Setting "automatically fail saves on a roll of one" from "=1" to "=0"

[Legacy_BelgarathMTH]

               

This topic is basically a shout out to @MagicalMaster for teaching me how to do this in a post in a previous topic, which now, unfortunately, I can't find.

 

In my current run, I fell to Desther when I rolled a 1 against a DC save of 14 on his Hold Person spell. I had a base save bonus of 9, and a plus two, for a total of 11, from an Extended Owl's Wisdom. I also had an Extended Protection from Evil active, but either Desther is some form of neutral alignment, or Protection from Evil does not protect against Hold Person cast by any alignment.

 

This awful, humiliating death, made me start thinking about the nature of "save or die" spells in NWN.

 

It should be possible to anticipate such potential eventualities for a young character, and to focus that character's entire build towards automatically making saving throws against "save or dies" cast by enemies.

 

So, as someone who is very, very attracted to that kind of "warm, fuzzy, safe" character build, I find it kind of game-breaking and absurd that, no matter what level you are, or how many defenses you've built against save-or-die magic, there is *always* a five percent chance that a level one character could bring down a level 20 to infinity character using spammed save-or-dies, which will eventually hit and destroy, no matter how powerful the creature, or how low-level (even level one!) the caster.

 

The example MagicalMaster gave was of a level five rogue armed with Finger of Death scrolls, bringing down an ancient dragon just by spamming the scrolls. Really? A level five rogue can bring down an ancient dragon, just by good luck via exploitation of the "roll of one equals critical failure" rule? I agree that that entire idea is ridiculous in any good story.

 

The whole "roll of one equals automatic save failure" default setting in NWN encourages spamming of save-or-die spells, and builds that depend on them, to the detriment of pretty much every other kind of build, especially those that focus on defending against save-or-die spells.

 

Changing my NWN .ini file to remove this "rule" has given me kind of a whole new "lease on life" for this game. I just love the idea of building characters who oppose dark magic, and who have an ability to eventually be immune to any mind-affecting crap by way of will save bonus 20, as well as guaranteed half-damage and immunity to any spell that calls for a reflex save or fortitude save, by prioritizing getting those saves up to 20 bonus level.

 

 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

I have a bit different opinion on save auto-fails.

I find it more realistic that there is a small chance of winning against a much higher levelled opponent thanks to some amazing luck. I cannot, however, see any dependable strategy being built around this feature.

A rogue stocking on scrolls and spamming them against an ancient dragon? Sure. Just keep in mind you'd need to cast this spell at least 14 times to have more than 50% chance of success. Even if you have enough money to spare just like that for twenty or more scrolls, an ancient dragon will likely obliterate you to smitherins after your first cast if you're a level 5 rogue.

 

Of course, I'm assuming the player doesn't practise save scumming.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_BelgarathMTH]

               

"Of course, I'm assuming the player doesn't practice save scumming."

 

Part of the problem is that right there. A lot if not most of players do in fact do that.

 

The fact that they do is part of the problem, if a person wants a good, strong, story. A character's success or failure in that story ought to depend on preparation, planning, good tactics, and story needs, not a random dice throw.

 

Really, I guess this problem is built into the D&D D20 system, especially where saving throws are concerned, but also, to some extent, where chance to damage is concerned.

 

How many insects or rats would it take to kill you, a human being, even with a swarm of them with very good luck attacking you? Basically, no realistic scenario would allow any realistic number of insects or rats to seriously hurt you, unless poison were a factor, or unless you were in the jungles of South America and facing swarms of fire ants or killer bees.

 

Any individual first level character of any race amounts to a single, individual insect or rat to a dragon, a god, or an epic level character of any class.

 

The whole idea that *anyone* of any level should have even "a snowball's chance in Hades" of doing more than scratching a being on the level of a dragon or a god, or even a heavily-armored high-level fighter, is one of the places where Gary Gygax went wrong when he created the entire system.

 

I very much like disabling the "automatic failure on a roll of one" rule from the system as a way to greatly increase realism, and rewards for playing the game intelligently.

 

"Automatic success on a 20" is fine for any kind of attack roll, even though the damage from that "critical hit" might be negligible against gods and dragons.

 

"Automatic save failure on a 1" is not fine to me, not in a game with save-or-die spells in it, which is supposed to be a framework for good storytelling.

 

Getting saves so high that the bonus finally reaches 20 is not something any character can do easily. That character who desires save bonuses of 20 will have to spend its lifetime working on that save bonus, and collecting magic items that help with the dream of having 20 save bonuses, or else to advance to such high levels that it becomes a god. There should be a reward for focusing efforts in that direction.

 

The idea that a mere mortal has a chance to land a save-or-die spell against a god is ridiculous to me, or at least, it lends itself to very, very bad storytelling.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Malagant]

               

There are incidents on record of people dying from an attack by rats, so there goes the foundation of your "no realistic scenario would allow any realistic number of insects or rats to seriously hurt you" right there. These things do happen in the real world, therefore they must be realistic by definition.


