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

[Jubilee]

In one of our D&D games, when we were 12th level, the dwarven fighter with more than 200 hp and massive con/fortitude save failed his massive-damage save vs. a 20-point coup-de-gras when he had been captured by a hold person spell on a natural one. He would have succeeded if 1s didn't always fail.

A simliar thing happened (in the same adventure, actually), to my paladin, who has ridiculously high saves thanks to a cloak of charisma and a second class that gives charisma to saves with a different name and thus stacks (I think the GM still regrets this, and I don't blame him) who failed a reflex save on a natural 1 that she otherwise would have passed.

In another game, we're about 14th level, we regularly get pitted against epic foes with 40+ AC and unless we're using touch spells, it takes a natural 20 for the melee types to hit them most of the time. Occasionally, it wouldn't have hit if not for the auto success.

In another regular game, where we're 7th level, the natural 1 on saves has killed one character and nearly killed another, thanks to some save-or-die affects and a mummy's paralysis. Although both would have failed their saves naturally anyway, we're playing Eberron and an action point may have allowed them to pass (both were relatively low DC saves).

/ali

 

[FireLance]

I'm not sure I see why this is a problem.

It's not a problem. It started out as just a little idle speculation on my part about a rule that hardly ever came up in play (in my group, at least).

Of course, having discussed it for a bit, I'm starting to think that it might promote more reliance on skill and tactics, and less on luck, which may not be a bad thing.

 

[Roman]

I prefer to explode the dice upwards on a 20 and downwards on a 1, rather than 20 and 1 being automatic successes or failures respectively (and the explosions can accumulate if more 20s or 1s are rolled). This differentiates between the chances of success between highly adept and completely untrained characters, but still makes success or failure always a possibility.

 

[wildstarsreach]

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?

This has always applies to to hit rolls. As I understand it, skill rolls are not subject to this rule. A DM could enforce it if he wants but there isn't a requirement.

If you had a concentration check of +22, you cast a 3rd level spell defensively, 1+22 is 23, technically success without a roll.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

It's not a problem. It started out as just a little idle speculation on my part about a rule that hardly ever came up in play (in my group, at least).

Of course, having discussed it for a bit, I'm starting to think that it might promote more reliance on skill and tactics, and less on luck, which may not be a bad thing.

My experience has been that much of the time, if skill and tactics can make a difference, they party will usually turn to that before they rely on luck. From that perspective liminating the rule probably won't hurt much. Where I see it as the less fun alternative is situations where perhaps one fighter has no problem hitting an opponent, so tactics, aid etc. don't do much to help him. Another PC has nothing but d20 luck to succeed. They can either sit back and watch, or wade in and see what happens. I personally love it when the fighting tank wades in there pounding away and suddenly the bard jumps in, rolls a 20 and finishes it off, then goes off singing about how he felled the beast.

I do agree that the autofail saves in save or die situations sucks and as a DM I would usually avoid the siutation if possible. If not possible to avoid, I might forego the rule in that case.

 

[hong]

As I understand it, skill rolls are not subject to this rule.

Trust me, Firelance knows this.

 

[FireLance]

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.

Okay, I'm tangenting my own thread, but this made me think of the Kano model of customer satisfaction. The simplest model breaks down a product's attributes into three categories:

1. Basic features/"must haves", which do not greatly increase satisfaction if they are there, but cause great dissatisfaction if they are not.
2. Excitement factors/"delighters", which do not greatly decrease satisfaction of they are not there, but cause great satisfaction if they are.
3. Performance factors, which cause satisfaction if they are there, and dissatisfaction if they are not.

In the context of this discussion, an instakill spell is much like a basic feature. The player is more relieved than happy if he succeeds on the saving throw, but is very unhappy if he fails. A critical hit is more like an excitement factor - the player usually won't be unhappy if he doesn't get one, but will be very happy if he does. Most other d20 rolls - attack rolls, saving throws for half damage - appear to be performance factors.

From this perspective, the IH rule that a natural 1 is not an automatic failure for a saving throw makes a good deal of sense - it reduces the chance of extreme unhappiness caused by the lack of a basic feature.

 

[FireLance]

Further tangenting my own thread, the Kano model also states that over time, excitement factors become performance factors, and performance factors become basic features. This is probably (consciously or unconsciously) the reason behind the decision to stop keen and Improved Critical from stacking - "making criticals feel special" is not much different from ensuring that criticals remain excitement factors instead of becoming performance factors.

This might also explain much of the angst about magic items. In the early days of the game, magic items were probably very much excitement factors. However, more and more gamers are starting to see them as performance factors or even basic features. I might even start a thread about it after this most recent round of discussion on magic shops dies down.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Natural 20 - rarely matters, usually the ACs of enemies are in reachable range (exceptions occur, though).

Natural 1s - usually when a Fighter is rolling his fortitude save. (Or a Paladin). It happens less with other saves, at least that is our illusion. (The real reason is probably because the consequences of natural 1s on fortitude saves are so grim)

 

[Goldmoon]

I have just house ruled it as follows:

Roll a natural 20 and you roll again, adding the result to 20 plus your total modifier

Roll a natural 1 and you roll again subtracting the result from 1 plus your total modifier.