no u

no u

nice, what did you go see

multiple people have already called bullshit and OP never delivered.

Even if its fake, it's a good story.

no doubt, but I'm getting irritated about people constantly going "hurr durr this story is fake" on any tumblr story, and then acting like anything from 4chan or funnyjunk is real.

Many things used to irritate me here too. Then i started to just stop giving a shit. You should try it mate, it makes your browsing getting more enjoyable.

>>#101, usually I do, but one of my biggest pet peeves is misconceptions about D&D, which is what this is built upon.

take this autist for example

I see!

What was your plan if you rolled a 1?

rape

if the chick's a beast at d&d she'd probably know you can't get criticals on skills.

natural rolls are critical rolls. a natural 20 is an automatic success on Attacks and Saves

any story that involves "and I got a natural 20 on x skill" is bullshit

on what?

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.

it's literally the basics.
www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm
dnd. read the "skill checks" section.

it's an srd. legitimately all it is is the recordings of all of the books and their rules in an easy to find website. there's one for pathfinder as well.

also, this is advocated by wizard

Your players aren't meant to know whether or not it's possible to succeed, so a good DM will make them roll anyway.

what dm would allow a character to be completely god tier at a skill 20% of the time?

hint: a very god damn bad one

I always fuck up with that. it's 5%, my bad.

still that's outrageous. "oh, why should I put skills into anything if there's a 5% chance I can succeed/fuck up badly"

it seems to me that the defining factor there is time.

Like, if a monster is about to eat you unles you convince it not to, you're going to want some diplomacy skill there because a 5% chance for success still means 95% chance to die, and there wouldn't be a second chance there

it makes sense from the combat and save perspective. You can get lucky when dodging, you can get lucky when cutting.

Skills are extremely different. there's no reason someone who has a -5 to cooking should be able to make a ten layer marbled chocolate cake.

not exactly, but in certain circumstances it's arguably possibly. However, you're forgetting that open hand damage can't be lethal unless circumstances allow it. a nigh-infant can't be a monk.

a child with a sword could, however, reasonably kill someone if they get lucky.

I'm not hiding shit you retard.

Crits aren't automatic wins. A crit automatically hits, and if the total roll is still enough to hit the defense they do max damage, plus critical damage from magic weapons and such. The creature with the lowest measurable statistics is going to do a whopping 1d4 damage against the creature with the highest measurable statistics, assuming it somehow manages to go first.

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.

again, yes.

if you have a deity in dungeons and dragons, does it have stats?

the entire reason that it's not realistic is the reason I'm arguing mechanics.

I can't walk up to any lock, especially one that's incredibly hard to pick, and pick it through sheer luck.

yes

the points in skills also represent how much training they've had. if someone has no clue how to pick a lock, then how could they stand a chance to miraculously succeed, especially if the lock is challenging even to those who are skilled in the ways of lockpicking

still possible.

the baby wouldn't dodge. it's entirely possible she would trip

explain what you mean

they aren't though. they're the "Best possibly outcome"

people treat them like they're reality breaking super mega roles

"didn't even need the modifier"

Sooo, how'd it go?

it's fake m8

Come on man, the few people who actually are sexually active on funnyjunk are us other funnyjunkers sexlife, you can't just leave us hanging like that

hmm, i assumed it would start from the point in the video that was in the actual link, guess that doesn't work, oh well

What i wanted to show from this video is from 00:51 to 00:57

sounds like avoiding a fairly simple question, like "good we are going another date" or "bad" etc. Which makes me just suspect it didn't go so hot

Damn, sorry to hear.
Im sure you'll do better next time!

hey we need details man you cant just post ad leave

Implying this is not copy paste from half chan

So you two smashed

Guess I'll have to accept that

Just as important, what did you go see?

Nice.

You may not be the hero we deserve, but you are the hero we need.