Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IceBear" data-source="post: 146099" data-attributes="member: 1118">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</blockquote>

Verification