[3.5->PF] Concentration checks and the natural 1

[Novawurmson]

Does a concentration check fail on a natural 1?

At the end of our session tonight, a villain teleported away from the party, succeeding on his check to manifest defensively, but potentially failing a concentration check necessary because of damage from bleeding. If his concentration check failed, he loses his power, and the players have a turn to potentially finish him off. If his concentration check succeeds, he gets away.

Again, his first concentration check succeeded to manifest defensively. That much is established.

The creature in question has a concentration check of +16. The DC of the concentration check was 16 [DC 10+1/2 damage (5, divided by 2=2)+power level (4)]. He rolled a natural 1.

So here's the sides:

1. Concentration checks do not explicitly state whether or not they fail on a natural 1. In 3.5, it was a skill, which do not fail on a natural 1 - but we're playing Pathfinder, so that's not an iron-tight argument. Attack rolls and saving throws (along with a few miscellaneous things, like Use Magic Device) auto-fail or have extra negatives on a natural 1, but all of them state that they fail on a natural 1. Under this line of thinking, because the rules do not explicitly state that a natural 1 is a failure on a concentration check, it is not an automatic failure.

2. The two main examples of things that fail on a natural 1 - attack rolls and saving throws - are primarily combat statistics that automatically scale with character level (base attack bonus and base saving throws, respectively). The primary non-combat d20 roll is a skill check, which does not automatically scale with level and does not auto-fail on a 1. Under this line of thinking, because a concentration check is a combat statistic that automatically scales with character level (like base attack bonus and saving throws), it is more like a combat statistic than a skill, and should automatically fail on a natural 1.

I'm looking for any kind of input here - RAW, RAI, how you would handle the situation, player perspective, DM perspective, anything you'd care to contribute.

[TuggyNE]

1. Concentration checks do not explicitly state whether or not they fail on a natural 1. In 3.5, it was a skill, which do not fail on a natural 1 - but we're playing Pathfinder, so that's not an iron-tight argument. Attack rolls and saving throws (along with a few miscellaneous things, like Use Magic Device) auto-fail or have extra negatives on a natural 1, but all of them state that they fail on a natural 1. Under this line of thinking, because the rules do not explicitly state that a natural 1 is a failure on a concentration check, it is not an automatic failure.

This is correct.


2. The two main examples of things that fail on a natural 1 - attack rolls and saving throws - are primarily combat statistics that automatically scale with character level (base attack bonus and base saving throws, respectively). The primary non-combat d20 roll is a skill check, which does not automatically scale with level and does not auto-fail on a 1. Under this line of thinking, because a concentration check is a combat statistic that automatically scales with character level (like base attack bonus and saving throws), it is more like a combat statistic than a skill, and should automatically fail on a natural 1.

Reasoning by analogy is generally faulty, especially when predicated on odd abstract qualities like "auto-scales by level" that are never explicitly connected with auto-failure at all. A Concentration check is effectively a CL check, which means that you are now extending this analogy to quite a few things, just because they don't explicitly say they don't auto-fail.

[StreamOfTheSky]

While both systems fail to define it as clearly as they should (and it's so easy! watch me do it!)... a "check" is basically a d20 roll that is not subject to auto-failure or success. There are many kinds of checks in the game -- ability checks, skill checks, caster level checks, concentration checks -- the one thing all these disparate rolls have in common is that they do not auto fail/succeed.

There is a reason they are not called "attack checks" or "saving checks"; attack rolls and saving throws are the d20 rolls subject to the nat 1/20 rules. They're actually the exception, if anything.

[Eldonauran]

Attack rolls and saving throws, and only attack rolls and saving throws, are the only roll that succeed on a natural 20 or fail on a natural 1. Any other use is a house rule.

[Novawurmson]

There are many kinds of checks in the game -- ability checks, skill checks, caster level checks, concentration checks -- the one thing all these disparate rolls have in common is that they do not auto fail/succeed.

Do you have a page number or a link on these? I can't find anything that explicitly says that those specific things (ability checks, caster level checks, or concentration check) do or do not auto succeed/fail on a natural 20/1.

For example:


Automatic Failures and Successes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Saving-Throws)

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure, and the spell may cause damage to exposed items (see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw, below). a natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.


Natural 1 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Natural-1)

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss.

Natural 20

A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a Critical Threat—a possible critical hit.

For 3.5, I can find this, but not for PF:


Skill Checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm)

...Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

If there's something that says "ability checks/ caster level checks/ concentration checks do not automatically fail on a natural one" (especially either of the last two), then this case is closed. However, there isn't anything explicit on those two (or even skill checks in Pathfinder, as far as I can see), which is why I'm questioning it a little.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Like I said, attack rolls and saving throws are the exception. That's why both explicitly call out that 1 and 20 result in an automatic failure or success.

