A Flaw with saving throws or is there

[RigaMortus]

Personally, I tend to agree with the original poster in this instance. It makes no sense to me that a character who is completely beyond the scope of a challenge should have the same chance of failure as one whose save bonus is merely one less than the DC. It seems right that the chance of automatic failure should at least lessen as one becomes more powerful and/or skilled. Why should a character with a +25 save have the same chance of failure versus a DC 14 as a character with a +13 save? 5% just doesn't seem to classify an event as a "freak accident" to me...

Does it make sense that an Epic level 30 creature with a 50 AC can be hit by a level 1 peasant who has -1 "to hit" (0 BAB, -1 for Str) on the roll of a 20?

 

[Quasqueton]

Following that logic:

A creature with an AC 24 should be completely immune/invulnerable to a fighter with only a +3 attack bonus.

A poison with a Fort save DC 22 should automatically take affect on the mage with a +1 Fort save.

A rogue with a +4 Will save should always fail against a spell with a Will save DC 25.

A fighter with +17 or better attack bonus should always hit creatures with an AC 18 or less, without needing to roll.

A cleric with a +15 or better Will save should be completely immune to enchantment spells of DC 16 or less, without needing to roll.

And rogues with +15 or better Ref save should be totally uncatchable by traps with a DC 16 or less, and would be completely immune to most fireballs.

Quasqueton

 

[Darth K'Trava]

That sounds only fair. When a character can automatically make a save, a roll isn't necessary.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Does it make sense that an Epic level 30 creature with a 50 AC can be hit by a level 1 peasant who has -1 "to hit" (0 BAB, -1 for Str) on the roll of a 20?

No. It's called the "Luck of the Draw". Stranger things have happened.

 

[UltimaGabe]

That sounds only fair. When a character can automatically make a save, a roll isn't necessary.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The player cannot make a save without rolling. A player doesn't make a save until he picks up the die and rolls it. If he doesn't roll, it doesn't matter what his bonus is- he simply doesn't make the save. If he rolls and makes it, good for him. If he rolls and fails, sucks to be him. If he doesn't roll, he fails. He simply doesn't get out of the way of the Fireball. He puts up no resistance to the Mind Rape spell, and his immune system doesn't stop the poison from affecting him. After all, Saves Bonuses are just that- bonuses. They are added to a die roll. If no die roll is made, the Save bonuses don't get added. Plain and simple.

 

[Anditch]

Rolled a "1", huh?

Well actually no i never rolled a 1 it was a 15 which meant that I had a save of 30 for a DC 14 poison. The thing because I have to roll a dice then I am automatically allowing my character a small chance of being poisoned. Even though the natural poison save is lower than my modified save. It was not the 5% I was thinking of it was that when you look at a DC 14 and you have a higher DC then to me that tells me that I am naturally better than that poison as its not strong enough to penetrate my defences and then you add the dice which then gives you a chance of failure. To me that seems a bit silly. You can see why they give you an alternative rule because oviviously this has been thought of in the past.

 

[Anditch]

Does it make sense that an Epic level 30 creature with a 50 AC can be hit by a level 1 peasant who has -1 "to hit" (0 BAB, -1 for Str) on the roll of a 20?

Ok turn the rules into reality. How many 1 year old children would hit say a heavy weight champion of the world in boxing and bring blood to the surface. That to me is the same as a 30 lev epic creature fighting a peasant.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

Following that logic:

A creature with an AC 24 should be completely immune/invulnerable to a fighter with only a +3 attack bonus.

A poison with a Fort save DC 22 should automatically take affect on the mage with a +1 Fort save.

A rogue with a +4 Will save should always fail against a spell with a Will save DC 25.

A fighter with +17 or better attack bonus should always hit creatures with an AC 18 or less, without needing to roll.

A cleric with a +15 or better Will save should be completely immune to enchantment spells of DC 16 or less, without needing to roll.

And rogues with +15 or better Ref save should be totally uncatchable by traps with a DC 16 or less, and would be completely immune to most fireballs.

Quasqueton

Not exactly, no. If you followed my logic, you would realize that I stated my belief that the likelihood should be lessened as the bonus rose, not that it should become impossible. Why is it that the likelihood of failing a save decreases only until the point that one reaches a bonus of one lower than the DC? Shouldn't it continue to decrease as the character becomes heartier? Why does a character continue to gain a better resistance versus stronger poisons, and yet still remain at a plateau versus those of a lower potency? Why does a character get better at dodging heightened Fireballs, and yet still retain the same chance of failure versus those of the lesser variety irrespective of an increase in skill? Ridiculous.

Following the logic of the original system, the likelihood of success or failure should increase or decrease at the following rate: If a character has a bonus equal to one lower than the DC or higher, a second d20 should be rolled. In the case of a bonus one lower, the 1 should be negated on a roll of 20. The second number should decrease on a 1-for-1 basis until a third die roll is required, and so on. In the case of attacks, the fighter should have to make a second roll on a roll of 20. If a 1 is rolled, the attack misses. As the AC increases, the number required to hit on the second die should increase on a 1-for-1 basis. This system follows perfectly the logic behind the normal success/failure system and better reflects an increase in power beyond the level of a challenge.

 

[Anditch]

Following that logic:

A creature with an AC 24 should be completely immune/invulnerable to a fighter with only a +3 attack bonus.

A poison with a Fort save DC 22 should automatically take affect on the mage with a +1 Fort save.

A rogue with a +4 Will save should always fail against a spell with a Will save DC 25.

A fighter with +17 or better attack bonus should always hit creatures with an AC 18 or less, without needing to roll.

A cleric with a +15 or better Will save should be completely immune to enchantment spells of DC 16 or less, without needing to roll.

And rogues with +15 or better Ref save should be totally uncatchable by traps with a DC 16 or less, and would be completely immune to most fireballs.

Quasqueton

OK this is were the DM steps in. If he is putting you up against things which you need to roll higher than 20 on a D20 then its time to sack the DM. Same if u are fighting creatures with AC so low that a 2 is required to hit them or whatever. If you went out and bought a computer game and it was so hard that you would die instantly would you play it, NO. Would you play the same game if it was so easy that you can watch T V whilst fighting a mob. No. A game needs a challenge but not impossible. When a DM makes an incounter he should know the Characters BAB and saves etc and use these to base his creatures on. If your DM is casting Disintergrate at you and you are 2nd or 3rd level then its time to kick the DM out as that is not fun. 5% is almost nothing so why bother with it. Scrap it and then there is a roll less required.

 

[dcollins]

You may want to look at the DMG which gives options for several of these issues to the DM.

One is a discussion of "Tailored or Status Quo" Encounters (ch. 4). Some campaigns will have every encounter magically set to be just a pleasant challenge to the PCs. Other campaigns will have set lairs in the world, including very powerful ones that if the PCs ignore all warnings will overwhelm them. Personally I prefer the latter since it has more believability ("versimillitude").

By the core rules, rolling a natural 1 is auto-fail, a 20 is auto-hit, for all attack rolls and saving throws. Period. Those are the rules. If you don't like it, suggest to your DM that you'd like to use "Variant: Automatic Hits and Misses" (ch. 3) in which a natural 1 counts as -10 and a natural 20 counts as 30. Of course, you would still have a chance to fail your poison save until your Fortitude bonus was +24.