Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Martryn 05-22-06, 02:54 AM	I've never liked the idea of natural ones being a failure on all my savings throws and attacks, so I've been thinking of ways to counteract that but not overpower the game. My main concern are on save or die spells. One method was action points. You could use an action point to reroll a dice roll or negate a hit on yourself. Players start with three action points, and get an additional three when they leveled up. This method was generally successful as my players forgot they had them most of the time and would only be reminded during those times when they really needed them. But then I thought of another idea. Just like critical hits do double damage, maybe rolling a 1 on an attack, but still having enough to hit the target, should do half damage. And with saves, rolling a 1 on a saving throw to prevent damage, and having the modifier to actually pass had it not been a 1, should take half damage as well, or on instant death spells or the like, it counts as a pass. I prefer using action points. Does anyone else have any solutions to the natural one is a failure on saves problem? I really don't like having my fellow players reroll characters when theirs die from stupid things like that in high level games, so we all agreed something had to be implemented.
CONMAN2469 05-22-06, 03:34 AM	I like the idea of action points, although... Do enemies also get action points? One of the ways I have gotton around this, is in The Spell Compendium, and the cleric domain, Pride Domain. It allows you to reroll 1's on saving throws, but you have to take the result even if it's another 1. And there's always the house rule on confirming crits on attacks. If your attack beats the AC, with your 18, 19 or whatever, then you auto double damage. If it doesn't, you hit regular, no critical extras.
Freedon_Nadd 05-22-06, 05:00 AM	Action points are a good system of doing things. Eberron has a -Very- good system and setup of using AP's. Depending on level, you get to roll varying number of d6's (1 at first level, up to 4 or 5 i think at 20), and add the highest of the numbers (in case of multiples) to your die roll. Now, in my opinion, the simple factor that you could be looking for is very simple. To offset that a 1 never automatically fails, simply remove the fact that a natural 20 always succeeds. This would be the easiest way to equalize the 1 always fails rule if removing. Conversely, if you were to implement both + Action Points, suddenly it's possible to roll a 1 and still make the save. Hope that helps.
Freedon_Nadd 05-22-06, 05:03 AM	I like the idea of action points, although... Do enemies also get action points? One of the ways I have gotton around this, is in The Spell Compendium, and the cleric domain, Pride Domain. It allows you to reroll 1's on saving throws, but you have to take the result even if it's another 1. And there's always the house rule on confirming crits on attacks. If your attack beats the AC, with your 18, 19 or whatever, then you auto double damage. If it doesn't, you hit regular, no critical extras. As it pertains to enemies getting action points, in Eberron where the Action Point system is set up (and for Heroes!), the only NPC's that have access to action points are important story-arc npc's. City Captains, Generals of countries, the leader of the werewolf tribe, etc. Important npc's have action points because he's important in some way shape or form to the PC's.
Atirakis 05-22-06, 12:39 PM	let me ask you this though, Do you still want to keep all natural 20s as an automatic success? If so then I think that its only fair that all 1s are failures.
Eros 05-22-06, 02:06 PM	I think you are underestimating the importance of having a 1 always fail and a 20 always succeed. Setting aside all house rules around what else might happen to a character if he or she roles a natural 1 or 20, the core game rules clearly have both of these in the mechanics for a reason. Without the randomness of actually having the chance to fail at something, you are setting yourself up for a big loop hole that you or your characters can exploit. A 3rd level character can achieve an AC above 23 relatively easily. This is not taking into account any additional bonuses they might have from magic cast on them at the time. What happens when they wade into a group of a hundred kobolds who don’t have the base attack to hit them? You have just allowed a third level character to walk through a group of a hundred creatures like a god.
stargate525 05-22-06, 05:44 PM	What happens when they wade into a group of a hundred kobolds who don’t have the base attack to hit them? You have just allowed a third level character to walk through a group of a hundred creatures like a god. or, if the Dm knows rules AT ALL, he will have formed those kobolds to aid another on attacks (only two for a possible hit, and up to five could do it), or form them into a mob (which has a +22 to hit).
