Is a '1' an auto-failure for saving throws?

[Bronn Spellforger]

Huh. Not sure what the "core rules" entail, but it is in the latest edition of the PHB (way in the back where they put some Sage Advice stuff). They even put the question in big bold letters!

That's good enough for me.

 

[CRGreathouse]

... although IIRC it's also a variation that's been around since 1E days. Not exactly a new rule.

As I recall (and I may be wrong) saving throws failing on natural 1s was a part of the core 1st and 2nd edition rules.

 

[hong]

As I recall (and I may be wrong) saving throws failing on natural 1s was a part of the core 1st and 2nd edition rules.

Well, yes; that's what I meant.

 

[Henrix]

Yes, and it's a good rule.
But it should be in the errata, not just in the FAQ. And perhaps in the SRD, as well.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But it should be in the errata, not just in the FAQ. And perhaps in the SRD, as well.

Once it's in the errata, I'll play it that way in my game. Until then, I won't.

 

[kreynolds]

Once it's in the errata, I'll play it that way in my game. Until then, I won't.

What, second printing of the Official Wizards of the Coast Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook not good enough for ya'?

 

[kreynolds]

Huh. Not sure what the "core rules" entail...

Are you serious? PH, MM, DMG. Those are the three core books, i.e. core rulebooks, i.e. core rules.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What, second printing of the Official Wizards of the Coast Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook not good enough for ya'?

I have the second printing and play by it. I'm not impressed by Sage Advice not added to the body of the work or the errata, though.

 

[kreynolds]

I have the second printing and play by it. I'm not impressed by Sage Advice not added to the body of the work or the errata, though.

Yeah, it seems a little odd that the Sage Advice is supposed to be "official", yet it isn't incorporated into the relevant sections. I can see why though. This is my theory...

Exec: "Hey Sage! Those corrections ready?"
Sage: "Not yet. I'm still sorting through my hundreds of old emails to pick the answers I gave the most. Some of them conflicted ya' know."
Exec: "Just get it done. The second printing of the Player's Handbook needs to go out in 20 minutes."
Sage: "But the email admins are still trying to restore those thousands of emails that I carelessly deleted! I need those to get my story straight! I'll look like a buffoon!"
Exec: "No problem, Sage! We'll just cram your advice in a different section and call it a supplemental chapter!"

Hehe. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate all the hard work Skip puts into figuring out other peoples mistakes, maybe even a few of his own. At least he's trying, ya' know? In fact, when you think about it, he's pretty damn good at his job, which is better than not doing anything at all. Also, as far as I'm concerned, he's done better than anyone else. That rediculous Mind Blank ruling by Monte was pretty darned bad. I was really surprised that he would rule on something like that, apparently unaware of how badly such a ruling would unbalance half of the divination spells in the PH. Though, to Monte's credit, he didn't write the PH. But still, as of yet, I'm not aware of such a blunder from Skip.

 

[Forrester]

That rediculous Mind Blank ruling by Monte was pretty darned bad. I was really surprised that he would rule on something like that, apparently unaware of how badly such a ruling would unbalance half of the divination spells in the PH. Though, to Monte's credit, he didn't write the PH. But still, as of yet, I'm not aware of such a blunder from Skip.

What was the "rediculous" ruling that Monte made?