[Eldonauran]

If there's something that says "ability checks/ caster level checks/ concentration checks do not automatically fail on a natural one" (especially either of the last two), then this case is closed. However, there isn't anything explicit on those two (or even skill checks in Pathfinder, as far as I can see), which is why I'm questioning it a little.

The opposite is true. Unless something states a check fails on a 1 or succeeds in a 20, the general rule of rolling the dice and adding the modifier to get the total, and thus the result of the roll, the roll succeeds or fails based on the result.

The automatic hit/miss/succeed/failure is a specific rule, unique only to attacks and saves. You will not find anything that says otherwise. I am confident enough to assert that claim.

[gartius]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Natural-1

[eggynack]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Natural-1
I'm not sure what this is meant to indicate. It certainly doesn't show that concentration checks auto-fail on a natural 1, and it doesn't explicitly state that concentration checks don't auto-fail on a natural 1, though as folks have mentioned, that's not a necessary thing.

[Novawurmson]

Here's the thing: I agree with all the responses agreeing with #1 (as it's my position as well). I'm just trying to find something that says "anything besides attack rolls and saving throws is an exception to the rules" or "caster level checks do not automatically fail on a natural 1."

[Eldonauran]

Here's the thing: I agree with all the responses agreeing with #1 (as it's my position as well). I'm just trying to find something that says "anything besides attack rolls and saving throws is an exception to the rules" or "caster level checks do not automatically fail on a natural 1."

You won't find such a statement. The reason is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, no rolls result in an automatic success or automatic failure. Attack rolls and saving throws are the only type of rolls that have this special language, indicating auto-success or failure. That is how general rules and specific rules interact.

In other words: To find the result of a check, you roll the dice and add your modifier. Unless the roll is an attack roll or saving throw. Then you follow the special rules for those particular type of rolls.

[Fax Celestis]

You won't find such a statement. The reason is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, no rolls result in an automatic success or automatic failure. Attack rolls and saving throws are the only type of rolls that have this special language, indicating auto-success or failure. That is how general rules and specific rules interact.

In other words: To find the result of a check, you roll the dice and add your modifier. Unless the roll is an attack roll or saving throw. Then you follow the special rules for those particular type of rolls.

What this guy said.

[Kraken]

Everyone else is right on the money about only things that explicitly say they fail/succeed on a 1/20 do so. But more importantly, I'd like to point out that the burden of proof should not be on you in this situation. Your players are essentially saying 'this rules exists somewhere, we should be using it.' However, the burden of proof is on them to prove that rule exists in the first place, before its application can be called into question. It's not fair for someone to claim a rule exists, and the put the burden of proof on someone else to disprove such a claim.

The argument of your players is about as reasonable as someone making up a fictional weapon and bringing it to the table. Let's say an 'inventive' person comes to the table with an Asherati falchion (or some other made up weapon name), saying it does 3d6 damage at medium size, with 11-20 x4 crit stats, and telling you that until you can prove that it doesn't exist, that they can use it. That's basically the problem you have right now, because just like there's no text that explicitly says an Asherati falchion doesn't exist, there's no text that says 1/20s don't fail/succeed automatically except in explicit instances.

[Corrin Avatan]

What this guy said.

There's another way of saying this, as well:

If you read the Pathfinder SRD for Saving Throws Section, it has the following Sub-Section:



Automatic Failures and Successes

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

Attack rolls Section on the Pathfinder SRD has the following sub-section:



Automatic Misses and Hits

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

There is no "Automatic Failures and Successes" section in the Concentration Check section, nor is there one for Skill checks.

It is a common houserule that people don't know is a houserule to treat 1s as failures outside of combat and saving throws, but that's because people don't pay attention to the rules closely enough.

finally, as Kraken said, the burden of proof is on the players. You can give above to say "hey, guys, there are the rules for saving throws and attack rolls, but they specifically call themselves out that way. Skill checks and Concentration checks don't."

This is supposed to make the game faster. If they could have a 5% chance of not succeeding on a trivial task (such as standing still on ice when they have +30 in Acrobatics), they're going to be falling down a LOT.

[StreamOfTheSky]

This is supposed to make the game faster. If they could have a 5% chance of not succeeding on a trivial task (such as standing still on ice when they have +30 in Acrobatics), they're going to be falling down a LOT.

Or the flipside....
"I keep attempting to jump into the air until I roll a natural 20 and am able to launch myself to the moon."