The real problem is not anything you mention above. It isn't spamming (directly). It's called the law of averages:

a statistical principle formulated by Jakob Bernoulli to show a more or less predictable ratio between the number of random trials of an event and its occurrences. Short of altering reality, no one is getting around it.

The core problem is the amount of events occurring within a game environment. In the real world, the number of times one finds themselves in a situation where they are being attacked is low in most cases. In a game world, they occur every few minutes. There's no way around this unless you're up for one boring game. There's also the issue of taking saves quite literally. Making a fortitude save doesn't mean your character was hit and shrugged it off with a laugh and a one liner that would make Roddy Piper or Stallone look impotent before pouncing into action.

 

What I hear is "I got taken out by a bad roll!" And? It comes with the territory. It's why DM's in PnP sometimes fudge a roll or two when necessary, but no one seeks to remove it from the game because someone got sore over it. It reminds me of the old PW days, when terms like "Tank" started getting adopted. A player min/maxed to infinity with the belief they would be untouchable and, when someone was able to touch them, cried either foul, cheat, unbalanced, exploit or bug because how dare someone be able to create a build that can touch them.


I must point out you aren't complaining about automatic success on 20 at all either, so it evidently isn't the rule that bothers you as much as the fact that it affected you. Removing it may give you the sense of a new lease on the game (and I would question the merit of one that would give up on a game over a rare bad roll), but it's just as unrealistic as you claim it's presence is in the first place is. The next time you consider automatic fail/success being ridiculous, consider some real life individuals that apparently had the die of life roll against them:


Ray Chapman: August 16, 1920 - the only professional baseball player to be killed by a pitch.

 

Janet Parker, September 1978 - Died of smallpox while working in the same building as a lab yet not directly with any viruses. No one else in the building was affected.

 

I dare say Dick Wertheim, a tennis line judge at the 1983 US Open, failed his reflex save when he saw a tennis ball coming at him, made an attempt to dodge, which allowed the ball to connect with his own jewels, causing him to crumple and strike his head on the pavement before dying a week later after never regaining consciousness.

 

I don't even need to mention Boris Segal.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               I agree that the auto-fail-on-1 is pretty dumb system. I don't think any player should feel bad about disabling it. I also think most PWs (certainly any that I have played) would benefit from disabling it. In a party situation, the auto-fail rule is not as catastrophic as it is when soloing. But, anyone running a PW (even a party-focused one) should understand that soloists benefit the server, because then there is someone on to heed the call when someone shouts to see if anyone wants to team up. If no one feels safe soloing because the players know that they will eventually roll that one, then fewer players will be on to form parties.

Auto-hit-on-1 does not bother me. In most situations that I can imagine where a toon can only hit his target with the auto-hit rule (in other words the target's AC is 21 or more higher than the attacker's AB), that hit won't be enough to take down the target. And, there are no crits in that situation, so it will typically barely scratch the target.

(As far as realism goes, it's more the auto-hit that is occurring in those situations than the auto-fail. A thousand rats can kill someone, because occasionally some will get a bite in and that adds up. But, someone failing to dodge some projectile and then dying because of the initial impact or some accidental side event isn't so much an example of a failed save as of a lucky hit. In the real world, people don't have uber hp, so a lucky hit with a baseball or some blow to the skull can take someone out.)

FWIW, I have never even heard the term "save scumming" until this thread. I assume it means reloading from right before the target rolls his save until he fails it. I have never done it or heard anyone suggest it. But, I wouldn't doubt that some have tried it. But, at the end of the day, they are playing SP modules, so who cares? They are only nerfing their own play experience.

A few things to keep in mind, though, regarding the saves. First, playing on hardcore rules helps with this somewhat, at least for non-casters spamming spells from scrolls via UMD.

And, as Grani points out, even without hardcore UMD rules in place, a wimpy character shouldn't last long enough against a godlike opponent to make effective use of a spell that will only really hurt the godlike opponent on an auto-fail roll.

BTW, I checked and you were right that Desther is true neutral, so Protection vs. Alignment has no effect on his spells. I actually consider his non-evil alignment to be an bug/oversight. At that point, he has spent months working for Maugrim and the old ones, trying to infect everyone in Neverwinter with plague, betraying the naive Fenthick, and then raising an army of undead. Seems like he's pretty much evil by then.

But, it's worth pointing out that you didn't fail that save because of the auto-fail rule. Not that that is an argument in favor of the rule (I say dump it if you don't like it), but it's an odd jumping off point for this thread. :-)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gruftlord]

               It's a nice system for what it was designed for: A dnd party. I have no problem with it on PWs. But for my single player plays, i also have that flag switched. Dnd 3.0 (or the much older 'fail on 1' even) never was designed to be used on a computer game and/or a single player experience, and it shows. It was designed with pnp group play on mind, and i support the use of some house rules to make the nwn experience more enjoyable.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_icywind1980]

               

Is ''practicing scumming'' a euphemism for not being an elitist?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Grani]

               

Is ''practicing scumming'' a euphemism for not being an elitist?

