The Gaming Den

I'm in the process of writing a dndish d20 game to be like epic6 but made from the d20 ground up and I've found saving throws to be rather vexing.

Saving throws are fun, and they provide flavor to a category of things by changing the way they are interacted with. However the divisions that Fort, Ref, and Will are supposed to describe have a ridiculous amount of gray area.

Almost anything a Ref save should apply to an AC or touch AC type defense could, if the distinction is between mundane and non mundane attacks that it would be more sensible to have an AC score and a magic AC score, which would also replace Fort and Will. But I don't want to do that. The only case for Ref saves I can see is for against trap type things like falling boulders and the like.

I could have it so that there is a regular AC which would apply to physical things coming at you, including sword swings, fireballs, etc. Then a second defense for internal defenses of the body such as against charm person effects and poisons. I'm worried that might lump too much together.

Any ideas for a more sensible division of defenses?

You could use ability scores as static DCs against the attacks...

One division that comes to mind is all the charm/compulsion effects, basically can you shout out the voices in your head. One save should be something like 'discipline', say you get pepper sprayed, do you have the discipline to keep your eyes open. Something like metabolism could affect things like poisons and diseases. I'd leave reflex in there, if only for situations when you need to protect a sensitive region from a special attack.

As for AC, it's a tricky beast because it's so abstracted. One idea I've been toying with is that a character has one AC, but things like ray spells add your primary casting stat to your regular range attack value. Rogues get to add their dex to attacks against flat-footed opponents. I think this might make AC more valuable as their are less blatant ways around it.

KevinBlaze wrote:Almost anything a Ref save should apply to an AC or touch AC type defense could, if the distinction is between mundane and non mundane attacks that it would

This happens to be the single thing in 4e that I like; your Reflex defense (née save) is conflated with your touch AC (Reflex Defense is 10+half your level+Dex or Int, and AC is that +armor).

Hieronymous Rex wrote:

KevinBlaze wrote:Almost anything a Ref save should apply to an AC or touch AC type defense could, if the distinction is between mundane and non mundane attacks that it would

This happens to be the single thing in 4e that I like; your Reflex defense (née save) is conflated with your touch AC (Reflex Defense is 10+half your level+Dex or Int, and AC is that +armor).

Unless you wear heavy armor, then your stat isn't added into your AC, but it's still added into your reflex... just cause.

Lokathor wrote:Unless you wear heavy armor, then your stat isn't added into your AC, but it's still added into your reflex... just cause.

It's so people in heavy armor don't have COMPLETELY crap Reflex. The only time you wear heavy armor is when you want to pump AC and have crap dex, so reflex defense is probably going to be low no matter what. Having heavy armor deny stat to reflex would take it from "really low" to "unconscionably low".

It could deny stat to reflex and then provide a flat bonus that replaces that stat, exactly like it does to AC.

Lokathor wrote:It could deny stat to reflex and then provide a flat bonus that replaces that stat, exactly like it does to AC.

Too complicated for "streamlined" 4e--all the defenses need to be calculated the same way. (Nevermind that using a shield, IIRC, DOES add to your Reflex defense).

On the subject of saves, I've noticed that a lot of Tome classes have all good saves. A lot. Fighter? Fire Mage? What's the thought process behind that? Is it that the diverging of values between good and bad save progressions is so large that the only way for characters to be competitive against pure spellcasters is to have all good saves?

Archmage wrote: On the subject of saves, I've noticed that a lot of Tome classes have all good saves. A lot. Fighter? Fire Mage? What's the thought process behind that? Is it that the diverging of values between good and bad save progressions is so large that the only way for characters to be competitive against pure spellcasters is to have all good saves?

Characters who multiclass in 3e D&D have crazy good saves. Much better than characters who nominally have better save progressions but are single classed. Every first level of even the worst save progression gives you a total of +2 to your saves. The later levels of the best save progression possible give only +3 in two levels.

The difference between multiclassing and not is so incredibly stark that Fire Mages don't even have good saves compared to wizards after a few PrCs.

