Ongoing Changes

[Wandering Wastrel]

Hugely approve of this, for all sorts of reasons - but one minor suggestion: change it to "A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves saving throw (Reflex)"

If you're going to call it a 'basic saving throw' then you should call it a 'basic saving throw'.

[ErichAD]

That seems better. I'm not sure if it seems better because I already know what the basic saves chart should look like, or if it's actually better though. How would a non-basic(complex?) saving though be formatted? Would it modify the basic only changing what is different, or would it write out every stage in order to avoid confusion?

[graystone]

Why do we have 2 blog threads?

[Joe M.]

The space savings would be huge. I say go for it! It is one more bit of information, but just imagine how many lines of text would be saved over the course of the edition cycle...

[Chess Pwn]

I personally think a little mix could be really good like,
"Use the Basic (double, full, half, none) saving throw."
Something like this helps the in line reading to know what's going on while the full write up for this basic save will be somewhere else. That was one of my personal issues with the current layout, tons of key terms being thrown around with no basic overview of what they were from just reading in line.

[David knott 242]

We seem to have more than two threads. At one point, every post in reply to this blog spawned a new thread. I think somebody has been busy consolidating them, but there are still a few stragglers.

[worldhopper]

Seems like a nice space saver. I still suggest also shortening the actions section to something like "2 actions (Somatic, Verbal)" too, though.

[Saint Bernard]

I like the change, not including the four types of saves is cleaner on a damage only spell. Still feel it needs to be included on spells which have narrative effects.

[The BP]

I like this change, and would add that when a range of results depends on a save that isn't "basic", they should be listed in order:

critical success
success
failure
critical failure

instead of the current order.

[Fumarole]

I like it as it should save plenty of space, not only in the rulebook but in any future books that feature similar spells.

[Syri]

The BP wrote:

I like this change, and would add that when a range of results depends on a save that isn't "basic", they should be listed in order:

critical success
success
failure
critical failure

instead of the current order.

Thing is, though, that a lot of crit success and crit fail effects read "as a normal [success/failure], plus [some additional condition]." You need to have the basic success/failure before the crit versions so that the crit versions can refer back to their lesser versions.

[Bruno Mares]

That's really good!

Please do something similar to Dedication feats. They all show a special entry with the exact SAME text. Please turn this into a standard rule, because there is no need to say the same thing multiple times and because we can gain more archetypes using the new free space.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Seems like a reasonable change, as you would just need one good description (with an example please) in the magic chapter for "basic saving throws", though if possible I would like to request, that every spell should also mention the spellcasting types that can access it. A symbol (not unlike the solution for Starfinder) would be enough, but make it so much easier to read and look for options.

If the players find a scroll of Fireball, I can't just look up Fireball I need to go to the various pages of spell lists to find out if the characters in the party can identify the scroll in a very short time or not, and who can use it.

And kinda linked to that, I have gotten a very strong feedback from my players that actually having to flip between the class chapter and the spells is very annoying, so if at all possible, I would like to request to put all those powers into their respective class entries. While it will not be that bad for Paladins, this will swell the size of the cleric chapter quite a bit, but personally, it would be a very welcome change.

[gwynfrid]

I think this is a good idea. It's an extra term to learn, but it refers to a very intuitive mechanic. Once the term is understood, it becomes possible to read the spell very quickly. And all that removed text will free up space for more cool spells or other stuff.

Like many others in this thread or the other one, I'd rather not have the new term be "basic". This can mean far too many things. It's difficult to come up with a term that's sufficiently descriptive of the mechanic, unfortunately. Also, I think the problem with "basic reflex save" or "standard reflex save" is that this adjective, whatever it is, doesn't apply to the save. It's not the save that's "basic", it's the result of the save: CS, S, F or CF.

I don't think I have a great proposal, but here goes anyway: How about "depending on their Reflex saves (use the standard Saving vs Damage scale)"?

[kaid]

The saving throw stuff makes a lot of sense. For the pure damage ones where it follows a consistent pattern there is no need to waste that many pages reiterating it over and over.

