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

[CRGreathouse]

Actually, Sage Advice isn't supposed to be official; IIRC, there's a disclaimer on Sage Advice that says, in effect, "This is Skip's opinion. Take it or leave it."

I think the Sage has done a great job, but I wish there was more consistency in his answers. (I know it's a pipe dream with the number of emails he gets.)

 

[kreynolds]

What was the "rediculous" ruling that Monte made?

Oh boy. God I hope this doesn't open up a can-o'-worms again. Monte initially ruled that Mind Blank protected you from True Strike. Nuff said.

Edited: Please read again.

 

[kreynolds]

I think the Sage has done a great job, but I wish there was more consistency in his answers. (I know it's a pipe dream with the number of emails he gets.)

No doubt. If I was asked the same question over and over and over and over and over...

"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"
"Skip? How do saving throws work?"

Skip's reply: "Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhh! Shut up! Just shut up! They don't work! OK? They don't work! Leave me alone! Aaaaaahhhhhhh!"

 

[kreynolds]

Actually, Sage Advice isn't supposed to be official; IIRC, there's a disclaimer on Sage Advice that says, in effect, "This is Skip's opinion. Take it or leave it."

That disclaimer may be in older releases of Sage Advice, but it isn't in the latest Sage Advice from issue 294 of Dragon and it sure isn't in the latest DnD FAQ, so what's that tell ya'? Unless they're going to errata the disclaimer.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That disclaimer may be in older releases of Sage Advice, but it isn't in the latest Sage Advice from issue 294 of Dragon and it sure isn't in the latest DnD FAQ, so what's that tell ya'? Unless they're going to errata the disclaimer.

Yeah, but in 18 months when they release the errata, it will be so full of errors that we won't figure out what they mean.

It only that wasn't so true.

 

[kreynolds]

Yeah, but in 18 months when they release the errata, it will be so full of errors that we won't figure out what they mean.

It only that wasn't so true.

Well, I gotta jump on the Sage bandwagon here and voice my theory on this. I have a feeling that the reason so many people think the Sage's advice is so full of errors is that people either 1) completely misread what the sage replied with, or 2) manipulated the Sage's reply to better suit their circumstances. Please, keep in mind that I won't leave out the obvious fact about Sage Advice: when you ask a compound question, the correct answer is never "Yes" or "No", and the Sage is kinda fond of answering like that.

Personally, I have yet to receive a single piece of Sage Advice in my Inbox that is difficult to understand, interpret, or read. It's all been pretty straight forward. I don't know. Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones.

 

[Ristamar]

The 1/Auto-failure 20/Auto-success rule is certainly part of the core rules, though how it didn't get explicitly stated within the core books is beyond me. Chalk it up to poor editing, and a (IMO) hasty reprint of the PHB.

Regardless, it is considered part of the core rules. Numerous designers (Monte, Skip, Sean, etc.) all chimed in immediately with the exact same answer when questions on various boards and threads arose shortly after the release of 3e.

On top of that, plenty of other material alludes to it (i.e. -- the D&Dg web enhancement: As a demigod, Imhotep treats a 1 on an attack roll or saving throw normally and not as an automatic failure.).

Was it a dumb printing/editing oversight? Yes. Does the dumb oversight take absolute precedence over what was alluded to and unanimously clarified by the designers? Hardly.

 

[CRGreathouse]

kreynolds: I'm with you on the Sage - he's a great guy and has good answers. They just aren't official.

 

[sotmh]

An interesting side effect of this ruling allows that intelligent CE sword with the meager ego of 7 at least a 5% chance to dominate his possesor every time there is a "personality conflict". Hmmm.

sotmh

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

ot: on the sage.

I have a feeling that the reason so many people think the Sage's advice is so full of errors is that people either 1) completely misread what the sage replied with, or 2) manipulated the Sage's reply to better suit their circumstances.

3) the sage himself may have misread the question. poorly worded or overly verbose questions will usually contribute to this greatly. i dunno about him, but if someone writes me an email detailing an entire combat just to ask, "can i use my off-hand weapon in a *normal* full-attack sequence (i.e. not taking the extra attack available to me)?", i'm gonna have a little too much info swimming around in my head.