Houserule ramifications re: saving throws

[Laniius]

My DM has houseruled that saving throws DO NOT automatically fail on a 1 and DO NOT automatically succeed on a 20. As a bard/sublime chord/virtuoso of level 24 (epic) how ****ed am I? Should I completely ignore spells that require saves? Or is this beneficial?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It helps... maybe. You're in epic levels, so sense is already out the window.

See also, the default epic rules is that if you rule a 1, you minus twenty, then roll again to determine what your actual save is. Because Epic is that screwy. Same goes for 20s, but adding 20 instead.

[Runestar]

Unless your games have a penchant for frequently turning up 1s and 20s, I would say to just continue playing as is. You shouldn't be using SoDs with DCs so low that your foes fail only on a 1, nor should your saves be so crap that you succeed only on a natural 20 anyways.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

My DM has houseruled that saving throws DO NOT automatically fail on a 1 and DO NOT automatically succeed on a 20. As a bard/sublime chord/virtuoso of level 24 (epic) how ****ed am I? Should I completely ignore spells that require saves? Or is this beneficial?

Well, think of it this way. If you cast a spell that the target can't save against, even with a natural 20, then this house rule benefits you 5% of the time and has no effect 95% of the time. That's certainly no reason to switch up tactics.

If you cast a spell that the target can beat on a natural 1, then this rule hurts you 5% of the time and has no effect 95% of the time. But, at that point, that means you're using a tactic that already has a 95% failure rate.

Really, how often are you going to find yourself in either situation?

[sreservoir]

Well, think of it this way. If you cast a spell that the target can't save against, even with a natural 20, then this house rule benefits you 5% of the time and has no effect 95% of the time. That's certainly no reason to switch up tactics.

If you cast a spell that the target can beat on a natural 1, then this rule hurts you 5% of the time and has no effect 95% of the time. But, at that point, that means you're using a tactic that already has a 95% failure rate.

Really, how often are you going to find yourself in either situation?

the first is really much more likely than the second. a PC can't really afford to rely on 5% success rates.

it's quite well-known that any ruling that reduces random chance favors the stronger side. this is usually the PCs, because otherwise they'd be dead by now.