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

[kreynolds]

Auto Success/Fail for saves is not core. No were dose it say it is.

All this “Yes it is” Comes from word of mouth and “That’s how it was in 1st / 2nd Ed” which we all know how much things have changed compared to them.

“d20 + Base save bonus + other modifiers due to equipment, active effects, environment, circumstance, etc. + ability modifier vs. DC of Save”

Is exactly how you do saves.

See above post.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

i'm just reposting the relevant part of the above faq quote...

Saving throws are similar to attack rolls in that there’s
always a little something beyond the character’s control.
Like combat, there are cases where the roll is irrelevant,
even if it’s a “1” or “20.” Creatures that are immune to an
attack never have to roll saving throws against that
attack. Likewise, if a spell or attack form doesn’t allow a
saving throw in the first place, you can’t roll a saving
throw and hope to get a “20.”

 

[Artoomis]

The amazing thing about the whole automoatic success and failure on saving throws thing is that the FAQ simply states that that's the way it is, with no acknowledgement that it's not in the rules anywhere.

It simply states

On an attack roll or a saving throw, a roll of “20” on the die is always a success and a roll of “1” is always a
failure...

as though that were actually in the rules.

You can, of course, play it that way (as our group does), but this is clearly errata that has never been published as such.

 

[kreynolds]

...but this is clearly errata that has never been published as such.

No argument there. But as I've been told by countless 2nd Edition DMs when I first asked them about this, "Damn, Kelly! What are you, stupid? It's always been that way!"

 

[Artoomis]

No argument there. But as I've been told by countless 2nd Edition DMs when I first asked them about this, "Damn, Kelly! What are you, stupid? It's always been that way!"

It's always been that way is the single worst argument for anything. For centuries slavery was accepted, and it was the norm for conquered peoples to be slaves. If we accepted the it's always been that way argument many of us would be slaves or serfs today.

3e represents a new way of doing business for D&D. Perhaps auto success and failure was an oversight in the rules, perhaps it was deliberately left out. We'll never know for sure, but we do know that pretty much everyone assumes it should be that way. And that includes the game designers.

In our group we use the auto success/failure rule for saves.

But I'm still annoyed by the lack of admission in the FAQ that it's not in the rules, and by the lack of errata on this subject.

I look forward to 4th edition when all this is fixed. (Wildly ROFL)

 

[Henrix]

In our group we use the auto success/failure rule for saves.

But I'm still annoyed by the lack of admission in the FAQ that it's not in the rules, and by the lack of errata on this subject.

I second that. A rule shoud be presented in the rulebook.

 

[IceBear]

I know that saying "That's the way it always worked" isn't a good argument in all cases, but in this one it helps lead credence to the fact that I think they just forgot to spell it out in black and white.

They went through explicit detail on how a natural 1/20 isn't an auto fail/sucess with skill rolls, because they behave differently than combat rules. I am sure that if they intended to do the same with saving throws (especially since this was the way everyone who were migrating to 3E were playing it) they would have stated it clearly to be sure that everyone was aware of the major rule change. Since they didn't I am left with the feeling that they wanted Saving Throws to work the same way as they did in the past.

Also, if you don't make a natural 1 an auto failure you can run into a weird problem with the rules. The rules state that if you roll a natural 1 on a save you are supposed to check for equipment damage. Well, if a high level thief with +20 on Reflex saves is hit by a fireball you could run into a case where the thief takes absolutely no damage and yet his equipment is destroyed by the fireball.

Unlike skill checks, I believe combat checks are more prone to lucky (or unlucky) breaks which is the reason a commoner has a 5% chance of actually jabbing his pitchfork into the soft spot of a red dragon's scales. Saving Throws, which normally take place in combat, would fit into the same circumstances.

I do 100% agree that there should be errata on this, but I don't think there will be. In my mind it's pretty offical that it's how it's supposed to be.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

I have no problem with your logic IceBear. Only with the rules.

But oversights are not rare in 3e - witness the total lack of underwater combat rules, despite the fact that they existed before.

I just KNOW 4th edition will fix all of this and there will be no more arguments on the rules. They will be comperhensive, yet simple and fast-moving in combat.

Hey - it could happen!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hmm... I think auto success/-failure for attack rolls and saving throws but not for skill checks is OK, though it is noch explicitly stated.

The argument that it always hat been that way, on the other hand, is not totally appropriate, because saving throws and skill checks worked differently in 2e:
Before, you had a set value for your saving throw (which started high and decreased in time), that was determined solely by your class and level and which you had to beat with your d20 roll. It was only a few cases that the caster / event that forced you to make that saving throw had anything to do with the success or failure (your poison save was, e.g. 12, no matter if a giant scorpion stung you or a honeybee).
A skill checks (and ability checks), on the other hand, was staying under your ability score (maybe changed by the skill), and here we your ability score was the important part, too, not the event or enemy: it was no difference in evading a normal fireball cast by a dumb mage (just intelligent enough to cast the spell) and evading a delayed blast fireball cast by a genius.

Now, both checks involve a d20 roll, adding a bonus/penalty from an ability score and another from your ranks/save bonuses. The result has to beat a DC.
In 2e, you be poisoned, and the saving throw for that would be something from 20 to 1 (maybe something exceeding that), basically the values of a d20 roll, and now, both the DC and your total roll (and even your total bonus) can be from minus something to 30 and (far) beyond. In 2e, you seldom hat events where values below 1 or beyond 20 would occur, anyway, so the auto success/-failure was a small thing. But now, you can have vast differences (a sickly Rogue1 with Con 8, resulting in a Fort Save Mod of -1 has to save against colossal monstrous scorpion poison, save DC 54). In 2e, this usually would call for a saving throw against poison, with success beginning at around 15 (I don't have the charts of 2e handy; grateful for every hint!), where in 3e you couldn't possibly save against that poison without auto success (your best shot would be 19, far below 54!)

 

[kreynolds]

It's always been that way is the single worst argument for anything. For centuries slavery was accepted, and it was the norm for conquered peoples to be slaves. If we accepted the it's always been that way argument many of us would be slaves or serfs today.

Thanks for the morality lesson. Anyways, getting back to the actual topic. I agree that it's a lame argument, which is why I almost went nuts trying to find it in the core books. It wasn't until the FAQ that I found it.