Do natural 1's instantly mean a failed save?

[Ranger REG]

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.

And let the weak creatures swarm over a heavily-armored (with enchantments to the max) hero and yet none of them do one simple point of damage?

Puh-lease.

Then again, that's not my game, that's yours. So let's agree to disagree.

Your Campaign, Your Rules.

 

[Kai Lord]

And let the weak creatures swarm over a heavily-armored (with enchantments to the max) hero and yet none of them do one simple point of damage?

Puh-lease.

Then again, that's not my game, that's yours. So let's agree to disagree.

Your Campaign, Your Rules.

Exactly. And while my heroes are throwing down on waves of weak bad guys like the end of the LOTR film and ponder how to take out dragons sans cheap weaknesses that manifest once every 20 times, your epic warriors in full plate +10 scream like girls when 20 bats burst from a cave.

"Owwie! One of them BIT me!"

Happy gaming.

 

[IceBear]

Hmmmm - your exaggerations aren't doing much to win me over. Just because someone could be hit 1 in 20 times doesn't equate to them running in terror.

Somehow you've gone from a natural 1 on Saving Throw to complete house rules in which there is no case that a 20 is a autosuccess and a 1 a autofail. Nothing wrong with that really if you want to focus purely on skill and not allow luck to play any factor at all and it's done consistently.

The reason why *I* like the rules as is, is because it helps prevent the PCs from becoming complacent. "Oh, I have an AC of 25 so I'll just kill all the commoners in this town without any fear because none of them could ever hit me" Using the optional critical hit/death rule from the DMG at least makes all encounters a little less sure.

Anyway, it's just different tastes in campaigns, so we'll have to leave it as is.

IceBear

 

[hong]

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,

Being incoherent is Magus_Jerel's schtick. Please do not STEAL Magus_Jerel's SCHTICK.

but if you can't hit something with a roll of 20 you really have no business rolling in the first place.

Equally, if one needs a natural 20 to hit, one really has no business being in that combat 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.

A probability of hitting of 1/20 does not equate to autohitting once in twenty attacks.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'd rule that the Epic Save Bonus sets up the open-ended roll going down, but a 20 will always save. I feel the game is more heroic that way, and that's what I want--heroism.

Remember, a moderator posting to the thread should serve as a reminder to people not to start calling each other names.

 

[Number47]

The rules lawyer in me can't let this one go. Normal bats cannot hit one-in-twenty. Normal bats have no attacks, none at all. Unless I'm mistaken, they are the only creature in the MM that has no attacks.

This is off-subject, but the main subject has simply gotten silly.

 

[Kai Lord]

Hmmmm - your exaggerations aren't doing much to win me over. Just because someone could be hit 1 in 20 times doesn't equate to them running in terror.

No, but it does equate to them being pretty incompetent when statistically their foe shouldn't be able to hit them even 1 out of a 100 times.

Somehow you've gone from a natural 1 on Saving Throw to complete house rules in which there is no case that a 20 is a autosuccess and a 1 a autofail. Nothing wrong with that really if you want to focus purely on skill and not allow luck to play any factor at all and it's done consistently.

Right. Because when a fighter with an attack bonus of +7 attacks a foe with an AC of 17, there's no luck involved. Who's exaggerating again? Please. The only time luck isn't involved is when the attackers attack bonus is a whopping 20 points above the defender's AC, or spell DC vs. saving throw bonus, if you prefer. In those cases, no, luck really isn't a factor. Sure, there could be 1 in 10,000 anomalies, but since d20 doesn't allow for 1 in 10,000, only 1 in 20, the choice becomes what does 1 in 10,000 equate to in your game? 5%? Or impossible?

If you make it 5%, then it becomes a small effort to take out the most powerful foes and heroes. Since any campaign that has Green Dragons as random wandering monsters is utterly beyond stupid, any situation where a party is about to fight such a menace they know is in the area should be prepared, and all it takes is a few Poison arrows fired with Hunter's Mercy and wait for that natural 1 save to come up. A guarantee? No, but WAAAAY too easy. Its equally easy for any low-mid level spellcaster against any foe without SR. Heck, I guess most people here would advocate SR being negated on a 1 as well, so there you go.

The reason why *I* like the rules as is, is because it helps prevent the PCs from becoming complacent.

My rules keep the PC's from being complacent against dragons and near-epic monsters. Yours keeps them from being complacent against turtles and mice.

"Oh, I have an AC of 25 so I'll just kill all the commoners in this town without any fear because none of them could ever hit me" Using the optional critical hit/death rule from the DMG at least makes all encounters a little less sure.

So what would you do to hamstring a 20th level Monk in your campaign. DR 20/+1 pretty much equates to being able to slaughter a town without injury. However, this level of power is apparently taboo (maybe you actually have a problem with your PC's slaughtering towns, I don't know, you'd never exaggerate....) so I'm curious as to whether or not your House Rules extend to any circumstance where the PC's earned a level of power as to not fear retribution from rats and monkeys.

Anyway, it's just different tastes in campaigns, so we'll have to leave it as is.

Wrong. I'm bringing my 20th level Monk/10th level Deepwood Sniper to your next gaming session. We need to get this worked out.

 

[IceBear]

Listen Kai, I don't tell you how to play your games - I'm just telling you to be consistent (which is sounds like you're going to do now) - so I appreciate it not to tell me how to play mine.

All these HORROR problems you're pointing out in my game haven't happened so you're not scoring points. However, I DID have a player once metagame that the guard holding a crossbow on him couldn't hit him before, so I have run into that. NEVER (and I mean since 1982) has a PC ever killed a dragon or big bad because of a natural 1. It isn't an issue for me.

Stop trying to tell me my games are wrong - it's how I've been playing since Basic D&D with no issues. All I've said to you is IF you only don't allow a natural 1 on a saving throw to be an autofailure, you're not being consistent. If you decide to get rid of autosuccess and autofails all together, I don't have an issue with it - it's your game and it's consistent.

With the ELH, I've decided to use the open ended rolls instead as there is STILL always a chance of failure or success, but skill can offset bad luck more.

Also, I want to know why you always get aggressive and attack on these forums. Your posts aren't even worth reading with the tone that you always have. Unless I'm REALLY misreading what I wrote, I don't know what I did to deserve that attack on my campaign. I WASN'T attacking yours. I just said why *I* (notice the emphasis this time) use what I use. Just because *I* do something one way doesn't equate that I think your way is WRONG (unless you have an inferiority complex or something). I was just pointing out that you needed to be consistent with your rulings.

IceBear

 

[Kai Lord]

Listen Kai, I don't tell you how to play your games - I'm just telling you to be consistent

If I were prone to sigs, this would be mine. It just makes me all tingly inside. Thank you. Truly. That's just very, very funny.

 

[IceBear]

Why thanks...just another example of why reading your posts is generally a waste of my time.

I've been trying to keep this polite and let it drop, a moderator also suggested the same thing. I'd suggest you do that to.

IceBear