Autofail on 1: No soft immunity? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Autofail on 1: No soft immunity? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TekknoMancer
09-26-05, 06:22 PM This thread is to discuss the implications and impact of autofail of saving throws on a 1. Autofail and autosuccess with attack rolls is one matter, since missing an attack will not "directly" cause you to die (though not killing the target may result in subsequent death). However, what happens against a save-or-die death effect or other equally disasterous effects?

Consider the triple-20 (or whatever it is) insta-kill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is generally accepted that rules such as this, and others that really on long-shot (but still possible) rolls, favor monsters over players. Similarly observe what happens when low-DC effects are spammed against high-level players with high saving throws? The shear odds of rolling a 1 eventually catch up with the player. A player with high saves must still worry about these effects because even a 5% chance of failure can add up when effects are spammed. This leads to full immunity becoming necessary instead of rewarding these high saves as "soft immunity" against low-level effects.

--Fixes: --
-Simply remove autofail 1, which may also require removing autosuccess 20 to be balanced
-Allow epic characters to not autofail on a 1
- 1 = -10 and 20 = 30, thus making nothing automatic but a 1 gives a big penalty
- allow great fort, iron will, lighting ref. to remove the autofail 1. Beefs up these feats a little
Thievingrouge
09-26-05, 06:47 PM I, as both a player and DM, like that rule.

As a player it means no matter how uber that great wyrm is, if he rolls a 1 he's going down (Death effect), and it adds excitemnt to my uber saves (Will I still fail... It rolled off a one. good I survived)

As a DM, it adds a moment of hilarity when my BBEG is toasted due to a sucky roll, and a moment of tension when Thud the barbarian becomes a statue (I've never played with a "Thud, the Barbarian" but you get it).
TekknoMancer
09-27-05, 01:50 PM The point I was trying to make, however, is that it makes immunities that much more necessary and that much more powerful. As a general rule, I do not like full-fledged immunity.
Radijs
09-27-05, 05:18 PM There's always risk involved in adventuring. The idea of 5% chance of failure adds a lot of potential fun and excitement to a game( :twocents: ). The white dragon failing his save on Tashas hideous laughter made the day of our party.

Sure sometimes bad stuff happens but thats why clerics get raise dead and druids get the more fun reincarnate.
LordHell
09-27-05, 05:24 PM There still needs to be some randomness and excitement in the game. Sure remove the 5% chance of an autofail, while you're at it:

Point buy only.
Average HPs only.
Average attack rolls only.
Average damage only.
Average skill checks only.

In fact, why dont we remove ALL randomness from the game entirely and play a statisitcal based game of averages!
Limit
09-27-05, 05:40 PM I don't see how this favors monsters over players. Monsters can auto-fail their saving throws as well, giving an outmatched player a chance of winning. The only time I can see this benefiting monsters is if a DM continually sends a large number of low CR creatures at you.

Although, if ten CR 5 goblin wizards show up and simulataneously cast fireballs at an ECL 12 rogue, I don't see a problem with there being a chance that one will find its mark. Rogues are shifty creatures, but it takes LUCK to dodge 10 fireballs at once.

I think thats the spirit behind the auto-fail/auto-success rules -- nothing in life is certain. Lady Luck may just decide to call your number.

However
If you want to remove it from your campaign entirely, I would definately also remove auto-successes since not removing them would be unbalancing for monsters/players that spend time/money/feats to pump their DCs real high.
Abulafia
09-27-05, 05:58 PM This is about the eighth thread I've posted to regarding the consequences of natural 20's and 1's. In all of those threads, the main point I have taken away is that no one's opinion is ever changed on whether auto-successes or auto-fails (or critical failures, or instant-kills) should exist or not. Tread lightly, son.

If you don't like the frequency of automatic successes and failures, you can use my rule: If a player or monster rolls a 20 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and adds the result +20 to his roll. If a player or monster rolls a 1 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and subtracts the result from his roll. In the event that a player rolls a second 20 or 1, he adds or subtracts the result and keeps rolling.

Example: Jimbo is playing Kragthar the Mighty, who has a +40 attack bonus and an AC of 55. He swings at Limpy the kobold sorcerer (AC 9), and rolls a 1. Disgusted, he rolls again, and gets another 1. Spewing curses, Jimbo rolls again, and gets a 15. His total attack roll is 40 - 20 (for the second 1) - 15, for a total of 5. Limpy sways out of danger.

Now I roll for Limpy, and get a 20. I roll again, and get another 20. I roll again, and get a 19. Limpy's total attack roll is -2 + 20 + 20 + 19, for a total of 57. It's Limpy's finest hour, as his dagger somehow finds a chink in Kragthar's breastplate for 1 point of damage.

My rule preserves some randomness while taking into account the advantages of tremendously high or low attack bonuses or save DCs. Limpy's odds of hitting Kragthar drop from 5% to (1/20 * 1/20 * 4/20), or 1/2000 (.05%), while Kragthar's odds of missing Limpy drop from 5% to (1/20 * 1/20 * 10/20), or 1/800 (.125%).