I also agree it should be worded more like make a basic saving through[stat]

That way it is easier to have a consistent wording from spell to spell where people clearly know where to look at a glance for the stat variable needed.

[CookingOrc]

A Basic Save, to me, means: you succeed, nothing happens to you; you fail then something bad happens. Basic doesn't imply varying degrees of effect based on how I rolled. I would give it a different identifier.

[Dreamer3333]

I like it.
Maybe consider putting it somewhere other than in the actual description though.
So when we know what the spell does and are just looking for how exactly the saves work, could still look at the bottom somehow, where the saves would be listed if NOT Basic (please capitalize)?
(Keep this information in the same place, regardless of Basic or not)

Maybe the term "Standard" instead of Basic?

And while I have YOUR attention (and we're talking about spell blocks).
It seems (unless I'm missing something) that there's no way to tell while looking through a spell description (or a page full of spells) what spell list(s) they are on. It's a real pain to have to have to reference back to the spell list charts every time you're looking for a spell.
1) find it alphabetically
2) see what spell level it is
3) check all the spell lists independently at that level to see who gets it

[Valantrix1]

I like it. Go for it.

[Katrixia]

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Hugely approve of this, for all sorts of reasons - but one minor suggestion: change it to "A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves saving throw (Reflex)"

If you're going to call it a 'basic saving throw' then you should call it a 'basic saving throw'.

"basic saving throw (Reflex)" sounds a lot better, i agree with you.

[Caro Cogitatus]

CookingOrc wrote:

A Basic Save, to me, means: you succeed, nothing happens to you; you fail then something bad happens. Basic doesn't imply varying degrees of effect based on how I rolled. I would give it a different identifier.

I agree with the general consensus that this is a good idea, and specifically with CookingOrc that "Basic" implies to me more of a "pass/fail" binary outcome. It almost seems like this should be a "Standard [Fort/Reflex/Will] save". Anything that's not a Basic (pass/fail) or a Standard (CS/S/F/CF) outcome is a special case.

[Alchemic_Genius]

How would this work for effects that aren't so simple though? Like, take the fear spell, it's crit fail effect is not simply doubling the frightened level. Listing the effect in parentheses after the required throw as Chess Pwn suggested would still give the boon of page space while making the effects easy to reference.

I like the potential though!

[modus0]

Fancyfree wrote:

Thing is, though, that a lot of crit success and crit fail effects read "as a normal [success/failure], plus [some additional condition]." You need to have the basic success/failure before the crit versions so that the crit versions can refer back to their lesser versions.

No, they don't. There are about 200 entries with a Critical Success section, and only 15 of them don't either paraphrase, directly restate the Success section, or have their own description independent of the Success section.

Those 15 entries rather inconsistently reference the Success section, using "Per a success" (10), "As success" (3), or "As a success" (2).

[Mark Seifter]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

How would this work for effects that aren't so simple though? Like, take the fear spell, it's crit fail effect is not simply doubling the frightened level. Listing the effect in parentheses after the required throw as Chess Pwn suggested would still give the boon of page space while making the effects easy to reference.

I like the potential though!

Those would not say basic (or whatever term).

[Andrew Riebe]

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Hugely approve of this, for all sorts of reasons - but one minor suggestion: change it to "A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves saving throw (Reflex)"

If you're going to call it a 'basic saving throw' then you should call it a 'basic saving throw'.

I like this, but think it might be best to put it into the statblock itself:

Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst; Saving Throw [Basic] Reflex

A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area.

[Doodpants]

Instead of "basic saving throw", I would call it a "standard damage saving throw". And in the spell text itself, word it as "standard damage saving throw (Reflex)", like Wandering Wastrel suggested.

[malcolm_n]

+1 for the basic saving throw (Reflex) or Saving Throw [Basic] Reflex.

Also, Please use some of the newfound space to bring back what list(s) the spell can be found on at a glance.

