And why does any class have more than one? Are these Achilles' heels necessary? Should it really be so easy to turn the heroic fighter into the villain's patsy?
How would one simulate Conan's stubborn will by playing a barbarian in 3.5/Pathfinder? I know barbarians get a boost when raging but what about when that charm person gets tossed out by surprise before he goes berserk?
Would a "moderate" save be a better idea?
i WOULD BE COOL WITH THAT
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
And why does any class have more than one? Are these Achilles' heels necessary? Should it really be so easy to turn the heroic fighter into the villain's patsy?
How would one simulate Conan's stubborn will by playing a barbarian in 3.5/Pathfinder? I know barbarians get a boost when raging but what about when that charm person gets tossed out by surprise before he goes berserk?
Would a "moderate" save be a better idea?
I'd like the game to have moderate saves as well as poor, but I would also hope that on average most classes would have one of each - I'd take one good save each away from monks, bards, clerics and druids, for example.
As for Conan's will: high wisdom, and probably Iron Will.
|
Pathfinder adds on the Clear Mind rage power (6 rage points, can re-roll a failed Will save as an immediate action, used immediately after failing a Will save, the second roll replacing the results of the first, even if it is worse than the initial roll), on top of Indomitable Will for 14th level and higher barbarians, and the normal rage bonuses to Will saves. Plus the Iron Will feat.
If that still isn't enough, the moderate save progression introduced in Star Wars d20 is as follows:
1st - +1
2nd - +2
3rd - +2
4th - +2
5th - +3
6th - +3
7th - +4
8th - +4
9th - +4
10th - +5
11th - +5
12th - +6
13th - +6
14th - +6
15th - +7
16th - +7
17th - +8
18th - +8
19th - +8
20th - +9
Edit:
I'd like the game to have moderate saves as well as poor, but I would also hope that on average most classes would have one of each - I'd take one good save each away from monks, bards, clerics and druids, for example.
I don't know about shorting Monks. That's one of their major deals as a class - the only one with all good saves. Maybe make bards Moderate on both Fort and Will with still Good Ref, and drop Clerics and Druids back to Moderate Fort.
Creative Director
|
If there were only one class... there'd be no need for poor saving throws. But since there are 11... it's important to help define differences between classes, to a certain extent, and to balance out classes that might be stronger or not as strong in other areas.
As for simulating Conan... maybe you can't. Maybe you shouldn't. Conan and any other novel hero doesn't function according to game rules, after all.
That said, the game DOES take a step in that direction ,which is why the barbarian gains a bonus on Will saves when he's raging.
|
Maybe the problem was exacerbated for the OP, because the Charm Person spell in particular, was always too vaguely worded, was completely unrelated to the caster's social skills, lasted far too long (), and was being thrown about from Day One, making it a much more common and visible example of abuse.
It can be argued that this spell used to be better than several higher-level spells of the same school. Suggestion allowed one order. Dominate wasn't much better, since many DMs adjudicated Charm Person as if it were Dominate anyway, and ruled that, unlike the other spells, Charms worked inside a Protection from Evil field, since the target needed no orders, but acted on its own initiative, to the caster's benefit.
This wasn't helped by example text that seemed to directly contradict the 'no suicide' clause. 'The target could be told to hold off of an angry red dragon...'. Whuh? What level is the target? How big is the dragon?
Some more realistic expectations are needed, about what 'friendly' means, and the lengths someone would go to for a 'friend'.
Why do we have poor saving throws?
I'd always thought of it as the 'poor' saves were good (better than the average person), and the good saves were exceptional. These are heroes after all. Maybe I'm just too damn positive for my own good.
Peace,
tfad
Why do we have poor saving throws?I'd always thought of it as the 'poor' saves were good (better than the average person), and the good saves were exceptional. These are heroes after all. Maybe I'm just too damn positive for my own good.
Peace,
tfad
I have to agree to be honest.
If you want to have a better will save to represent a especially stubbon and strong willed character, take iron will and good wisdom. Even if you don't your still far better than the average person.
There's one problem that stands in the way of adding in Moderate save progression:
If Good saves progress at +1/2lvls, and Poor saves progress at +1/3lvls... what would constitute Moderate?
The only "in-between" I can come up with is +1/2lvls, but without the +2 bonus to Good saves at level 1. However, based on the Prestige class enhancement, that may have already been stripped from Good saves, we don't know.