Anyway, you're welcome to use whatever rules you like. Like I said earlier, nobody ever seems to change their mind about these things.
was_fired
09-27-05, 06:03 PM I use the same open rolling system as abulafia. Since I only use it when either the DM or player to call for an open roll over auto-success/failure it doesn't slow things down either.
bolgar
09-27-05, 06:38 PM I agree with TekknoMancer.
I would just drop the rule about automatic failures and successes.

The 0=-10, 20=30 rule is basically the same as an automatic success/failure:
A 20-lvl Char has a saving throw bonus of approx. 20 (with some buff spells). If he rolls a natural 1 (=-10), he would arrive at 10, which is a failure even for the lowest spell Saves.
A 1st-lvl Char with a saving throw bonus of 1 who rolls a natural 20 (=30) would arrive at a result of 31, which would be a success even against high level spells.

I don't think it adds much to the game if players can, with luck, affect creatures with a much higher power level. And I personally would find it even less funny if a 20th level character would die due to a critically failed save against a dominate spell of some obscure 9th level wizard.

And concerning the question why this favours monsters over players:
Monsters are generally there to be killed. Unless a DM makes a sport of TPKing his players, 95% of encounters will end with the players winning. If the players make one or two lucky rolls (e. g. critical hits), they might kill their opponents very quickly. But this does not give them a huge advantage compared to a "average" fight. It might drain a bit less resources, but that's about it. If on the other hand the monsters are lucky, they might kill one or two players outright with a critical hit (especially at low levels). This inevitably either leads to a TPK or to several players' bodys being left behind, which is a huge disadvantage to the party.
digoraccoon
09-28-05, 08:27 AM I like the automatic fail/success rolls for Saving Throws because it means that no matter how good your attacks or defenses, there's a 5% chance of uncertainy that things don't work as intended. :) Otherwise rogues could just prance through a dungeon, triggering all the traps and not worried about failing a Reflex save. O_O
Gilean
09-28-05, 09:23 AM If you don't like the frequency of automatic successes and failures, you can use my rule: If a player or monster rolls a 20 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and adds the result +20 to his roll. If a player or monster rolls a 1 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and subtracts the result from his roll. In the event that a player rolls a second 20 or 1, he adds or subtracts the result and keeps rolling.I use a rule that is essentially the same, in one of my games. Only, if you roll a 1, the next roll is subtracted from it; if the next roll is 20, roll yet another d20 to be subtracted; etc.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TekknoMancer 09-26-05, 06:22 PM	This thread is to discuss the implications and impact of autofail of saving throws on a 1. Autofail and autosuccess with attack rolls is one matter, since missing an attack will not "directly" cause you to die (though not killing the target may result in subsequent death). However, what happens against a save-or-die death effect or other equally disasterous effects? Consider the triple-20 (or whatever it is) insta-kill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is generally accepted that rules such as this, and others that really on long-shot (but still possible) rolls, favor monsters over players. Similarly observe what happens when low-DC effects are spammed against high-level players with high saving throws? The shear odds of rolling a 1 eventually catch up with the player. A player with high saves must still worry about these effects because even a 5% chance of failure can add up when effects are spammed. This leads to full immunity becoming necessary instead of rewarding these high saves as "soft immunity" against low-level effects. --Fixes: -- -Simply remove autofail 1, which may also require removing autosuccess 20 to be balanced -Allow epic characters to not autofail on a 1 - 1 = -10 and 20 = 30, thus making nothing automatic but a 1 gives a big penalty - allow great fort, iron will, lighting ref. to remove the autofail 1. Beefs up these feats a little
Thievingrouge 09-26-05, 06:47 PM	I, as both a player and DM, like that rule. As a player it means no matter how uber that great wyrm is, if he rolls a 1 he's going down (Death effect), and it adds excitemnt to my uber saves (Will I still fail... It rolled off a one. good I survived) As a DM, it adds a moment of hilarity when my BBEG is toasted due to a sucky roll, and a moment of tension when Thud the barbarian becomes a statue (I've never played with a "Thud, the Barbarian" but you get it).
TekknoMancer 09-27-05, 01:50 PM	The point I was trying to make, however, is that it makes immunities that much more necessary and that much more powerful. As a general rule, I do not like full-fledged immunity.
Radijs 09-27-05, 05:18 PM	There's always risk involved in adventuring. The idea of 5% chance of failure adds a lot of potential fun and excitement to a game( :twocents: ). The white dragon failing his save on Tashas hideous laughter made the day of our party. Sure sometimes bad stuff happens but thats why clerics get raise dead and druids get the more fun reincarnate.
LordHell 09-27-05, 05:24 PM	There still needs to be some randomness and excitement in the game. Sure remove the 5% chance of an autofail, while you're at it: Point buy only. Average HPs only. Average attack rolls only. Average damage only. Average skill checks only. In fact, why dont we remove ALL randomness from the game entirely and play a statisitcal based game of averages!
