Saving Throws: 1/20 Auto Fail/Succeed?

[Li Shenron]

While it's not in the PHB, that's probably cause they forgot it. The FAQ says so, several D&D books from Wizards say so, and in other d20 Games - d20 Modern, again from Wizards - it is core rule. And I'm 99.99% sure it will appear in the 3.5e PHB as well. For all I care, it is a core rule.

It was not in PHB, DMG and MM, and it was not in the errata.

That's how far anyone playing/DMing D&D 3rd edition is required to go. Everything else is not mandatory, including FAQ and other WotC books.

FAQ are supposed to explain better what was not explained well enough, not to change it.

Other WotC books are accessories which might even overwrite some core rules, but since no one is compelled to buy them, they can't be considered core, regardless of how many own them.

If this house rule is used within 3.5e PHB/DMG/MM, we will be using it as a core rule. If we play D&D 3.5e, of course.

Whether the 'auto' rule as it is in the corebooks makes sense or not is another matter altogether.

A sacred cow is a sacred cow, whether it's in the book or not.

Everyone has its own sacred cows, and there's a huge forum to gather them all together. I worship only 3e.

 

[Victim]

The FAQ is the the errata. The last product with errata was either MaF or OA. They haven't done any official errata in long time. Some products could really use errata - like DotF.

Why do you suppose that is? Because they've shifted all the rules correction material to the FAQs.

 

[IceBear]

As a believer that they MEANT to put auto success/failure in the PHB along with the same rules on attack rules, I will admit that you will not find it in the core rules.

That said, given that it is in the FAQ and d20 Modern (which appears to be the forerunner for many 3.5E changes) it will be in the 3.5 Core Books.

Personally, I like the open ended rolls from ELH, and I suspect there will be variants listed in the core books (like there are now)

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

I think it was intentionally left out of the PHB. It is in the FAQ, I think, because folks assumed it was a rule and Skip Williams happened to like that rule.

That's what I think happened, anyway.

I look forward to seeing whether it is included in ed. 3.5 Personally, I 've always disliked auto success and failure. Some things should always succeed or fail against you, and a roll of "20" or "1" should not change that. It's also inconsistent with skill checks.

 

[IceBear]

I think it was intentionally left out of the PHB. It is in the FAQ, I think, because folks assumed it was a rule and Skip Williams happened to like that rule.

That's what I think happened, anyway.

I look forward to seeing whether it is included in ed. 3.5 Personally, I 've always disliked auto success and failure. Some things should always succeed or fail against you, and a roll of "20" or "1" should not change that. It's also inconsistent with skill checks.

I believe that if it was intentionally left out they would have specifically stated that in the PHB. Most of us came from 2nd Edition (and older) and thus would naturally think that a 1 was a fail and a 20 a success. Thus, in the PHB they SPECIFICALLY stated that natural 1/20 does not apply to skill checks. If they intended saving throws to act the same way they would have specifically stated that too, in my opinion. I do think it suspicous that it's nowhere other than the FAQ (and some non-core books), but since they did go out of their way to say natural 1/20 didn't apply to skill checks I find it odd that they didn't do the same for Saving Throws when more of us would naturally think that way.

The fact that d20 Modern, Star Wars, and I think CoC (and others) DO state natural 1/20 applies to saves, is why I'm pretty damn sure it'll be in 3.5. If you don't like combat rolls having auto success/fail, then use a variant rule

IceBear

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In truth, how often does this come up? PCs and NPCs will "always" succeed on a natural 20 and fail on a natural 1 in real play.

The only way I can think of to get an obnoxiously high save DC in normal play is with a coup de grace.

 

[Darkness]

Another thing to consider:

Assume you area fighting a creature that, after factoring in all modifiers, you can hit only on a natural 20 (which can very well happen if you are suffering from some spell or poison that negatively impacts your combat ability - or, worse yet, several different penalties).
The auto-success rule makes it your best bet to make a maximum Power Attack or else Fight Defensively (plus as much Expertise and/or defending weapon, if available).
In fact, unless there's some rule that Power Attack and Fighting Defensively can't be used at the same time, it's your best course of action to do both.

And you will still hit as well as if you didn't have any of those additional to-hit penalties.

If you still don't think that that's so bad, feel free to pile on even more penalties - ability score damage, a curse spell, using Flurry of Blows (or, better yet, that one S&F feat that gives a second bonus attack on a Flurry), Superior Expertise, etc., all at once. But you will still hit as well as someone else who has your exact same stats but none of these additional penalties.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

"Assume you area fighting a creature that, after factoring in all modifiers, you can hit only on a natural 20 (which can very well happen if you are suffering from some spell or poison that negatively impacts your combat ability - or, worse yet, several different penalties).
The auto-success rule makes it your best bet to make a maximum Power Attack or else Fight Defensively (plus as much Expertise and/or defending weapon, if available).
In fact, unless there's some rule that Power Attack and Fighting Defensively can't be used at the same time, it's your best course of action to do both."


It does seem inconsistant on one hand, but remember the free style of D&D combat. There is no accounting for parrying, multiple blows that have no chance of hitting, feints that are not feat based. What is a base attack bonus made of, or an AC score, if not a thousand things too small to keep rules for. Years of trainning, ect.

Look at AoOs, where you get your highest BAB on all of them. It's assumed that you strike at your opponent while he is open. Does it mean that you feinted, and drew him open, he fumbled, or what?

The above example does smack of cheese, but it could also be described as waiting till your opponent is open, and hitting him with everything you have. A missed hit roll may mean you thought about taking a shot, but didn't, just as much as it could mean you attack was parried or ought right missed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It does seem inconsistant on one hand, but remember the free style of D&D combat. There is no accounting for feints that are not feat based.

... except for the Bluff skill, which isn't even Trained Only

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

As a believer that they MEANT to put auto success/failure in the PHB along with the same rules on attack rules, I will admit that you will not find it in the core rules.

That said, given that it is in the FAQ and d20 Modern (which appears to be the forerunner for many 3.5E changes) it will be in the 3.5 Core Books.

Personally, I like the open ended rolls from ELH, and I suspect there will be variants listed in the core books (like there are now)

IceBear

I agree with you, IceBear, that they have messed up awfully with it: 3e was presented as a "rewrite" of the D&D game, and it is supposed to be a stand-alone game, which shouldn't require knowledge in previous editions to be played correctly. How could thay have been so lame to assume that the 'auto' rule for attack rolls was important to put into PHB, as it was important to point out that it doesn't apply to skill checks, and then completely missed to explicitly say it should apply to saving throws. How could they expect from me, who unfortunately didn't play 2ed, to imagine that I should apply 'autos' to saving throws as well?

Then they had the chance to make an errata about it, if they intended from the start to apply 'autos' to saving throws, but they didn't, perhaps thinking that it wasn't needed? They wrote a FAQ, and I am as sure as you that the rule will be in 3.5e as well, but I dislike all this weak approach: if they had written that rules in PHB from the start, I would have never ever thought it shouldn't be, because honestly it does not change much in my game to have autofailures/successes in my game. I just despise the attitude; it sounds like they have never been sure themselves if the rule should have been YES or NO: was it so difficult to choose either and put the other as a variant in the DMG?

A final word: let's not think too much if it makes better sense to have autos or not for ST. Some people say there should be because "magic is unpredictable", but if you think that I'm sure you also dislike HD caps to spells (why should Sleep ALWAYS fail?). And why not apply it to caster level checks, since they also regard magic? All these variants may have a sense, after all, but there should be 1 and only clear official rule.