[Spiral_Ninja]

Doodpants wrote:

Instead of "basic saving throw", I would call it a "standard damage saving throw". And in the spell text itself, word it as "standard damage saving throw (Reflex)", like Wandering Wastrel suggested.

Hm, how about Standard Save vs Damage (Reflex)?

[Keldin]

I don't really have much to say here. It seems fine to me, though I'm more in favor of Doodpants' 'standard' over 'basic'. Though I'd probably phrase it as "Reflex standard saving throw" or the equivalent.

You might simply include a page reference to the glossary definition as well. So, something like "Reflex standard saving throw (nnnn)".

[Leedwashere]

Andrew Riebe wrote:

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Hugely approve of this, for all sorts of reasons - but one minor suggestion: change it to "A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves saving throw (Reflex)"

If you're going to call it a 'basic saving throw' then you should call it a 'basic saving throw'.

I like this, but think it might be best to put it into the statblock itself:

Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst; Saving Throw [Basic] Reflex

A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area.

I also like putting it there in the spell header. There could be three different sets of keywords to use there.

• Binary [stat] (simple pass/fail, defined in the spells overview section)
• Standard [stat] (uses the standard array, defined in the spells overview section)
• Unique [stat] (follows neither pattern, defined in the spell itself)

I'm also all in favor of moving the powers, if a power is only accessible by that class then it's probably best to put it where it comes from. Although, as I think about it, a lot of effort has been spent making this edition elegantly future-proof, and the possibility certainly exists that those powers might later become accessible by other sources, in which case having them all located in the same place makes them less confusing to find without having to also reference which class the power can be found in. But they do feel cluttered in with the spells... so maybe have them in their own section, since you can never choose them when picking spells, and the magnitude of spells compared to powers makes finding them among the spells annoying.

It's also in the interests of future-proofing that I like that the spells don't specifically list what lists they're on. If a new spell list is created in the future which contains existing spells, there's no additional work needed. I like this feature and would prefer that it stay that way.

[Mathmuse]

Chess Pwn wrote:

I personally think a little mix could be really good like,

"Use the Basic (double, full, half, none) saving throw."
Something like this helps the in line reading to know what's going on while the full write up for this basic save will be somewhere else. That was one of my personal issues with the current layout, tons of key terms being thrown around with no basic overview of what they were from just reading in line.

I like Chess Pwn's way of spelling out the magnitudes quickly, which gives more versatility. For example, as Alchemic_Genius suggested, it can adapt to the Fear spell, too.

Then we add Andrew Riebe's suggestion of putting it in a saving throw line for added clarity.

The results look clean and clear.

FEAR Spell 1
Emotion, Enchantment, Fear, Mental
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 30 feet; Targets one creature
Duration by frightened magnitude
Saving Throw Will (S frightened 1 CS unaffected F frightened 2 CF frightened 3 and fleeing for 1 round)
You plant fear in the target. It becomes frightened and possibly fleeing with magnitude based on its Will save.

FIREBALL Spell 3
Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst
Saving Throw Reflex (S half damage CS unaffected F full damage CF double damage)
A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage. Creatures in the area take a multiple of that damage based on their Reflex saves.
Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.

The keyword "basic" is not necessary and would only add to the jargon to memorize.

[Duncan Seibert]

I'm actually against this idea. There are lots of miscellaneous term scattered around the book already with no clear place to find them, the definition of "Basic Saving Throw" would be something easy to overlook. People are already upset about how much cross-checking and indexing they have to do to learn the system, I don't think we need to make that problem worse. Maybe if you release a Rules Compendium designed for people very experienced with the system, but for the beginner's rulebook you should focus on cutting down the multitude of game terms that need to be learned.

[Philo Pharynx]

Mathmuse's listing is my favorite. Since most effects are damage or standard conditions than having it on one line works. Of course a few spells will have odd effects and you can then list them using the space needed.Saving Throw Will (See below)

If this isn't done, basic works for the simple damage spells. There's enough of them that I think we'll get the keyword pretty quickly.