As good of an idea as it is... how would it be executed?
-Matt
High saves are 2 + 1/2 per level. This can be translated into 2 + 0.5 per level.
Low saves are 0 + 1/3 per level. This can be translated into 0 + 0.33~ per level.
So a Medium save would be the dead middle: 1 + 1/2.5, or 1 + ~0.4 per level.
On a chart it would look like this:
Lvl .. Fraction .. Listed Save
. 1 ..... 1.4 ........ +1
. 2 ..... 1.8 ........ +1
. 3 ..... 2.2 ........ +2
. 4 ..... 2.6 ........ +2
. 5 ..... 3.0 ........ +3
. 6 ..... 3.4 ........ +3
. 7 ..... 3.8 ........ +3
. 8 ..... 4.2 ........ +4
. 9 ..... 4.6 ........ +4
10 ..... 5.0 ........ +5
11 ..... 5.4 ........ +5
12 ..... 5.8 ........ +5
13 ..... 6.2 ........ +6
14 ..... 6.6 ........ +6
15 ..... 7.0 ........ +7
16 ..... 7.4 ........ +7
17 ..... 7.8 ........ +7
18 ..... 8.2 ........ +8
19 ..... 8.6 ........ +8
20 ..... 9.0 ........ +9
This is how I'd do it.
Excellent; we've got our method. Let's see if the designers are on board.
-Matt
And why does any class have more than one? Are these Achilles' heels necessary? Should it really be so easy to turn the heroic fighter into the villain's patsy?
How would one simulate Conan's stubborn will by playing a barbarian in 3.5/Pathfinder? I know barbarians get a boost when raging but what about when that charm person gets tossed out by surprise before he goes berserk?
Would a "moderate" save be a better idea?
I'd like the game to have moderate saves as well as poor, but I would also hope that on average most classes would have one of each - I'd take one good save each away from monks, bards, clerics and druids, for example.
As for Conan's will: high wisdom, and probably Iron Will.
I agree with everything but the monk. The i gimpped enough even how as it is, so leave the monk alone. However cleric and druid are still very powerful.
I'll make sure Jason sees this thread... but it's a little late in the game, I fear, to make such a huge, fundamental change to the system.
Well, considering the proposed changes to prestige class save progressions, which are just as huge and fundamental, as well as the topic of fixing multiclass save-and-BAB stacking, which, also as a big-picture topic, really needs to happen but doesn't fit in the schedule at the moment, it wouldn't be too hard to make the switch. Far-reaching changes are already being made to prestige classes... why not go all the way?
Here's how:
PC Classes:
Barbarian- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Bard- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Moderate Will
Cleric- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Druid- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Fighter- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Monk- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (Part of the Monk's niche lies with having all-Good saves. Combined with allowing Monks to use Wisdom to make attacks with unarmed strikes and special Monk weapons, we'd the have a three-stat class in the three attributes that boost saves, thus securing that niche.)
Paladin- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Ranger- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Rogue- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Sorcerer- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Wizard- Poor Fort, Moderate Reflex, Good Will
Notice how suddenly, all the classes are on a level playing field in regards to save progression (before factoring in prime attributes, of course), with the exception of the Monk, who has a reinforced niche of all-Good saves. Also notice how the Bard and the Rogue, as well as the Sorcerer and the Wizard, are differentiated.
But just as important as PC Class save progressions are monster save progressions...
Monster Progressions:
Aberration- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will (Aberrations are a tough one, since the category is so broad that it includes Will-O-Wisp (Reflex-centric), Mind Flayer (Will-centric), and Otyugh (Fort-centric).
Animal- Good Fort, Moderate Reflex, Poor Will (apparently with exceptions- MM290)
Construct- Poor Fort, Poor Reflex, Poor Will
Dragon- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (in keeping with their niche)
Elemental: Air, Fire- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Elemental: Earth, Water- Good Fort, Moderate Reflex, Poor Will
Fey- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (Fey need all the help they can get)
Giant- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Humanoid- Varies (one Good, one Moderate, one Poor)
Magical Beast- Good Fort, Moderate Reflex, Poor Will
Monstrous Humanoid- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Moderate Will
Ooze- Poor Fort, Poor Reflex, Poor Will
Outsider- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (in keeping with their niche)
Plant- Good Fort, Moderate Reflex, Poor Will
Undead- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Vermin- Good Fort, Moderate Reflex, Poor Will
I'm not sure where the designers are headed with Prestige Class Progressions, so I can't really comment.