Freedon_Nadd 05-22-06, 06:12 PM	or, if the Dm knows rules AT ALL, he will have formed those kobolds to aid another on attacks (only two for a possible hit, and up to five could do it), or form them into a mob (which has a +22 to hit). Wow - very cool. In this case though I'd like to consider myself a fairly good DM and I didn't know about mob rules. Always good to learn something new! ^.^
stargate525 05-22-06, 06:50 PM	Wow - very cool. In this case though I'd like to consider myself a fairly good DM and I didn't know about mob rules. Always good to learn something new! ^.^ yeah well, I'm somewhat of a bookworm, and have recently taken to borrowing all my friends' books in turn and reading them cover to cover, so yeah...
DarkRhystar 05-22-06, 10:51 PM	Does anyone else have any solutions to the natural one is a failure on saves problem? Here's the big Bag'O'Options: Option 1) Remove the rule. I've never quite understood autofailure myself. You just rolled a 1, the worst possible roll on any die which usually has bad consequences in itself... and someone felt the need to make it even worse? It's the equivalent of adding insult to injury. Just make a roll of 1 simply that... a 1. Option 2) Confirm it. You need to confirm a critical success (hit), why do you not have to confirm a critical failure? Give the player a second roll. If he/she doesn't fail a second time, then make the 1 simply a 1 and not an automatic failure. Option 3) Let a 1 be a 1, but subtract an arbitrary number from the total (such as 10). Some people seem to like this rule. I think it's silly, but it's still an option. Option 4) Make a 1 something spectacular but not an autofailure. A mage throws a lightning bolt at you and you roll a 1 for a reflex save. As the lightning bolt streaks toward you it runs into a hamster that just happed to be falling from the sky and into the path of the lightning bolt... instead of being hit by a lightning bolt you're hit by an electrified hamster. You take an additional 1d4 damage to whatever you would normally take based on your reflex total. Option 5) Keep it as an autofailure, but give the player an experience reward for "Learning the hard way." Option 6) Give the player an option to wager some experience or gold on total. If a player rolls a natural 1, the player may choose increase the total by giving up an arbitrary amount of experience or gold (10 per level per point). Now it still has a penalty, but it's one the player can choose to pay willingly to avoid an instant kill.
Platonix 05-23-06, 02:34 AM	Natural 1s could be a disaster a little less often with the official variant that, instead of being an automatic failure, natural 1s count as natural negative 10s. This will generally ensure failure at low levels, but at high levels you might get away unscathed even with that penalty. Under this variant, natural 20s are also not automatic successes; they're treated as natural 30s.
Freedon_Nadd 05-23-06, 12:25 PM	Here's the big Bag'O'Options: Option 1) Remove the rule. I've never quite understood autofailure myself. You just rolled a 1, the worst possible roll on any die which usually has bad consequences in itself... and someone felt the need to make it even worse? It's the equivalent of adding insult to injury. Just make a roll of 1 simply that... a 1. Option 2) Confirm it. You need to confirm a critical success (hit), why do you not have to confirm a critical failure? Give the player a second roll. If he/she doesn't fail a second time, then make the 1 simply a 1 and not an automatic failure. Option 3) Let a 1 be a 1, but subtract an arbitrary number from the total (such as 10). Some people seem to like this rule. I think it's silly, but it's still an option. Option 4) Make a 1 something spectacular but not an autofailure. A mage throws a lightning bolt at you and you roll a 1 for a reflex save. As the lightning bolt streaks toward you it runs into a hamster that just happed to be falling from the sky and into the path of the lightning bolt... instead of being hit by a lightning bolt you're hit by an electrified hamster. You take an additional 1d4 damage to whatever you would normally take based on your reflex total. Option 5) Keep it as an autofailure, but give the player an experience reward for "Learning the hard way." Option 6) Give the player an option to wager some experience or gold on total. If a player rolls a natural 1, the player may choose increase the total by giving up an arbitrary amount of experience or gold (10 per level per point). Now it still has a penalty, but it's one the player can choose to pay willingly to avoid an instant kill. The rule exists for balance. 