------
Add another vote to listing what spell lists a spell is on in the spell block.

[Ludovicus]

Mathmuse wrote:

I like Chess Pwn's way of spelling out the magnitudes quickly, which gives more versatility. For example, as Alchemic_Genius suggested, it can adapt to the Fear spell, too.

Then we add Andrew Riebe's suggestion of putting it in a saving throw line for added clarity.

The results look clean and clear.

This is clearly the way to go.

[Starfox]

Chess Pwn wrote:

I personally think a little mix could be really good like,

"Use the Basic (double, full, half, none) saving throw."
Something like this helps the in line reading to know what's going on while the full write up for this basic save will be somewhere else. That was one of my personal issues with the current layout, tons of key terms being thrown around with no basic overview of what they were from just reading in line.

I like this, but to do this you should reorganize the order of the lines of saving throw results to match the order of success. Otherwise, a stat block like this would be WAY confusing.

Critical Success
Success
Failure
Critical Failure

[Wandering Wastrel]

Dreamer3333 wrote:

And while I have YOUR attention (and we're talking about spell blocks).

It seems (unless I'm missing something) that there's no way to tell while looking through a spell description (or a page full of spells) what spell list(s) they are on. It's a real pain to have to have to reference back to the spell list charts every time you're looking for a spell.
1) find it alphabetically
2) see what spell level it is
3) check all the spell lists independently at that level to see who gets it

Oh, so much this. Please fix.

[Mekkis]

The Spell description Really Should tell us which lists the Spell appears on.

This is a simple fix that makes reading spells so much easier. It's one of the failings of the 5e PHB's formatting.

[PossibleCabbage]

So just so I'm clear, a "basic save" would always be one where one's save determines whether they take half, no, full, of double damage?

Would you be able to combine that with additional effects somehow?

Like could Grim Tendrils be something like:

"Deals 2d4 negative damage based on the target's basic fortitude save and also 1 persistent bleed damage subject to the same save:
Success: No persistent bleed damage
Failure: Full persistent bleed damage
Critical Failure: Double persistent bleed damage"

I figure this saves you a line since a critical success has no additional effect on the bleed damage beyond that of a success.

[Jason S]

Quote:

That version is a lot cleaner and it takes up quite a bit less space, but this would be another term that players and GMs would need to learn. What do you think of this kind of approach?

I'm not sure we have a "new user" opinion anymore, but for what it's worth...

I think basic saving throws are OK. You might want to add a page number reference to basic saving throws in some of the more common spells, like fireball and all level 1 spells that use it.

Also, I think it should be called a "damage saving throw".

Also, I've used your product for weeks now and I prefer the more logical ordering of success rates. For me at least, using the logical order makes it a little easier to read.

Critical Success The creature is unaffected.
Success The creature takes half damage.
Failure The creature takes full damage.
Critical Failure The creature takes double damage.

[Mathmuse]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So just so I'm clear, a "basic save" would always be one where one's save determines whether they take half, no, full, of double damage?

Would you be able to combine that with additional effects somehow?

Like could Grim Tendrils be something like:

"Deals 2d4 negative damage based on the target's basic fortitude save and also 1 persistent bleed damage subject to the same save:
Success: No persistent bleed damage
Failure: Full persistent bleed damage
Critical Failure: Double persistent bleed damage"

I figure this saves you a line since a critical success has no additional effect on the bleed damage beyond that of a success.

GRIM TENDRILS Spell 1

Necromancy, Negative
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Area 30-foot line
Saving Throw Fortitude (S half negative damage CS unaffected
F full negative damage CF double negative damage and
1 persistent bleed damage)
Black shadows curl out from your fingertips and race through
the air, taking the form of ephemeral vines spiked with thorns.
You deal 2d4 negative damage and possibly persistent bleed
damage to living creature in the line, depending on their
Fortitude saves.
Heightened (+1) The negative damage increases by 2d4 and the
persistent bleed damage increases by 1.

Squeezed into a column format, it saves only one line.

