Do natural 1's instantly mean a failed save?

[Number47]

Let me sound off on this just one last time.

In a normal D&D game, the cases where a 1 might succeed or a 20 fail are so small it's hardly worth talking about. That is, in real combat situations the characters are pursuing and simply fleeing.

What people seem to be hung up about are situations that not even encounters. The first level characters encounter the kings grand archwizard. In a fit of stupidity, the sorceror of the group says "I cast a spell on him". This is an encounter that requires no dice! The DM simply says, "The old man glares harshly at you, and you are afraid. Then you realize you aren't afraid. How can you be afraid of your best friend in the whole world?" This is the license of a DM to not follow combat rules in situations that don't call for them.

 

[StGabriel]

naysayer hong: If you're talking about melee combat, I suggest giving your ranger a decent Str score next time. If you're talking about ranged combat, your ranger will do more damage with a bow than the wizard will with their sling.

He does have a decent str score. The wizard has a decent dex score. The wizard uses a crossbow. As we don't have multiple attacks yet, he is able to reload and fire once per round and he has happened to do much more damage with his crossbow than the ranger has done with his weapon focus'ed spear.

naysayer hong: And how likely is this situation to arise...? The point of a ruleset is to cover situations that will turn up in the course of a game. It's an abstract representation of reality, not reality itself, so of course it's going to have holes. The important thing is to make sure these holes aren't in places where they're going to bite you.

1) I didn't say the game had to be different or that it should be perfect, I was merely discussing some of its idiosyncrasies.
2) It is much more likely to happen in a world where rules such as 1's always fail are physical law.
3) This whole discussion started exactly because some characters were considering a situation exactly like this (could they get a dragon to fail a save on a '1').

---
StGabriel, the Taoist saint.

 

[Ranger REG]

It seems dumb to me that there is still a chance of failure when the DC is only a fraction of the save. My epic monk has +57 to will saves, so how is it possible that he can miss a DC of 12? Really now, that's just idiotic.

By that logic, it would also seems "idiotic" to attack and miss on a natural 1 if I happen to have, oh say +50 BAB, against a naked kobold.

But there will always be a chance of a a slipup or some quirk to remind us that we're mortal, epic or not. That's the chaos in battle, whether it's a regular weapon attack or a special attack.

 

[Kai Lord]

By that logic, it would also seems "idiotic" to attack and miss on a natural 1 if I happen to have, oh say +50 BAB, against a naked kobold.

Exactly. Which is why its ridiculous to follow the official rule regarding natural 1's and 20's for attack rolls and even more ridiculous to House Rule saving throws in such a manner.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: oh, got it

Got it now.



This is all particularly noticeable in low-level games. In the campaign I'm in now, the wizard has had lots of good rolls and has been outfighting our ranger who seems to consistently roll 3's and 7's. The wizard's backstory and character represent one who has spent his life reading dusty tomes. The ranger's backstory and character represent one who has trained in the military for a good while. The net result is that he has a whopping +1 advantage over the wizard. This nearly disappears against the roll of a d20. I'm not saying that he should be amazing, just that the nature of D&D make it very easy for his skill (i.e. his ability to do something well most of the time) to become a farce in the face of repeated clumsiness and slapstick style incompetence caused by rolling low.

StGabriel, the Taoist saint.

Something simialr happened in a game I played in about 9 months ago. I was playing a 1st level wizard and fight 1 I noticed an invisible somehting following us. The invisble something noticed my attention and fled, since we were in high grass it made the spot check easier, 2 rounds of absurd spot checks, and 2 crits later the invsible something is dead. The dm wasn't pleased.

Fight 2 guy on horse in plate 3 crits in a row and the guy(levle 5 fighter) was running like a punk. My last 2 shots were from the ground, since I got hit by an arow(1hp left) with a str drain poison and I couldn't my crossbow, so i paid a nearby peasent to it for me and hand it to me so I could shoot(we wee right outside the town gates so lots of peasents)

After this fight the 1st thing someone saif to me was. You said you were a wizard, you haven't cast one spell yet, and your the bes tfighter in the group, now really what are you.

Anyways one comment on your post. I think part of the problem lies in the characters backstory. At level oneit should be something like I was traned by fighter x how to wear armor, and which end of the sword I should hold, how I got wrapped up in this adventure is beyond me. If the backstory is of a ehavily trained soldier from the army it doesn't seem to fit being level 1. Not that I think poeple should cripple thier backstory writing by writing rookie X story when they don't want to, just that if you ar elevel 1 you really aint that trained, but write the story you want because getting anyone to write any story is a big enough pain.

 

[hong]

He does have a decent str score. The wizard has a decent dex score. The wizard uses a crossbow. As we don't have multiple attacks yet, he is able to reload and fire once per round and he has happened to do much more damage with his crossbow than the ranger has done with his weapon focus'ed spear.

A couple of sessions, and a handful of combats, is meaningless in statistical terms. So your wizard got lucky. Is there something so wrong with this?

Play the game for a few more sessions, and see whether things even out.

1) I didn't say the game had to be different or that it should be perfect, I was merely discussing some of its idiosyncrasies.

3E is full of idiosyncrasies. You haven't even touched on the bucket of snails.

2) It is much more likely to happen in a world where rules such as 1's always fail are physical law.

No. The likelihood of the example that you gave, of 10 1st level clerics taking on a 30th level cleric, has absolutely nothing to do with the rules. Recall that D&D is a _game_, not a simulation of reality. The rules exist to aid players and DMs decide on outcomes that arise in the course of the game. If a DM wants to create a game where such encounters arise as a matter of course, I'd say that game is approaching a parody of D&D. So naturally things are going to go askew.

