0, as it doesn't make much sense for a fighter who has been combatting the plague for five years to still be vulnerable to the disease ( or for a cleric or monk with exceptionally mental fortitude to nat 1 and be possessed.
|
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 19:06:40 GMT
Post by epitaxis on Nov 14, 2015 19:06:40 GMT
The flu virus isn't even considered a living entity and it still manages to infect the same people every year. Diseases evolve and change just as we do. Not to mention your immune system is almost in the same situation as a player in combat, it can't account for every variable, a scratch that gets it right into a vein and it just escapes your natural defenses. It happens.. Exerting yourself enough to get the disease with high fortitude would often leave your immune system weakening. Sometimes your character should just have a break. Sit down for he time to pass the disease and get back to the fight.
Also that's interesting, I never knew that toggle was even a thing. It's never been mentioned around me until now. Heh.
|
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 19:48:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by New Testament Tam on Nov 14, 2015 19:48:50 GMT
Personally, I'm with Epitaxis on this one. I've always loved natural 1s as much as I love natural 20s. They throw some much-needed curveballs into things, often with comedic effects, but always with interesting ones.
And, like he said, it makes for some good sense. It's literally just a stroke of really good or bad luck, in many cases, or some other unusual circumstance that always has a very slim but present chance of occurring. I mean, just last night, I rolled a 1 on a Wisdom check, and the resulting lapse in judgment led to some chaotic and genuinely enjoyable roleplay. Similarly, a 20 a couple of days ago led a getting one-shotted in the most hilarious manner possible. Stuff like that is great.
Yes, it adds some randomness to it, but that's the point. And it's only a 5% chance. Even the most seasoned fighter, the wisest tactician, and the stealthiest rogue are occasionally going to miss a beat, overlook a detail, and trip over a rock, respectively. And that's life.
Really, if we removed 1s, I feel we'd have to remove 20s for the same reason. And neither of those sound fun to me.
(That toggle is interesting though, I didn't even know about it. But my opinion remains firm.)
|
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 20:30:06 GMT
Post by Prestige on Nov 14, 2015 20:30:06 GMT
 Maybe I'm just biased... |
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 20:39:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by epitaxis on Nov 14, 2015 20:39:44 GMT
But I do understand the frustration of constant low rolls. I'm not saying it's a perfect system but I personally prefer it over not having it. I've lost long time characters before simply because the dice willed it.
|
|
Terallis
Seasoned Survivor
>8( so mad
I'M TOO GOOD AT VIDO GAAAEEEMMMS!
Posts: 74 
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 22:11:14 GMT
Post by Terallis on Nov 14, 2015 22:11:14 GMT
Honestly, critical fails still retains that level of failure. No matter how amazing your are at something, there is always a chance of failure.
|
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 14, 2015 22:17:08 GMT
Post by The Zombie Lord on Nov 14, 2015 22:17:08 GMT
Do you really think that a non-paladin with high fort is deserving of being immune to the disease, though? Sometimes nat 1's can suck, but this would essentially make high fort characters immune to the illness, and that's not realistic- it also takes a fair bit away from Paladin characters.
|
|
|
|
Nat 1s
Nov 15, 2015 17:55:34 GMT
Post by Tweek on Nov 15, 2015 17:55:34 GMT
It's not really a D20 setting without the inclusion of critical failures and successes. Compounding that is the fact that this is a low power setting. There're no epic level legendary heroes - we're all a bunch of fledgling mages and warriors prone to screw-ups and failure. A half-decent fortitude save leaves you at a 5% chance of contracting the sickness, which is pretty fair in my opinion. Even someone with a great immune system is going to catch a cold then and again.
|
|