[CommanderCoyler]

Success is first as it's the most likely to happen, crits should only happen 5-10% of the time.

[Wandering Wastrel]

...and while we're on the subject of terminology: there is STILL no excuse for "Operate Activation Action"

[HWalsh]

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

...and while we're on the subject of terminology: there is STILL no excuse for "Operate Activation Action"

There is an excuse for it:

It makes my little Sentai heart swell with pride, I mean, seriously, imagine an anime character crying out, "Operate Activation! ACTION!"

It totally works.

[Bardarok]

My post got chewed up and spit out as it's own thread for some reason. I like the idea in general. I don't like the name basic save specifically. Dodge save or basic damage save or something a bit more descriptive would be good.

[Shroud]

I like the optional change. It definitely saves space where applicable and cleans up the book.

[Incendiaeternus]

Mathmuse wrote:

I like Chess Pwn's way of spelling out the magnitudes quickly, which gives more versatility. For example, as Alchemic_Genius suggested, it can adapt to the Fear spell, too.

Then we add Andrew Riebe's suggestion of putting it in a saving throw line for added clarity.

The results look clean and clear.

FEAR Spell 1
Emotion, Enchantment, Fear, Mental
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 30 feet; Targets one creature
Duration by frightened magnitude
Saving Throw Will (S frightened 1 CS unaffected F frightened 2 CF frightened 3 and fleeing for 1 round)
You plant fear in the target. It becomes frightened and possibly fleeing with magnitude based on its Will save.

FIREBALL Spell 3
Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst
Saving Throw Reflex (S half damage CS unaffected F full damage CF double damage)
A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage. Creatures in the area take a multiple of that damage based on their Reflex saves.
Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.

The keyword "basic" is not necessary and would only add to the jargon to memorize.

This would be much better than that "simplified" version of things, some of these "simplified" things are already confusing enough without the fact that the old White Wolf joke of "reference page X" for Paizo has turned into turn to x many pages to get the same amount of information as you could easily put on a page in one spot.

We've already had a lot of clarity issues that are being odd and not easily understandable with heightened as it is (should not have to reference the 5th level pregen to understand heal) due to having to flip back and forth a lot.

[Vivificient]

"A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves."

The word "depending" is perhaps not the right one, since it makes it sound like they may or may not take the damage at all. A different word such as "modified" or "adjusted" might be clearer. "Each creature takes 6d6 fire damage, modified by a basic Reflex save".

[Arakhor]

"Standard" would be a better word than "basic" here.

I would agree that if the save results are written out in a line like that, the CS result should definitely precede the S result.

[Aiken Frost]

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Hugely approve of this, for all sorts of reasons - but one minor suggestion: change it to "A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves saving throw (Reflex)"

If you're going to call it a 'basic saving throw' then you should call it a 'basic saving throw'.

Chess Pwn wrote:

I personally think a little mix could be really good like,

"Use the Basic (double, full, half, none) saving throw."
Something like this helps the in line reading to know what's going on while the full write up for this basic save will be somewhere else. That was one of my personal issues with the current layout, tons of key terms being thrown around with no basic overview of what they were from just reading in line.

worldhopper wrote:

Seems like a nice space saver. I still suggest also shortening the actions section to something like "2 actions (Somatic, Verbal)" too, though.

The BP wrote:

I like this change, and would add that when a range of results depends on a save that isn't "basic", they should be listed in order:

critical success
success
failure
critical failure

instead of the current order.

I like the changes and I would love to see all the above suggestions integrated as well.

[PossibleCabbage]

I strongly prefer the Success, Critical Success, Failure, Critical Failure order. Since it lets the critical version assume what happened in the basic version.

We could make it clearer by having the critical success and failure entries being indented slightly, however.

So you could have:

Success you throw a birthday party with cake
-Critical Success there is also ice cream and clowns.
Failure the cake is inedible and everyone is in a bad mood.
-Critical Failure there are also evil clowns.

[Vylatka]

Looks good to me. A good use of the space saved would be to indicate what lists the spell is on and at what level.