Auto-failure on a Nat 1/Auto-success on a Nat 20 - How Often Does This Come Up?

[FireLance]

are you talking about saves only?

Saving throws and attack rolls. As pointed out, skill checks don't automatically fail on a natural 1 or succeed on a natural 20.

As for the game effects of removing the rule, maybe large numbers of weak opponents aren't going to be much of a threat anymore (unless you use the DMG2 mob rules). Is this necessarily a bad thing?

So your buffed-to-the-gills barbarian hits automatically with her best attack every round. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Maybe some party members will automatically fail to hit a defensively-focused opponent. Perhaps this will encourage them to spend their actions aiding another party member or trying to negate the opponent's defences. Again, is this necessarily a bad thing?

 

[Voadam]

Perhaps it's because I tend to pit the PCs against level-appropriate challenges as a DM, and because I also tend to face level-appropriate challenges as a player, but this rule has almost never come up at the table.

If I roll a natural 1, I almost always would have failed anyway without this rule being enforced. If I roll a natural 20, I almost always would have succeeded anyway without this rule being enforced.

So, why should we continue to have this rule in the first place? What would we lose if it was removed?

Often in high level games saves are fail on a 1 only because of this rule.

I've also had low level minions only hitting on a 20 because of this rule.

Power attack and iteratives can make this relevant for hitting with a 20 as well.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As for the game effects of removing the rule, maybe large numbers of weak opponents aren't going to be much of a threat anymore (unless you use the DMG2 mob rules). Is this necessarily a bad thing?

So your buffed-to-the-gills barbarian hits automatically with her best attack every round. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Maybe some party members will automatically fail to hit a defensively-focused opponent. Perhaps this will encourage them to spend their actions aiding another party member or trying to negate the opponent's defences. Again, is this necessarily a bad thing?

I think you need to look at it from the other side of the screen though...

Does the Elder Earth Elemental have a 5% chance of missing the wizard, or is the wizard automatically going to become paste? Sometimes that 5% is the only chance that they've got, and it makes for heroic tales in the bar later...

 

[hong]

I really like the rule in IH that a natural 1 doesn't auto-fail on a save, but does on an attack. Takes away much of the hassle of dealing with instakills, while preserving the uncertainty of combat.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I'm not sure I see why this is a problem. If you and your group don't like the nat-1/nat-20 rule, then don't use it.

I agree with others in this thread that there are a lot of good reasons for nat-1/nat-20 to exist, not least of which is what Plane Sailing brought up (that it makes for heroic successes and, yes, failures). But if you really don't like it, then don't use it.

 

[FireLance]

Because a large number of piddly guards or orcs or whatever should still make the heroes hesitate.

As mentioned in the previous post, use the DMG2 mob rules.

Because in my mind there should always be the chance for the kid with a bow to get lucky and put an arrow right into the eye slot of a helmet.

Pure dumb luck gets you pretty far already. Pure dumb luck allows a person with a +0 ranged attack bonus to put an arrow into a man in full plate and shield 5% of the time. Anything more improbable belongs in the realm of DM fiat or action points.

Because otherwise high-level villans would never fear for their lives in a rise of the masses. "Oh crap, the peasants are revolting again. They are going to kill a bunch of my lackeys. Captain, tell the guards to run, I'll go take care of them all myself. How many this month? 10,000? I'll be back in a few hours, have dinner ready for me."

Again, DMG2 mob rules. Alternatively, aid another.

 

[Darklone]

Check my sigged story.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

As for the game effects of removing the rule, maybe large numbers of weak opponents aren't going to be much of a threat anymore (unless you use the DMG2 mob rules). Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Not much of a threat? No, that's not a bad thing. No threat at all? I would say that is a bad thing.

So your buffed-to-the-gills barbarian hits automatically with her best attack every round. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

They will hit almost every time, so what is problem with the occasional humbling miss? If success is certain, why bother?

Maybe some party members will automatically fail to hit a defensively-focused opponent. Perhaps this will encourage them to spend their actions aiding another party member or trying to negate the opponent's defences. Again, is this necessarily a bad thing?

Different party tactics are good. Nearly impossible situations can be a fun challenge at times. Impossible situations are bad and boring for the player who can do nothing but add a +2 to someone else (if that is enough to make a difference).

 

[FireLance]

Does the Elder Earth Elemental have a 5% chance of missing the wizard, or is the wizard automatically going to become paste? Sometimes that 5% is the only chance that they've got, and it makes for heroic tales in the bar later...

I think you've touched on a key difference in perspectives. I would rather have the PCs tell tales of skill than luck. I'd want the wizard to boast of how he recalled from his arcane studies that earth elementals were clumsy against airborne foes, so he quickly cast a spell of flight and retreated out of range.

 

[hong]

Perhaps it's because I tend to pit the PCs against level-appropriate challenges as a DM, and because I also tend to face level-appropriate challenges as a player, but this rule has almost never come up at the table.

If I roll a natural 1, I almost always would have failed anyway without this rule being enforced. If I roll a natural 20, I almost always would have succeeded anyway without this rule being enforced.

So, why should we continue to have this rule in the first place? What would we lose if it was removed?

The rule exists because it's fun. It's around for the same reasons critical hits are in the game: people like investing extreme numbers with some sort of added significance, and it adds unpredictability and excitement.

It's like leading a football game almost to the end, only to lose at the last minute, or vice-versa. Or having a go at the lottery. People like gambling, and if we're talking about imaginary characters, there isn't even that much of a downside in the greater scheme of things.

Where it becomes problematic within the context of the game is if it leads to disproportionate consequences. Eg autofailing on attack rolls isn't that bad, relatively speaking; you can just try agan. However, autosuccess leading to an automatic crit can result in massively large damage with the right weapon, killing the other guy in one shot. Thus you have the confirmation roll to reduce the chances of this happening. Similarly, autofailing a save can be very bad if it's an instakill spell.