So, there you have it.
-Matt
I'll make sure Jason sees this thread... but it's a little late in the game, I fear, to make such a huge, fundamental change to the system.
No offense intended, but I have been pushing exactly for this sense Alpha 2, and have not gotten a moments notice apparently.
Here's how:
PC Classes:
Barbarian- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
With Improved Uncanny Dodge Trap Sense, and medium armor I would say they should have moderate Relex.
Bard- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Moderate Will
No disagreements, but maybe moderate fort as well?
Cleric- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Druid- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Fighter- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Monk- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (Part of the Monk's niche lies with having all-Good saves. Combined with allowing Monks to use Wisdom to make attacks with unarmed strikes and special Monk weapons, we'd the have a three-stat class in the three attributes that boost saves, thus securing that niche.)
Paladin- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Ranger- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Rogue- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Sorcerer- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Wizard- Poor Fort, Moderate Reflex, Good Will
I agree with the rest. Good job!
|
Barbarian- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Bard- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Moderate Will
Cleric- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Druid- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Fighter- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Monk- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (Part of the Monk's niche lies with having all-Good saves. Combined with allowing Monks to use Wisdom to make attacks with unarmed strikes and special Monk weapons, we'd the have a three-stat class in the three attributes that boost saves, thus securing that niche.)
Paladin- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Ranger- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Rogue- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Sorcerer- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Wizard- Poor Fort, Moderate Reflex, Good Will
Why not just list that each class gets a Good, Moderate, and Poor save, make a chart, and let the player pick where they go? Let it be based upon the story and character rather than just a blanket assumption.
For example, if I played a fighter with a great STR and DEX but had average to poor CON and WIL, why would it make sense to have a Good Fort, Moderate Will and Poor Reflex? Why am I playing that character that way? No idea- but the idea is to roleplay, so why not push boundries and see what happens?
And why can't a Wizard have a high CON and a High Fort?
Why can't a Cleric be naive and have a poor WIL?
Barbarian- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Bard- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Moderate Will
Cleric- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Druid- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Fighter- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Monk- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (Part of the Monk's niche lies with having all-Good saves. Combined with allowing Monks to use Wisdom to make attacks with unarmed strikes and special Monk weapons, we'd the have a three-stat class in the three attributes that boost saves, thus securing that niche.)
Paladin- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Ranger- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Rogue- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Sorcerer- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Wizard- Poor Fort, Moderate Reflex, Good Will
Why not just list that each class gets a Good, Moderate, and Poor save, make a chart, and let the player pick where they go? Let it be based upon the story and character rather than just a blanket assumption.
For example, if I played a fighter with a great STR and DEX but had average to poor CON and WIL, why would it make sense to have a Good Fort, Moderate Will and Poor Reflex? Why am I playing that character that way? No idea- but the idea is to roleplay, so why not push boundries and see what happens?
And why can't a Wizard have a high CON and a High Fort?
Why can't a Cleric be naive and have a poor WIL?
1. Monk's niche is all good saves, so that would have to be an exception.
2. That just goes against the system as if your a caster you get good will saves, and that is just the flavor of the system. Doing something like that is more incline with other systems like GURPS.|
|
Barbarian- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Bard- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Moderate Will
Cleric- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Druid- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Fighter- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Monk- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (Part of the Monk's niche lies with having all-Good saves. Combined with allowing Monks to use Wisdom to make attacks with unarmed strikes and special Monk weapons, we'd the have a three-stat class in the three attributes that boost saves, thus securing that niche.)
Paladin- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Ranger- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Rogue- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Sorcerer- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Wizard- Poor Fort, Moderate Reflex, Good Will
Why not just list that each class gets a Good, Moderate, and Poor save, make a chart, and let the player pick where they go? Let it be based upon the story and character rather than just a blanket assumption.
For example, if I played a fighter with a great STR and DEX but had average to poor CON and WIL, why would it make sense to have a Good Fort, Moderate Will and Poor Reflex? Why am I playing that character that way? No idea- but the idea is to roleplay, so why not push boundries and see what happens?
