Is a '1' an auto-failure for saving throws?
- Thread starter Forrester
- Start date
melkoriii said:
Oddly enough, it apparently wasn't a "Core Rule" in 1st or 2nd edition either.
I just checked my 2nd Edition PHB, (copyright 1989) and while it does have the auto fail/success rule for combat, it doesn't say anything about it for Saving Throws.
My 1st Edition DMG indicates that a natural 20 hits in combat, and suggests allowing a natural 20 on a saving throw to succeed, regardless of penalties. It does indicate that a 1 should always be a failure.
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
First Post
the only major flaw in the "it's always been that way" argument is... well... wasn't part of the 3e design to help bring new people to d&d?
how's the n00b supposed to know "it's always been that way"??
how's the n00b supposed to know "it's always been that way"??
Endur
First Post
Saving Throws: Critical Failure/Success
The automatic 1 critical failure and automatic 20 critical success for saving throws were deliberately left out of the PHB and the DMG.
There were two reasons why they chose to implement critical failure and critical success for attack rolls and chose not to do so for saving throws.
1) For an attack, a roll of 20 is more than a success, you also get a chance to do greater damage (critical hit). For a saving throw, there is no equivalent critical success (i.e. if you save against a spell, the spell caster doesn't automatically die or something).
2) For an attack, missing one out of twenty attacks is not a big deal. For saving throws, failing one out of twenty can be a problem for player characters. Suppose you are a high level fighter, if you get hit twenty times in your career for more than 50 points of damage, then you will die, guaranteed from the massive damage rule regardless of how high your fort save is or your hit points are. In a game that depends on characters surviving so that you can continue to play the game next week, it didn't make sense to make character death essentially automatic by using the law of odds to guarantee that characters will eventually die after they take twenty or so saving throws.
Tom
Endur Stonehelm
The automatic 1 critical failure and automatic 20 critical success for saving throws were deliberately left out of the PHB and the DMG.
There were two reasons why they chose to implement critical failure and critical success for attack rolls and chose not to do so for saving throws.
1) For an attack, a roll of 20 is more than a success, you also get a chance to do greater damage (critical hit). For a saving throw, there is no equivalent critical success (i.e. if you save against a spell, the spell caster doesn't automatically die or something).
2) For an attack, missing one out of twenty attacks is not a big deal. For saving throws, failing one out of twenty can be a problem for player characters. Suppose you are a high level fighter, if you get hit twenty times in your career for more than 50 points of damage, then you will die, guaranteed from the massive damage rule regardless of how high your fort save is or your hit points are. In a game that depends on characters surviving so that you can continue to play the game next week, it didn't make sense to make character death essentially automatic by using the law of odds to guarantee that characters will eventually die after they take twenty or so saving throws.
Tom
Endur Stonehelm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gromm
Is a natural “20” always a hit and natural “1” always a
miss when using weapons? Is a natural “20” always a
success and natural “1” always a failure when rolling a
saving throw? Is a natural “20”always a success and
natural “1” always a failure when rolling an ability
check or a skill check?
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. This represents the inherently chancy nature of
combat; it has innumerable variables that are completely
beyond the acting character’s control. In the case of attack
rolls, common sense must prevail. A roll of “20” cannot
produce a hit when a hit is not possible. (For example: It
won’t hit when a target is beyond the attacker’s melee
reach or beyond a ranged attack’s maximum range.)
Some circumstances always produce a hit or a miss no
matter what the attack roll is. For example, an attack
against a concealed target has a flat chance to produce an
automatic miss (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook),
no matter what the attack roll is. Likewise if you’re using
the coup de grace rule or take a full round to line up a
melee attack on an unattended object, you always hit.
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.”
Skill checks are not subject to automatic success or
failure. Some tasks are just too easy for failure or too hard
for success. (Most people don’t fail once on every 20
attempts to tie their shoes.) Ability checks are likewise
not subject to automatic failure or success. (No matter
how lucky you are, you’re just not going to kick down a
castle wall.) If the DM feels that chance might affect the
outcome, a saving throw or attack roll is probably more
appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I see it. Its just not in the core rules and so is irrelevant. When there is a errata on it. Then I will play with it. But till then its not official.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gromm
Is a natural “20” always a hit and natural “1” always a
miss when using weapons? Is a natural “20” always a
success and natural “1” always a failure when rolling a
saving throw? Is a natural “20”always a success and
natural “1” always a failure when rolling an ability
check or a skill check?
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. This represents the inherently chancy nature of
combat; it has innumerable variables that are completely
beyond the acting character’s control. In the case of attack
rolls, common sense must prevail. A roll of “20” cannot
produce a hit when a hit is not possible. (For example: It
won’t hit when a target is beyond the attacker’s melee
reach or beyond a ranged attack’s maximum range.)
Some circumstances always produce a hit or a miss no
matter what the attack roll is. For example, an attack
against a concealed target has a flat chance to produce an
automatic miss (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook),
no matter what the attack roll is. Likewise if you’re using
the coup de grace rule or take a full round to line up a
melee attack on an unattended object, you always hit.
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.”
Skill checks are not subject to automatic success or
failure. Some tasks are just too easy for failure or too hard
for success. (Most people don’t fail once on every 20
attempts to tie their shoes.) Ability checks are likewise
not subject to automatic failure or success. (No matter
how lucky you are, you’re just not going to kick down a
castle wall.) If the DM feels that chance might affect the
outcome, a saving throw or attack roll is probably more
appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kreynolds said:
Oh I see it. Its just not in the core rules and so is irrelevant. When there is a errata on it. Then I will play with it. But till then its not official.
