• RichardDegenne@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Bad faith and pedantry aren’t the same.

    The comic very clearly implies that the nat 20 caused their dumbass character to be able to decipher the runes.

    If it didn’t, the player wouldn’t have announced “Nat 20”, but the actual score, wirth modifiers taken into account.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nat 20 is very, very commonly used by GMs to mean “critcal success” in or out of combat, no matter the explict rule. Same goes for nat 1 being a “critical failure.”

      Why? Because it makes the game better for everyone to have these rare rolls rewarded or hilariously punished.

      • smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The trouble with doing that is that you end up in the stupid situation described by this comic!

    • WR5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I wasn’t arguing in bad faith. Everything I said was factual, honest, and trustworthy. You are correct that a nat 20 caused them to be really smart and have the best chance to read the runes (nothing shows them actually reading it to be fair). This is because the nat 20 is the highest possible roll available to the player, before modifiers are added! In many instances, rolling that high passes skill checks up to “Hard” (according to the DMG) automatically unless you have some negative modifiers. With the assumption that this player was attempting something actually attainable, this high roll is translated as the character having the absolute epitome of their ability to translate the runes (whether or not it is successful.)