Saving Throws: 1/20 Auto Fail/Succeed?

[Ranger REG]

That's why the revision is warranted, to make things clear what the rules FAQ has been saying and correct oversight like the omission of saving throw's auto-success and auto-failure rules (which is not, I repeat, not BS).

If it is present in other Wizards' other d20 core rulebooks, I don't see how it should be excluded from Dungeons & Dragons, the first book to launch and lead the d20 System.

 

[Simulacrum]

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.

Perfect example of a GIANT SIZE rule LOOPHOLE.
exellent Darkness!
Thats just too odd to let it persist in the game.
-
Another example: You could create a purly defensive fighter who uses expertise and improved expertise (Oriental Adventures), defensive weapons + good magical stuff to get his AC up into the 90 region and he'd still hit on a 20, and most monsters, even the real badass ones need a 20 to hit him.
A lso super cheap way to make (to compare equal CR PC characters) aggressive built fighters lose bad.
(just think, give that defensive guy a reach weapon and spring attack and the aggro fighter can go home, or at least it comes down who throws more 20's that is totaly silly)
-
I dont want to argue this out to last drop of blood that is still in this discussion, I just think it proofs that any loophole, no matter how small is no good for the game.
I say auto success and failure is broken and should be removed.

 

[IceBear]

Then remove it...TADA!!! Seriously, if it bothers you so much that there are two threads on it then use the variant in the DMG or ELH - that's why WotC put them in there. Don't preach to others that they shouldn't use it if they want to.

It won't be removed in 3.5, but I'm sure they'll give lots of variants. Besides the example that Darkness gave (which is one reason I use open ended rolls) most of the time a natural 1/natural 20 auto fail/succeed works and it's simple - thus why it's in the rules.

IceBear

 

[Chaldfont]

Wow, you are right. It's right there in the FAQ.

Now why couldn't they have spelled it out that clearly in the PHB?

 

[IceBear]

Wow, you are right. It's right there in the FAQ.

Now why couldn't they have spelled it out that clearly in the PHB?

That's the million dollar question Is it JUST Skip William's preference, or was it simply forgotten when the PHB (and the PHB errata) was released (seems, odd, but I could still see it)? The thing is, just about every d20 WotC product since then uses 1/20 on Saves as auto fail/success.

In the past editions, they explained the auto fail success on attack rolls and saving throws as being the factor of luck in the hectic nature of combat. With that philosophy, they should either make all combat rolls work the same way or make no distinction at all between combat and non-combat rolls.

IceBear

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, there is a big distinction between an attack roll (which allows auto-success and auto-failure) and an opposed checks during combat (such as a grapple check but works just like a skill check).

I know it is confusing (to newbies) when we continue to use the old term "saving throw," deeply rooted in (A)D&D. Personally, I'd drop it in favor of "saving roll" to keep it in line with "attack roll."

 

[Kae'Yoss]

yep I checked it again, but it's still far from being logic. Because AC and Saves are nothing else than DC's anyway

AC's indeed are DC's for attack rolls. but saves are no DC's, we have the save DC's for that.
Saves and attacks are very similar in that they both are subject to luck and stress, and both are good for the one that makes them, if he succeeds (and bad if he fails.)
But I think the thread here is about saves being subject to autofail/-success, not about the logic of autofail/-success itself.

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.

So I HAVE to use errata? I HAVE to use all the rules in the core rulebooks? I think not!

Please don't confuse "official" with "mandatory". No single rule in the whole rulebooks are mandatory. I can change what I want. So the best you can say about our autosaves is that they're not official. But as much as I care, they're quasi-official. And that "quasi" there is atomically small.

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

Since it isn't stated either way in the core rules (it is stated that attack rolls use it, and IIRC it is also explicitly stated that skill checks don't use it), it is not exactly changing. I think we should focus more on the spirit on the rules, instead on the letter of the rules. The latter is for lawyers, while the former is for people.

Also, don't forget that they rarely release errata (AFAIK before they do a new printing of the book, where they change those issues).

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 they overwrite rules, they state that this is supercedes the core rule (and sometimes it's actual errata)

Also, the same argument can be made with errata: no one is compelled to download it (some may even be unable to), and so the old polymorph rules are official for 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.

3.5e will be like errata, only on a larger scale. And all the rules updates will be available in the SRD.

And it's still no house rule, IMO. It's a forgotten rule, the way it is taken as natural in countless other books is evidence enough for that.