And why can't a Wizard have a high CON and a High Fort?
Why can't a Cleric be naive and have a poor WIL?
1. Monk's niche is all good saves, so that would have to be an exception.
2. That just goes against the system as if your a caster you get good will saves, and that is just the flavor of the system. Doing something like that is more incline with other systems like GURPS.
:) BUT I LIKE GURPS! :)
But why does it have to be that way? I am a huge fan of options... let the player make the character fit his concept... not the other way around. That is one reason multi-classing is so popular in 3.x... options. And just because it has been done that way, doesn't mean it should be that way. Grapple had its own character and flavor. But it was changed. And Saves keep coming up as an area to be looked at for improvement. An easy way to fix the Boost in Saves from multi-classing that people complain about is to remove the Saves from class entirely. Let the player pick the progression at the beginning of the game and goes on that progression from then on, regardless of multi-classing. No more "Big" boosts every time a new class is taken.
Barbarian- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Bard- Poor Fort, Good Reflex, Moderate Will
Cleric- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Druid- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Fighter- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Monk- Good Fort, Good Reflex, Good Will (Part of the Monk's niche lies with having all-Good saves. Combined with allowing Monks to use Wisdom to make attacks with unarmed strikes and special Monk weapons, we'd the have a three-stat class in the three attributes that boost saves, thus securing that niche.)
Paladin- Good Fort, Poor Reflex, Moderate Will
Ranger- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Rogue- Moderate Fort, Good Reflex, Poor Will
Sorcerer- Moderate Fort, Poor Reflex, Good Will
Wizard- Poor Fort, Moderate Reflex, Good Will
Why not just list that each class gets a Good, Moderate, and Poor save, make a chart, and let the player pick where they go? Let it be based upon the story and character rather than just a blanket assumption.
For example, if I played a fighter with a great STR and DEX but had average to poor CON and WIL, why would it make sense to have a Good Fort, Moderate Will and Poor Reflex? Why am I playing that character that way? No idea- but the idea is to roleplay, so why not push boundries and see what happens?
And why can't a Wizard have a high CON and a High Fort?
Why can't a Cleric be naive and have a poor WIL?
1. Monk's niche is all good saves, so that would have to be an exception.
2. That just goes against the system as if your a caster you get good will saves, and that is just the flavor of the system. Doing something like that is more incline with other systems like GURPS.:) BUT I LIKE GURPS! :)
But why does it have to be that way? I am a huge fan of options... let the player make the character fit his concept... not the other way around. That is one reason multi-classing is so popular in 3.x... options. And just...
Well its just product identity fluff, and fluff itself really.
I find the factions saving throw system in OGL UA a easier and better fix for multi classing saves with adding a limit og +12 to all saves before epic.
The moderate saving throw is not a new thing. It's been around since Arcana Evolved. And since that Monte Cook guy is supposedly on board it's a suggestion that should hardly take anyone by surprise. :)
Guru...who also thinks monks should keep all good saves.
|
|
why is it that fighter/rangers/barbarians are running away from fear effects before everyone else, save the rogue. its almost mandatory for hardcore melee type to take "Fearless" (a faerunian feat that makes you immune to fear effects)
i mean, who wants to play a swordsman who always runs away first when a ghost yells "BOO!" the cleric and wizard just watch as you clutch your face screaming and run for the door.
To answer the OP's thread name question:
Becuase if everyone had good save throws and always made their saves what would be the point of having save throws in the first place?
Those Beta PrC progressions aren't really new formulas, there's just some shifts in there.
The "strong PrC" progression is like that regular strong save progression, except that you don't get the +2 up front and the boosts are one level earlier.
The "weak PrC" is like regular weak, except that you get boosts one level earlier.
I think it was done so they'd better fit the nature of PrCs: They're never your starting class, but always multiclassed into. Getting an extra +2 later for strong saves can lead to big bonuses.
On the other hand, multiclassing often means that you miss out on a save bonus (in weak saves, and also in strong ones if you didn't get the +2, which you don't with PrCs) as you have to go through "warm-up" again (i.e. you don't get any bonuses on the 1st-level of a class).
So if you now multiclass into a PrC, your strong saves won't make a big leap ahead, and your weak ones won't be left behind - often you get what you'd get when you don't multiclass, or maybe a +1 early (but since we're talking about PrCs, a bit stronger is probably better than a bit weaker).