1) Removing the rule of 1 always fails -counters- the rule of rolling a 20 always succeeds. Lets step out of combat, forget saving throws, forget THAC0 (sorry had to - hehe), forget spell penetration, lets look at what rolling a 1 and rolling a 20 does. Ex: I'm a rogue sneaking through a dungeon. Of course, I'm searching for traps. I have a total of +8 for my search (ok so i'm a first level rogue = P ). This will find most traps on a 17+. But in this case I'm looking for a symbol of anything which we'll say in this case has a DC of 30. I roll a 1 so I automatically fail, of course, I'm failing on everything else too. Unless I roll a natural 20. Why? Because, even with a 20 I ALWAYS succeed. Granted I'm still shy of the DC of 30 by 2, but because I rolled a natural 20, I find it (or disable it, or whatever it is). The rule of 1's always fail are in there because of the rule of natural 20's always succeed. It's the counter-balance. If you are going to remove the 1's always fail, you should remove the rule of 20's always succeed to keep things balanced imo. 2) Things don't always need confirming. Just because I roll a natural 20 to hit an enemy doesn't mean I can actually hit their ac. Just means I hit them. Also, don't forget rolling a 20 in combat automatically makes all saves, automatically makes lots of things in combat. 1's should always fail the roll because it just makes sense 3) Eh, I agree this is silly. 4) *chuckles* love the example. Anyways, this is unique, but adds to the earlier statement of 1's always fail. With this, you're actually making 1's "Botch" and have an even possible worse effect. While I like it (and may use it in game to make my players laugh now and again) I'd ultimately avoid it. What this boils down to would be a reputation for things happening on 1's that shouldn't that players would get (or potentially) upset about. 5) Hell, I'm gonna make every roll a 1 then. School of hard knocks anyone? Word of advice, don't do this one. To give out exp for rolling a 1 is like giving out exp for summoned creatures. It's a mechanic of the game. Just say no. ;) 6) Now this option would make sense and I like. To avoid 1's always failing, pay exp to change it. I would say that for artificers would have to pay actual exp and not their crafting exp total (they have a seperate exp total for making magic items).
DarkRhystar 05-23-06, 07:30 PM	The rule exists for balance. 1) Removing the rule of 1 always fails -counters- the rule of rolling a 20 always succeeds. Lets step out of combat, forget saving throws, forget THAC0 (sorry had to - hehe), forget spell penetration, lets look at what rolling a 1 and rolling a 20 does. Ex: I'm a rogue sneaking through a dungeon. Of course, I'm searching for traps. I have a total of +8 for my search (ok so i'm a first level rogue = P ). This will find most traps on a 17+. But in this case I'm looking for a symbol of anything which we'll say in this case has a DC of 30. I roll a 1 so I automatically fail, of course, I'm failing on everything else too. Unless I roll a natural 20. Why? Because, even with a 20 I ALWAYS succeed. Granted I'm still shy of the DC of 30 by 2, but because I rolled a natural 20, I find it (or disable it, or whatever it is). The rule of 1's always fail are in there because of the rule of natural 20's always succeed. It's the counter-balance. If you are going to remove the 1's always fail, you should remove the rule of 20's always succeed to keep things balanced imo. You make a good argument, but here are the problems with the system: Natural 1's are a regressive rule. Think about it. Your average Commoner at level 1 has a 5% chance of making an automatic failure with his one attack per round. Your level 20 Fighter has a 20% chance of making an automatic failure with his four attacks per round. What? You mean the seasoned Fighter will actually screw up 4 times as much as the level 1 Commoner? You become more adept at screwing up as you go up in level? Shouldn't it be the opposite in theory? You become better adept at not screwing up as you get better at fighting? Maybe it's just me. Natural 1's hurt Fighter-types more than any other class. While quite a few spells rely on a d20, many many do not. However, every physical attack relies on one. I dislike rules that are not equal across the board. Why not force a Mage to roll a d20 every time he/she casts a spell that doesn't already require a d20 to see if a natural 1 is rolled? No one would want this rule, yet it would be far more far more balanced compared to what the fighter-types endure. Now let's look at your example. Well, by RAW the system doesn't work that way. A natural 20/1 are only automatic for Saving Throws and Attack rolls. These are the only two types of rolls that these rules apply to (hence why taking-20 on something is not an automatic success). Your Rogue would always fail. Removing the natural 1 isn't a bad rule. I've played without it in many many games and it's never been overly missed in any of them. Try playing without it and see. :) 2) Things don't always need confirming. Well think about it this way. If you roll a 20 in combat