So over and above the fact that everyone who has "resistance to magic" as a schtick has all good saves, every character who can't really Prestige Class out also has all good saves.

-Username17

I always figured you did it to match the save progression up with the typical DC progression: one point every two levels.

Someone on another forum posted recently that they were considering all saves at a progression of +1 per level, no matter what class.

It works.. but sort of throws off the expected RNG a little by the high end, I think.
You'd have to redo how save DCs work for spells and effects.

It's a terrible idea. Then saves progress twice as fast as DCs. I could see 1/2 levels.

It could work if they progress DCs at that pace too, but then all you're doing is increasing the difference in level between two non-equal threats.

1/2 levels would be the best choice since that's how save DCs are by default (1/2 level + stat vs 10 +1/2 level +stat)

FrankTrollman wrote:Characters who multiclass in 3e D&D have crazy good saves.

Indeed. It's unfortunately a bit late for me to stringently apply the Tome rule about how multiclassing into a good save progression only gives a +1 instead of a +2. Because the Tome Fighter/Monk/True Fiend has kind of insane saves, but I don't like to nerf characters mid-game. The monk fighting style bonus that gives +4 to saves is more responsible for the massive boost, but being able to dip a level of True Fiend for +2 saves and permanent freedom of movement is kind of boss.

sigma999 wrote:1/2 levels would be the best choice since that's how save DCs are by default (1/2 level + stat vs 10 +1/2 level +stat)

Doesn't that essentially mean your saves NEVER improve (relative to level-appropriate opposition)?

Personally, considering the nature of SoDs, I would prefer a model more like earlier editions, where you were generally going to make your saves at higher levels (especially for noncasting classes).

Archmage wrote:

Lokathor wrote:It could deny stat to reflex and then provide a flat bonus that replaces that stat, exactly like it does to AC.

Too complicated for "streamlined" 4e--all the defenses need to be calculated the same way. (Nevermind that using a shield, IIRC, DOES add to your Reflex defense).

But AC is a defense, and it's not calculated the same way, so shit balls to them and their halfway streamlining.

Doesn't that essentially mean your saves NEVER improve (relative to level-appropriate opposition)?

Personally, considering the nature of SoDs, I would prefer a model more like earlier editions, where you were generally going to make your saves at higher levels (especially for noncasting classes).

But to flip this the other way, should you get LESS competent at using your spells on level-appropriate opposition? It's not always the PCs making the saving throws.

If we do it that way, then either:
A) At high levels, spells only have like a 5% chance of working, so to compensate, they do things like "kill every foe and re-animate them under my control". Too random for my taste.
B) At high levels, you don't use spells with saves any more. In which case, why even have saving throws?
C) Casters are expected to pull some DC-boosting BS that jacks their chances up to par. In which case, you may as well have just kept DCs and saves equal to begin with.

Oh, and while I'm saying "casters" and "spells" here, this applies equally to any martial/gadget/whatever technique with a save.

PoliteNewb wrote:

sigma999 wrote:1/2 levels would be the best choice since that's how save DCs are by default (1/2 level + stat vs 10 +1/2 level +stat)

Doesn't that essentially mean your saves NEVER improve (relative to level-appropriate opposition)?

Personally, considering the nature of SoDs, I would prefer a model more like earlier editions, where you were generally going to make your saves at higher levels (especially for noncasting classes).

Why should they? Why should saves just get to out-pace DCs, or why should DCs get to out-pace saves?

The whole reason your numbers get better is too keep you on the RNG with new challenges and to make you feel big in the pants when you go back to the orc village five levels later and waste every one of the fuckers.

Ice9 wrote:C) Casters are expected to pull some DC-boosting BS that jacks their chances up to par. In which case, you may as well have just kept DCs and saves equal to begin with.

Or alternatively they need to pull save depressing BS.

Which ties in nicely with damage and condition tracks ... wouldn't it be nice if some melee doing straight damage to an enemy actually meant a SoD was more likely to go through? I think it would be.

MfA wrote:

Ice9 wrote:C) Casters are expected to pull some DC-boosting BS that jacks their chances up to par. In which case, you may as well have just kept DCs and saves equal to begin with.