I wouldn't be surprised if Jason was working on multiclassing rules and intended to introduce those alternate safe progressions into the rules in general.
Weak saves, moderate saves, and your Character
I'm not too fond of those moderate save progressions, as they're not derivable from a simple formular (1/2 lv +2 or 1/3 lv) but instead alternate between two progressions.
I could see weak progression getting a +1 boost at 1st level, though. That would bring it closer to moderate without a snakeline progression.
I know that Monte's last Seattle-based Ptolus campaign ran both D&D and AE characters together but I've never been able to get him to post a response to questions about how they stacked up to each other.
How 'bout you, Erik? How did Barbatos measure up alongside the magister in the party? Did you have to tweak the D&D wizard to keep up or did you hold your own?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I'm using poor js=good js minus the +2 bonus at first level.
You can get it when multiclassing, but you can't stack it. And for this, I don't need another awkward table progression. Need to play until highger level to see if it works well.
Weak saves, moderate saves, and your Character
I'm not too fond of those moderate save progressions, as they're not derivable from a simple formular (1/2 lv +2 or 1/3 lv) but instead alternate between two progressions.
I'm not sure what you mean "alternate between two progressions". Do you mean that sometimes it's 2 levels before it goes up, and sometimes 3 levels?
If so... I'm not sure I can see why that would bother you. It's pretty simple to follow the chart. Despite my own capabilities math, I still glance at the charts instead of thinking "okay, so it's X levels of Y class, so their High save is <blah>"...
Maybe if you could explain why this doesn't work for you?
I'd rather see a true middle ground save (+1 at first, +9 at 20th) vs just adding a +1 at first level and calling it a day, if we are going to do this at all.
Why not just list that each class gets a Good, Moderate, and Poor save, make a chart, and let the player pick where they go? Let it be based upon the story and character rather than just a blanket assumption.
I actually really like this idea. My first thought after reading Matt's suggestions is: "Why not give the Fighter an option of Good Fort OR Good Ref, since Fighters ocasionally decide on Dex-based options". Your suggestion is more in-line with that thought.
SUre, it means there can be a barbarian with Poor Fort, which seems kind of funny, but maybe he only took one level of barbarian for flavor (or, more realistically, for Fast Movement and Rage).
What I like about giving all characters the option is that it also takes away the "Fractional Saves" issue. If you choose your saves at character creation, you simly set those saves for your entire career; by moving saves fromt he Class level to the Character level, you don't have to worry about what happens when you stack classes. A simple solution for two problems!
Alternate Answer:
We have poor saving throws because we have spellcasters available as character classes, which forces designers to open at least one weak spot on other classes. I know I'm asking for the moon here, but you have to walk a couple feet in a spellcaster's shoes:
Let's say... Cause Fear on a Bard or Cleric. A spellcaster has rarely less than 16 on his spellcasting attribute, so that makes for a base DC 14. Even if this Bard only has a wis of 12, he already has +3 on his Will save (+5 if he's a Cleric), so the target only needs to roll a 9-11, the spell becoming a coin toss, not so much with a Fighter of Barbarian, who'll barely amount to a +1 at level one, the chance of success is considerably better.
If we all had monk saves then every combat spell in game would become a coin toss, reducing arcane casters to NPC classes that barely amount to a 50% of success (in the best-case scenario) on the paltry 1-4 CR-relevant spells they have per day. Sure, Iron Heroes works on that premise, and works GREAT, but then Iron Heroes is a game where players are NOT meant to play as spellcasters.
Sure, it would be nice instead to let characters build their own saving throws, but then the system would become point-buy oriented rather than level-advancement.
|
If there were only one class... there'd be no need for poor saving throws. But since there are 11... it's important to help define differences between classes, to a certain extent, and to balance out classes that might be stronger or not as strong in other areas.
As for simulating Conan... maybe you can't. Maybe you shouldn't. Conan and any other novel hero doesn't function according to game rules, after all.
That said, the game DOES take a step in that direction ,which is why the barbarian gains a bonus on Will saves when he's raging.
while i tell my players to think more along 'concepts' than 'characetrs'
what is the case of playing a heroic game of fantsy... if you can't be a Fantasy Heroe?