3) This whole discussion started exactly because some characters were considering a situation exactly like this (could they get a dragon to fail a save on a '1').

Well, yes. Kai Lord wants his archer to take out a green dragon single-handed, and the consensus has been that this is a parody of D&D.

 

[StGabriel]

bah

What's this? Just do more adventures? We've done four already. Yes, it will even out eventually but so what? Are you saying that D&D is just broken for low levels, so everyone should start at level 5??? No of course you aren't your just being argument for the sake of it. *snicker*

Whether the archer taking down the green dragon solo is a parody or not, this is a tactic supported by a auto-fail on 1 rule. By talking about an auto-fail on 1 you already have to be talking about pretty obscure situations. You arguing that the points I am talking about are not ones that would come up in D&D is hardly relevant when we are talking about a rule that is only relevant in exactly those kinds of obscure situations. A first level spell with say a DC of 13 will only successfully be saved on with a roll of 1 by someone who is rather a lot higher in level. 1 vs. 30 or 1 vs. 12. Either way.

By making such an arbitrary rule you create a world where any small-time punk has a 1 in 20 chance of landing a spell on Mr. Badass. The rules of D&D are the physics of its world. Yes I can alter them as I like if I don't like a rule but I thought this was a forum for discussion, and I'm simply discussing my point of view here.

With respect to your line about idiosyncrasies in D&D. Umm, you say there are many. I'm pointing to one. What's the problem here? Is it not good enough for your high standards? Fine, read the next post.

---

Little more on our characters. The ranger is not heavily trained really. But he has been through basic training with weapons etc. He has weapon focus with his spear, it's safe to assume he does know how to use it rather well even if he's not a real expert yet. His performance so far though has been laughable. The wizard is just that. A scholarly type with no real background in weaponry that picked up a crossbow before traveling. We're not expecting too much out of them, but the ranger being able to consistently fight better over his first few levels might be nice.

---
StGabriel, the Taoist saint.

 

[Kai Lord]

Re: bah

Whether the archer taking down the green dragon solo is a parody or not, this is a tactic supported by a auto-fail on 1 rule.

Keep in mind that the auto-fail on a save roll of 1 is a House Rule, not an official rule. Those advocating the House Rule like pussified dragons and supercreatures in their campaigns, creatures that frankly don't make for compelling villains.

But for some D&D isn't a vehicle with which to merge tactics, puzzle-solving, and an element of chance with great storytelling. Nah, they're into pen-and-paper Diablo, you know 4th level characters on the 4th level of a dungeon fighting CR 4 monsters, with all the monsters having the exact same exploitable achilles heel. Bah.

I'm sure there are porn movie directors who find Lord of the Rings to be a parody of cinema, but really, who cares?

 

[hong]

Re: bah

What's this? Just do more adventures? We've done four already. Yes, it will even out eventually but so what? Are you saying that D&D is just broken for low levels, so everyone should start at level 5???

No, I'm saying that the level of randomness is not a major problem in my experience. Yes, your wizard happened to get lucky, while your ranger happened to get unlucky. Great! .

No of course you aren't your just being argument for the sake of it. *snicker*

So tell me again why you're posting.

Whether the archer taking down the green dragon solo is a parody or not, this is a tactic supported by a auto-fail on 1 rule. By talking about an auto-fail on 1 you already have to be talking about pretty obscure situations. You arguing that the points I am talking about are not ones that would come up in D&D is hardly relevant when we are talking about a rule that is only relevant in exactly those kinds of obscure situations.

Exactly. This is the sort of thing that's only a problem in a contrived situation. If you don't go out of your way to invent contrived situations, why should it be a problem?

By making such an arbitrary rule you create a world where any small-time punk has a 1 in 20 chance of landing a spell on Mr. Badass.

Yes. So what? Mr Badass has plenty of other ways to keep the small-time punk from getting to the point where he can launch that spell. In no game I'm aware of does combat reduce to the situation where Mr Badass will just sit there and let everyone target him. The saving throw is usually the _last_ in a long line of defenses that have to be breached at high levels, not the first.

The rules of D&D are the physics of its world. Yes I can alter them as I like if I don't like a rule but I thought this was a forum for discussion, and I'm simply discussing my point of view here.

Tell me again where putting forward your point of view means everyone has to agree with you.

With respect to your line about idiosyncrasies in D&D. Umm, you say there are many. I'm pointing to one. What's the problem here? Is it not good enough for your high standards?

You're not making a great deal of sense here.

Little more on our characters. The ranger is not heavily trained really. But he has been through basic training with weapons etc. He has weapon focus with his spear, it's safe to assume he does know how to use it rather well even if he's not a real expert yet. His performance so far though has been laughable. The wizard is just that. A scholarly type with no real background in weaponry that picked up a crossbow before traveling.

I'd be very leery of relying on anecdotal evidence when talking about statistical results. You say that your wizard hits very often, and your ranger doesn't. However, it's well-known that human recollection is skewed; you're less likely to remember events that are expected or mundane, and more likely to remember events that stand out. Thus because you expect the ranger to hit, the times that he does hit are just water under the bridge; they're mundane. Conversely, because you don't expect the wizard to hit, the times that he does hit are exceptional.

We're not expecting too much out of them, but the ranger being able to consistently fight better over his first few levels might be nice.

Then get your DM to pit you against monsters with lower AC. In general, the easier (or harder) it is to hit, the more consistent your results will be.

 

[Allanon]

Why make such a point out of something like an auto-fail on a natural 1 when you yourself live in a world where something as idiotic as Murhpy's laws apply?
Random chance, luck and dumb misfortune are as likely to happen in rl als in D&D and the fail on natural 1 rule just proves this.