I think what's happening here is you're conflating rolling the dice with the application of the characters skill. Which it is, in skill checks. But combat is different. Combat is a multi step process, which is why there are seven types of action in 4e, at least which can be used for dozens of things each.

Ignoring everything but the to-hit roll is similar to giving someone a +30 to their check.

Did you even read >>#203, or are you just completely ignoring me?

YOU'RE the one giving a situation that's impossible. In no ordinary game, it's not even possible for a baby to get close enough to the deity to strike it, for half a dozen mechanical reasons. YOU'RE the one placing the baby a single standard action away from hitting the deity. At which point, sure, I'll accept that it's a 5% chance to hit it and do absolutely no damage, because of resistances.

To compare it to jumping over the moon, that'd be impossible from the ground, but if you were somehow already standing on the moon and completely insulated from all damage, I accept that you could stop over the "North pole" of the moon.

There are plenty of powers that do damage on a miss, including auras which do damage when you get too close. So the deity won't fail to kill the baby, but the baby could still physically manage to slap the deity with a spoon if you ignored literally everything about the deity except that it's physically there. At which point, you're essentially ignoring that it's a deity.

I accept that it's a ridiculous situation, but reject that it's ridiculous the baby could hit in that particular situation.

I think what's happening here is you're conflating rolling the dice with the application of the characters skill. Which it is, in skill checks. But combat is different. Combat is a multi step process, which is why there are seven types of action in 4e, at least which can be used for dozens of things each.

Ignoring everything but the to-hit roll is similar to giving someone a +30 to their check.

Did you even read >>#203, or are you just completely ignoring me?

YOU'RE the one giving a situation that's impossible. In no ordinary game, it's not even possible for a baby to get close enough to the deity to strike it, for half a dozen mechanical reasons. YOU'RE the one placing the baby a single standard action away from hitting the deity. At which point, sure, I'll accept that it's a 5% chance to hit it and do absolutely no damage, because of resistances.

To compare it to jumping over the moon, that'd be impossible from the ground, but if you were somehow already standing on the moon and completely insulated from all damage, I accept that you could stop over the "North pole" of the moon.

Yes. No one can jump over the moon, but plenty of people have battled gods and even won.

Further, you're ignoring all the stuff that would stop a baby from hitting a god. Besides the DM just ruling over it, because rule 0, the baby has to start a fight. Okay, deity goes first. Because nat 20s aren't an automatic success, deity goes first even on a nat 1 vs the babies nat 20. The baby then has to wade through the deities first attacks, superior move speed, auras, opportunity actions, interrupt actions, allies, et cetera. You're saying taking away 99% of what makes a deity difficult dangerous and saying "But it's ridiculous that the baby could hit them given they've already passed literally every other defense besides the physical barriers of skin and air between the two"

Besides which, I don't get how this is an argument for your point that skill checks should include criticals. Pointing out that another thing is ridiculous doesn't make your point any less silly. A barbarian shouldn't have a 5% chance to pick the most complicated lock known to man, and a legendary thief shouldn't have a 5% chance to fail the most simple lock in the world.

There are plenty of powers that do damage on a miss, including auras which do damage when you get too close. So the deity won't fail to kill the baby, but the baby could still physically manage to slap the deity with a spoon if you ignored literally everything about the deity except that it's physically there. At which point, you're essentially ignoring that it's a deity.

I accept that it's a ridiculous situation, but reject that it's ridiculous the baby could hit in that particular situation.

I think what's happening here is you're conflating rolling the dice with the application of the characters skill. Which it is, in skill checks. But combat is different. Combat is a multi step process, which is why there are seven types of action in 4e, at least which can be used for dozens of things each.

Ignoring everything but the to-hit roll is similar to giving someone a +30 to their check.

Did you even read >>#203, or are you just completely ignoring me?

YOU'RE the one giving a situation that's impossible. In no ordinary game, it's not even possible for a baby to get close enough to the deity to strike it, for half a dozen mechanical reasons. YOU'RE the one placing the baby a single standard action away from hitting the deity. At which point, sure, I'll accept that it's a 5% chance to hit it and do absolutely no damage, because of resistances.