 

It's not. '> Guess I could have used different words, but save scumming is a quite common expression in gaming. Well, anyway, I don't have any disdain for people who like to play this way, if that's what you're asking.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_kalbaern]

               

Personally, I don't mind "fail on 1", whether in a party or soloing. It's a part of PnP after all. That's reflected on my own PW by this rule and many others, like .... 5th level rogues not being able to spam a stack of FOD scrolls. They would most often fail as the base DC in PnP and on my PW is 27 (20 + caster level of the scroll). I further limit how instant death spells work on my dragons and bosses. Even with a successful DC check or when cast by an actual caster, such spells have only a 1 percent chance on my PW of instant death. I've applied this to AA's death arrows as well. Only as concerns dragons and bosses though and just because I personally dislike being able to "one shot" any "end of adventure" foes. There's still a chance, but it makes folks expect and prepare for failure as well.

 

Games based directly on DnD are by their very natures party based. Whether its Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale or Neverwinter Nights, groups of one sort or another are encouraged. This stems from DnD itself actually being a team game. No single class/character was ever meant to "do it all". Co-operative play has always been the norm. The majority of old published PnP modules not only had suggested levels listed for characters, but were meant for groups of 3-5 players and it was often suggested that a DM provide henchmen or other NPCs to fill in the gaps when they lacked sufficient players (or players controlled multiple PCs). In video games, added party members or henchmen often fill this spread when multiple players isn't an option.

 

When it comes to SP, meh, it doesn't bother me what difficulty settings, rules changes or even multiple saved games folks use. Whatever makes the game enjoyable for them I think is fine. '>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Lilura]

               

Horrible thought, but I can see how a person might easily get owned by a swarm of insects. So yeah, bad example.

 

FWIW, I have never even heard the term "save scumming" until this thread. I assume it means reloading from right before the target rolls his save until he fails it. I have never done it or heard anyone suggest it. But, I wouldn't doubt that some have tried it. But, at the end of the day, they are playing SP modules, so who cares? They are only nerfing their own play experience.

 

TV tropes sums up save-scumming pretty well:

 

Old, old method of playing games. Basically, you save the game whenever you get a result you like (or before you face a risk), and restore the saved game whenever you get a result you don't like.

 

I heard about the term fairly recently, too (five years maybe?); but I certainly engaged in the "shameful" activity in the first Fallout (and perhaps in older games, too!)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_allen179gmail]

               

The 'fail on 1' doesn't matter to me. That is what saved games are for. I save before a fight because I don't always die from fail on 1. Some times I am at fault. ( most times) Things like forgot to keep an eye on my health. that sort of thing.

BTW: Remember 'David and Goliath' from the Bible?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               Also note that many creatures have low DC abilities that would be rendered ineffective if the auto-fail on 1 were disabled. Should a PC's average saves allow him to rush into a basilisk's nest and go full tilt slaughter? Taking away the auto-fail will often remove intended elements of the game.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Also note that many creatures have low DC abilities that would be rendered ineffective if the auto-fail on 1 were disabled. Should a PC's average saves allow him to rush into a basilisk's nest and go full tilt slaughter? Taking away the auto-fail will often remove intended elements of the game.

And thats the most riddiculous setting. This rarely happens in single player modules but Ive seen this so often on PWs. Map with dozens of spawns of basilisk in a packs of 6. Or another one that is full of driders who (due to the bug in AI) spams only wail of banshee till they run out of uses.

 

No immunity = sure death in less than 2 rounds. What is point of this?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

And thats the most riddiculous setting. This rarely happens in single player modules but Ive seen this so often on PWs. Map with dozens of spawns of basilisk in a packs of 6.

Well there are alternatives to melee combat that could be employed.

Or another one that is full of driders who (due to the bug in AI) spams only wail of banshee till they run out of uses.

How is a sorcerer using spontaneous casting a bug?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Well there are alternatives to melee combat that could be employed.

Indeed there are, invisibility and you don't need to fight them at all, or just cast fireball on them from distance and run back till you be able to cast next, or just take ranged weapon and runshoot. Yes there are alternatives but they all smell fishy and it doesn't seem as what was intented.

 

How is a sorcerer using spontaneous casting a bug?

If you look into AI, you can see a function that prevents casters from using same spell over and over. Due to the bug in that function however, this doesn't work and thus sorcerers who doesn't have specified uses of a spell will spam one spell over and over. From this reason they usually cast 5 from 20 spells assigned. I documented this bug back in days I made CPP 1.70.