Do natural 1's instantly mean a failed save?

[ferat]

I personally like the house rule where you treat 1's as a -10 and 20's as a 30.

But as for the topic at hand, 1s should be an automatic failure. They have been forever. Basic D&D. 1st and 2nd ed. And as people have pointed out the errata shows it as a failure in 3rd.

Heck, IIRC a 3 or less was an automatic failure in 2nd ed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There was a fantastic ad for Dungeon magazine in an issue of Dragon once. The ad was entitled "Don't Miss It!"

Bubba the Barbarian was cautioning Gephrekian Tallbow not to miss the rope. "Geek" replied indignantly with assorted reasons the very idea was ludicrous. One of them was "and I have a saving throw against everything of 2!"

Geek missed it.

-----

Can anyone remember which Dragon issue it was in? It's one of my favourite ads ever, and I can't find it!

-Hyp.

 

[IceBear]

I've always played it with a natural 1 was a failed save as that's how it's always been. The Sage (who was involved in the creation of 3E) came out fairly quickly after the game was released and said that you should fail with a natural 1. That, plus the splatbooks published by WotC, seem to suggest that this rule is more "core" than not. Besides, if you don't have a natual 1 as an autofail, you could have a rogue get hit by a fireball, have all his equipment destroyed and not suffer a single point of damage (ya, ya, his equipment absorbed ALL the damage, but it doesn't work for me).

All that said, I'll probably use the open ended rolls from the Epic Level Handbook in the future.

Kai Lord, I can understand you not liking the rule, but you either have to apply them to all combat rolls or none at all. So, if you're going to complain about natural 1 on a ST failing, then you have to complain about an natural 1 attack roll missing too.

IceBear

 

[Kai Lord]

Kai Lord, I can understand you not liking the rule, but you either have to apply them to all combat rolls or none at all. So, if you're going to complain about natural 1 on a ST failing, then you have to complain about an natural 1 attack roll missing too.

I think its been made quite clear that my group house rules instant hits and misses on attack rolls, while most people here house rule the other way (making saves instantly succeed or fail on a 20 or 1.)

Both sides are using house rules. One makes for potentially silly encounters for no other reason than abiding a perceived sacred cow, while the other still allows for a whopping 1-20 margin for error depending on the roll, but if you can't hit something with a roll of 20 you really have no business rolling in the first place.

A diseased and decrepit kobold with a bag of twenty throwing rocks is guaranteed to hit anything in the known universe within range? Stupid.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Under the "official" rules, 1s are failed saves now. It's no longer just a House Rule. It's in the FAQ, it's in splatbooks, it'll be in the PHB if they ever bother to reprint it.

That being said, I don't like automatic 1s or 20s for most rolls. Sure, random chance should always make ANYTHING possible, but 5% is just way too high for some things.

One of the things we've been toying with: criticals. Here's the idea in progess (haven't tried it out yet):
If you roll a 20 on anything, you roll again to "confirm" the critical. For attacks, criticals deal more damage. For saving throws, criticals might work like Evasion (negate anything that would normally go for half, reduce the duration or effect of a nondamage negative effect by half). For skill checks, a critical is as if you rolled a 30.
If you roll a 1 on anything (attack roll, save, whatever), you roll again to confirm the fumble. For attacks, you hit yourself/break your sword/whatever. For saving throws, you might take double effect (more damage/longer duration/whatever the DM thinks is appropriate) or suffer item damage (as before). For skill checks, it's as if you rolled a -10.

The nice part about this is, it means there's still a slim chance of doing just about anything, but it's now way less than 5% thanks to the second roll.

 

[IceBear]

Well, I agree that part of the reason I use natural 1 on a save is a autofail was because that's how it always worked. BUT, I don't think I was holding on to a "sacred cow" as I had no issues with other changes from past editions where it makes sense.

In my mind if a 20th level fighter has a chance of missing the blind kobold due to bad luck, it makes just as much sense of someone failing or succeeding their saving throws due to pure luck. It's not realistic, but that's how it works.

Also, the core rules DO say that you will auto succeed a saving throw on a natural 20. I know that you were concerned about the players defeating a dragon with one lucky roll, but aren't you concerned about the opposite end of the spectrum where your plans (or the PCs' plans) are thwarted because of a lucky roll of a natural 20?

If you're going to allow one, then you should allow the other.

Edit: Spat - that's why I think I might just use the open ended rolls from the ELH.

IceBear

 

[Kae'Yoss]

take your first level fighter with fullplate and a large sheild and a +1 dex bonus fighting defensively.... his ac is 23... why in gods name should a kobold be able to kill him with a stick on a lucky roll. The same goes as levels progress if you build a character with one great strength it's silly to make it an auto 5% chance someone defeats it.

I won't mention that no 1st-level fighter could afford that 1500 gp full blade.

It's not a 5% chance to defeat the char. It's a 5% chance to HIT the char. Especially with attack rolls, one attack won't make the fight. You exaggerate, and big time. What point is it if you have a 1st-level character that's physically invincible? I say it's a good thing that this kobold with a stick will be able to hit that munchkin. And hittin is not equal to killing, for you will survive that one hit.

Other than that, encounters where all your tricks will work none of theirs is really stupid (where's the fun in that).

And with a little luck, you will find an opening, even in that weapon master's defense (the tales are full of such fatefull strikes, and they seem popular, or they wouldn't be so numerous)

If wizards actually bothered to edit it's books and managed to do some of that extensive playtesting they talked about before 3e came out maybe their opinion would have been in the core rules.

They made excessive playtesting, and the rules were changed greatly before the release, don't you doubt that.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hm.... Colossal Monstrous Scorpions to rule the world. The Save DC against their poison is 54, so no character in the world (except the really munchkin ones) will be able to save against it. If you're not immune to poison. They hit everything with AC 45 or less and make 2d8 Str damage per hit. Every single time. Nice.

On the other hand, every Fighter 20 (or anyone with good fortsaves) and Con 14+ is completely immune to the poison of a scorpion as large as themselves. They could drink that stuff like water.

No no, I like my games better when I can dread the 1 or hope for the 20. It's to dull the other way

 

[FlimFlam]

I don't like the idea of having critical failures if you don't have critical saves for the same instance. If I need a 30 to save vs. a DC and I roll a nat 20, I don't think I should succeed in the save if the total isn't >= 30. Same thing for failures. If I roll a nat 1 and my bonuses meet or exceed the DC, I should be safe. JMHO.

 

[IceBear]

But why should that be any different than attack rolls?

I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but they're basically the same thing - anything you decide for one should be applied to the other. I'm just going to go with the ELH idea.

IceBear