New to Fantasy Craft - Some Simple Questions, I Hope

[cjs65]

Hi, I've been a roleplayer for about 32 years but I'm new to Fantasy Craft, and have what is hopefully a very simple set of questions:
1. Does an attack roll of 1 automatically miss?
2. Do saving throw rolls of 1 automatically fail?
3. Do skill rolls (including spellcasting) rolls of 1 automatically fail?

Based on experience of other d20 based games, I'd say yes to 1 & 2 but no to 3, but I can't find a reference to it anywhere in the rules. I may just be missing something, but I've read through the rules several times now and also found nothing in a forum search. As I can't find anything, I guess I should assume that there's no auto miss/fail..?

As an aside, I must say I'm extremely impressed with what I've seen of the game so far! I've played a whole stack of RPGs over the years but became disillusioned with the whole d20 scene when D&D 4E came along and Pathfinder failed to fix 3.5 enough for me. Fantasy Craft seems to be the d20 game I've always wanted, and I can't wait for Spellbound to arrive. I'm starting to GM my first game next weekend, and hopefully the play experience will match my expectations!

Thanks in anticipation...

[TheMadGent]

Natural 20s are not automatic successes or hits and natural 1s are not automatic failures or misses.

The references for this can be found on pages 65, 207 and 208 at the beginning of the sections on threats and errors. "When a skill/attack check succeeds and the character rolls a natural number within his threat range, he scores a threat -- a potential critical success."

[cjs65]

Natural 20s are not automatic successes or hits and natural 1s are not automatic failures or misses.

The references for this can be found on pages 65, 207 and 208 at the beginning of the sections on threats and errors. "When a skill/attack check succeeds and the character rolls a natural number within his threat range, he scores a threat -- a potential critical success."

Thanks for the quick reply, that's sort of what I'd assumed from the lack of success in finding a reference. I had read the stuff on threats and errors, but it didn't specifically exclude the option of 1 being an auto miss (and therefore also a potential error) so I thought I'd better ask. One of the problems of having played other d20 games, I guess - Some things are thought of as a given in all system variants, and this was one of them for me. 

[Gentry]

It has been said before regarding coming into FC from 3.x: unlearn what you have learned.

FC isn't a 3.x variant. It's a total game-engine rebuild. So there are things that are going to "look weird" from the outside and while reading the rules (see the "Warhammers do Subdual Damage" thread elsewhere on these forums--wait, on second thought, don't), but you're well advised to put the rules to use first. Get familiar with how FC's rebuilt d20 system balances before you start changing things to "fit" the d20 "norm" or to better align to "what you're used to".

On some level, that sounds purist and a little harsh, but it's not meant as such--it's meant to save you pain and suffering.  

[Desertpuma]

Natural 20s are not automatic successes or hits and natural 1s are not automatic failures or misses.

The references for this can be found on pages 65, 207 and 208 at the beginning of the sections on threats and errors. "When a skill/attack check succeeds and the character rolls a natural number within his threat range, he scores a threat -- a potential critical success."

Thanks for the quick reply, that's sort of what I'd assumed from the lack of success in finding a reference. I had read the stuff on threats and errors, but it didn't specifically exclude the option of 1 being an auto miss (and therefore also a potential error) so I thought I'd better ask. One of the problems of having played other d20 games, I guess - Some things are thought of as a given in all system variants, and this was one of them for me. 

Welcome to the forums and FC. One big thing this company and its games do is celebrate the balance of classes as well as the need for everyone to have fun playing the game including the GM! Another bonus is these forums which are invaluable plus the fact that the creators are on here at least once a day!

[Mister Andersen]

All that said, many many people still roll with the 1 = auto error / 20 = auto threat routine so there's always the possibility of failure and success.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

All that said, many many people still roll with the 1 = auto error / 20 = auto threat routine so there's always the possibility of failure and success.

Which would also save on Action Points.  This would probably make for a nice Campaign Quality.

[Mister Andersen]

Err, that's not auto crit failures/successes (for which there are already CQs).

An auto error/threat simple means the possibility to confirm them exists regardless of the failure or success of the roll.

Frex, someone with a +12 attack against a chump with say Defence 12 would still hit even if they roll a one, but an activated error (a crit failure) would result in, say, their weapon getting stuck in the enemy and yanked out of their hand as the enemy reels backwards or, Dragonlance draconian style, turns into stone.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I'm not following.

[Mister Andersen]

RAW, you can only get an error if a) your die roll lands in the error range of the check, AND, b) the check itself doesn't succeed. Similarly you can only get a threat if a) your die roll lands in the threat range of the check, AND, b) the check itself doesn't fail.

A lot of people who started with the OGL/D&D 3.x still adhere to the rule that a roll of 1 is always a failure, and a roll of 20 is always a success, regardless of the final check result. Thus, there will always be a suitably heroic 5% chance of success (and similarly, of failure) even though the check result itself would tell a different story.

So even if an attack resut of +23 (20 + 3) would RAW fail against someone with a Defence of 24, rolling the 20 with the auto fail/succ rule means you actually land a blow (though whether you'd be allowed to activate the crit or not would depend on how generous the GC was).

Strictly speaking this is what I meant to say in my earlier reply -- auto fail/success rather than auto error/threat.

[Desertpuma]

RAW, you can only get an error if a) your die roll lands in the error range of the check, AND, b) the check itself doesn't succeed. Similarly you can only get a threat if a) your die roll lands in the threat range of the check, AND, b) the check itself doesn't fail.

A lot of people who started with the OGL/D&D 3.x still adhere to the rule that a roll of 1 is always a failure, and a roll of 20 is always a success, regardless of the final check result. Thus, there will always be a suitably heroic 5% chance of success (and similarly, of failure) even though the check result itself would tell a different story.

This is part of the "unlearn what you have learned" process.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

This is part of the "unlearn what you have learned" process.

In this case it was the miscommunication of saying "auto X" which I took to mean "irregardless of other factors".

[Blankbeard]

You could always treat an error that succeed as an opportunity to throw a couple dice worth of complications in.  Sure, the lock opens-- and there are orcs behind the door.

[Mister Andersen]

This is part of the "unlearn what you have learned" process.

No, this isn't forgetfulness. This is a deliberate choice to keep what many feel is a superior rule that shoudn't have been changed in the first place.

[Mister Andersen]

You could always treat an error that succeed as an opportunity to throw a couple dice worth of complications in.  Sure, the lock opens-- and there are orcs behind the door.

Indeed, instituting auto-errors regardless of whether the auto-succ/fail rule is in play can certainly spice things up