to hit, you threaten a critical but don't automatically critical. You confirm. If you roll a a 1 in combat to hit, you risk the possibility of auto-failure, but don't automatically fail. 4) *chuckles* love the example. Anyways, this is unique, but adds to the earlier statement of 1's always fail. With this, you're actually making 1's "Botch" and have an even possible worse effect. While I like it (and may use it in game to make my players laugh now and again) I'd ultimately avoid it. What this boils down to would be a reputation for things happening on 1's that shouldn't that players would get (or potentially) upset about. Well yes and no. 1 is no longer an automatic failure in this option. It just means that something unexpected happens. If the character in my above example was a Rogue with Evasion who makes the save even on a roll of 1, the character may have dodged the lightning part but would still take 1d4 points of damage from the electrified hamster of doom. There are still consequences of rolling a 1, but they're different and they don't spell automatic death for the character. 5) Hell, I'm gonna make every roll a 1 then. School of hard knocks anyone? Word of advice, don't do this one. To give out exp for rolling a 1 is like giving out exp for summoned creatures. It's a mechanic of the game. Just say no. ;) Say your character isn't a very bright Fighter in the example above. Instead of dodging your character waves to the lightning bolt (rolls a 1) and gets hit. The character learns the obvious... don't wave to lightning bolts. He's a little brighter for the experience. (Excuse the bad pun) Not my favorite solution, but a viable one. 1's are no longer the worst thing, but they're still no walk in the park. 6) Now this option would make sense and I like. To avoid 1's always failing, pay exp to change it. I would say that for artificers would have to pay actual exp and not their crafting exp total (they have a seperate exp total for making magic items). It's an odd rule yet it works for some groups. These options are exactly that--options. Some options work for groups, some don't. I know which ones I like personally, but your mileage may vary. :)
Freedon_Nadd 05-24-06, 12:45 PM	You make a good argument, but here are the problems with the system: Natural 1's are a regressive rule. Think about it. Your average Commoner at level 1 has a 5% chance of making an automatic failure with his one attack per round. Your level 20 Fighter has a 20% chance of making an automatic failure with his four attacks per round. What? You mean the seasoned Fighter will actually screw up 4 times as much as the level 1 Commoner? You become more adept at screwing up as you go up in level? Shouldn't it be the opposite in theory? You become better adept at not screwing up as you get better at fighting? Maybe it's just me. Natural 1's hurt Fighter-types more than any other class. While quite a few spells rely on a d20, many many do not. However, every physical attack relies on one. I dislike rules that are not equal across the board. Why not force a Mage to roll a d20 every time he/she casts a spell that doesn't already require a d20 to see if a natural 1 is rolled? No one would want this rule, yet it would be far more far more balanced compared to what the fighter-types endure. Now let's look at your example. Well, by RAW the system doesn't work that way. A natural 20/1 are only automatic for Saving Throws and Attack rolls. These are the only two types of rolls that these rules apply to (hence why taking-20 on something is not an automatic success). Your Rogue would always fail. Removing the natural 1 isn't a bad rule. I've played without it in many many games and it's never been overly missed in any of them. Try playing without it and see. :) Well think about it this way. If you roll a 20 in combat to hit, you threaten a critical but don't automatically critical. You confirm. If you roll a a 1 in combat to hit, you risk the possibility of auto-failure, but don't automatically fail. Well yes and no. 1 is no longer an automatic failure in this option. It just means that something unexpected happens. If the character in my above example was a Rogue with Evasion who makes the save even on a roll of 1, the character may have dodged the lightning part but would still take 1d4 points of damage from the electrified hamster of doom. There are still consequences of rolling a 1, but they're different and they don't spell automatic death for the character. Say your character isn't a very bright Fighter in the example above. Instead of dodging your character waves to the lightning bolt (rolls a 1) and gets hit. The character learns the obvious... don't wave to lightning bolts. He's a little brighter for the experience. (Excuse the bad pun) Not my favorite solution, but a viable one. 1's are no longer the worst thing, but they're still no walk in the park. It's