To compare it to jumping over the moon, that'd be impossible from the ground, but if you were somehow already standing on the moon and completely insulated from all damage, I accept that you could stop over the "North pole" of the moon.

Yes. Maybe the deities attention was elsewhere. Maybe the deity was psionically attacked by a greater threat. Maybe the deity just wanted to see what would happen, or his defenses were constructed in a way to not consider the baby a threat, allowing the baby a sheer luck hit. Maybe the baby was superhumanly strong, or aided by outside forces. Why the baby even gets a standard action to make an attack is beyond me, but it is within the babies power to slap a spoon against a deity, doing an imperceptible amount of damage.

Yes. No one can jump over the moon, but plenty of people have battled gods and even won.

Further, you're ignoring all the stuff that would stop a baby from hitting a god. Besides the DM just ruling over it, because rule 0, the baby has to start a fight. Okay, deity goes first. Because nat 20s aren't an automatic success, deity goes first even on a nat 1 vs the babies nat 20. The baby then has to wade through the deities first attacks, superior move speed, auras, opportunity actions, interrupt actions, allies, et cetera. You're saying taking away 99% of what makes a deity difficult dangerous and saying "But it's ridiculous that the baby could hit them given they've already passed literally every other defense besides the physical barriers of skin and air between the two"

Besides which, I don't get how this is an argument for your point that skill checks should include criticals. Pointing out that another thing is ridiculous doesn't make your point any less silly. A barbarian shouldn't have a 5% chance to pick the most complicated lock known to man, and a legendary thief shouldn't have a 5% chance to fail the most simple lock in the world.

There are plenty of powers that do damage on a miss, including auras which do damage when you get too close. So the deity won't fail to kill the baby, but the baby could still physically manage to slap the deity with a spoon if you ignored literally everything about the deity except that it's physically there. At which point, you're essentially ignoring that it's a deity.

I accept that it's a ridiculous situation, but reject that it's ridiculous the baby could hit in that particular situation.

I think what's happening here is you're conflating rolling the dice with the application of the characters skill. Which it is, in skill checks. But combat is different. Combat is a multi step process, which is why there are seven types of action in 4e, at least which can be used for dozens of things each.

Ignoring everything but the to-hit roll is similar to giving someone a +30 to their check.

Did you even read >>#203, or are you just completely ignoring me?

YOU'RE the one giving a situation that's impossible. In no ordinary game, it's not even possible for a baby to get close enough to the deity to strike it, for half a dozen mechanical reasons. YOU'RE the one placing the baby a single standard action away from hitting the deity. At which point, sure, I'll accept that it's a 5% chance to hit it and do absolutely no damage, because of resistances.

To compare it to jumping over the moon, that'd be impossible from the ground, but if you were somehow already standing on the moon and completely insulated from all damage, I accept that you could stop over the "North pole" of the moon.

there are no stats for children under a certain age.

If a diety has stats, then it is not all powerful. that is the entire point of the creed "if it has stats, we can kill it."

Anything with stats and does not exist purely as part of the narrative is subject to the rules.

You flipped those, and the rules as written are exactly what you're arguing against.

nice ad hominem attacking me instead of presenting a good argument.

A) a baby can not usually kill something because it's not possible. A natural 1/20 result has to be possible as I pointed out
B) you wouldn't roll to kill a baby. it's considered helpless and can be coup de grassed.
C) A legitimate diety could not fail something. however, there are in fact dieties in dungeons and dragons with stats, and they are subject to failure and success as is anything else with stats.

you asked for proof, I gave proof. you presented your flawed argument, which I entertained until you started to be a cunt.

legitimately go fuck yourself, dude.

you're the one who ignored my question, twice now.

and stop trying to use the "baby" and "diety" point, as natural 1s and 20s are, and I fucking quote: the best/worst thing that can POSSIBLY happen.

does this diety have stats.