Or alternatively they need to pull save depressing BS.

Which ties in nicely with damage and condition tracks ... wouldn't it be nice if some melee doing straight damage to an enemy actually meant a SoD was more likely to go through? I think it would be.

This line of reasoning has merit, but it would take quite some effort to implement properly. Perhaps more than an "e6-like d20 game" could put in.

PoliteNewb wrote:

sigma999 wrote:1/2 levels would be the best choice since that's how save DCs are by default (1/2 level + stat vs 10 +1/2 level +stat)

Doesn't that essentially mean your saves NEVER improve (relative to level-appropriate opposition)?

Essentially, yes. They are on-par from beginning to end as long as there's no dramatic stat or enhancement boost differences.

I'm in favor of saves outpacing effect DCs, but only by a portion such as .. say.. 25%.

KevinBlaze wrote:I'm in the process of writing a dndish d20 game to be like epic6 but made from the d20 ground up and I've found saving throws to be rather vexing.

Saving throws are fun, and they provide flavor to a category of things by changing the way they are interacted with. However the divisions that Fort, Ref, and Will are supposed to describe have a ridiculous amount of gray area.

Almost anything a Ref save should apply to an AC or touch AC type defense could, if the distinction is between mundane and non mundane attacks that it would be more sensible to have an AC score and a magic AC score, which would also replace Fort and Will. But I don't want to do that. The only case for Ref saves I can see is for against trap type things like falling boulders and the like.

I could have it so that there is a regular AC which would apply to physical things coming at you, including sword swings, fireballs, etc. Then a second defense for internal defenses of the body such as against charm person effects and poisons. I'm worried that might lump too much together.

Any ideas for a more sensible division of defenses?

Heh, thread seems to have derailed immediately into discussion of RNG issues...

I always liked Reflex as a save rather than 4e's static defense since it sort of feel (when I roll the dice) that I'm doing something. Static defenses are good for speeding up typical hit-vs-AC rolls, though.

Perhaps the distinction between attacks vs. AC and attacks requiring a Reflex save in 3.x systems is a bit nebulous - I think the concept the rules fail to express well, is between "active defense" (Reflex save) vs. "passive defense" (AC). (There are other systems that make better use of this concept of active/passive defense, but you can think of AC as always being present, but useless vs. area effects; possibly a character might also be able to 'dodge' vs. normal AC attacks with a reflex save, but with some sort of action cost required i.e. spending an attack - or they'd do it all the time.).

Unrelated to that, another way of streamline away saves would be to use skills rather than having save numbers (Balance vs. Grease, Escape Artist vs. Web, etc) - though that would mean rejigging the skill system, possibly to something 4e-esque (+1/2 level), as well as creating new skills to plug gaps. Alternatively, leave skills alone and use the +1/2 level thing just for raw ability checks, with a saving throw just being a raw ability check.

Archmage wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Characters who multiclass in 3e D&D have crazy good saves.

Indeed. It's unfortunately a bit late for me to stringently apply the Tome rule about how multiclassing into a good save progression only gives a +1 instead of a +2. Because the Tome Fighter/Monk/True Fiend has kind of insane saves, but I don't like to nerf characters mid-game. The monk fighting style bonus that gives +4 to saves is more responsible for the massive boost, but being able to dip a level of True Fiend for +2 saves and permanent freedom of movement is kind of boss.

It's not that hard to do imo.

Every min/maxed/optimized character I've written for Tomes has some multi-classing. Rogue, Monk, Bard, Conduit, are all fine dipping choices imo. Adding in their max bonus to saves makes them get potentially out of hand. It's honestly not a huge deal to give out a -1 to the first level of any class with a good save, where you already have a good save from a previous level.

Judging__Eagle wrote:It's not that hard to do imo.

It's not hard to get the bonuses, or it's not hard to nerf characters mid-game? Because I know I could just tell my players that hey, I'm retroactively changing the way good saves stack, but I know that they didn't make their initial choices based on that information.

Or do you mean that making 95% of your saves is no big deal?