an odd rule yet it works for some groups. These options are exactly that--options. Some options work for groups, some don't. I know which ones I like personally, but your mileage may vary. :) You're looking at things a bit differently. You're adding the 5% chance to miss to every attack. That'd be the incorrect thing to do. Fighters get better obviously compared to your commoner by getting a higher BAB, multiple attacks, etc. Give a level 5 commoner and a level 15 fighter all the same stats and equipment, and who do you think will come out on top? My gold's on the fighter. Because he's got 3 attacks, and +15 to his to hit before any str or dex mods. Each attack granted has that 5% chance to fail, but the odds are he's gonna hit on anything with his first swing (unless he rolls a 1), most likely to hit with his second swing (figure on average it's a 5 to 8 to hit), and the last hit would also be a better than average to hit (8 - 13 on average). Conversely the commoner has a 5% chance to hit -any- ac. Figure if he rolls that natural 20, he can hit a great wyrm dragon with a dinky dagger of rabbit-slaying, and while he probably wouldn't do enough damage to make the dragon think anything major, he would get it's attention for actually hitting it. Also, if you're going to stick to the having a 20% chance of missing, you have to keep in mind there's also a 20% chance of a guranteed hit every round. The taking 10 and taking 20 are for people who don't want to bother rolling because they think they can make the diff w/out rolling. Also, the taking 20 option isn't an auto-success because the player didn't roll the natural 20. So you take the 20, add your ranks and ability modifier, etc. Taking 10 or 20 is a way to say "I'm taking some extra time so I get a guranteed result of -X-" Moving on, the natural 20/1 rule applies to -any- and -all- d20 rolls. Skills, saves, to hit, everything. While you're focusing primarily on combat, you have to keep in mind that 70% of the game shouldn't be combat. Also, I have both played and run games where the 1 wasn't a guranteed failure and well, the game and combat aspects of it was indeed thrown off enough to make a difference. Also, rolling a 1 simply automatically fails to hit or save. Rolling a 1 doesn't automatically mean "your dead" (except in the case of failed saves on necromancer rolls). Those spells are meant to be like that btw. Things like Finger of Death and the like are made to be like that. Rolling a 1 is simply like rolling a 2 or a 3 or any other number that fails the save, it's just saying you failed. Doesn't matter what the spell or anything else is. A 1 is a simple failure. Also, as for your example of fighter-x waves at the lightning bolt, he's also in the middle of a fight of some sort. He shouldn't get extra exp for a 3rd level spell because he waved and got hit. The lightning bolt is part of the challenge, overcoming the trap, defeating the wizard, all these things are one and the same. The spell is part of the combat and CR, just like a summoned creature would be. Anywho - that's my outlook on things. :)
DarkRhystar 05-24-06, 01:05 PM	I'll agree to disagree on whether or not natural 1's are a good rule. It's a long argument that I honestly do not wish to make at this time. :) Moving on, the natural 20/1 rule applies to -any- and -all- d20 rolls. Skills, saves, to hit, everything. While you're focusing primarily on combat, you have to keep in mind that 70% of the game shouldn't be combat. Also, I have both played and run games where the 1 wasn't a guranteed failure and well, the game and combat aspects of it was indeed thrown off enough to make a difference. Also, rolling a 1 simply automatically fails to hit or save. Rolling a 1 doesn't automatically mean "your dead" (except in the case of failed saves on necromancer rolls). Check your PhB. Automatics are mentioned in two places. As a subsection of Saving Throws on page 136, and as a subsection of Attack on page 139. Rolling 1's or 20's on a skill check don't mean anything special. Having automatic successes and failures on rolls that aren't Attack or Saving Throw rolls is a house rule. :)
Arcade 05-26-06, 09:03 AM	FYI, IMC, and other suggestions I've seen on the board, a natural 1 and 20 are not automatic. Instead, they are used to create a rolling total. So an a natural 1, roll again but add -20 to the total to give you a result between -19 and 1. On a natural 20, roll again and add 19 to the roll to give you a total between 20 and 39. It's still unlikely you'll make that save when you roll a 1, but you have a chance. And if you use action points, you can add it to the modified roll to try and push yourself to a successful save. EDIT--> Note I only start implementing this rule after the characters hit a decent level, like 7th. Before that, natural 1 and 20 are automatic enough that there's no sense complicating the issue.