Limit 09-27-05, 05:40 PM	I don't see how this favors monsters over players. Monsters can auto-fail their saving throws as well, giving an outmatched player a chance of winning. The only time I can see this benefiting monsters is if a DM continually sends a large number of low CR creatures at you. Although, if ten CR 5 goblin wizards show up and simulataneously cast fireballs at an ECL 12 rogue, I don't see a problem with there being a chance that one will find its mark. Rogues are shifty creatures, but it takes LUCK to dodge 10 fireballs at once. I think thats the spirit behind the auto-fail/auto-success rules -- nothing in life is certain. Lady Luck may just decide to call your number. However If you want to remove it from your campaign entirely, I would definately also remove auto-successes since not removing them would be unbalancing for monsters/players that spend time/money/feats to pump their DCs real high.
Abulafia 09-27-05, 05:58 PM	This is about the eighth thread I've posted to regarding the consequences of natural 20's and 1's. In all of those threads, the main point I have taken away is that no one's opinion is ever changed on whether auto-successes or auto-fails (or critical failures, or instant-kills) should exist or not. Tread lightly, son. If you don't like the frequency of automatic successes and failures, you can use my rule: If a player or monster rolls a 20 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and adds the result +20 to his roll. If a player or monster rolls a 1 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and subtracts the result from his roll. In the event that a player rolls a second 20 or 1, he adds or subtracts the result and keeps rolling. Example: Jimbo is playing Kragthar the Mighty, who has a +40 attack bonus and an AC of 55. He swings at Limpy the kobold sorcerer (AC 9), and rolls a 1. Disgusted, he rolls again, and gets another 1. Spewing curses, Jimbo rolls again, and gets a 15. His total attack roll is 40 - 20 (for the second 1) - 15, for a total of 5. Limpy sways out of danger. Now I roll for Limpy, and get a 20. I roll again, and get another 20. I roll again, and get a 19. Limpy's total attack roll is -2 + 20 + 20 + 19, for a total of 57. It's Limpy's finest hour, as his dagger somehow finds a chink in Kragthar's breastplate for 1 point of damage. My rule preserves some randomness while taking into account the advantages of tremendously high or low attack bonuses or save DCs. Limpy's odds of hitting Kragthar drop from 5% to (1/20 * 1/20 * 4/20), or 1/2000 (.05%), while Kragthar's odds of missing Limpy drop from 5% to (1/20 * 1/20 * 10/20), or 1/800 (.125%). Anyway, you're welcome to use whatever rules you like. Like I said earlier, nobody ever seems to change their mind about these things.
was_fired 09-27-05, 06:03 PM	I use the same open rolling system as abulafia. Since I only use it when either the DM or player to call for an open roll over auto-success/failure it doesn't slow things down either.
bolgar 09-27-05, 06:38 PM	I agree with TekknoMancer. I would just drop the rule about automatic failures and successes. The 0=-10, 20=30 rule is basically the same as an automatic success/failure: A 20-lvl Char has a saving throw bonus of approx. 20 (with some buff spells). If he rolls a natural 1 (=-10), he would arrive at 10, which is a failure even for the lowest spell Saves. A 1st-lvl Char with a saving throw bonus of 1 who rolls a natural 20 (=30) would arrive at a result of 31, which would be a success even against high level spells. I don't think it adds much to the game if players can, with luck, affect creatures with a much higher power level. And I personally would find it even less funny if a 20th level character would die due to a critically failed save against a dominate spell of some obscure 9th level wizard. And concerning the question why this favours monsters over players: Monsters are generally there to be killed. Unless a DM makes a sport of TPKing his players, 95% of encounters will end with the players winning. If the players make one or two lucky rolls (e. g. critical hits), they might kill their opponents very quickly. But this does not give them a huge advantage compared to a "average" fight. It might drain a bit less resources, but that's about it. If on the other hand the monsters are lucky, they might kill one or two players outright with a critical hit (especially at low levels). This inevitably either leads to a TPK or to several players' bodys being left behind, which is a huge disadvantage to the party.
digoraccoon 09-28-05, 08:27 AM	I like the automatic fail/success rolls for Saving Throws because it means that no matter how good your attacks or defenses, there's a 5% chance of uncertainy that things don't work as intended. :) Otherwise rogues could just prance through a dungeon, triggering all the traps and not worried about failing a Reflex save. O_O
Gilean 09-28-05, 09:23 AM	If you don't like the frequency of automatic successes and failures, you can use my rule: If a player or monster rolls a 20 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and adds the result +20 to his roll. If a player or monster rolls a 1 on an attack roll or save, he rolls again and subtracts the result from his roll. In the event that a player rolls a second 20 or 1, he adds or subtracts the result and keeps rolling.I use a rule that is essentially the same, in one of my games. Only, if you roll a 1, the next roll is subtracted from it; if the next roll is 20, roll yet another d20 to be subtracted; etc.