Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz
In my experience this rule is really important in two situations.
1) When the PC's can keep trying. For instance, picking "an impossible to pick"-lock might only require a few minutes of time but have a -10 penalty to attempt. repeated attempts are at -1. […]
Of course a sensible GM might just declare "No you can't no matter how much you try". But I know several type of gamers who might start arguing if the rules say "you can always attempt and succeed on a roll of 3".
|
Good point. I would probably solve this by having a failure interfere with further attempts (“your pick broke off inside the lock”, “your bowstring snapped”). But this does make the “no try below 3” rule seem like the simpler solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz
2) In combat. The only thing preventing my archer from shooting you in the eye at 500y in darkness is the -30 or so penalty.
WITHOUT this rule I might as well try (assuming I have enough arrows). Other similar situations where you are heavily penalized in combat. Then you might as well "go for the eye" as IF you then hit, it's much worse.
|
I just read up the critical miss rules and apparently for ranged attacks the span of critical misses does not expand beyond 17 and 18. This actually makes the “no try below 3” rule really important here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maz
Of course some GM's and players might like this. I do not as it, in my experience, lead to players attempting stupid things only because the rules allow it, not because "that is what my character would do".
|
I still like the idea of a Hail Mary, but I could just rule on it on a case by case basis (“Okay, you have one chance, you must roll a 3, for all other results something bad happens”).
Perhaps it’s that I’ve slept in the meantime, but I feel a bit silly now as someone new to the game having argued against an official rule with people who have years of experience. Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate it.